boradicus

7 hours ago, styopa said:

IMO you said it yourself many times: your design aesthetic was 90% RQ2, I think that's close to what RQG is.  If I had to make a quick metaphor: 5e is a 2018 Ford Edge SUV: safe, conservative, with modern safety gear, will get you from A to B without fuss but also pretty boring; pedestrian.  RQG is a retuned, detailed 1967 Impala.  Everyone will certainly see/hear you coming down the street, heads will turn.  It won't be for everyone, but it's not trying to be.

A '67 Impala?  RQ isn't *that* old!  How about a classic late 70s sophisticated sports car?  The system is a classic, but it is also both streamlined and sophisticated.

Thank you, Roger.  Where can one find the original at a reasonable price?

Thanks!

I also found these, but am not sure if the are related to any of the Hero Games (HQ, DC) that you suggested:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/107799/Champions-Complete

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/207058/Champions-The-Super-Role-Playing-Game-4th-edition

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/207333/Hero-System-Rulesbook-4th-edition

I was looking for a reasonably (or dirt cheap) priced Torg Rule book, and I came across these:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/216248/Torg-Eternity--Core-Rules

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/215400/Torg-Eternity--Free-RPG-Day-Special

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/28828/Torg-Introductory-Pack

The first looks like the standard Rule Book, but would either of the two other options be sufficient for my purpose?

-Many thanks 

Thanks - however, I I did not find anything on Amazon after searching for "Bloom of Heroes 2" that resembled a TTRPG.  Do you have a specific link?  

Did you, perchance, mean "Blood of Heroes?"

On 5/2/2019 at 8:26 PM, JonL said:

A lot of the design concepts that seem to interest you have been done before, though not all at once. 

In addition to HQ, I suggest you study the following games, look at what they did well, and look at the interconnected bits that support that...

GURPS - variable skill progressions and bell curve task resolution. 3d6 for classic bell distribution. 

DC Heroes/Underground/Blood of Heroes - logarithmic attribute ratings for arbitrary power levels that never break the mechanic as they scale up. 2d10 added for ramp distribution.

TORG - log scale mechanics similar to the above, but with a different feel. 1d20

Rolemaster/Spacemaster - Bridges class  based and skill based character models. Later editions suffer from skill bloat, but are also very complete. MERP and Cyberspace are their lighter siblings. D100 open ended roll high. Best example of a game that could use an  assistant app.

Fate/Fudge - Fudge dice actually roll deviations from the mean result represented by your stat.

I would look at what these games get right and wrong, and learn from that.

D.C. Heroes looks a bit hard to find in an inexpensive format.  I have some Rolemaster already, and I have wishlisted the others.

Thanks to you both :D.  How exactly does the Harn system work and differ from the ones that JonL mentioned above?  Thanks again.

5 hours ago, JonL said:

In Pendragon, ratings above 20 get added to your die roll. If your total is over 20, you score a critical success. (Normally, you score a critical by rolling your rating exactly).

HQ breaks ratings down into 20pt brackets, called Masteries. When a rating hits 21, you have reached the first Mastery level, notated as 1M, with the 'M" representing 20. a total of 25 would be written as 5M, while 47 would be 7M2 ( i.e. 7+(20 * 2)). Your TN is the number before the M, but your result gets bumped up one grade (Fumble -> Fail, Fail -> Success, Success -> Critical) for every M you have over your opposition.

BRP games vary a bit from one implementation to the next, but speaking broadly your special or critical success thresholds are based on a fraction of your skill percentage, your chances of attaining them rise even when you hit the maximum overall success chance. Percentages over 100 can also soak up penalties, help with splitting for multiple actions, penalize your opponents in opposed rolls, etc. - depending on the specific game.

All three approaches work reasonably well. The Pendragon and BRP approaches start to fray when you approach double the base range, though as a practical matter that isn't really a problem in any actual game I've heard of. (I think Lancelot has a ~30 in his Lance skill in Pendragon. Highest any character I played ever got was a 24.)

The HQ approach , while perhaps harder to grasp at first and having a little oddness right at the breakpoints, has the benefit of continuing to gracefully and  meaningfully scale up and up. While the spreadsheet I linked to doesn't encompass Mastery, the odds and result distributions for 17M3 vs 15M3 would be exactly the same as 17 vs 15.

