Species max for Pow Gain roll

[Akhôrahil]

38 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

You're right, this is a crazy clarification.

How could anyone think that it's a good idea to have one system for Species Maximum, and a different system for Characteristics Experience checks, and these just happen to be have the same outcome for the overwhelmingly most used species (oh, and an ability that is specifically designed to improve POW gain doesn't in fact work becuase of this)? What possible purpose could this complication serve!? What kind of game design principle would approve of this?

Edited January 15, 2021 by Akhôrahil

[Stephen L]

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.

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Stephen L
clarified

[PhilHibbs]

22 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

How could anyone think that it's a good idea to have one system for Species Maximum, and a different system for Characteristics Experience checks, and these just happen to be have the same outcome for the overwhelmingly most used species (oh, and an ability that is specifically designed to improve POW gain doesn't in fact work becuase of this)? What possible purpose could this complication serve!? What kind of game design principle would approve of this?

I don't think anybody does think it's a good idea. It's just happened, that's all. It's a mistake that the right people don't have the time to look at due to other priorities.

[Akhôrahil]

22 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

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

max Char roll + (max Char roll)/6

This is both easy and makes sense - the idea is supposedly that each species has a maximum potential, one that is calculated by exceeding the maximum rollable by a small amount (1/6th, in this case). 

Honestly, you could probably just apply it outright even for species that roll something besides D6s, if you think of it as how potential maximum relates to maximum rollable. It's not clear why dice involved should affect anything...

Edited January 15, 2021 by Akhôrahil

[PhilHibbs]

I think most gamers will read the rules and realise that the Species Maximum box is correct, especially if they are familiar with RuneQuest already.

I know it's not ideal, as there are plenty of people out there who don't read the forum and aren't as comfortable with figuring this stuff out themselves. I have been in gaming groups where people will argue viciously over the rules, so I appreciate that having clear and correct printed rules is important.

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

I know it's not ideal, as there are plenty of people out there who don't read the forum and aren't as comfortable with figuring this stuff out themselves. I have been in gaming groups where people will argue viciously over the rules, so I appreciate that having clear and correct printed rules is important.

Completely agree here. This is also why I am requesting an official errata. A Q/A thread is of course good, and I am not denying the Well's usefulness, but the sheer value of a clear rule or an official correction or clarification in an offline document is invaluable.

[French Desperate WindChild]

4 hours ago, kirinyaga said:

Yep, it's pretty clear to me there is a blatant inconsistency in the rules here. And I remember we already discuss this at length and the official position was gain roll are calculated by (max-current)*5% and max was max+1/die+1/6.

that is not the last official answer

3 hours ago, Scotty said:

Please note there are two things going on here:

• Generating the roll for characteristic increase. It does not mention species maximum, page 318.
• Species maximum, page 52.

Characteristic increase roll:

A minotaur with STR (3D6+12) of 22 (Air affinity bonus not included). It would be (Maximum = 30+ minimum = 15 = 45)-22 = 23 x 5 = 115, so roll 95% or less.

Species maximum, page 52:

A minotaur with STR (3D6+12), maximum (18+12) = 30, plus number of dice (3 + bonus) = 4. Minotaur maximum STR = 34.

so the two things are cleary different. You can have a positive % increase roll, but no option to increase your characteristic because it is already the max

3 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Ruling is out, Expand Soul doesn’t help with POW gain rolls. 

I think all of this is nonsense and I will keep using Species Maximum for POW gain instead of this weird oddball rule.

I think it's not help for the roll, but when you % (calculation) is 0, you can roll against 5%. Until you reach your "new" species max . That seems to me the "mirror" effect of you have a positive % but you can't gain more point because species max.

Cleary Expand Soul is not very powerfull in this way (I agree I would prefer another rule, and I probably keep the max-min house rule) but the official rule is not "broken" just not "very nice"

[kirinyaga]

Yes, I was waiting as rick didn't seem to agree with scotty on this one but it looks like it's now official, gain roll doesn't use species max.

The whole thing is a mess, really. Well it already was. Oh, well ...

[Akhôrahil]

43 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Completely agree here. This is also why I am requesting an official errata. A Q/A thread is of course good, and I am not denying the Well's usefulness, but the sheer value of a clear rule or an official correction or clarification in an offline document is invaluable.

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

But yes, definitely an errata collection - the QA contains everything from "actually change this rule to the exact opposite" to "if you want to change things about the world, you can!" It's not particularly navigable or information-dense. 

Or - wild idea! - make sure that the Starter Box is properly edited and then build on that. The whole point of publishing a starter box is that it should be accessible without decades of RQ knowledge that you need in order to interpolate what a rule is supposed to mean.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Akhôrahil

[Kloster]

17 minutes 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.

