My Players Confessed: They Don't Use Passions or Runes Because the Penalties Scare Them

[Darius West]

3 minutes ago, claycle said:

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).

So you are using a d20 rather than d100 to play RQG?  There's you problem I'd say.  Remind them that if they have a 60-70% chance that they only have a 2% chance to fumble, and that will go down as the ability increases.  They will not be fumbling anything close to 5% of the time.

[Lordabdul]

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

As for the Hate passion, note that it, for some strange reason, only applies to a single opponent of that type, not all of them.  Not sure if it has come up in our games but I'd ignore that restriction.

Oh good find, I hadn't noticed that.

[claycle]

1 minute ago, Darius West said:

So you are using a d20 rather than d100 to play RQG?  There's you problem I'd say.  Remind them that if they have a 60-70% chance that they only have a 2% chance to fumble, and that will go down as the ability increases.  They will not be fumbling anything close to 5% of the time.

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.

[French Desperate WindChild]

there is something to do to "teach" your players.

Use passion with your npc opponents, show them how many times they gain +20, and how many times they fumble.

[Darius West]

1 minute ago, claycle said:

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.

Thanks for the clarification, but the issue that a fumble will not destroy them stands.  Every 20% of skill they have will decrease their fumble chance by 1%, from 5% down to ultimately only a roll of 00.

[claycle]

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."

[Joerg]

Does said player roll for parries? A 60% chance to Parry leaves him with a 2% chance of suffering a severe combat disadvantage, after all...

[claycle]

42 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Does said player roll for parries? A 60% chance to Parry leaves him with a 2% chance of suffering a severe combat disadvantage, after all...

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.

Edited March 23, 2021 by claycle

[Lordabdul]

1 hour ago, claycle said:

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:

[...]

Conclusion: "It doesn't seem worth it."

Do they have any Passions higher than 60?   (unless they were unlucky during Family History, they should have at least one or two at 70, no?).  Did you let them improve their Passions after completing the first couple adventures? (especially if they did something for the clan/tribe, such as defending Apple Lane as per the GM Adventures booklet)

What about Runes which, as per RAW, don't give a penalty (except to the Rune itself)? Or are they also afraid of getting into Runic Turmoil with a fumble?

I agree with @French Desperate WindChild -- feel free to roleplay and rollplay NPCs using augments, and advertise the results as you do that. Don't forget to also do that during non-combat scenes. I think that once you've established that the players understand the rules (especially how Rune penalties don't affect their normal rolls, or how Passion penalties are only -10%), and once you've offered ways to improve Passions, there's just no way to force them into it, so you might just have fun by yourself with the NPCs. Sometimes it just happens: players don't "connect" with a particular mechanic and parts of the system fall down. I had this problem with Numenera and the Cypher System, for instance.

Edited March 23, 2021 by lordabdul

[Austin]

8 hours ago, Brootse said:

Yeah, I hadn't realized before this thread that the rule wasn't the "one-roll only, modifier on the scale of +50/+30/+20/-20/-50. Fire and forget.", but that there were differencies in normal failures.

Honestly, I'd suggest just sticking with this throughout. From my experience GMing it's fairly quick & simple to remember. I generally applied both penalties and bonuses pretty broadly, like Ludo notes he does.

In my last campaign, I chose not to use skill augments because I wanted Rune/Passion augments to feel more "special." Ideally, my goal was that it would help RPing because being able to augment would provide the players with a mechanical payoff for non-cult Rune affinities (my group tends to focus on "roll" over "role" instinctively). This also had the side effect that augments didn't consume lots of extra dice rolls or time at the table. Just "cool, I'm going to roll to augment my combat with the Movement Rune" or "I'm going to call on my Earth Rune for this bargain" etc.

I think I made a mistake in excluding skill augments, because there are many skills which might not get used without augmenting rules. For example, the magical languages are quite situational, until you use them to augment casting cult spirit magic - likewise with skills such as Dance and Sing.

[French Desperate WindChild]

in other hand there is no obligation to use passion, and 60% is low. As player I will use a passion(or rune) only if

I m conviced I m not able to manage the situation without (so the trigger is both gp rp)

or if if is so relevant from my character that he/she has to do (so the trigger is rp)

or I want this passion(or rune) to"xp" (so the trigger is gp)

[PhilHibbs]

16 hours ago, claycle said:

A fumbled rune ... arguably affects a class of skills and weapons ...

I don't see anything in the rules that implies that.

[claycle]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

I don't see anything in the rules that implies that.

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.

Edited March 24, 2021 by claycle

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, claycle said:

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.

This is also how I understood it (and when I explained that to my players, why they were afraid). But I am not a native english speaker.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Kloster

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, claycle said:

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.

Yes, this is how I've played it with my characters when I've failed a Passion/Rune roll (or have it applied to the PC's in the games I GM).

In a battle with undead enroute to the Smoking Ruins, my apprentice shaman tried to be inspired against them, and failed and was only half-heartedly able to try attacking subsequently (without any success). 

In the debate with the morocanth over the fate of some Agimori in Borderlands, my Humakti rolled for his Honor and failed, and determined that Humakt did not think the discussion was at all honorable.  Later, though, in a fight with the Tusk Riders, he succeeded in his Death roll, augmenting his already decent sword attack and proceeded to disembowel the tusk rider in one strike.

It can be a mixed blessing, but I find it interesting to get into the mindset of the character and not just think about it as a set of probabilities.  You remember when the character is inspired, you remember when they were desolated (and it seems well in-line with the mood swings you get in epics like the Iliad).

[claycle]

4 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

Yes, this is how I've played it with my characters when I've failed a Passion/Rune roll (or have it applied to the PC's in the games I GM).

