Jump to content

Mugen

Members
  • Content Count

    670
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Mugen last won the day on December 24 2017

Mugen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

185 Excellent

About Mugen

  • Rank
    Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Started with Mega (french RPG about space & time agents) at age 9, began GMing with D&D Basic at age 11, my life changed with StormBringer. Huge fan of Pendragon, Mage and RuneQuest.
  • Current games
    Qin: the Warring States, ShadowRun 4
  • Location
    Paris sububrs
  • Blurb
    French roleplayer from Paris suburbs, working in smartcards business.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nephilim 2 had skill categories, and all skills in a given category had the same base value, which was either the sum of 2 stats or 2x stat.
  2. That's been my favourite solution for 20 years. I think I first saw it in Nephilim french second edition. Prior to this game, ElfQuest also had skill based on a combination of characteristics, but there was no skill categories, and bases were not restricted to the sum of 2 characteristics.
  3. It seems to me your skill basis are going to be roughly similar to 20+2*(RQ3 bonus). As a result, you could use (Base-20)/2 as a bonus to experience rolls, or require a roll under (90+(Skill Basis)/2-Skill).
  4. That would mean the maximum difference between 2 human characters is 18%, providing one has 3 and the other has 21 in the appropriate characteristic, which IMHO is not enough. I prefer using either the sum of 2 characteristics, or one characteristic x2.
  5. That's how it's done in WH4, and it still has 2 substractions that doesn't exist in roll-under blackjack. The benefit here is that the system does not need to make special cases if only one character rolls under their skill. Both opponent roll under their skill and determine their Margin of success (which can be negative), and use the difference as final Margin of Success. But it would be even simpler to just roll 1d10+10s of the skills and do the substraction.
  6. Simply because if both fails, the one with the lowest skill has greater chances to have the lowest roll (similarly to what happens when both succeeds). Say A has 25% and B has 75%. If A fails, his roll will be between 26 and 100, while B will have a roll between 76 and 100. That's why I said "I'm not a fan of roll-under" and not "roll under systems have a problem". The problem is with me, not with roll-under systems. Yes, that's counter-intuitive. But awarding success to the low roll is not right from a philosophical point of view, as it gives better chances of success to the lowest skill in case both achieve the same level of success. You can use Margin of success (like in WarHammer 4), but it requires you extra substractions, and gives odds that are very similar to "roll under black jack".
  7. That is easily solved by considering that if both characters fail, the one with the highest roll wins nonetheless, even if it's a "weak victory". However, it adds an exception to the rules system, and it's one of the reasons I'm not really a fan of roll-under systems these days.
  8. No, I meant rolling 08 or less if your skill is 8X%, or 15 or less if it's 15X%. I like that characters with skill over 100% have benefits other than being able to succeed at tasks with high difficulty.
  9. And that's why I blame linear progression of skills and difficulty that matches skill. If difficulty doesn't scale with skill, putting all points into a few skills will become a waste of resources : +1 to a skill only adds 5% chance of success when your chance of success is under 100%. Non-linear progression, like in RM, let you put points into the same skills for ever, but with diminishing returns.
  10. Personnally, I prefer rolls under the 10s of the skill. It scales with skills above 100, and t's only very slightly more complicated than doubles.
  11. Of course. My point is that you don't have to put obstacles in your scenario that will drop characters' success chances below 95% to keep the story interesting, which is what is implied by systems that match difficulty with skill (or strongly suggest to do so).
  12. I think the problem here is with games with linear progression, which is something WotC-era D&D editions and HeroQuest have in common. In games like BRP and the RoleMaster family (and in fact most rpg systems), increasing skills become more and more difficult as skill level grows. I also think the idea that only skill tests that have a significant chance of failing are interesting is flawed. The difficulty classes and skills increasing at the same rate is a consequence of that idea.
  13. Remember the game already had a long publishing history when 3rd edition was released, which is why the surprise addition of the Ar-Kaïm seemed like an unwelcome addition. Concerning Highlander and Nephilim, there's another french game named Trinités which can be described as a mix between the two.
  14. Ar-kaïm were not really well received by french audiences, who considered them as an attempt to make the game more action-oriented and leaning towards Super-Hero/Manga-anime genres (see for instance the poor ratings the Codex des Ar-Kaïm received...) Surely, the correlations that could be made with the anime "knights of the zodiac" were no stranger to this feeling.
×
×
  • Create New...