That is cool.  I like the idea of Mastery in HQ.  What I would like to do is to design a bell-ish system where the ability/skill progression is virtually open-ended at the top, yet has an ease of playability that scales well as the "bell" simultaneously stretches and becomes shaped  to reflect a weightedness toward higher levels of mastery.  Being that I am not a statistics genius, I think that the logical approach to doing this would be to incorporate the repetition of a simple two-stage process until a result with good balance has been obtained.  The first stage would be determining ways in which the "bell" could be "extended" (obviously it will start to look more like a wave than a bell at some point), and the second stage would be looking at various ways to make the system easy and fun to play (e.g. charts, roll comparisons, electronic aids/apps - such as electronic dice which could include complex calculations not seen by the player/GM, etc). 

I think that such a system would be useful for a number of purposes.  Monsters, animals, machines, etc, could be more proportionally designed with respect to PC characters (which usually humanoid); skill progression could be asymmetrical (for instance, certain classes of skills might have an easier or harder learning curve; also, certain skills could have different ranges or "caps" where after a certain point, further progression would become trivial with respect to how good someone could become at something); simulation could be more realistic; critical successes and critical failures could be dealt with entirely within the scope of the curve rather than via the addition of an ad hoc rule-set such as rolling one's score or a natural 1 or a natural 20.

While I am partial to actual dice, I don't at all think that it is unreasonable to assume that "electronic dice" will continue to gain in popular appeal, and in fact, gaming platforms such a roll20 already make use of "electronic dice."  Therefore, it would naturally be the next step in the evolution of advancing the use of chance in gaming to go beyond the mere representation of physical dice.  Of course, there will always be people who will want a more portable (and reasonably affordable) system when they are not using platforms such as roll20 to play.  Such devices and apps can be built - and of course one of the keys to their distribution will be good marketing - and, of course, good design: just think like Steve Jobs !!

I'm not stuck on migrating to "electronic dice," by any means, but, I thought that I should include this brief argument in their favor rather than to leave my inclusion of their consideration unsupported.

I know that various dice systems have been experimented over the past few decades, including the use of dice pools.  Dice pools are interesting, and they do offer a way to extend the curve by adding dice (and, if so desired, one can subtract 1 for each die added to normalize the lowest result to still being a 1).  I'm not necessarily sold on dice pools, however, because, for one, polyhedra do not scale in their number of faces linearly.  Additionally, adding more dice does tend to rather quickly decrease the potential for outlying results.  This makes me more partial toward using charts and tables.  But, then the question becomes: how does create a chart or a table that is virtually/indefinitely extendable (without going to a Rolemaster like system - which has a chart for everything and an exploding dice system that I think leaves quite a lot to be desired)?

I would be interested to have your thoughts on these ideas!  I am currently inching (millimeter-ing, if we are talking progress via page thickness!) my way through a book on statistics in order to catch up on the topic, being that I never took a such a course when in school.

7 hours ago, JonL said:

For modifiers, just change the TN  values accordingly. A 15 with a +3 augment is no different than an 18. You never modify the die roll itself in HQ, or most* roll-under systems. 

(* Pendragon's handling of skills > 20 is a noteworthy exception. and an interesting counterpoint to HQ's Mastery scaling.)

I don't have Pendragon.  How does it handle skills > 20?  And how does HQ and BRP handle skills > 20?  

10 hours ago, JonL said:

That's right. You enter the Player and GM TNs below the grid where it says, "EDIT THESE."  The grid then changes to show you the outcomes of all 400 possible combinations of Player and GM die rolls. Player rolls are numbered down the left hand side, while GM rolls are numbered across the top.

The counts and percentages on the lower left show the frequency of each outcome within the result space along with a few useful aggregations, while the graph on the lower right shows the distribution curve (with ties split evenly between Marginal Defeat and Marginal Victory for graphing purposes).

I like in particular to show people the graph when they complain that rolling 1D20 is "too swingy." The player's individual roll may have a flat distrubution, sure, but when you oppose that roll with another and matrix the results you get very nice bell-ish curves with about 2/3 of the results being Marginal Victory or Marginal Defeat when Ability rating and Resistance rating are equal.  

Plug in various Ability and Resistance values, and watch how the distribution responds. In particular, enter common starting ability ratings, 13, 15, and 17, and compare them to Low(8), Moderate(14), and High(20) Resistances. Note in particular how the Any Victory/Any Defeat,  Marginal or Tie, and Minor+ Victory/Defeat aggregate percentages vary with respect to the matchups. 

