mrq1

[icebrand]

one of my few RQ3 characters is a humakti (if i ever play him again, fist thing ill do is leave that psycho religion).

He has 110ish% 1h bastard sword attack, 89% shield parry, and around 35% sword parry, shield attack and H atk/parry.

Thing is, i REALLY wanted to swich to 2h sword... All i can do is train to 75/75, and by then i'll likely have about 100-110 shield parry (attack is irrelevant due to bladesharp). Rules kind of screw the character, since improving 2h fighting style will probably kill him (and he needs "another sword attack").

If it was the other way around (high 2H atk and parry and low 1h atk) y could always parry 2h and attack 1h to gain the check (probably would too).

Anyway, theres a 99% chance i dont ever play him again, and if i do ill prolly go shaman (already did several enchants and have 0 pts of divine magic), but i think the character works as example for the thread!!!

[Nightshade]

By the by, just to elaborate on something since I didn't make it clear, outside of RQ cult needs, most of the time "roll hunting" is not a rational behavior; you want a high skill in BRP in general because you're going to need to use it; but if you use it regularly, there's no need to go out of your way to get rolls. The desire to get them seems mostly separate from any actual power-gaming mentality (which pursues ways to get maximum percentage in the skills you already are rolling all the time), but its none the less common for all of that.

[Thalaba]

I've seen limited check-hunting in the form of weapon use.

Recently, I had a player who started with a spear and then picked up a sword he liked. He would use the sword in combats where he didn't feel too threatened just to build his skill. As a GM I didn't have a problem with this - I'd probably do the same in real life if I wanted to improve with the sword.

By the end of the 2 year campaign, he had a sword and spear skill which were both lower than the guy who only used the spear for the whole campaign. He knew how to work the system to get a very well-rounded character, but he wasn't 'the best' at any more skills than his fellows, and thus not dominant.

For the most part, check-hunting isn't especially profitable, in my experience. But then we set a very measured pace for skill improvement rolls (typically every 3-5 sessions) and stick to the 'stress situation' rule.

[Nightshade]

I've seen limited check-hunting in the form of weapon use.

Recently, I had a player who started with a spear and then picked up a sword he liked. He would use the sword in combats where he didn't feel too threatened just to build his skill. As a GM I didn't have a problem with this - I'd probably do the same in real life if I wanted to improve with the sword.

By the end of the 2 year campaign, he had a sword and spear skill which were both lower than the guy who only used the spear for the whole campaign. He knew how to work the system to get a very well-rounded character, but he wasn't 'the best' at any more skills than his fellows, and thus not dominant.

For the most part, check-hunting isn't especially profitable, in my experience. But then we set a very measured pace for skill improvement rolls (typically every 3-5 sessions) and stick to the 'stress situation' rule.

The only way you should lose on that deal is in terms of training. Otherwise, its strickly as good or better to get ticks in two weapons rather than one, no matter how frequently you actually permit the advancement rolls.

It can make a limited amount of sense to pursue a few weapons that have separate functions--a bow, a longspear and a shortsword all serve better in different situations for example. Its when you see the guy who carries the battleaxe, the longsword, the shortspear and the mace you know its probably become a compulsion rather than making any sense. In some game systems the properties of these are different enough and have enough specialized advantages that it can make some sense, but BRP doesn't go that route.

[Thalaba]

Well, actually, the reason he preferred the sword was because he was sick of his spear getting stuck in the people he impaled.

There were times when he forgot to change weapons or was too hard pressed to want to chance it, too, so he didn't always get the check in spear, I don't think. I suppose if you want to make check-hunting worth it, you have to be diligent about it. Kind of like coupon-clipping.

[rust]

Thinking about it, could it be that there are any reasons that could make this "check-hunting"

more common in fantasy campaigns than in science fiction campaigns ?

I doubt that "my" players really are in any way exceptional, so the fact that they do not try to

go "check hunting" should have another reason, and the only one I can think of at the moment

is the genre - although this is also where my Latin ends.

