Jump to content

Stephen L

Regulars
  • Content Count

    330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Stephen L last won the day on January 13

Stephen L had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

283 Excellent

About Stephen L

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Roleplaying since the early 80s. A Runequest in Glorantha fan
  • Current games
    Runequest in Glorantha, a Colymar campaign.
  • Location
    Woking UK
  • Blurb
    Physicist, mathematician, erstwhile academic, musician, writer, but always return to roleplaying and Glorantha. And now the kids are old enough...

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Indeed, that is identical (mathematically) to a rolling against a passive 14. So whichever you prefer. You're safe from the flames.
  2. Not, not bad barbarian. Not at all. I just have to burn you because I disagree with you, not because you're bad. It's nothing personal. I believe that's how it worked historically.
  3. Its often easier to get a feel of things in statistics to think of the chance of failing. STR 18 has 10% chance of failing for x5 and 46% chance of failing for x3 STR 3 has a 85% chance of failing for x5 and 91% chance of failing for x3 Nope. Not for me. Some weights are possible for a strong person to lift and impossible for a weak person. That can't be achieved with multipliers. The whole point of a value that's taken off, is that it represents a difficult task making the effective skill lower. A penalty of -25% turns an expert (75%) to a skilled practitioner (50%)
  4. Many thanks to the estimable @PhilHibbs for a passing comment, the mulling over of which leads to the conclusion that Characteristic x N rolls are an *abomination*, though I will admit (grudgingly) that the case of N = 5 (and only 5) works. Imagine a weight lifting competition. Our Hero, STR18, v’s our Geek STR3. We use average weights, which can be lifted on a STRx5. Our Hero lifts on 9 times in 10, our Geek 1 time in 7, so the Geek will succeed at the same time as the Hero fails 1 time in 70. Now, lets go to really heavy weights, so the referee says it’s a STRx3 roll to
  5. Apologies, could you tell, I hadn't read your e-mail properly. That's a really good idea. I too use Characteristic x n as standard. Now you mention, deciding a difficulty level (5 easy, 10 average, 15 hard, 20 heroic), and then using the resistance table seems as if it gives much better results. Characteristic x n gives some arbitrary results. If you have a low characteristic, then x 5 to x 3 doesn't make as much change as if you have a high characteristic. The extreme case, for 18 you go from 90% to 54%, where as at 3 you go from 15% to 9%. And requiring a STRx3 to lif
  6. The calculation is *exactly* that, it is using a resistance roll against the species average: The chance of characteristic increase: Compare the current characteristic to the Species Average on the resistance table. Rolling *above* the value given results in an increase, with 96-100 always resulting in a successful increase. where the Species Average for a characteristic: Species Average = (Max rollable + Min rollable) / 2, rounding *up* where necessary That gives a probability of increase as: 50 + (species average - current) x 5 % (but I think using the resistance ta
  7. All systems that are based on 5% steps (which is every variant discussed so far, and indeed the rules for RQii/iii/RQinG) break down if you have a wider distribution. However, I don't think the complexity of having smaller steps than 5% is worth it, for what is a very small edge case. Technically I don't like 2D6 + mod, because it doesn't give a bell curve. And I don't understand why 3D6 range is believable for STR for humans, but not SIZ or INT. But its only a slight not like, and not worth the radical change to how characteristics work. And I have to say, an increase pr
  8. Correct, thought technically you are trying to *fail* against the average statistic on the resistance roll, in which case this means that this not only reuses the resistance table rule, but it also reuses the experience check rule. And you are then *always* rolling high for experience, pow gain, and characteristic research. I like this very much, it has become so in my RQ.
  9. Actually RAW for Pow Gain/ Characteristic research increase chance isn't that great. In our campaign, the Duck has managed (after some very exciting adventures) to get himself a Hadrosaur mount. A Hadrosaur has POW of 24+2D6 so (Max rollable + Min Rollable - current)x5 *never* drops below 100%. However, there is a very simple solution that does suit the whole range of the distribution: Anchor at the average characteristic value. So we have Species Max, which I like RAW, i.e. Species Max = Max rollable + number of dice (+1 if there is any bonus) If we introduce Sp
  10. A very good point. I have had *no* issues with understanding the rules that have affected game play. I get the impression with the RQinG, is that a lot of thought has gone into how Glorantha is presented to a new player, and I think it really succeeds with that. However, I'm not sure RQinG succeeds quite as well with how the system is presented to a new player: Again, a very good point. If the concern is how new players pick up the rules, and become as wowed with them as they really should, then perhaps its the clarity of the QuickStart that really matters.
  11. I think the game design reason is that, if you use (Max rollable + Min Rollable - current)x5 that fits the whole range better, otherwise there is a problem if you are near min rollable: However as you approach species max, then (Species Max - current)x5 is more consistent. So, I'm going with RAW. Especially as it works better for my reference species of Duck.
  12. I agree with this. If you think of the species maximum as an extension of a distribution, it maxes sense that amplitude of extension is related to width of the distibution, i.e. the number of dice rolled. The modifier is simply a translation of that distribution, so shouldn't really change the amplitude that much (if at all), so RAW of species max = max rollable + no of dice (+1 if there is a modifier), makes sense.
  13. I am afraid I will have to draw you up on this point. Everyone knows that the reference species is the Duck. Whilst we have to, grudgingly, acknowledge that some might want to to play, for example, humans, they do so with our disapproval. And the new rules are more suited to the *Duck* as a reference species. If you continue in this *specieist humanistic* vein, all I can say, is well, watch for low attacks...
  14. No, by internalising I meant expending (perhaps substantial) effort to understand, not to rewrite. I don't mind pouring over rules. But I don't like making up my own rules. Actually, I do, what I don't like is running them through adventures, because we don't get much time for roleplaying, and I don't want it to be a beta experience for my players. So I almost never house rule, I would far rather wave my hands based on a deep understanding of RAW.
  15. Also I should point out that it's possible that RQinG is no less well well explained that RQiii or Pendragon. It's just that I read the others at an age when I was quicker of understanding. Please respond politely.
×
×
  • Create New...