Jump to content
Martigan

Question about the rules

Recommended Posts

1 : It is said in the SRD that  ''...the number in front of the M is now the target number you seek to roll or less to achieve a critical!. Where in HeroQuest 2nd we can see that ?

2 : I have character with W15 and that character fight a monster with 14 for resistance. The character roll 14 and the monster roll 10. Critical versus succes ?  The character can use a bump but it is not necessary because the result is already a critical. The bumps will be used when the player roll 17, for example, to have not only a succes but a critical ? 

3 : I always think that W15 mean that a result under 15 mean a succes ( not a critical ) and a result more than 15 mean a failure, and the failure bump to marginal succes with the masterie. Is that a bad understanding ?

Tank you ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If you have 15 Mastery your target is 15. If you succeed you have a success. If you have a Mastery more than the restistance you bump that success to a critical. So the rule from HQ to QW stayed the same, only in QW the shortcut was explained at that point.

2. If both sides succeed but you have a Mastery you can still bump up the result.

3. Yes. It is a succes plus a bump. Also note that you can use masteries to bump down your opponent in case you already have a critical (that is not possible with hero points).

That is my understanding, although I don't have the rules at hand at the moment. I think there are no differences between HQ and QW in the topics above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Martigan said:

1 : It is said in the SRD that  ''...the number in front of the M is now the target number you seek to roll or less to achieve a critical!. Where in HeroQuest 2nd we can see that ?

2.1.1 Ratings and Masteries

Quote

The "M" after the rating signifies mastery. You have now reached a new order of excellence in that ability, such that your die rolls will almost always succeed. Unless opposed by similarly exalted resistance (see §2.3.5.2 for more details) the number in front of the M is now the target number you seek to roll or less to achieve a critical!

if you roll the number or less, you achieve a success, this is then always bumped by the mastery to a critical. 

Another way of saying this is

the number in front of the M is now the target number you seek to roll or less to achieve a success. The mastery then bumps it to a critical!

I've sent this to @Ian Cooper as its a good clarification.

9 hours ago, Martigan said:

2 : I have character with W15 and that character fight a monster with 14 for resistance. The character roll 14 and the monster roll 10. Critical versus succes ? 

The character succeeds on 14, this critical is bumped to a success by the mastery. The monster succeeds, so critical vs success.

Quote

The character can use a bump but it is not necessary because the result is already a critical.

No, the bump is always applied as above.

Quote

The bumps will be used when the player roll 17, for example, to have not only a succes but a critical ? 

If the player rolls a 17, a fail bumped to a success.

SRDs by their nature have few if any examples.

Have a look at HeroQuest Glorantha page 76. I deliberately wrote the examples in a verbose manner so it would be clear:

Quote

Claudia says, “So your spell of 13W is against base difficulty 14.”

Christine rolls a 7, and Claudia rolls a 15, a success bumped to a critical versus a failure.

and

Quote

Claudia replies, “Call me Firewitch, I am the Fire in the Darkness.” Claudia then says, “Let’s have another round.”

Kris rolls 11, and Claudia rolls 12, a failure bumped to a success verses a success.

When the Questworlds book comes out I hope to have done the examples in a similar manner.

9 hours ago, Martigan said:

3 : I always think that W15 mean that a result under 15 mean a succes ( not a critical ) and a result more than 15 mean a failure, and the failure bump to marginal succes with the masterie. Is that a bad understanding ?

Straightening out the wording of your examples (eg 15M not W15) (I realise English isn't your first language, I hope this helps)

9 hours ago, Martigan said:

I always think that W15 mean that a result under 15 mean a succes ( not a critical ) and a result more than 15 mean a failure, and the failure bump to marginal succes with the masterie. Is that a bad understanding ?

so

I always think that 15M means that a result of 15 or under means a success (not a critical)

Yes

and a result more than 15 mean a failure

yes

and the failure bumps to marginal success with the mastery.

you don't know the degree of until you compare results, apart from that yes.

Edited by David Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This confused me for a bit. I take it that it’s supposed to be the other way around;

The character succeeds on 14, this critical is bumped to a success by the mastery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Aprewett said:

This confused me for a bit. I take it that it’s supposed to be the other way around;

The character succeeds on 14, this critical is bumped to a success by the mastery.

I believe it was meant the other way around: rolled success - bumped up to critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this differently.

I think it means that if I have 10M, I now treat any roll of 10 or less as a critical, no bump required. All my rolls are successes (other than rolls of 20), and I can use Mastery to bump those to critical unless my Mastery is canceled by my opponent's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

I read this differently.

I think it means that if I have 10M, I now treat any roll of 10 or less as a critical, no bump required. All my rolls are successes (other than rolls of 20), and I can use Mastery to bump those to critical unless my Mastery is canceled by my opponent's.

