Mugen
-
Posts
1,627 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Profiles
Events
Everything posted by Mugen
-
Chaosium's Runequest 2 Vs Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill)
Mugen replied to Paid a bod yn dwp's topic in RuneQuest
Yes, there are different ways to do crits and specials, but I was trying here to be as close as possible to RuneQuest 2/3/G chances to get them with a d20. To do so, and have crit chances different from 5%, you have to rely on the result of a second die. Old french game Légendes Celtiques was a d20 roll-under game (heavily influenced by RuneQuest and FGU games) using Margins of success. On a 1, the d20 was re-rolled and, if successful, the new Margin of success was added to the first. In a roll-over variant, you could roll an open-ended d20, add your skill versus a difficulty and count results superior or equal to (difficulty+20) as crits. -
Chaosium's Runequest 2 Vs Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill)
Mugen replied to Paid a bod yn dwp's topic in RuneQuest
It can be done by re-rolling the d20 on a 1 and considering a new success is a crit. Specials, on the other hand, are more tricky. You can ask for a re-roll on a roll of 2 to 4, but it's less elegant.. And it scales horribly with skills over 100% or 20... I remember my father told me that d10s were used for percentages when I was around age 8 or 9, and I didn't have a clue what he meant. I didn't dare asking what percentages were, and he didn't care telling me. I think I knew how fractions worked at this age, but I can't say for sure. On the other hand, I understood immediately rolling 4d6 under an attribute. -
Chaosium's Runequest 2 Vs Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill)
Mugen replied to Paid a bod yn dwp's topic in RuneQuest
You're not completely right : the DMG specified that the 5 results above the first "20" above 19 required a "natural 20" to hit. Same for 21, 22 and other values above 20. So, you had a flat 5% chance to hit those 5 AC values, no matter what to-hit bonus you had. I think we're going far off-topic... -
Chaosium's Runequest 2 Vs Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill)
Mugen replied to Paid a bod yn dwp's topic in RuneQuest
The difference is that there was no "core system" in either AD&D 1e or 2e. -Combat was roll 1d20+Str bonus > THAC0 -AC, -Saving throws was straight d20 over a number depending on your class & level, -Skills used roll 1d20 under Ability +modifier +skill rank, -Most class abilities used a straight percentage chance of success, -When no other method worked, you could roll dice under an ability value. After D&D 3.0, all those subsystems were replaced by a single system, using 1d20 +attribute bonus +experience bonus > difficulty threshold, which was the basis for the d20 system. -
Chaosium's Runequest 2 Vs Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill)
Mugen replied to Paid a bod yn dwp's topic in RuneQuest
StormBringer 2nd edition had skill modifiers. And, given only less than a handful of skills had a base value, most of your skills were eqaul to their modifier. -
Chaosium's Runequest 2 Vs Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill)
Mugen replied to Paid a bod yn dwp's topic in RuneQuest
I've always thought it was because skills were originally an extension of thieves abilities in OD&D. When you look at how those abilities are modified by DEX in older editions of D&D and how characteristics interact with skills in RQ2, it's very similar. I agree it's very easy to understand the concept of having a percentile chance to succeed at a task. On the other hand, having a percentile after a skill rating may be misleading, as people tend to think 100% represents a maximum value in a skill. See how often people don't get why a skill could go over 100%, or a fighter with a 50% skill is an "average" fighter. -
As bad as it is, MRQ is still far better than the utter crap the first playtest draft of the rules was. Mongoose inexperience ouside the d20 world was blatant. Originally, the game had a completely different system for combat and non-combat skills. Non-combat skills used a roll-under mechanism, and combat used a roll-over one, where you added the skill to a d100. It also used the Warhammer trick for hit locations, where you reverse the 10s and units of the roll. Runic magic was originally created by Steve Perrin, but what he proposed as a draft was never re-worked at all. I would haave loved a sorcery system built over the runic skills, however, instead of RQ3-inherited spell skills. The last playtest version (v1.5, I think) had been edited by Kenneth Hite, and it was in my opinion a very interesting version of BRP. But, unfortunately, the rules were later modified by Mongoose staff, with the infamous combat rules...
-
It reminded me of comics like Quest for the Time Bird, l'Epée de Cristal, Lanfeust de Troy or Trolls de Troy (or other comics from Soleil).