Thanks!  I've got it now.  This is actually very nice, indeed.  It is quite bell-ish, and even though there are some odd dips here and there, overall, they don't really affect the aggregates too much - in fact, you could say that they add "character."  Is there a way to add modifiers?  When adding modifiers, what happens to the curves?  I like the fact, that as the basic d20 vs d20 roll statistics stand - without modifiers - that the curve still encompasses the full gamut of possible outcomes; whereas, I would be concerned that after adding in modifiers that the curve would shift so that some outcomes become either partially or fully truncated.  Now, I suppose, that if the outcomes are only partially truncated that it really would not make that much of a difference, because despite the fact that the curve might shift beyond a certain set of die roll outcomes, that the success/failure descriptions would not be entirely occluded. 

6 hours ago, JonL said:

To be more clear, the rows and columns are what the actual rolls are, you enter the ability rating and resistance down below.

The colors and labels in the result matrix adjust  based on what ability and resistance values you set.

So, the table is a roll versus roll table rather than a roll versus a Target Number table?

4 hours ago, metcalph said:

If you are referring as to why Thomas Beckett was murdered instead of imprisoned, the knights that killed him initially went there to detain him.  But he insulted them rather spectacularly, causing them to run him through.  

That said, Beckett is rather removed from Glorantha and a better question to ask would be where in Glorantha do prison monasteries exist?

No, that wasn't the gist, actually.  I was more interested in the tensions between Becket and the Crown over who could try and judge the clergy.  I thought perhaps that those relations might have been more inflamed due to the tradition you mentioned.

On 1/4/2019 at 4:19 PM, Quackatoa said:

I'm being entirely serious when I write this. If you've not turned into a radical feminist after studying military history, you've either not been paying attention or... well.

Ironically, Orwell did seem to be paying attention.

On 4/15/2019 at 2:46 AM, metcalph said:

From what I've read, the precursor of the modern prison (ie extended incarceration) is the Monastery - the perp take religious vows and spends the rest of his life at a monastery (which could resemlble Oz/Prison Break/Orange is the New Black/Porridge).  But that's really a punishment the judges are likely to consider for the well-connected when using traditional punishments (whippings, multilations etc) would bring shame on the perp's clan.

Would this have been true in Thomas of Beckett's time?

On 4/29/2019 at 9:18 AM, JonL said:

Behold, calculated odds and result distributions, masteries excluded.

This is awesome!  I am a little confused as to what the rows vs. the columns are, however.  Are the columns the Target Number?

13 hours ago, Ian Cooper said:

Here is something I wrote a while back for someone:

----------------------

So the discussion was about probability in D20 based games. First, its obvious that in an unopposed roll under Target Number (TN)  on a D20, each pip adds a 5% increment. Roll under 10 is 50% (10/20 * 100) and roll under 13 is 65% (13/20 * 100).

 

HeroQuest uses opposed rolls, so the math is a little more complicated. 

 

You can find a number of articles out there which look at the system many D20 games use: Roll D20 and add Dice Modifiers (DMs) and the higher number wins. This is a common approach. The maths is easy, as the probability can derived from the DM, as you are both equally likely to roll any number. Accounting for ties, you can use the difference between the DMs each side has to determine likelihood of victory. This  calculation gives each pip a 4% improvement. For example a +4 DM gives you a 30% chance of losing, 66% chance of winning, and a 4% chance of a tie.

 

However, Heroquest is roll highest but roll under, and the math is more complicated.

 

Let's start with an evenly matched contest of 13 vs. 13.

 

It is easy to understand win vs. lose. It is just 13/20 * 7/20 * 100 = 22.75%.  

 

A situation where both sides succeed is given by 13/20 * 13/20 * 100 = 42.25%.

 

We can also use negation, as well as coincidence.  As either side could win, the chance someone wins is 22.75 + 22.75 + 42.25 = 87.75. which subtracting from 100 means that the chance both  lose is 12.25%

 

Now this is where it gets complex. For now I want to ignore criticals and fumbles as it makes this easier to follow.

 

I want to determine who wins, if both succeed, or both lose, as here the highest roll now wins.

 

If we both win, then I have to roll higher than you. If you roll 1, there are 12 numbers I can roll to beat you, if you roll 2, there are 11 numbers I can roll to beat you. So my chances are 12 + 11 + 10 +... divided by the total number of combinations. Now we already know we are in the 42.25% bracket, so we can treat this as though we had a 13 sided dice, so our possible combinations is 13 ** 2 or 169. This gives us 46% chance that I will win, 46% chance that you will win and 4% ties.