I can't imagine that - that would play havoc with the system, wouldn't it? It would mean that if I roll 10 or less, I have a critical AND could use my mastery to bump the other side down. I read the passage as saying that effectively, 10M means that I need to roll a 10 or less for a crit (and an 11-19 for a success), because I'll always get the bump up (except when the opposition also has a mastery - that is why it says "Unless opposed by similarly exalted resistance"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jakob said:

It would mean that if I roll 10 or less, I have a critical AND could use my mastery to bump the other side down. I read the passage as saying that effectively, 10M means that I need to roll a 10 or less for a crit (and an 11-19 for a success), because I'll always get the bump up (except when the opposition also has a mastery - that is why it says "Unless opposed by similarly exalted resistance"

You may well be right - but I read the "unless opposed by similarly exalted resistance" to mean that their mastery level cancels my bumps.

If I were fighting someone with no mastery, I would critical on a 10 or less AND be able to bump down my opponent's success.

If I were fighting someone with equal mastery, I'd still critical on a 10 or less, but I wouldn't be able to bump up an ordinary success or bump their success down.

If I were fighting someone with W2, I'd still crit on a 10 or less, but they could bump my success down a level because their mastery is higher than mine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

You may well be right - but I read the "unless opposed by similarly exalted resistance" to mean that their mastery level cancels my bumps.

If I were fighting someone with no mastery, I would critical on a 10 or less AND be able to bump down my opponent's success.

If I were fighting someone with equal mastery, I'd still critical on a 10 or less, but I wouldn't be able to bump up an ordinary success or bump their success down.

If I were fighting someone with W2, I'd still crit on a 10 or less, but they could bump my success down a level because their mastery is higher than mine.

 

Wouldn't that mean that the first mastery is effectively worth two bumps (by turning your succes range into your crit range AND giving you a bump)? I guess the passage might be read like that, but it would seem strange that this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the rules. I must confess that I'm confused now ... I always considered it part of the elegance of the system that rolling 10M against 16M works exactly like rolling 10 against 16.

Edited by Jakob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jakob said:

I always considered it part of the elegance of the system that rolling 10M against 16M works exactly like rolling 10 against 16.

It may be me that's confused. It wouldn't be the first time! ;) The question has been raised to higher powers. We'll see what they say.  

Edited by Shawn Carpenter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

I think it means that if I have 10M, I now treat any roll of 10 or less as a critical, no bump required. All my rolls are successes (other than rolls of 20), and I can use Mastery to bump those to critical unless my Mastery is canceled by my opponent's.

Masteries imply bumps.  If both have masteries, the masteries cancel.  In 10M vs. 16M, masteries cancel out and it proceeds exactly like 10 vs. 16. 

If you have 10M, and there is no mastery on the other side:

  • a roll of 1 is a critical, you cannot bump yourself further, so you bump down the opposition
  • a roll of 2 thru 10, it is a Success, that is bumped to a critical.
  • a roll of 11 thru 19, is a Failure, that is bumped to a success.
  • a roll of 20 is a Fumble that is bumped to a failure.
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

I definitely have it wrong. Section 2.3.5.4 Bump Up with Mastery outlines the process in the SRD. Sheesh. 

Thanks for looking it up!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bother and I used to write wargaming rules, and our major design philosophy was examples for everything, even the most basic rule, so it’s totally clear. So many games that I have read that just fail to do this. For example, Nights Black Agents Solo ops, has a fairly basic rule system, with few examples. I queried a rule recently, and it turned out I had it wrong, with another person also having a incorrect but different take, all for the sake of one sentence example that should have been included.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Aprewett said:

My bother and I used to write wargaming rules, and our major design philosophy was examples for everything, even the most basic rule

Sounds like we have the same background and brought the same lessons from it. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK, the core rulebook will include examples for everything. The SRD is just a reference doc and baseline for hacking the system, not the core rules.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Richard S. said:

AFAIK, the core rulebook will include examples for everything. The SRD is just a reference doc and baseline for hacking the system, not the core rules.

That's very true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But sort of asks the question, if it’s not clear then published work could have system faults if designers are interpreting the rules in different ways. It should be crystal clear from the get go, for my 2d. Or we travel down a rabbit hole of inconsistencies- potentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2020 at 1:17 AM, Aprewett said:

But sort of asks the question, if it’s not clear then published work could have system faults if designers are interpreting the rules in different ways. It should be crystal clear from the get go, for my 2d. Or we travel down a rabbit hole of inconsistencies- potentially.

I would hope that any published work based on the SRD would be checked over (e.g. by Ian or similar QW experts) and any such inconsistencies flagged up and corrected at draft stage.

As has been said, the SRD is an SRD. It's not supposed to be a rulebook with examples, GM advice and so forth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...