claycle

I was setting up our game in Foundry, and I came to setting vision settings on the player's tokens, and, I got a little stumped. How far can a character see in dim light conditions? How far with a flashlight? Etc. Can't seem to find this in the raw or player's book. I realize that I would normally (when face-to-face) just say whatever was appropriate for the scene, but we will be using some maps and tokens in Foundry for a few things and computers are picky about numbers. Any suggestions?

It can be very difficult to convince players, especially ones as both intelligent and mathematically inclined as I have, that accepting the risk for a -10 penalty on all actions is worth it, when a -10 penalty on all actions in RQ combat can easily be terminal. I had one say (I'm paraphrasing), "If it didn't (quite literally) take 8 hours to create a character I'm interested in playing, perhaps I'd be a little more gung-ho about unnecessary risk-taking in combat."

RAW pg48 and pg202 I believe the player was making the (not unreasonable) inference that if they use their Darkness Rune to improve their ability with clubs and maces and fail, their clubs and maces skills should be penalized. In fact, the rules are quite clear: pg202: Passions or Runes may be brought into play at any time to augment an action such as an attack or parry. If the augmenting roll succeeds and modifies a skill with inspiration (see pages 227 and 236), the modifier lasts for the rest of the fight or battle. If the adventurer fails and becomes despondent (modifying all further actions by –10%) that state continues for the rest of the fight. It seems to me that the player's interpretation is correct and supported by the rules. Use your Darkness Rune to inspire your club attacks and fail? Your club attacks for the rest of the combat are penalized. In fact, it's worse than just that. The phrase all further actions is troublesome, as all further actions could be construed to include, well, all further actions. The rules do not explicitly point back to only actions related to the inspiration attempt - but all further actions. As a native speaker of English, that statement is clear and encompassing: use a Rune to inspire yourself in combat and fail? You become despondent (an overwhelming feeling of depression that affects your entire being). You will now be taking a penalty on all further actions (spell casting, dodging, attacking, Battle skill tests, et al) in the combat. And furthermore, in addition to the global despondency penalty of -10% to all further tests (which applies to both Passions and Runes), the player will also suffer the additional penalty described on pg227 (-20% to all further rolls using that Rune), if the attempt was Runic Inspiration. Is that the intent of the rules? Maybe not. Is that how the rules are written? Definitely.

I will take a stab at what they would reply: Totally different beast. First off, not attempting a Parry is demonstrably worse (you've already been hit, after all, and you are taking damage). Whether your parry is 10 or 90, it is in your interest to at least attempt it because the upside is too good to ignore and the downside is already unavoidable. A fumble will make it even worse, but you're already in a bad spot, so it is worth the chance. Thus, you really don't end up in a worse spot than where you started from if you attempt a Parry. Even a desperate Parry against a Special or Critical is worth the risk. Passions will, mathematically, make your situation worse than from where you started from if you fail. You start with no penalty. There is no "downside" to not using the Passion, you just get a normal roll. The upside could be great, but the chance for actually making your situation worse is too high to contemplate.

To explain it as best I can after listening to a player go over the mathematics for 10 minutes, taking a "typical" Passion at 60: 1. You have a 60% chance of getting a bonus. 2. You have a 38% chance of getting a penalty. 3. You have a 2% chance of getting a devastating/crippling penalty. Conclusion: "It doesn't seem worth it."

No. We are playing RQ on roll20.net because of the pandemic. The site's original bias was towards d20 games (well, it still is), but it obviously supports other dice-based games.

I will quote a response from a player in response to your last question: We fumble a lot on roll 20, I would say. The fumbles are pretty bad. It is definitely mathematically advantageous, but it is psychologically very difficult. A fumbled passion basically takes you out of the combat. A fumbled rune kind of jacks your magic over for a while and arguably affects a class of skills and weapons if you have the rune affect all relevant skills and not just the one used for the attempt. 😅 So, yes, the threat of the disability from a fumble is quite enough to deter them from invoking their Passions, even if it is all perception and not factually accurate (ie, they fumble a lot).

In the Smoking Ruin, it is possible for the players to gain Loyalty with some notable characters. These awards are on page 109 of the scenario book. As these are probably new Passions, and according to RAW (pg 237): The starting value must be agreed upon by both player and gamemaster, but a new Passion should generally start at least at 60%. And in the Smoking Ruin (pg 109), the first Loyalty award listed is +30% Loyalty (Personage). Mull that over for a bit while I explain how we see Passions at the table. In our understanding, new Passions start at 60, because otherwise, an unlisted Passion is just a coin toss (50/50). If I don't have Loyalty (Queen Leika), then the implied Loyalty is not ZERO but 50 - I have a 50/50 chance of working for or against Leika's interests. Passions below 50, therefore, represent sort of an anti-Passion, or negative animus. If I have Loyalty (Queen Leika) 40, I have less Loyalty than the average Joe Colymar towards her. I am, in effect, Disloyal, as I am more likely to working against my Loyalty than towards it. Which brings me back to the +30% Loyalty (Personage) award in The Smoking Ruin (pg 109). Taking the RAW at their face value (that notable Passions something begin at 60 because otherwise it's a coin-toss), this means the effect becomes Loyalty (Personage) 90 (or 80 if you want to base from 50). That's a whopping amount of Loyalty to generate suddenly, is it not? On the other hand, if we base the Loyalty from 0, the award becomes Loyalty (Personage) 30, which implies a distinct disinclination to be Loyal to this person, as you are less likely to act in a Loyal manner than a person who neither especially for or against said Personage (50/50 coin toss). Or is it another thing altogether? Are Passions a two-way street? Is it that, yes, Loyalty (Personage) 90 (or 80) is the right answer because this represents not only the character's outgoing Loyalty, but the reciprocal Loyalty of the Personage (who, if the players received this reward, would indeed be greatly indebted to the characters)?

