Stephen L

22 hours ago, Stephen L said:

if you find probability curves difficult to fathom

Actually, if you want to have a better feel, than a distribution chart, for what sort of characteristics you generate from various approaches, I've an NPC generator, so you can have a look at what a random generation looks like en-mass.

The NPCs generated are here:

https://basicroleplaying.org/files/file/833-npc-squads-txtzip-npc-squads-pdfzip/

The ones for OrlanthiWarriors were generated with straight 3D6 (but rerolling anything under 8), and straight 2D6+6 for Int/Siz

The ones for OrlanthiThanes were 3D6+1 rerolling 1s, but still 2D6+6 for Int/Siz (but now rerolling anything under 10).

1 hour ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

Therefore it is Perfectly All Right to:  Reroll any die result of 1.

In case you want to know what that looks like, I've plotted the distributions for 3d6 straight, if you reroll 1s, or if you roll 4d6 and choose 3 (which I've seen elsewhere), as well the distributions for 2D6+6 (again straight, rerolling 1, or rolling 3 and choose 2).

They're quite generous for my taste, but that is taste.  (if you find probability curves difficult to fathom, 5% is the outlier corresponding to rolling 96-100)

If you "discard an adventurer whose characteristics average 12 or less", that's a *lot* if you just use 3D6 straight.

I quite like a combination of rolling straight, discarding results of less than 6/9 (without requiring no other is higher than 13), and discarding a character that doesn't look fun.  Also if a player can think of swapping a couple of characteristics around to make them more fun, I often allow that.

As an aside, I've never liked the 2D6+6 solution to idiocy/dwarfism in humans...  Why is having a Rabbit stronger than a STR 3 human any more believable than bigger than a SIZ 3 Human.

On 1/22/2021 at 10:46 AM, David Scott said:

Then generally speaking use the real world cut off date of the fall of 1st century BCE

Although 1st century BCE will cover such remarkable artefacts as the Antikythera mechanism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

It's an ancient Greek hand-powered orrery, described by some (well Wikipedia) as the first analogue computer.

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

And Old Wind canonically has sacred windmills, I think?

Well, it's depicted as a windmill on my map of Dragon Pass (the board game).   Whether than makes it canonical is quite another matter!

And adding the sessions I've seen.

23: Storm Season 1625, Entrance to Boldhome and audience with Prince Kallyr Starbrow.

24: Storm Season 1625, Orlanth’s High Holy Day and the Brontosaurus dance.

25: Sacred Time 1625, Kallyr’s Lightbringer Quest, the arming of Kallyr.

26: Sacred Time 1625, Kallyr’s Lightbringer Quest, descent to hell.

27: Sacred Time 1625, Kallyr’s Lightbringer Quest, to the Court of the Maggot Liege; Yelm's court of the dead gods.

28: Sacred Time 1625, Kallyr's Lightbringer Quest, the Summons of Evil goes awry. 

3 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

But if you're going strictly by the RAW of a resistance table, then POW 21 still has a 5% chance to increase...

Yes.  5% chance of an increase of 0.

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

That would suggest being able to go above Species Max

Not by the species max rule.

P417 Rules:

Quote

No characteristic may be increased for any reason (except
through magic) beyond the maximum amount rollable on
the characteristic dice (in most cases, 18 for humans) plus
the number of dice rolled (2D6+6 counts as 3 dice for SIZ
and INT, and 3 dice for the rest). Thus, humans may not
normally have any characteristic higher than 21.  

And I'm not suggesting a change to the species max rule.

Already, if I've a pow of 20 (and I'm human) and I succeed in my POW gain roll (5%), I could roll 2 for the gain.  The extra point is wasted. (So you would be mad to roll, rather than take the 1)

8 hours ago, Gallowglass said:

Aldryami

According to the bestiary (p25):

Quote

An elf initiate receives a bow seed, planted on its initiation day. It takes a year of growth and a year of finishing to become a fabled
elf bow. The initiate must dedicate one week a season over the next two years to tend and care for it, instructed by a Gardener

And, as speculated on another thread, the elf then goes into training, so they've got the STR to pull it...

On 1/18/2021 at 6:35 PM, Bill the barbarian said:

Ooh you have opened a can of worms, let me grab some popcorn for this.

I'm not sure the two go together...

(In fact I'm very sure they don't, but it would be rude to call you weird.  Let's try outré, that sounds more exotic.)

1 hour ago, David Scott said:

Likewise there are no windmills to power mills, but water mills have existed since 3rd century BCE

Agreed.  