Perhaps combat with futuristic weapons is so deadly that a character is encouraged to always

use the weapon he is most skilled with, because another weapon with a lower skill would sig-

nificantly reduce his chances to survive the combat ?

Perhaps the "skill set" of a science fiction profession, like starship pilot or scientist, makes it in

some way reasonable to concentrate on the commonly used skills instead of trying to improve

only rarely used skills ?

Just wild guesses, I am afraid ...

[Nightshade]

The problem is that check-hunting isn't limited to weapon skills, though the weapon-caddy became sort of a running joke back in the RQ2 days because that was the one that tended to be most blatant. But over the years I've seen people go out of their way to get checks in social skills, non-combat physical skills, and in versions of the rules where this gave you a roll, knowledge skills.

As I said, its just a complex of some kind. It really doesn't have a rational basis most of the time.

[rust]

As I said, its just a complex of some kind. It really doesn't have a rational basis most of the time.

Indeed. Well, perhaps it is just because our other system is Traveller, which does not have

any experience system.

[Puck]

Thinking about it, could it be that there are any reasons that could make this "check-hunting"

more common in fantasy campaigns than in science fiction campaigns ?

This makes sense to me. If I remember right the main problem I had with this was Pow gain rolls. That is where my player learned to go check hunting. Pow gain rolls were so important and sometimes during adventures characters would cast spells like Disruption instead of hacking the enemy with an ax just to get a Pow gain check. This did not work for them long though because if the check was gained for goofy reasons I just told them that they did not get credit for that.

[Nightshade]

Indeed. Well, perhaps it is just because our other system is Traveller, which does not have

any experience system.

That could well be. I can't imagine anyone who's comfortable with old style Traveler with its training-only advancement (and that fairly limited) running to this problem.

[Nightshade]

This makes sense to me. If I remember right the main problem I had with this was Pow gain rolls. That is where my player learned to go check hunting. Pow gain rolls were so important and sometimes during adventures characters would cast spells like Disruption instead of hacking the enemy with an ax just to get a Pow gain check. This did not work for them long though because if the check was gained for goofy reasons I just told them that they did not get credit for that.

Well, the problem with that is that you just end up getting people who argue it wasn't for "goofy reasons". Breeding that sort of argument is a problem in and of itself. And you could make an argument that as relatively weak as they were, almost any battle magic attack spell was "goofy" to use if you were a capable combatant.

But yes, power gain rolls could be particularly egregious here.

[Atgxtg]

If you don't see the way an ongoing tendency in this direction can disrupt a campaign, I'm not sure what to say to you. Killing the character doesn't really help unless every new character starts at the bottom (and that creates its own sets of problems in my experience).

I see it as a player problem not a game mechanic problem. Stupid kills.

I used to game with a guy who always treated RQ as if it were AD&D. He would often by surprised that elves didn7t have infravision, that a ill thought sword stroke meant as a repirmand actually cut someone7as arm off, and that griffon claws did 1D6+3D6 damage rather than just 1D8. The fact that the player couldn7t or wouldn7t learn from his errors and adapt was not just cause to change the RQ game mechanics.

As I said, I've seen people who did this no matter the consequences. Over the years in RQ I saw quite a lot of them to one degree or another. The fact it had risks didn't seem much of a deterant in a game where no matter how careful you were, a 01 from a composite bow could make all your effort in vane, and given it tends to be irrational behavior in the first place, expecting potential bad consequences to fix it isn't understanding the problem.

If they did it not matter the consequences, then they had no right to complain. It looks like you need better players. Sure there are risks inherent in all actions in a RPG. But that doesn7t mean that players should ignore those risks, or expose themsevles to greater dangerblindly.

I've burchers quite a few PCs becuase the players decided to do something stupid and suicidal, for example, doing a frontal assault on a fortified postion. I7ve seen doxzens of PCs mowed down while charging a 50 cal MG. I7ve yet to see a group do that twice.

If the players keep doing the same thing and expect differernt results, then the problem isn7t with the game system.

