Jump to content

PhilHibbs

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2,857
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by PhilHibbs

  1. Ringworld had 2D6+6 across the board. One rationale for that is that medical advancement had removed a lot of genetic traits that lead to severely bad health or development. I think you could justify an INT of 3 for severe atypical neurological development. The fun of playing it is left as an exercise to the reader.
  2. As written, the minimum characteristic is 7. Sorry, posted that before spotting the "context". I don't think it's much fun to play characters with terrible stats, unless you have a cool character idea that demands it.
  3. The editor turned to stone when attempting to transcribe the stat block into the book's layout.
  4. Chaosium did a very large print run of the second printing, so that is locked down for a while. Right now they are concentrating their resources and attention on getting more material out.
  5. I'm the opposite. If Gloranthan metals were identical to Earth metals, then it would weaken the feeling that Glorantha is, to us, a strange and magical place.
  6. I guess it's the same as any other information. What colour are their clothes. What runes do they have tattooed visibly. What weapons do they have hanging off their belts. Who is giving the orders. Do they have mud on their shoes. Who looks like they might be about to cast a spell. You can see any and all of that at a glance, but you can only process so much of it. Assimilating and acting on this mundane information is as difficult to codify into game mechanics as Soul Sight. On the other hand, I'd be inclined to be quite generous, especially if the character is fairly smart. I'd be quite
  7. Yeah I guess, if you want to derive HP from stats. STR doesn't quite cut it, but CON would probably do. It seems to scale more or less linearly with SIZ if I recall. I guess D&D manages by just having arbitrary monster hit dice as a primary characteristic. I can't think how other games do it that don't have SIZ, I haven't played one for so long. L5R is similar to D&D in that it just has a number of wound box lines for creatures.
  8. Some games don't even have a SIZ stat. I'd say no, not worth it.
  9. Which IS "willing to have them fail". You have a fallback plan that lets the game continue, which is the whole point.
  10. You should be able to just click the download link in the completed order page.
  11. I think I know what's happening, someone correct me if I'm wrong please. The second printing was indeed sold and distributed over a year ago. The PDF was updated with nearly all the changes, but a small number didn't make it into the PDF. This new release of the PDF now fixes that with some very minor late changes to the second printing.
  12. They do seem rather similar. SotLM affects both magic and mundane, whereas LC only protects from magic, so only SotLM would affect minotaur berserk. SotLM mentions Orate, which is odd. Fast Talk, I could understand. Orate could rely purely on the truth, which would be an odd thing to "protect" someone from. "Solace of the Conspiracy Theorist's Mind" would be more apt! Both have no caveats about the protection they provide, so you could conclude that no amount of spell manipulation or boosting will overcome them. Both of them have the down side that you can never augment
  13. I agree. If I'm playing a modern day role-playing game, I don't care what brand or model of mobile phone my character has. Likewise I don't care if the rat catcher uses the same Disruption spell that the warrior does. I'm sure there are variations, I just don't care. Other players are free to care if it adds to their immersion in the world. And I might care at some point if the mood takes me.
  14. It is a different game though. The mechanics are different, the iOS version doesn't allow you to allocate the three different grain productions for example.
  15. I guess this could be classed as a realism-vs-drama debate. I have argued on the side of realism, and call me contrarian if you will but that is not the only legitimate side. You could argue that dividing is better from a drama point of view, as the underdog still has a chance. Emotionally, we don't distinguish between a thousand-to-one chance and a million-to-one chance, if the game models those both as 01% then we don't care. Multiplying and dividing skills is a similar thing - yes it is objectively wrong, but it is not emotionally or intuitively wrong.
  16. Of course POW vs 15 is mechanically the same as POW×5 - 25%.
  17. Yes, I know, I'm suggesting using the same mechanic as a replacement for POW×5, INT×4, etc. I appreciate that it is off topic for this thread though.
  18. What are your feelings about the resistance table? Did you consider getting rid of it, or alternatively, using it for more mechanics? There has been a recent suggestion that characteristic increases could be handled by rolling a resistance against the average, and it just occurred to me that resistance-against-a-difficulty could be used as better scaling replacement for INT×5, INT×4, INT×3, etc. Good ideas, or bad? Too QuestWorldy?
  19. It might be worth considering resistance rolls for more mechanics, actually, such as the "INT x 5" idea roll. Quite often I see a GM bump this down to INT x 4 or x 3 if they want it to be harder, and I suspect that this is actually because characters have such good characteristics (or at least, someone in the group is bound to have a good characteristic) that a x5 is basically giving it away too easily. Maybe better to do a resistance roll against a difficulty, so if you want a challenging INT roll, then roll resistance against 13, 15, 18 etc. This would again be particularly useful
  20. I was going to say that I'm not too keen on this because it breaks down for higher stat ranges, which of course you and others have already mentioned. However, now that I think a little more, maybe what I don't like is the fact that higher stat ranges can have a higher variation. If we're going with a resistance table which means that a 10 point difference is always going to be an overwhelming advantage, at any numerical range, then maybe all stat ranges should be the same as the human range but with an offset. So rather than having more D6es, just have a bigger bonus to shift the ra
  21. My post was not intended to be a criticism of anyone's specific attitude. It's partly just the nature of people on the internet that the things we say are easy to misinterpret. And I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone of being a little abrasive at times.
  22. Taking the Species Maximum discussion as an example, I've been imagining what would have happened back in 1984, before forums like this. I'd have read the rules, noticed that there were two different systems for calculating the maximum characteristic, and decided that one was a mistake. It really would not be a big deal, I'd mention it to my group, we'd come up with an answer that we all agreed on, and that's that. I think we had our own rule for Species Maximum that was subtly different to the standard one anyway. Now that we have internet forums, it's a huge deal. The conversation
  23. I would expect that the starter box would not have any rules on improving by experience, but I appreciate the general point.
  24. I think most gamers will read the rules and realise that the Species Maximum box is correct, especially if they are familiar with RuneQuest already. I know it's not ideal, as there are plenty of people out there who don't read the forum and aren't as comfortable with figuring this stuff out themselves. I have been in gaming groups where people will argue viciously over the rules, so I appreciate that having clear and correct printed rules is important.
  25. I don't think anybody does think it's a good idea. It's just happened, that's all. It's a mistake that the right people don't have the time to look at due to other priorities.
×
×
  • Create New...