 

Failure is similar, it is the highest roll within the 7 remaining pips. Again my chance of beating you is 6 + 5 + ... divided by the total number of combinations: 49. So 21/49 or 43% with a 14% chance of a tie.

 

Now I can figure out my chance to win. It's (22.75/100) + (46/100 * 42.25/100) + (12.25/100 * 43/100) = 47.45%. Given your chance to win is the same, the chance of a tie is: 5%.

 

And this should meet our expectations: two evenly matched opponents have about a 50% chance of success.

 

So what happens if the numbers are 17 and 13 instead, in other words I use one of my key abilities against one of your also rans.

 

Win vs. Lose. For me 17/20 * 7/20 * 100 = 29.75% 

Lose vs. Win. For me (or you win) 3/20 * 13/20 = 9.75%

Both Lose: 3/20 * 7/20 = 5.25%

Both Win 13/20 * 17/20 = 55.25%

 

Now we need to look at again at outcomes where both win or lose. If you roll 1 there are 16 numbers I can beat you with and so on. So my chances are 16 + 15 + … divided by the total number of combinations and again we can treat this as though we have a 17-sided dice and a 13-sided dice or 221 possible combinations. That gives us 136/221 or a 61% chance that I win. You win on 12+11+.. divided by 221 occasions, or 35% of the time, with a 4% chance of a tie.

 

Failure is a little trickier. The contestant with the higher skill has a small set of numbers, 3, whilst the one with the lower skill has, 7 possible numbers. Of those 21 combinations, on a 20 I can beat  6 numbers, on a 19, 5 and on an 18, 4  so I have 15 of the 21 combinations or 71%, you have 3 of the 21 or 14%, and there is 15% chance of a draw.

 

So I win on (29.75/100) + (55.25/100 *61/100) + (5.25/100 * 71/100) = 67.18% 

 

So to compare the two: 13 vs. 13 is a 47.45% chance of victory, but 17 vs 13 is a 67.18% chance of victory. It is of the order of 5% per pip, which is to be expected, but its certainly a sizeable difference.

 

So it does not differ significantly from opposed rolls with a DM of +4 above.

 

 

I suppose that in order to see how each system really stacks up against the other it would be helpful to graph the probability for each column (opposed ability) for each row (ability) a row at a time; or you could probably generate a 3d graph as well.  Then you could see how the curves for each method look side by side.

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I just wanted to talk about one thing about the difference between D&D & RQ and one of the reasons I like RQ.

It's been mentioned about levelling in D&D, and how that affects players and their relationship to the world and NPCs. Vs RQ, where it's a very flat progression (ie, not exorbitant HPs, or usually god-killers at level 20, etc).

But, going a little more in detail... creatures (enemies) are levelled in D&D. WE know that. A level 20 character can look at a kobold, and there's a 1 in 10,000 chance the kobold is going to kick the character's butt. The other 9,999 times, that kobold is toast (possibly literally with the right spells!)

OTOH, in RQ, due to the effects of Chaos, a superhero like Harrek (if he was ever in his right mind) might just think he has a 50/50 chance of either wiping the floor with a certain broo he sees... or getting Total Party Wiped.

Most creatures aren't readily identified by CR (Challenge Rating) so you know whether you're likely to defeat them or not. (obviously, some are... looking at you Crimson Bat, Cragspider, most giants, etc). No two broos are alike (well, you know what I mean). Chaos features means individuality, and that means uncertainty, and for me, that means more fun and excitement.

 

(I do, however, get that lots of people prefer to know exactly what they're getting in for...).

 

Chaos rules!

D&D's CR system is useful.  It is useful for designing modules & scenarios for players to level up while avoiding the unfortunate possibility of being killed by the level-up-machine of combat with "monsters," which were, of course, invented for said purpose.

I agree with you.  Even though I have not actually played RQ, per se, I have played CoC, and the basics of the Chaosium system, per my understanding, are essentially the same.  Game play is much smoother and realistic: and this is because Chaosium's game system is designed to be that way.  Rather than an amalgamation of rules that eventually sort themselves into something more playable, the Chaosium system was designed with playability in mind from the very beginning - or so I have read.  Although even the 5e system of D&D has become more streamlined in some ways, it still comes from a bottom-up game design tradition, rather from than an integrative top-down approach. 