It can be a mixed blessing, but I find it interesting to get into the mindset of the character and not just think about it as a set of probabilities.  You remember when the character is inspired, you remember when they were desolated (and it seems well in-line with the mood swings you get in epics like the Iliad).

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."

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, claycle said:

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.

"Despondent" is only a result that can happen from a Passion augment, not a Rune. The Passion failure is -10% to everything, the Rune failure is -20% to use of the Rune. There is no -10% result for attempting to use a Rune.

I think the text should say "If the adventurer fails the Passion roll and becomes despondent (modifying all further actions by –10%), or fails the Rune roll (modifying use of the Rune by -20%), that state continues for the rest of the fight."

Basically, "The consequences of failure, whatever they are, persist for the rest of the fight". The text on page 202 that says how long the effects last in combat should not be extrapolated to change the primary description of the results of failure on pages 227 and 236.

Edited March 24, 2021 by PhilHibbs

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

"Despondent" is only a result that can happen from a Passion augment, not a Rune. The Passion failure is -10% to everything, the Rune failure is -20% to use of the Rune. There is no -10% result for attempting to use a Rune.

I think the text should say "If the adventurer fails the Passion roll and becomes despondent (modifying all further actions by –10%), or fails the Rune roll (modifying use of the Rune by -20%), that state continues for the rest of the fight."

Basically, "The consequences of failure, whatever they are, persist for the rest of the fight". The text on page 202 that says how long the effects last in combat should not be extrapolated to change the primary description of the results of failure on pages 227 and 236.

This should absolutely be clarified, at least in the Well, and in all next versions of the text.

[Manimati]

Here is the mean skill augment result, which is the augment for each success level (critical, special, plain success, failure, fumble) weighted by the chance for each success level, as a function of the skill level. 

The mean augment is 0 for skill 49%. Below the mean augment is negative, and positive above.

For 100% skill, the mean augment is slightly above 20%.

The change of slope at 96% is due to rolls of 96-99 being always failure and 00 always fumble.

[PhilHibbs]

4 hours ago, Manimati said:

Here is the mean skill augment result, which is the augment for each success level (critical, special, plain success, failure, fumble) weighted by the chance for each success level, as a function of the skill level. 

Of course! Silly me. I was thinking that 50% was the break even point, but special success has no numerical balance at the high end. Still, 50% is the point at which you are as likely to hurt as help, but the help will on average be slightly better than the hurt. At least in terms of the number, different augment types have different applicability of penalty.

[Lordabdul]

9 hours ago, claycle said:

Is that the intent of the rules? Maybe not. Is that how the rules are written? Definitely.

Technically, at best, the rules contradict each other : the "-10% to all actions" on p202 is contradicted by the chapter about Runes and Runic Inspiration, and by the GM screen's summary of augment rules.

I agree with Phil here:

7 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

"Despondent" is only a result that can happen from a Passion augment, not a Rune. The Passion failure is -10% to everything, the Rune failure is -20% to use of the Rune. There is no -10% result for attempting to use a Rune.

I think the text should say "If the adventurer fails the Passion roll and becomes despondent (modifying all further actions by –10%), or fails the Rune roll (modifying use of the Rune by -20%), that state continues for the rest of the fight."

@Scotty this should be maybe fixed in further printings, and/or clarified in the Well of Daliath?

[jajagappa]

7 hours ago, claycle said:

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."

Failure creates some interesting questions for a character though.  My Humakti failed his Honor roll in preparation for a race (due to geases he cannot ride animals, but drives a chariot instead).  The failure left him sufficiently questioning his abilities that it would clearly have led to failed Drive rolls, and questioning the honor (or lack thereof of both morocanth and Agimori).  Another character competed instead, and my Humakti found the whole event at the end distasteful.

Subsequently (as noted above), he had a special success in a Death Rune roll.  Not only did this lead to a one-stroke slaying of a tusk rider, but used to subsequently put the tusk rider's ghost to rest and to free two trapped ghosts from their Death Bindings.  The character now sees the two results as a reflection of Humakt's will - his mission in the Borderlands of Prax is not to pursue Honor as there is no Honor to be found here, but to incarnate Death and to ensure Death is a clean and final ending.

I would likely have continued to focus on Honor as the character's primary passion if not for those results.  Though unexpected, I like the direction and feel like it places the character squarely in the setting and having to deal with questions around choices and reactions.

I think as much as anything, using the Passions and Runes regardless of consequence, helps make the character someone not "me" and makes for more story and less meta-game.

[creativehum]

I am appreciating the tales of how people are using the augments to increase character and narrative juice.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

2 hours ago, jajagappa said:

I think as much as anything, using the Passions and Runes regardless of consequence, helps make the character someone not "me" and makes for more story and less meta-game

I completely disagree   Why not just have a bot roll the passions and make all the PC's decisions?  Then sit back and eat popcorn?

I know Greg, and others, like Pendragon.  I hate it.  Using Passions and Runes to make most of the character decisions is roll playing, not role playing. 

If you can't make most of those decisions yourself to create an interesting character who is "not me", find another game.  I suggest Backgammon.

 

Occasionally, if I truly have no idea how my character will react, I'll roll a Passion or CHAx5, etc.  But not often.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Rodney Dangerduck

[creativehum]

For what it is worth, for the most part Traits and Passions do not make any character do anything. (Only fumbles and crits demand a specific accordance with a Trait or Passion.) What the Traits and Passions do is track the actions of the character. And if the character keeps behaving in a certain way, the stat goes up. (Or, respectively, the opposite Trait or the Passion goes down.)

Independent of that, a player might use a success, failure, or choice of behavior in a specific moment, as a springboard for information about the knight.

The above summary is how KAP is written -- not how many people choose to play it. 

I am not that familiar with the RQG rules to know how this tracks in comparison.

Edited March 25, 2021 by creativehum