However, I wouldn't worry too much if someone depicted Old Wind as a windmill.  If someone wanted to argue it's the kind of technology that could have existed in the bronze age if the technology advanced cultures were in regions where wind were a reliable energy source (and indeed worshipped), I'd believe them.

3 hours ago, egyptian said:

I'm really new to Runequest,

Welcome aboard.  RQ in Glorantha is amazing.

3 hours ago, egyptian said:

One of the things that's giving me some trouble is understanding the technology level of Glorantha. I know it's 'Bronze Age', but I also see a lot of things that would be anachronisms

Actually, I more look at the Bronze Age as a feel, rather than a strict technology level.

Primarily for me, it’s the Golden Heroic Age, and has the feel of the epics about that era.  It’s the actions of a few great heroes that drive history.  For example, *for me*, it’s Queen Lieka’s personal feelings for clemency or revenge that will drive what happens to the Lunar survivors on Colymar lands, rather than inescapable, faceless socio-economic forces.  And, *for me*, the roleplaying is the interaction with the Colymar Heroes (described in the adventures book of the GM screen), rather than with nameless political forces (such as clan rings).

Also, there’s the feel that armour is easily punctured and weapons readily break that makes combat so exciting.

3 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

i was answering the same, my english STR is not enough efficient

We welcome our bilingual friends (we’re not all a country of Brexit maniacs).

Indeed, the extra back and forth might sucker people into looking in, thinking that I raised a somewhat more interesting post then the minimum strength required for an Elf bow!

It’s earned us a “hot topic” flag, which caused me to chuckle.

On 1/19/2021 at 10:14 PM, AndreJarosch said:

I (my real life Me) is according to RQG  SIZ 15 (height) and SIZ 18 (weight). 

Me, I'm SIZ 13 Size and Weight.  And I'm pretty average in real life.

23 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

2d6+6 roll are normal distributed

2D6 is a saw tooth (straight line up to average, straight line down from average).

You need at least 3 dice before you start to approximate a normal distribution.

8 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

so we can conclude that at least 42% of the brown elves aren't warriors

Indeed, the Gloranathan Bestiary has, p:25

Quote

one-third of elves are part of the Marching Aldryami,
or active military.

However, it's not just warriors who have an elf bow, it's all initiates:

Gloranathan Bestiary has, p:25

Quote

An elf initiate receives a bow seed, planted on its initiation day.

Quite interesting (or probably not), doing the elves that I noticed the average STR of a Brown Elf is 9.  The minimum STR requirement for an Elf Bow is 9.

Almost half (I make it 42%) the population of Brown elves will struggle using the Elf Bow, using it at half chance.

As will a significant fraction (1 in 6) of Green Elves.

I’m ignoring the min STR limit on the Elf bow.  The bow’s living and lending its strength to the pull (for its grower elf)

It looks as if I've not announced it before in it's very own thread, but if anyone finds them useful, there are some squads of NPCs I’ve generated, which I've just updated to version 2.2 to add loads of baddies - Newtlings, more Trollkin (skirmishers/bandits), Mammoths and Skeletons

https://basicroleplaying.org/files/file/851-npc-squads

There are now:

• Humans
  • Orlanthi-Warriors
  • Orlanthi-Travellers
  • Orlanthi-Light-Warriors
  • Orlanthi-Thanes
  • Orlanthi-Thanes-Mounted
  • Pavis-Watch
  • Pavis Thugs
  • Praxians
  • SableRider
  • Lunar-Irregulars
  • Lunar-Light-Infantry
  • Lunar-Heavy-Infantry
  • Lunar-Chaos-Infantry
  • Lunar-Elite-Infantry
  • Lunar-Heavy-Cavalry
  • Lunar-Magician
  • Marble-Phalanx-Hoplite
  • Silver Shields Hypaspist
  • Balazaring-Hunters
  • Balazaring-Warriors
• Morokanth
  • Morokanth
• Mounts
  • Horses
  • Bison
  • Sable Antelope
• Dragonewts
  • Beaked
  • Crested
• Aldryami 
  • Dryad
  • Elf-Brown
  • Elf-Green
  • Runner
• Uz 
  • Trollkin-Warriors
  • Dark Trolls
  • Dark Trolls Tough
  • Great Trolls
  • Cave Trolls
• Mostali
  • Copper 
  • Iron 
• Tusk-Riders
  • Riders 
  • Tuskers
• Chaos 
  • Broo
  • Broo-Nasty
  • Broo-Scary
  • ScorpionMen
  • Skeletons
  • Balazaring Ogres
  • Balazaring Ogres Mean
• Beastmen
  • Ducks 
  • Baboons
  • Centaurs 
  • Minotaurs 
  • Newtlings
  • Wind-Children 
• Animals
  • Bears - Black, Brown and White
  • Boar
  • Dogs hunting
  • Dogs fighting
  • Mammoth
  • Shadowcat
  • Spiders (all sizes)
  • Sakkar (normal, and chaos tainted
  • Sakkar-Chaos
  • Wolf (normal, Dire and chaos tainted Dire)
• Monsters:
  • Griffin
  • Hippogriff
  • Sky-Bull
  • Unicorn
  • Wyrm
  • Wyvern
• Dinosaurs
  • Allosaur
  • Ankylosaur
  • Brontosaur
  • Deinonychus
  • Elasmosaurus
  • Magus-Profundus
  • Magus-Mediocris
  • Magus-Magnus
  • Pteranodon
  • Spinosaurus
  • Trachodon
  • Triceratops
  • Tyrannosaurus

