Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by PhilHibbs

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Of course POW vs 15 is mechanically the same as POW×5 - 25%.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. I would expect that the starter box would not have any rules on improving by experience, but I appreciate the general point.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. You're right, this is a crazy clarification.
  14. RQG p.52: Bestiary p.6: My rule is maximum + dice + 1 per +6 bonus or fraction thereof. Sorry, didn't see @kirinyaga already said this.
  15. That makes sense for the skill check, but not giving the POW tick for a successful worship is quite different. You worshipped, it was successful, you made contact with divinity, you should get all the benefits. A skill tick is not one of those benefits, so that's fine to houserule, but a POW tick is.
  16. Yes, and this was confirmed at Impromptu Con, the grand old Chaosium tradition of "Coming next year..." is no more.
  17. Still not getting it. Specifically, what is the contradiction?
  18. And confirmation of the Stomp! roleplaying game. * * Not really.
  19. That can't make sense. You declare split attacks before you know if you are being parried. What would happen if the first attack is not parried but the second is? It's then too late to reduce the un-split skill to 100 because you've already rolled on the first split.
  20. I agree, I think I'd say the RP are spent on a fumble but not permanently.
  21. Yeah, according to a literal reading of the rules, someone with a 10% parry skill will reduce the 1000% down to 100%. What it does give you is the ability to split to three (or four if you're really fast) 100%+ attacks.
  22. ...after a few melee rounds of preparation.
  23. You've never run a scenario involving a prepared ambush on one side or the other? When I ran The Broken Tower for my group, they had plenty of time to do stuff like that before assaulting the tower. They didn't have Sword Trance available though. And not many MPs.
  24. 100 seconds actually, around 8.5 melee rounds.
  • Create New...