-
One could say it looks a little like anime-inspired comic books. To my eyes, it looks more like some european comic books.
-
I didn't know that.
-
It seems so, as the one under the RuneQuest title spins the other way around.
-
As an absolute fan of the manga, I would add Akira (1982-1993 for the comic, and 1988 for the movie) to the list.
-
One way to ensure not all psionic characters get the same powers would be to give them various "power levels", just like in GURPS 3rd edition, where a character can have Psychokinesis 8 and Precognition 2. Psychokinesis power level would put a limit on telekinesis, pyrokinesis and other powers that rely on the power to move objects with your mind. Obviously, POW would put a limit on the various Psi power levels. It could a limit to the sum of all Psi power levels (i.e if you've got POW 13, your maximum total Psi powers would be 13). Or you could use Nephilim as a base, and rank Powers a character possesses : Rank 1 Power level would be equal to POW, second one POW x0.8, third one POW x0.6, and so on. You could also base Psionic powers Mythras Sorcery, and create one Invoke skill per power type, and treat spells as psi powers.
-
From a french website: http://www.legrog.org/jeux/runequest But it seems to me that it's not complete.
-
It would double it, not quadruple. Chances of a tie when you roll 2d10 are 10%. With 2d20, it's 5%. That's also the chances of a tie when you add a roll-under mechanism and both characters have the same ability rating. If abilities are different, your chances to roll a tie are equal to (10-difference)/100 for a d10, and (20-difference)/400 for a d20 . There's a range between lowest skill rating and higher skill rating where ties are not possible, and outside that range, chances are equal to 1 per point. So, the chances of a tie range between 1% and 10% with a d10, and .25 to 5% with a d20, but the .25% has no equivalent with a d10, as it refers to abilities of 1 and 20.
-
I don't think so.
-
French publisher of RQ3 did the same for all their books. It resulted in not very gloranthan Uz and Aldryami, but the art was better than the original. Here is an illustration of an Uz and a Lankhor Mhy priest in Gods of Glorantha by Guillaume Sorel :
-
It would have been simpler if the game used a d10 instead of a d20. Masteries would simply be the 10s of your ability score.
-
I could not resist buying this product: http://www.legrog.org/jeux/mournblade/boite-ecran-fr The booklets inside the box also have classical SB1/2 Franck Brunner illustrations.
-
As for myself, I prefer a system where low damage does not necessarily mean actual lasting wounds, but fatigue or bruses. Hit Points are easily recovered, but critiical wounds reduce maximum Hit Points until fully healed.
-
I mentioned randomLESS characteristic generation methods, not random ones. In my method you can't increase a characteristic by more than 6 points using extra points, and the 6th point costs 2 characteristic points instead of 1. So, you need to roll 5+ with the d6 in order to reach 18, and it will cost you one third of your total bonus points to do so if you rolled 5. All you need with completely randomless methods to get an 18 is spend 18 points. With my method, you need to roll 5+ and spend 7 or 5 points out of 21.
-
Still, you won't see as many characters with 18s as you would with a completetely randomless point assignation system (such as : you have 81 points to put into your 7 stats), and that was my goal. I also don't think putting 5 points to a stat for which you rolled a 6 and get an 18 is such a no-brainer. You'll see a lot of people putting only 3 or 4 points and have a good 16 or 17, so that they can put points in other characteristics. In the end, 16s and 17s are going to be very frequent, but not 18s.
-
It seems to me Land of Ninja Ki powers used the same confusing terminology. French translation uses the term "POW points" instead of Magic Points. As I started playing with RQ3, it seemed to me Ki was extremely deadly to use...
-
Well, rolling 7 dice produces a bell curve. Also, even though d6s distribution is flat, the range of results is shorter than with 2d6 or 3d6, and the associated standard deviation is also smaller. Using 1d12+6 instead of 2d6+6 would be problematic, yes. But not d6+7+bonus.
-
I think I'd use the following method next time I use BRP: -Roll 1d6+7 7 times, and assign those in order to 7 characteristics. -Distribute 21 points among the 7 characteristics, minimum 0, maximum 6, the 6th point in each stat costing 2 points instead of 1. The reason behind this method is I don't like completely random attribute generation, but on the other hand there too many ways to optimize a character if you distribute points freely in BRP. EDIT: the 1d6+7 is for humans, others will roll 1d6+another value.
