Pavis & Big Rubble Companion: The Directors' Cut Relaunch

[Baron]

19 hours ago, g33k said:

I'd bump all your descriptions up a notch, adding a higher level for "Hero."  With a tad of luck & some intentional direction during char-gen, starting PC's can hit that 100% skill, and the 85%-90% range is relatively easy.

Wow, really? I only play RQ2, but in our games a 100% skill was a master. I guess there's been skill inflation over the years. Not my style, I expect players to go the zero to hero route. No impact on Ian's work though, I'll be tinkering all over the numbers.

[g33k]

6 minutes ago, Baron said:

Wow, really? I only play RQ2, but in our games a 100% skill was a master. I guess there's been skill inflation over the years. Not my style, I expect players to go the zero to hero route. No impact on Ian's work though, I'll be tinkering all over the numbers.

Not so much "skill inflation" as abandoning the zero-to-hero trope.

In RQG, the Hero Wars are here.  There's no time to slog up the skill-percentages from farmboy Rurik with his 25% Cudgel skill, scrounge for every clack in hopes of buying a Befuddle, etc.

Starting PC's default to Initiate status with 3 Rune Spells, & 5 points of "Battle Magic."  At their choice, they can Sac a point (or more) of POW before play begins, to get another Rune Spell (or more than one).

[Bill the barbarian]

On 8/10/2022 at 7:45 PM, g33k said:

I have to go back to look at the RQG core rulebook to be sure; but IIRC just with:
  Cultural Weapons + many Cults + many Professions
hit 50%.  Some Cults+Professions higher.

In many of these here fora and on the WoD it has been established that figures from the core book, RQ RiG for occupations and cults and... are for the PCs (I call em adventurers, but I wanted to be clear) and not the NPCs which being more akin to zeros than heroes would have from much lower numbers all the way up to simply lower numbers... now those who are on the hero scale like say... the adventurers (perviously called PCs, just fer clarity) would be comparable or even maybe greater. 

5 hours ago, g33k said:

In RQG, the Hero Wars are here.  There's no time to slog up the skill-percentages from farmboy Rurik with his 25% Cudgel skill, scrounge for every clack in hopes of buying a Befuddle, etc.

Always loved that Gimpy’s description of his beginning!

 

5 hours ago, g33k said:

Starting PC's default to Initiate status with 3 Rune Spells, & 5 points of "Battle Magic."  At their choice, they can Sac a point (or more) of POW before play begins, to get another Rune Spell (or more than one).

See first rebut...

 

 

Hey @Ian A. Thomson, been awhile. Good to hear about the progress (YAY!) and looking forward to my copy of RG2P!

Edited August 12, 2022 by Bill the barbarian

[g33k]

22 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

In many of these here fora and on the WoD it has been established figures from the core book, RQ RiG, are for the PCs (I call em adventurers but I wanted to be clear) and not the NPCs which being more akin to zeros than heroes would have from much lower numbers to simply lower numbers...

Note that I *DID* also suggest there should be a "rabble" category, below even "Fodder."

And while the PCs are indeed "exceptional," it's still the case that human norm (not just adventurer) is 3d6, so any large-ish collection of "normal" humans should have that 3d6, i.e. 10-11 or 9-12 (for POW or etc).

But until/unless there's an actual "errata" or "supplement" that specifies hard numbers for NPC creation, I have to presume the basic "cult" and "homeland" and "professional" numbers form the baseline, and it's the extra/discretionary points (skills, Runes, Initiate-status, spells) where "zero-style" NPCs differ.

Were I going to dig into the simulation side, I'd further presume that (for example) archers & peltasts "get a DEX bump to 13" (i.e. their drill instructors noticed who was better with missile weapons, and assigned accordingly) but -2 to STR and/or SIZ (i.e. drill instructors weren't crazy, and didn't want to let the big strong ones (with a DB) wander off to plink from a distance... ) .

I also noticed (but presumed a design-intent) that PCs' "default" numbers (e.g. of magic & skills) don't align precisely with ANY of Ian's categories... the "Higher Rank Officer" is close on magic, but a tad under-skilled (vs. career-military PC's).  The higher POW is something I just figure results from (a) the military life & promotions-to-rank will filter for higher POW; & (b) the more-senior officers like that will simply have more POW-gain rolls under their belts, and see the advantages of not Sac'ing down too low (however tempting the spell).
 

Edited August 12, 2022 by g33k

[Bill the barbarian]

52 minutes ago, g33k said:

But until/unless there's an actual "errata" or "supplement" that specifies hard numbers for NPC creation, I have to presume the basic "cult" and "homeland" and "professional" numbers form the baseline, and it's the extra/discretionary points (skills, Runes, Initiate-status, spells) where "zero-style" NPCs differ.

This will have to be yer choice, but as I say, chacon a son gout or YGWV, I just say there is a lot of posts from chaosium staffers stating unequivocally RAI that the PCs are heroes... and head and shoulders above the hoi polloi.

52 minutes ago, g33k said:

But until/unless there's an actual "errata" or "supplement" that specifies hard numbers for NPC creation, I have to presume the basic "cult" and "homeland" and "professional" numbers form the baseline, and it's the extra/discretionary points (skills, Runes, Initiate-status, spells) where "zero-style" NPCs differ.

Fair point and one I usually use, so, I will have to agree. I like a real errata myself (I prefer it in the rules but whatayagointado?)!

52 minutes ago, g33k said:

Were I going to dig into the simulation side, I'd further presume that (for example) archers & peltasts "get a DEX bump to 13" (i.e. their drill instructors noticed who was better with missile weapons, and assigned accordingly) but -2 to STR and/or SIZ (i.e. drill instructors weren't crazy, and didn't want to let the big strong ones (with a DB) wander off to plink from a distance... ) .

You have mentioned that average stat thing afore. Now, I do not know many adventurers (okay I have never heard of such a thing INCONCEIVABLE!) that have average stats... 76 points from 10 points for 5 stats and 13 points for 2 stats— all rounded up. One would have to figure out a new average based on 4d6 and keep the best three or whatever variable you use and do not forget to add at least three more points and maybe another three or more yet...

 

Although there is no official word about the hero zero status of the adventurers being better than the masses there is a fair amount of statistical logic one can infer. Still it would be nice t have it buried in the rules. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Bill the barbarian

[Joerg]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

And while the PCs are indeed "exceptional," it's still the case that human norm (not just adventurer) is 3d6, so any large-ish collection of "normal" humans should have that 3d6, i.e. 10-11 or 9-12 (for POW or etc).

There is such a thing as a selection bias for those who survive dealing with problems, probably well covered by the "roll 4 D5+1 drop the lowest" method. (Rerolling results of 1 on D6 effectively creates a D5+1.)

A straight 3(D5+1) averages out at 12.

 

The setting has a high mortality, creating this selective bias. Now stats aren't everything, and most aren't fixed, either.

One might argue that everybody starts without any disability, or without previous stat loss.

[Shiningbrow]

On 8/12/2022 at 11:43 AM, g33k said:

And while the PCs are indeed "exceptional," it's still the case that human norm (not just adventurer) is 3d6, so any large-ish collection of "normal" humans should have that 3d6, i.e. 10-11 or 9-12 (for POW or etc).

I'd also like to point out then, that while there should be a sizable amount of the population in that 9-12 range, a very large percentage of the population will also have at least one stat that is above or below that... 13, 14 , 15... even up to 18 (e.g., STR for the local redsmith).

BUT... it must also be remembered that going by the law of averages, it also means an equal number who have at least one stat at the 8, 7, 6 or even 3...