I will add to the above, as required for my campaign.  But it’s slow moving.  However, if you have any requests message me.  In general, it doesn’t take long to create the data file that controls NPC generation for a new species.  It’s about an hour’s work, and then you can have as many as you want.

They are, of course, generated by a program, driven by a data file.  Mostly lists of weighted probabilities for stuff.  It weights cults/weapons etc. to the NPC’s runes, and it tries to be intelligent with the probabilities for weapons and armour, so the equipment doesn’t look completely random (whilst matching STR DEX and Enc limits).

Anyway, what you see are all computer generated, without moderation (or deletion/selection), and the first run sets.

If anyone is interested, I’m happy to share the code (it’s windows .Net, C#, and driven by XML data files).  However, it’s designed for my own use, I’ve made no attempt for it to be user friendly, and input is solely by editing a XML data file, fine for those who’re happy with XML and have a decent editor.  If there is any desire, I could add a GUI, if anyone twists my arm.

Also, if you prefer a different layout (or want US paper sizes), shout and I can easily regenerate (or provide you the toolset and show you how the format’s controlled).

17 hours ago, ffilz said:

My point is that multipliers and additive/subtractive modifiers do different things to the probability curve

So, if I summarise what I’ve learned from all the discussion here.

Tests that are a more difficult application of a characteristic or skill should, *in general*, be a penalty subtracted from the skill or characteristic x5, where they are simply testing the deeper levels of the skill or a stronger level of the characteristic (i.e. separating the men from the boys).

However for tests that are more difficult because they are introducing a level of luck (it’s easier to think of skills examples; firing an arrow in a fluky wind, or hitting someone in the dark, but perhaps lifting a slippery weight) then a multiplier modifier (e.g. characteristic x3 or skill/2) is appropriate.  These kinds of tests are more levellers, poorer skills have less penalty because they rely more on luck in the first place.

1 hour ago, ffilz said:

Maybe it should be noted that I have been playing RQ since 1978 and actually still prefer the original rules.

Indeed, and I recall your award!

2 hours ago, ffilz said:

but people can't be wrong about their preference for how a particular way of determining what the probability of success is

Agreed there.  And the corollary of this is that you can't object if I claim to find it abhorrent (which I can get away with because my admission that it might have it use putting super skilled munchkins in their place was made in secret).

Joking aside, you are quite right.  Why on earth would you have the insane scoring system of tennis, which makes some points more important than others?  Surely that's completely unfair for scoring a competitive sport (with quite a lot of money at stake)!  Yet that is what makes it the sport it is.   

And, for me, the tables for skill bonus based on characteristics are the same.  Insane, but the fun for having some increments being more important than others).

58 minutes ago, ffilz said:

How do you feel about crits and fumbles?

Yes, I like Crits and Fumbles (except when they hurt).

58 minutes ago, ffilz said:

They are probability multipliers

Yes, so resolving them as probability multipliers is exactly the way to go.

58 minutes ago, ffilz said:

My point is that multipliers and additive/subtractive modifiers do different things to the probability curve

Yes.  That was my point.  Don't use multipliers instead of additive/subtractive modifiers, because they do different things.

58 minutes ago, ffilz said:

Different people see probabilities differently.

I very much agree.  Unfortunately, maths is maths, and different view points indicates someone is wrong (or indeed everyone, not uncommon in statistics).