I think a lot of the spirit of D&D's agglomerative design approach can be seen in the way that enthusiasts would create new character classes, and expansions of the rules, which would then be shared with the community through Dragon Magazine, White Dwarf Magazine, etc (in the early decades of the game's history).  There is nothing wrong with this - in fact, it has been an earmark of the game's creativity.  But it can make the game more difficult to streamline for ease of play.  

I honestly don't know if Chaosium has publications where game enthusiasts add new classes with various bonuses and special abilities that are not already somewhere accounted for in the Chaosium system or not; neither do I know whether or not Chaosium supplements, and milieu expansions are written in such a way as to avoid the pitfalls of trying to add disparate sets of rules and character archetypes together, but I do suspect that Chaosium is much better at this than WotC, if only for the reason that the artifice of the "character class" does not exist for the Chaosium system.  In fact, I would say that D&D's class system is simultaneously a creative inspiration for describing special abilities hitherto not described, and a continual source for departure from any centralized rule-set.  If we rest our case for Chaosium's system being simpler than that of D&D's on this one factual difference between the two, I think the argument is a reasonably strong one.

2 hours ago, Job said:

It’s no different than GM have to ask players for the effects of various magics/spells in RQG if he can’t memorize them. And DM can just open their PHB for references behind DM screen. Some even use D&D Beyond app in their tablet for much faster referencing.

I find that it is not a game system issue but a trust issue if you can’t trust your players. I’ve never seen any D&D 5e DM need, generally speaking, more than to know HP, AC, and passive perception of the players to run the game smoothly. 

Trust is not the issue.  The DM necessarily maintains a fourth wall throughout the game, and there are often times when due to the DM's creative license, it would be helpful to have knowledge about the particulars of the players' characters, and the DM might not always want to broadcast what he is doing by asking his players questions.  Although broadcasting that something is going on is certainly a tool in the DM's toolbox, it really isn't much of a tool if you are doing all the time.  This really has a lot more to do with play style and having the room to orchestrate things for the players in such a way that they have a great game.  Sometimes, in order to achieve the desired effect, the DM might not ever want any of the players to know what went on behind the curtain, or he might only want a few to have some gleaning.

Combat is a little more opaque - but combat is not the end-all, be-all of the rules. When combat takes place, the players are obviously aware of various sorts of events, effects, actions, etc.  But even during combat there might be things you don't want your players to know about - such as an enemy rogue sneaking to a certain part of the room (a passive perception check).  There also many kinds of passive checks that could potentially have a list of various bonuses added to them.  An app would would probably help a lot if it was written in such a way to account for all such cases.  Otherwise, it is probably best to just get a succinct stat block for each player's character which will cover all of the necessaries.

1 hour ago, Numtini said:

*raises hand*

A load of the stuff you're talking about is something a player deals with and it goes on their character sheet before the game. When I first played RQ, one of the revelations was that virtually the entire game was on your character sheet. That was a huge innovation in 1980 compared to squinting at the endless tables of AD&D. But D&D has caught up. The complexity is not at the table, it's all right there on your character sheet. And for the adjustments that aren't on the character sheet, they tend to be advantage or disadvantage which is easier to deal with than percentage calculations on the skill level which may change the chances of special successes.

Having said that, I don't find RQ particularly difficult mechanically and I don't know why someone would think it is. But making out that D&D is still the mess it was 40 years ago is just not fair.

Even though in D&D the rules may mostly now be on a player's character sheet, the DM will want to have all of his player's character sheets in front of him if he wants to run the game properly (and not be beholden to the players, needing to continuously ask them questions about their character's abilities) and that can take up a lot of space behind the DM screen where the go-to rules are supposed to be efficiently organized and summarized.  So, no, in my opinion, pouring the rules into the character sheets is not a substitute for a well thought-out and appropriately streamlined-for-play gaming system.

3 hours ago, drablak said:

No, it's really called Hackmaster (https://www.kenzerco.com/hackmaster/)

Egad! Thanks.

That is a great example!  I think when AD&D first came out, the various options for rules that might conflict was such a novelty that it was actually fun to search for that kind of stuff - in a way - because it was exciting to see what you could do in the AD&D game setting.  That was part of its charm.  But once the wonder has worn off a bit, it starts to become a bit tedious - especially, if there is some rule that was overlooked in the moment, and a lively "discussion" ensues.  Ergo, the DM is "always right."  Ideally, I think a game system should be as simple or complex as the DM/GM and players want it to be - sort of like how many of today's college courses are designed to challenge students far beyond the first standard deviation of the normal distribution for ability with the subject matter should they be so challenged.  Currently, no single system handles this variation inherently in either an entirely smooth or satisfying way.  For this reason, we have home-brew systems aplenty.

