drohem

Sorry PK, I empathize. That has to leave a sour taste in your mouth; especially with the cost for new RPG core books these days.

If one person finds it a problem, then I don't see it as a problem. I see it as that person's issue. RQ3 didn't force random character generation down anyone's throat: it was the default method and the rules expicitly provided other options for those who didn't like completely random generation. Also, I would like to note that useless and inferior characters are subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would say that it is poor role-playing skills that would cause a player to dismiss a character due to inexperience from age or lack of combat skills due to occupation. In addition, it a poor game master that doesn't tailor their game so that every character, whether inferior or superior, can meaningfully contribute to the session at hand and over all campaign. Specifically addressing your example of the sailor, I would say that it was a failing of that GM not to include some elements into the sessions and campaign that would allow the use of some of the sailor's skills and abilities.

The inverse applies to me as well: I seen enough people have fun and enjoy the random character generation system of RQ3 that some naysaying on it isn't going to make believe that it's inheirently flawed.

Yes, you're senario is subjective. I did state that I find your senario unlikely. As far as statistically possible, just look at the Occupation tables. Are you saying that your typical campaign experience is that one player has a young farmer while every other player has generated an experienced warrior type?

Yes, and you can over simplify your definition of 'useless' or 'inferior' characters to support your unlikely senario.

It is strange that a RPG that sells out is considered not profitable and by the parent company and excised immendiately. It makes you wonder what GW was thinking. :ohwell:

Quote: Originally Posted by drohem what is the relationship between Maneuver and Handling? So with the chariot example: would the net bonus/penalty to the Drive skill check be +10% (Maneuver = -5% and Handling = 15)? On p.216 it says to add/subtract the Handling modifer for the vehicle from the character's appropriate skill. On p. 265, it says that this modifier is applied to your character's skill. Why is Maneuver expressed as a percentage and Handling just a number? Why have two vehicle attributes that serve the same function? I am confuzzled I would surely appreciate some incite into these vehicle attributes and there applications.

The inverse of this is true as well: the fact that some people have an issue with it doesn't make it a generally bad thing.

I disagree about RQ3's previous experience system creating useless characters. Certainly, with a completely random character generation system, there is the possibility to create superior and inferior characters; and I do not see this as a problem. However, these characters are not the norm, and so when they do appear it only makes those characters all the more interesting to play, IMHO. No one is useless in RQ3 combat. Every combatant is usefull, if only to occupy an opponent.

I agree with you. I see this way as well. It's simple and intuitive.

Is it small enough to send via email? I would be interested in obtaining a copy of it. I've seen the web page version on the yahoo group, but it was a pain trying to copy and paste it all and I gave up. Now, it sounds like that might not have been the latest version anyway.

Congratulations Triff!! So close...I bet you can taste it

Hang in there soltakss! You and your wife can do it!! :thumb:

Hi Zomben and welcome!

argh! That hurt my brain.

Wouldn't be cool to get paid for playing? Yeah, everyone has different styles of play and what they consider *fun* in any given RPG game. We had House Rules with our RQ3 games for character creation to mitigate some of the randomness of the dice (they can be a cruel mistress sometimes ).

oh, that's right is was the later 1981 version that came in the boxed set, and the 1979 version was just a booklet as well.

My response is: what a bunch of babies! Seriously, ooh your toy is better than mine, not fair! /oldmanvoiceon In my day, we rolled rocks and liked it! /oldmanvoiceoff Why are they so concerned with what other people are playing? Why not focus on your own character and breath life into it? I can understand this mentality to a point if it happened consistently, but given the nature of the tables I doubt this was a common occurence.

Ok, I am jealous. I would like to have a copy of RQ1 for my collection. I still have to get an copy of RQ2 boxed intact. I just have the sepia-colored booklet.

Yes, I agree and how I viewed it as well. Once you became an adventurer, you stopped training in your parents occupation and persued your calling (whatever that may be).

hehehe....yeah, I'm a young buck and not a gronard!!!

Woot!! Congratulations!

RQ3 did have an alternate character generation method to Experience by Occupation: the Quick Experience rules. You picked your age and got 30 percentiles per year over 15-years-old. Boxed skills couldn't be improved past 75% and no-box skills couldn't be raised over 100%. Magic skills had some special rules for development.

I am a stay-at-home father with a 2-year-old and newborn. Sometimes I get a moment or two throughout the day; but it really depends on how my girls are feeling at the moment.

Yeah, it was never an issue with our group; we just dealt with it. There is the Quick Experience rules for RQ3 where you get 30 percentiles per year over 15. We just never used it and stuck with random rolls. It made getting certain professions all the more cooler; like when you got a civilized thief or sailor. :cool: