Stephen L

4 minutes ago, ffilz said:

On the one hand, STRx1 or STRx5, the STR 18 character always has 6 times the chance of success as the STR 3 character, well actually at x1 the STR 3 character gets an advantage due to the 5% minimum chance of success. This seems fine and logical to me.

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

10 minutes ago, ffilz said:

adjusting difficulty by multiplying the chance of success by some constant modifier

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%) and a skilled practitioner (50%) to a novice (25%), and is just too difficult for a novice.  It feels that something similar should happen when rolling against a characteristic.

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 lift.

Our Hero lifts now 1 time in 2, our Geek 1 time in 10, so the Geek will succeed at the same time as the Hero fails 1 time in 20.

You see what is happening, as we go to lower multiples of the Characteristic, the higher characteristic gets less and less of an advantage (because it’s multiplied by less).  A STR 18 goes from 90% to 54% for x5 to x3, whilst the STR 3 goes from 15% to 9% (which isn’t that big a change).

It only *ever* makes sense to multiply characteristics by 5, as we are converting them from a (nominal) scale of 1-20 to a percentile scale 1-100.

If it is easier or more difficult, it should be % added or subtracted from the x5 score.

Or, if you like the resistance table (which I do), then you could compare your characteristic against a value given by the relative difficulty of the task.  A passive value of 10 on the resistance table gives exactly the same probabilities as the Characteristic x 5 %, so I’d suggest passive values of 5, 10, 15, 20 for difficulty levels of easy, average, hard, heroic.

Returning to our lifting competition, lifting the heavy weights, using a passive value of 15, our Hero Lifts 2 times in 3, and our Geek, well, they’re too heavy for him.

Be warned.  In the middle ages they burned people for crimes less offensive than this!

(It is possible that @PhilHibbs holds less extreme and more reasonable views than this)

59 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yes, I know, I'm suggesting using the same mechanic as a replacement for POW×5, INT×5, etc. I appreciate that it is off topic for this thread though.

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 lift a heavy weight means the 18 STR hero lifts 50/50, whilst the STR 3 weed lifts 1 in 10.  1 in 20 times the weed lifts and the hero fails! 

You've converted me.

5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

a resistance roll against a difficulty

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 table better) 

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

I'm not too keen on this because it breaks down for higher stat ranges

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 probability based on failing a resistance roll against the average characteristic, is so analogous to how skill increases work for experience that I find it compelling.

12 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

I like this a lot because it basically looks like the Resistance Table formula, no? So you just try to beat the average stat on the Resistance Table to improve?

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.

6 hours ago, Stephen L said:

(Max rollable + Min Rollable - current)x5

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  Species Average

• Species Average = (Max rollable + Min Rollable) / 2 (rounding up where necessary).

Then the chance of increase (for Pow gain rolls and research):

• % = 50 + ( species average - current ) x 5

This leaves things unchanged for 3D6

for 2D6 + 6, the chances are 10% better than 3D6, which feels right.  2D6+6 is a better distribution, so you'd expect slightly better chances of going up.

And it works for the rather splendid Hadrosaur the duck is riding.  As well as all those exotic creatures like Trolls, Elves, Dwarves. Dragonnewts...

The edge case if if you roll lots of D6, when I'd handle by always increasing on a roll of 01-05.

Also the calculation is especially easy, as the average of a characteristic is given in the bestiary.

10 hours ago, jajagappa said:

For me, no.  I've been successfully running RQG games for 3+ years now starting with the QuickStart

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:

7 hours ago, SachaGoat said:

I'm a newbie but already a big fan of RQG. But I bounced off the game originally on launch because I struggled with the rules

10 hours ago, jajagappa said:

starting with the QuickStart

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. 

Are they issues with that?  I only recall falling in the completely-wowed category. 

On 1/16/2021 at 6:23 AM, French Desperate WindChild said:

I m not saying my personal view (I prefer the Max-current), just I imagine a game design reason for that

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:

On 1/15/2021 at 12:09 PM, Stephen L said:

If I’ve species min value, on 2d6+6, that’s 8.  If I’m using use the species max of 21 to calculate the chance of improving, then I’ve only got a 65% chance of improving, where-as it should be more or less 100% (which I get if I use RAW).

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 hours ago, lordabdul said:

One possible interpretation is that the 5d6+30 has less variance (35~60), while the 10d6 has more variance (3~60)

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.

On 1/15/2021 at 11:50 AM, Akhôrahil said:

and these just happen to be have the same outcome for the overwhelmingly most used species

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...

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

If I wanted to create my own game, I would do that. I buy games in order to get a working rules-set, not a Choose Your Own Rules game.

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.

9 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

It doesn't seem as slickly explained as Pendragon or RQiii

29 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

RuneQuest has always had gaps and ambiguity and contradictions.

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.

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

I could not in good conscience recommend RQG to anyone new to roleplaying

That would be a shame, because why would you want to play anything else!

9 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Taking the Species Maximum discussion as an example, I've been imagining what would have happened back in 1984, before forums like this.

Actually, what I'd have done is assumed a mistake, whilst missing the fact that it was actually what I now regard as an improvement. 

So the forum has been helpful.

11 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Nowadays, we rant in forums over it

Hopefully quite politely!  I wouldn't like to have come across as rude!

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

I think it's pretty bad (but then I also have membership in that band)

Is it pretty bad? Or is it a little bad round the edges?

I find it hard to judge.  I'd have said a little bad round the edges.  But then I'm an old hand, so I'm probably have a head start in understanding (or should I have said prejudice?)

Also I haven't played anything else for a while, so I've little to compare it to.

It doesn't seem as slickly explained as Pendragon or RQiii, but that could be nostalgia speaking.  (and I can't go back to reread to check, as I'd be doing so from a position of already understanding).

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

I want a second edition with better rules editing. I don't think anyone would say that RQG is a polished product rules-wise.

44 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Considering the number of correction and clarification, this would be a third. I would buy it.

Raised a new topic to cover rules clarity, as I think this thread has done it's job and got official clarification!

I am a great fan of RQ.  Always have been.  A beautiful, elegant and inspired system. 

Yet again, on a different thread, I’ve not liked a rule initially, only to come to a deeper appreciation of Rules as Written. (In this case Pow gain roles).

The only problem I have, is that RQinG needs a lot of reading and internalising, so you understand the rule (not just know it superficially).  Then you’re able to use the intent behind the rule to easily make sensible decisions in a wide range of contexts.

The rules, for me, don’t have the *clarity* of RQiii.  Of course, RQiii was a long time ago, and I’m probably viewing it with rose-tinted glasses.  Maybe it never had the clarity I claim.

(and as an aside, whilst I liked RQiii, and had great fun with it, I never loved it like RQii or RQinG.  The fixes RQiii made were fine, they were needed, worked, but were quite heavy handed, and added another level of complexity which I didn’t think was required).

So…

• Is rule clarity in RQinG actually an issue, or am I just amongst a small band of whingers? 
• Is that clarity achievable?  Is that a rules rewrite, an official errata, or the web based services we’ve now got?
• Is that clarity practical?  E.g., we could have a rules rewrite, but at the expense of a pipeline of supplements.
• Is it even desirable, is *requiring* re-reading and internalisation a good thing?

Also, this very much isn’t a gripe about Chaosium’s approach, or the quality.  I am delighted that we have the game we got.  I am delighted that we got it when we did.  If the price of clarity is the loooooong wait we had for RQiii, then releasing RQinG when it was published is *much* more important than endless polishing and losing momentum (for this whinger at least).

On 1/13/2021 at 5:30 PM, kirinyaga said:

I believe the new system is the one from p417 : max+1/die+1/6 bonus (meaning each +1 to +6 count as one die)

So, 2D6+10 would be 22+2+2=26, and 2D6+6 is 18+2+1=21.

If you only use d6 in characteristic generation, then this calculation actually is identical to:

max Char roll + (max Char roll)/6

Which I think is a *much* simpler way of putting it.

I think I am achieving some clarity on this.

I *think* the RAW are effectively:

Characteristic improvement probability (Pow or any other characteristic) is *now* not related to Species max:

• Species max = max Char roll + (max Char roll)/6
• Characteristic Improvement roll % = [(Max Char roll + min Char roll) – Char] * 5

Actually, I can see some benefits to this. 

The reason I didn't like it was I was focusing on comparing 3d6 with 2d6+6 at the upper characteristic range, when it feels like 3d6 and 2d6+6 should both approach the same chance of improvement.

But actually, low down, that’s not true.

If I’ve species min value, on 2d6+6, that’s 8.  If I’m using use the species max of 21 to calculate the chance of improving, then I’ve only got a 65% chance of improving, where-as it should be more or less 100% (which I get if I use RAW).

So, RAW actually looks to me an improvement to RQii/iii.

1 minute ago, kirinyaga said:

official position was gain roll are calculated by (max-current)*5% and max was max+1/die+1/6

Many thanks for the clarification, and apologies to all for bringing something up that's done and dusted.

However, I did check the rules clarifications thread first, and couldn't see anything there. 

Of course that doesn't rule out a fail on my search-RuneQuest-Lore-web-site roll, since my skill levels are rather limited.

On 1/13/2021 at 5:30 PM, kirinyaga said:

I believe the new system is the one from p417 : max+1/die+1/6 bonus (meaning each +1 to +6 count as one die)

So, 2D6+10 would be 22+2+2=26, and 2D6+6 is 18+2+1=21.

Chances to increase is (max-current) * 5% (15% for a 18POW baboon).

This is what I remember the RQiii to be (but my memory is never to be trusted).

I'm perfectly happy with how things worked for RQiii, so this is how my RunQuest is working (until someone comes up with any compelling reason otherwise)

On 1/13/2021 at 9:41 PM, Akhôrahil said:

RAW, you need to keep racial maximum separate from characteristic gain calculation

As an (erstwhile) physicist, I'm more than happy things asymptotically approaching a limit, so I don't see the need to keep racial maximum separate from characteristic gain calculations

The thread on Baboons as adventurers has reminded me of something I’m not so keen on. 

P 417 of the rules suggests a species maximum is pretty much unchanged from RQii/iii (the max rolled + numbers of dice rolled) (with minor variations to excite rules lawyers) 

But P 418 for making a Pow Gain roll, there is a different calculation: Max rolled + Min rolled, which I don’t like.  That means a baboon with 2D6+6 Pow has a “Pow species max” of 26, so a 40% chance of increase at Pow 18.  Baboon shamans rock!

How are people playing this?

7 hours ago, Tindalos said:

It's on the map of the Colymar and surrounding tribes

To confirm, for those still looking, Thorn Top is immediately below Hound Knob on the Colymar Tribes map (from GM screen pack), and occluded by garn for Anmangarn, on the Colymar Clans map.

In my game this are the same thorn plants that Tarndisi might gift seeds for, to the Thane of Apple Lane, as they are seeking to fortify Apple Lane.  (I’m seeing a MiddleEarth Bree bank and thorn fortification).  In return for a favour...

22 hours ago, David Scott said:

RQ colouring book

Indeed, the colouring books are an excellent place to start, especially if the age profile of your starting players was 7, 9, 11, and 2 who are old-enough-it-is-is-considered-impolite-to-speculate.

It will amuse me when they start to learn about the Heroic and Classical ages at school, they’ll be thinking, Oh, that’s a bit like the Lunars and the Orlanthi.

On 1/9/2021 at 8:09 PM, soltakss said:

At one point, someone converted miles to kilometers but did not do it for everything, resulting in distance inflation.

I've a vague recollection of some such issue.

However, I’m not sure whether it’s been noted in the Pegasus Plateau corrections thread, but the scale for the Locaem map on p29 seems to be out to me.  I’d believe it if it were miles not km, and the top tick should be 16, not 20. 

4 minutes ago, Oracle said:

I have 30+ hours of game play videos in front of me ...

Enjoy.  The ones I've seen.

And if you post dates and themes for each episode as you watch, that will turn this into a useful resource for all!

Thanks.