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

18 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

But yes, definitely an errata collection - the QA contains everything from "actually change this rule to the exact opposite" to "if you want to change things about the world, you can!" It's not particularly navigable or information-dense. 

Or - wild idea! - make sure that the Starter Box is properly edited and then build on that. The whole point of publishing a starter box is that it should be accessible without decades of RQ knowledge that you need in order to interpolate what a rule is supposed to mean.

Agreed.

[Stephen L]

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!

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Or - wild idea! - make sure that the Starter Box is properly edited and then build on that. The whole point of publishing a starter box is that it should be accessible without decades of RQ knowledge that you need in order to interpolate what a rule is supposed to mean.

I would expect that the starter box would not have any rules on improving by experience, but I appreciate the general point.

[Akhôrahil]

2 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I would expect that the starter box would not have any rules on improving by experience, but I appreciate the general point.

We're more in "general quality improvements" here, but also... maybe? It takes very little space to do the experience rules (you can ignore Practice and Training), and they kinda matter.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Akhôrahil

[Rodney Dangerduck]

Please wait to clarify until after I create my awakened Alynx shaman with max POW of 38.  🙂

[DreadDomain]

12 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

that is not the last official answer

16 hours ago, Scotty said:

Please note there are two things going on here:

• Generating the roll for characteristic increase. It does not mention species maximum, page 318.
• Species maximum, page 52.

Characteristic increase roll:

A minotaur with STR (3D6+12) of 22 (Air affinity bonus not included). It would be (Maximum = 30+ minimum = 15 = 45)-22 = 23 x 5 = 115, so roll 95% or less.

Species maximum, page 52:

A minotaur with STR (3D6+12), maximum (18+12) = 30, plus number of dice (3 + bonus) = 4. Minotaur maximum STR = 34.

so the two things are cleary different. You can have a positive % increase roll, but no option to increase your characteristic because it is already the max

So Minotaur STR 33 is rolling to increase his strength to its species maximum of 34. He has ((45-33)x5%) 60% chance of success... Of course the example is silly but man, why introduce an extra rule that doesn't make any sense instead of basing it on the existing rule (racial maximum) which does make sense?

[French Desperate WindChild]

2 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

So Minotaur STR 33 is rolling to increase his strength to its species maximum of 34. He has ((45-33)x5%) 60% chance of success... Of course the example is silly but man, why introduce an extra rule that doesn't make any sense instead of basing it on the existing rule (racial maximum) which does make sense?

I don't know,

But an hypothetical explanation :

Minotaur (or others with big addition, not only D6) should faster thant human (or others D6 only people) reach their max. In other words there are more minotaurs with max strength in % of minotaur population than humans with max strengh in % of human population

 

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

 

[Akhôrahil]

3 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Minotaur (or others with big addition, not only D6) should faster thant human (or others D6 only people) reach their max. In other words there are more minotaurs with max strength in % of minotaur population than humans with max strengh in % of human population

This is kinda the case even with just standard Species Maximum. 2D6+6 and 3D6 has the same Species Maximum, but 2D6+6 means you (on average) start closer to it, having rolled higher.

[Lordabdul]

On 1/13/2021 at 2:04 PM, Akhôrahil said:

It's also silly that a creature with a stat of 10d6 has a racial maximum of 70, while one with 5d6+30 - better by any standards - has a racial maximum of 66.

One possible interpretation is that the 5d6+30 has less variance (35~60), while the 10d6 has more variance (3~60). With more variance come more opportunities for outliers, which means the possibility of the odd individual with up to 70 in that stat.

Edited January 16, 2021 by lordabdul

[Stephen L]

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...

[Stephen L]

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.

[Stephen L]

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.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Stephen L
actually finish the post before submitting

[Stephen L]

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.

 

[Lordabdul]

3 hours ago, Stephen L said:

A Hadrosaur has POW of 24+2D6 so (Max rollable + Min Rollable - current)x5 *never* drops below 100%.

Haha that's awesome

Frankly I don't know if it's necessarily a bug. It could be one of those animals who just keep growing and growing until they're killed. Several animals like crocodiles were thought to be like this IIRC.

Quote

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

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

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?

(IMHO RQG needs to remove a lot of "custom" mechanics and do a lot more "reusing" of mechanics from one place to the next... so I tentatively approve this)

Edited January 17, 2021 by lordabdul

[French Desperate WindChild]

5 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

IMHO RQG needs to remove a lot of "custom" mechanics and do a lot more "reusing" of mechanics from one place to the next...

** applause **

[Stephen L]

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.