Also statistically speaking, there should be quite a number of the population who have multiple non-averaged numbers. Given that, going purely by those 3D6, it means 2 in 36* should have an extreme stat - one at max, and one at min. So, how many is that in a village? Town? City?

 

So, while there will be a 'rabble', it should be a pretty small group who probably aren't so stupid as to get into a fight anyway... (and, are unlikely to actually band together such that they'd be encountered as a group. The 'rabble' should be found amongst some of the other groups as individuals).

 

Yes, I'm making more work... 😛  (well, actually, not really much - that's what spreadsheets with auto-formulae are for)

 

(*I think my maths is right... please correct me if not... also, I haven't done the math for the full stats, and haven't included the +6)

[Shiningbrow]

On 8/12/2022 at 3:26 PM, Joerg said:

There is such a thing as a selection bias for those who survive dealing with problems, probably well covered by the "roll 4 D5+1 drop the lowest" method. (Rerolling results of 1 on D6 effectively creates a D5+1.)

A straight 3(D5+1) averages out at 12.

 

The setting has a high mortality, creating this selective bias. Now stats aren't everything, and most aren't fixed, either.

One might argue that everybody starts without any disability, or without previous stat loss.

Except... a good portion of that "high mortality" is because of the lower stats. Survival bias needs a timeframe.

I recall a nice bit about previous ages' life expectancy. Old people weren't that much of a rarity as most people seem to think. The life expectancy number was low because of higher rates of death in the first 5 years of life - not across the broad spectrum of ages. It's similar here (although, I'd probably suggest that the constant raiding, endemic warfare, etc is what contributes more to the life expectancy than sickness and malnutrition in the younger years).

[g33k]

20 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I'd also like to point out then, that while there should be a sizable amount of the population in that 9-12 range, a very large percentage of the population will also have at least one stat that is above or below that... 13, 14 , 15... even up to 18 (e.g., STR for the local redsmith).

BUT... it must also be remembered that going by the law of averages, it also means an equal number who have at least one stat at the 8, 7, 6 or even 3...

Also statistically speaking, there should be quite a number of the population who have multiple non-averaged numbers. Given that, going purely by those 3D6, it means 2 in 36* should have an extreme stat - one at max, and one at min. So, how many is that in a village? Town? City?

Ian is trying to work up some very-simple numbers for easy (no-roll) statblocks, I think.
So we're explicitly avoiding "extreme" stats, except for significant characters.

(Or so I understand)

[Shiningbrow]

47 minutes ago, g33k said:

Ian is trying to work up some very-simple numbers for easy (no-roll) statblocks, I think.
So we're explicitly avoiding "extreme" stats, except for significant characters.

(Or so I understand)

I can understand that. And it makes sense.

But my point is more that I think there's this perception that 8 is "low", while 14 isn't particularly high - even though they're the same distance from the average... almost like that 10-11 average is the minimum. So, people expect to see a LOT more 15s and 16s than 6s and 7s. (at least partly because we often think that 21 is the max... however, that's sort of illusory).

[John Biles]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Except... a good portion of that "high mortality" is because of the lower stats. Survival bias needs a timeframe.

I recall a nice bit about previous ages' life expectancy. Old people weren't that much of a rarity as most people seem to think. The life expectancy number was low because of higher rates of death in the first 5 years of life - not across the broad spectrum of ages. It's similar here (although, I'd probably suggest that the constant raiding, endemic warfare, etc is what contributes more to the life expectancy than sickness and malnutrition in the younger years).

Half of everyone died by age 10.  The rest lived to in their 50s or 60s unless killed by violence; a handful lived longer than that.

My impression is that Glorantha has less child mortality but more dying as an adult (raiding, chaos monsters, etc)

 

[g33k]

15 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

... perception that 8 is "low", while 14 isn't particularly high - even though they're the same distance from the average... 

For 3d6, I think you mean 8 & 13 (not 14), unless you're figuring "4d6-L" or another variant.