58 minutes ago, ffilz said:

a multiplier makes more sense to me than an additive modifier

A multiplier makes sense if you want to level the playing field, and affect big skills more than little skills.  However, I was just pointing out that that's a bit arbitrary.  And unless you want to weight the penalty (or indeed bonus) to affect higher skills more than lower, don't use them.

We warned, I'll stoke the fires really hot for anyone who thinks that 3D6 is anything but a very rough approximation to a normal distribution!

3 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

• Skill (or passion/rune/reputation, but this is basically the same thing) vs. static difficulty. Can involve subtraction from (or sometimes addition too) skill (due to difficulty), or division (or sometimes, multiplication) of skill due to difficulty 
• Skill vs. opposition (combat)(possibly involving both subtraction and division) - you need a success while the opponent fails
• Skill vs. opposition (dodge, non-combat and Spirit Combat) - you need a better success than the opponent (or in some cases, an equal success)
• Characteristic x5% vs. static difficulty (sometimes involving other multipliers due to difficulty)
• Characteristic vs difficulty on Resistance table

Agreed, there are a number of resolution systems.

Perhaps the real root of the issue is that you have characteristics measured on a 1-20 scale, where as your resolution system is percentile based.

I’ve always thought that slightly untidy, but not enough to care.  Especially as you can move from one to another using a x5.

(and in the main thread, I’m just arguing that you should *only* use a x5 to convert between the two.  Beyond exceptional circumstances, which I can only agree with in secrecy).

It would be tidier, I suppose, if you could use the resistance table to resolve using opposing skills.  It would only need headers with percentile (x5) values with the 1-20 values.  (I’d group the percentile values in 5s as that’s close enough).

Then you could collapse the resolution systems (or you could ditch the resistance table, and have opposed char x5 rolls).

However, I quite like the current rules for resolving opposing skills, so I would only suggest using a resistance table for cases where you don’t want a situation-hasn’t-been-resolved-yet result, (i.e. when both parties achieve the same level of success).

Ultimately, I suppose, I’m happy that we’ve a number of resolution systems.  They are all based on very similar core concepts, and just reflect do we want to resolve this in one roll, a few rolls, or (potentially) many rolls.

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I have argued on the side of realism, and call me contrarian if you will but that is not the only legitimate side

Careful.  Those we regard as traitors to the cause get an especially hot fire…

But yes, if you want the result of a roll to be more random, and less based on skill/characteristic, I can see there can be a dramatic reason for going for a multiplier modifier rather than an addition/subtraction. 

So, I *would* agree (as long as you know that you are doing it in order to level the field a bit).

However, in order to avoid the flames myself, I am *compelled* to counter argue…

Aren’t we just levelling the playing field by a sneaky rule, hoping people don’t notice that what’s we doing?  Wouldn’t it be more honest to say: your character with 100% is really annoyingly awesome, so I’m giving them a special -20% penalty, but poor old Bloggs here only has 40%, so I’m not applying the penalty to him.  And we’re doing it because no-one like a smart arse.

(However, I will admit in *secret* that I agree you’re right, as long as you don’t snitch on me)

2 hours ago, ffilz said:

I personally like the attribute multipliers, and I like the occasional skill multiplier

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree.

Consider the case you have, for easy maths a skill/Charx5 of a Master 100% and an Idiot at 10%.

Now you make it hard by applying a penalty multiplier of 3/5 (i.e. Charx3)

The Master has gone to 60% and the Idiot  has gone to 6%.

Now you roll many many times and check how your penalty has made things more difficult

For the master the application of the penalty has changed the result 40% of the time when she fails, when previously she would have succeeded.

For the Idiot the penalty has changed the result just 4% of the time, when he fails, when previously he would have succeeded.

Why should making things harder have so much effect on the Master, and so little on the Idiot ?

A (subtracted) penalty of 20%, means that, 20% of cases when you would have succeeded, you now fail.  That makes sense to me.

I cannot think of a bonus/penalty I would want that targets the better skilled/stronger, i.e. a multiplier.

3 hours ago, ffilz said:

In the end, I ask myself does the mechanic create enjoyable play.

I agree with this.  But I don't think that's enough to save you from the flames.

48 minutes ago, Runeblogger said:

Perhaps you could apply a malus like -20% to the Characteristic x 5 instead of using an inferior multiplier.

Indeed, that is identical (mathematically) to a rolling against a passive 14.

So whichever you prefer.

You're safe from the flames.

31 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

So you are saying, bad barbarian

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.