I find I try to gently remind the Arroyan player that their Harmony and Life runes (and Loyalty) should profoundly affect their attitudes and choices. And I watch the player struggle mightily with these, to the point of detachment. The player tells themself that their Arroyan is a pacifist (which is probably true), but this translates in game into passivity rather than pacifism. I try to remind them that these strongly held beliefs would probably force the character towards actions the player would probably prefer not to take, like actively interposing themselves into a dangerous melee to preserve life and oppose violence - these are not passive choices.

Allow me to blow your mind then. The player I quoted is playing an Arroyan with the following Runes/Passions: Fertility 95, Harmony 95, Loyalty (Colymar) 85, Hate (Lunar Empire) 85 And the player declines to make tests against these for augments because of the possible penalties. Other players at the table have similar Rune or Passion scores in at least one or two abilities. None of them are eager to test them.

In our downtime "how we can make our game better" discussion, I mentioned that I felt like I'd done a poor job (as GM) encouraging the players to leverage their Passions and Runes to augment their skill rolls (or even replace them in some circumstances). I was surprised when the players responded along the lines of "Oh, no, it's not you. We don't want to use our Runes or Passions to augment because the penalties for failure are too dire." Here is a direct quote from our Discord: "To me the risk/reward for using a passion seemed "a poor investment". The potential bonus is nice, but the potential downside is way worse." Has anyone else experienced this: players so aware of the meta they won't risk using their Runes or Passions even if it could help them?

It's not that we're hung up, we're just trying to understand the intention of the rules as groundwork. The SR RAW - and people's wildly varying interpretations of them - are confounding us. Taking this a step further regarding no perceivable gap: If we determine Allen's action is on SR 5 and Barbara's action is on SR 6 (and Allen and Barbara are trying to kill each other with axes): if Allen decapitates Barbara on SR 5 and there is no perceivable gap between SR 5 and 6, does Barbara still get an attack roll?

(Preamble: I was looking for the thread of SR discussion and replies from Scotty from about a week ago, but I can't seem to find it, even looking at Scotty and mine's profiles to see if the posts appeared. I had one more question that I tried to post, but I wasn't logged in at the time and I am not sure what happened to it. So...one more question...) The discussion began with the notion that (my) players "always" declare an action pattern like "I draw my sword and cast Bladesharp on it, then I charge across the field, and then I swing my axe at his head!" in the first round of "every" combat and we, as a group, always struggle to simulate these declarations with the RQ SR RAW (and let's please forego the "do your own thing at your own table" handwaving, please, as we all want to understand the intent of the rules right now, because none of us can agree on them). My last question was a sort of "have we totally misunderstood this all along"? Because after I shared Scotty's responses with the group, all 6 of us were confused. Namely, suppose (and these numbers are just imaginary), a player with a bow has the ability to fire the bow twice in a round (S/MR), and we'll say on we calculate that the first possible SR could be 6. The question arose in our gestalt, "Are Strike Ranks just determining when it's your turn to act?" (based on something very specific Scotty said in his reply). Thus, with the above archer, his first possible shot could be on SR 6, but if he wants to take two shots, his last possible shot is on SR 11. Thus, his turn for that round occurs on SR 11, and all his actions (both bow attack rolls) occur on SR 11, because SR is simply a method for determining order of action.

Sadness... You forgot to mention that you also bore Kallyr's body from the Twins back to Boldhome as part of her honor guard. Or that the previously mentioned Barbeestor Gorian led an insane charge against the Silver Shields and broke Pharandros' line. Or that the Lunar sorcerers threw the Creek out of its course and drowned the Orlmarthing chariots. Or that her insane maneuver and costly maneuver nonetheless left an opening in the Lunar line that allowed Leika's Colymar chariots to charge through and rout Pharandros and saved the life of another queen who was being decimated on the flanks.... Or that you successfully stole an Ernaldan artifact out from under the nose of a terrible Darkness monster and brought it back to Clearwine, which pleased everyone very much. Or that the Yelmalion went on a diplomatic mission to Vaantar for Queen Leika and learned of the Sun Dome Count's perfidy... So much more happened in 1626 than just your friendly Sun Templar fertilizing apple trees and cabbage patches... So soon they forget...

Thank you.