 

[Shiningbrow]

7 hours ago, g33k said:

For 3d6, I think you mean 8 & 13 (not 14), unless you're figuring "4d6-L" or another variant.

 

Ok. Maths isn't my strong point 😜

[Ian A. Thomson]

Happy to report that as of right now, today, all the text of Vol 01 of the Director's Cut Companion series is in place. 95% is formatted, 80% is proofed, and 95% of the RQG stats are done now too (thanks again to the amazing volunteers)

As an aside, the Rough Guide to Pavis City has also been done for ages (yes fully complete, laid out and everything), and will probably appear as Vol. 03 in the series. The intervening Vol 02 is also in an advanced stage, as if the following Vol 04. Progress is being made. :)

Edited August 18, 2022 by Ian A. Thomson

[DucksMustDie]

Looking forward to reading them, my group is in Pavis right now 🙂 Getting ready to kick some crazy dragon cultist butt

Edited August 18, 2022 by DucksMustDie

[Bill the barbarian]

7 hours ago, Ian A. Thomson said:

As an aside, the Rough Guide to Pavis City has also been done for ages (yes fully complete, laid out and everything), and will probably appear as Vol. 03 in the series. The intervening Vol 02 is also in an advanced stage, as if the following Vol 04. Progress is being made. 🙂

That was because ya had me helping on that one! Hell, if my health hadn’t failed we would be done!

🙂

Edited August 18, 2022 by Bill the barbarian

[Ian A. Thomson]

13 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

That was because ya had me helping on that one! Hell, if my health hadn’t failed we would be done!

🙂

You did epic work, and are indeed one reason why Vol. 3 (as it most likely will be) is done :)

[Bill the barbarian]

Thanks! You were great to work with. Call on me anytime when I am healthy!

[Ian A. Thomson]

Vol. 01 PROGRESS REPORT

Content: 100%

Layout 100%

RQG Stats (I literally cannot thank the volunteers enough!!!!!): 100%

Revisions Remaining to do: 95% Complete

Proofing (Again so much gratitude for the volunteers): 70%

If anyone is up for reading any sections and has a good editorial eye for grammar mistakes and general flow, I'd love some more help with the last push

Edited August 27, 2022 by Ian A. Thomson

[soltakss]

9 hours ago, Ian A. Thomson said:

Proofing (Again so much gratitude for the volunteers): 70%

If anyone is up for reading any sections and has a good editorial eye for grammar mistakes and general flow, I'd love some more help with the last push

I have just proofread some East Isles stuff and have some time to proofread this, if it helps.

[Inconvenient]

Ha!  I was looking for some background info on Pavis and stumbled across this discussion.  I have some time to proofread (during dull meetings at work) if you want to pass me something.

[BakerDE]

Ian - I totally missed this thread! Drop me a line if you need stats generation (or anything else Pavis related). Looking forward vey much to they reissue.

[Ian A. Thomson]

Am in the final run now

Proofing the last part of Vol 01

Its mostly new stuff that's left to do, so taking a while, but we're talking 1-3 days

Update on the above post - Revisions now 100% done also :)

Not sure how long the procedure takes after that to actually get it up on JCompendium

Thanks again to the statters and proofers who have helped out throughout, and in this final run

SO essential!! And so appreciated!

Vol 02 is basically Part 02 of the background material and intro scenarios, so is already also well underway and needs help too.

So I'll be in touch with you generous folk very shortly

Edited September 1, 2022 by Ian A. Thomson

[Brian Duguid]

6 hours ago, Ian A. Thomson said:

Not sure how long the procedure takes after that to actually get it up on JCompendium

I'm happy to provide assistance with that via PM although @Nick Brooke is the more obvious point of contact if you want a quick review of the PDF and which buttons to press on the JC system.

[Nick Brooke]

Thanks for the tag, Brian! Here's a handy guide to setting up new titles on the Jonstown Compendium.

 

Setting Up a JC Title.pdf