11 hours ago, drablak said:

I agree totally that more complex isn't a bad thing. For example I've played Hackmaster, and had no problem with it, and if there's a complex system it's Hackmaster! I've also played many games systems over the years (including Harnmaster that someone else mentioned in this thread). The system I played the most all these years is AD&D, which most agree was the most complex version of D&D.

RQG seems like a great system and I see a lot of people are passionate about it. I just can't wrap my head around it at the moment.

Are you referring to Rolemaster?

12 hours ago, Mechashef said:

This may demonstrate why RQ is considered to be more complex than D&D.  It is part of a document I wrote for my players and doesn't include how to actually use Augments (that is another document).  I wrote it to help my players get an understanding on how various  "actions" were handled as they were frequently getting confused.

RuneQuest Resolution Mechanisms

 

 

 

 

 

General Rules (P141)

 

Skills, Runes, Passions etc are all Abilities

 

1.      Determine the appropriate Ability

 

2.      Obtain the adventurer's normal chance of success

 

3.      Apply any modifiers such as:

 

a.      Environmental (i.e. darkness)

 

b.      Magic (i.e. bladesharp)

 

c.       Opponents skill over 100%

 

d.      Augments by other Abilities

 

4.      Roll against the Abilities modified chance of success

 

5.      Determine the level of success (Critical, Special, Success, Fail or Fumble)

 

6.      Apply the results of the Ability use

 

 

 

 

 

Weapon Combat       (P197)

 

1.      Attacker rolls against their attack skill (P197)

 

2.      Defenders attempting to dodge roll against their dodge skill (P201)

 

3.      If attack is not dodged, attacker rolls damage (P203)

 

4.      Defenders attempting to parry rolls against their parry skill (P197)

 

5.      Damage is reduced by the results of the parry

 

6.      Location of the hit is rolled

 

7.      Damage is reduced by any armour or magic

 

8.      Damage is applied to defender

 

 

 

 

 

Skill Use                      (P163)

 

1.      Roll against the adventurer's skill

 

2.      Apply the results of the skill use

 

 

 

 

 

Opposed Rolls             (P142)

 

These are not used to resolve combat

 

1.      Both participants roll against their appropriate skills

 

2.      The best level of result wins (i.e. a special beats a critical)

 

o   Winner & Loser = Winner succeeds and applies the skill result

 

o   Both same level (non-critical) = Situation temporally unresolved

 

o   Both same level (critical) = Both succeed and apply the skill result

 

o   Both fail = Neither achieve their goal

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic Roll     (P141)

 

1.      Determine the Difficulty Factor (X 5 for easy to X 0.5 for nearly impossible)

 

2.      Multiply the appropriate characteristic (such as DEX) by the Difficulty Factor

 

3.      Roll against the resulting number

 

4.      The results of the roll are applied

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resistance Roll           (P145)

 

Used for pitting one characteristic against another (Such as POW vs POW or STR vs SIZ)

 

·         Determine the appropriate characteristics

 

·         Determine the chance of success using the table on P147

 

·         The active participant rolls against this chance of success

 

·         The results of the roll are applied

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spell Attack                (P244)

 

1.      Roll against the attacker's chance of success with the spell

 

a.      Spirit = POW X 5

 

b.      Rune = Chance with best Rune required by the spell

 

c.       Sorcery = Skill with the appropriate spell

 

2.      Apply any countermagic type spells the defender has in effect

 

3.      Use the Resistance Roll mechanism pitting POW vs POW

 

4.      Roll for effected location if appropriate

 

5.      Apply the effects of the spell

 

 

 

 

 

Spirit Combat             (P368)

 

Uses the Opposed Rolls mechanism with the Spirit Combat skill

 

Spirit Combat Damage is applied to:

 

·         The loser, if there is a winner and a loser

 

·         Both participants, if both achieve a critical

 

But I think that people are missing out  and missing the point if they don't look at these stages as opportunity to roleplay through the combat in a descriptive way.  From what I recall, Palladium had more interactive choices for the player and the opponent through a similar sequence of combat events.  I rather liked that better because it lent to roleplaying through the combat.  But yeah... if the combat is not roleplayed - then what is the point of the additional steps...???