I

Edited August 17, 2010 by Atgxtg

[Nightshade]

I see it as a player problem not a game mechanic problem. Stupid kills.

I don't believe for a moment you can separate those off the way you want to here, since I've seen this problem on a lot of otherwise good players over the years, and heard considerably more. It didn't exactly used to be a big mystery that RQ games suffered from this. That doesn't suggest to me that its an issue limited to a small number of poor players, but a not uncommon property of players as a group that the open ended number of possible rolls brings out.

If they did it not matter the consequences, then they had no right to complain. It looks like you need better players. Sure there are risks inherent in all actions in a RPG. But that doesn7t mean that players should ignore those risks, or expose themsevles to greater dangerblindly.

Again, you seem to think they'd complain about it. They wouldn't. That doesn't mean it was good for the game. Nor do I buy "better players" is the answer, as I saw way too many people over the years exhibit tendencies in this direction. I have to conclude its a disease quite capable of coming up in an average player group.

If the players keep doing the same thing and expect differernt results, then the problem isn7t with the game system.

If it happens with enough players enough times, I'm afraid I can't agree. Dealing with the reality of the psychology of gamers as a group is one of the things I do, in fact, expect a rule set to address. The fact the problems it can create aren't universal is, honestly, not a good enough answer in some cases; at least not good enough for me to be tolerant of blowing off rules changes that do indeed address such problems. Especially since the objections to the change in this particular case seems little more than pure grognardism, since the number of permitted rolls can easily be set so that its not a problem for normal advancement.

Or put bluntly, some people have no need for this? That's not a good enough reason if enough people do, especially since it can serve them and not harm you.

[tedopon]

If it happens with enough players enough times, I'm afraid I can't agree. Dealing with the reality of the psychology of gamers as a group is one of the things I do, in fact, expect a rule set to address. The fact the problems it can create aren't universal is, honestly, not a good enough answer in some cases; at least not good enough for me to be tolerant of blowing off rules changes that do indeed address such problems. Especially since the objections to the change in this particular case seems little more than pure grognardism, since the number of permitted rolls can easily be set so that its not a problem for normal advancement.

Or put bluntly, some people have no need for this? That's not a good enough reason if enough people do, especially since it can serve them and not harm you.

I agree with your sentiment, and like I mentioned earlier, I considered adopting the MRQ1 system for skill improvement. The thing I can't conceptualize is the skilltard being that big of a deal in the first place. Minor irritant, for sure, but when I think of problems I've had with gamers over the years, I don't think more than one or two rules issues make my top ten list, and they were straight up cheaters.

[Nightshade]

I agree with your sentiment, and like I mentioned earlier, I considered adopting the MRQ1 system for skill improvement. The thing I can't conceptualize is the skilltard being that big of a deal in the first place. Minor irritant, for sure, but when I think of problems I've had with gamers over the years, I don't think more than one or two rules issues make my top ten list, and they were straight up cheaters.

It probably isn't in the ordinary cases; if it was, this wouldn't be a big topic of discussion here, as most people would be using some method of addressing it. But as it is, most BRP longimers have learned some passive methods of discouraging it, and as such this rule seems intrusive.

But new users aren't BRP longtimers. They may not even be particularly experienced GMs in general, and may have various local issues to deal with where having to wrestle with this, even in a small way, may be annoying. Given this gives them one less thing to have to worry about, I'm just failing to see why some people are hostile to it.

[Atgxtg]

I agree with your sentiment, and like I mentioned earlier, I considered adopting the MRQ1 system for skill improvement. The thing I can't conceptualize is the skilltard being that big of a deal in the first place. Minor irritant, for sure, but when I think of problems I've had with gamers over the years, I don't think more than one or two rules issues make my top ten list, and they were straight up cheaters.

It actually makres a rather radical change in the game.

With a limited number of imrpovment rolls instead of a variable number of skill chekcs, players end up focueing on a small number of skills, and let everything else slide. The net effect is "classless" character classes. PCs just can7t imrpove of magic and weapons and horsemanship, and stealth.

That is one reason why MRQ has a fairly small skill list, comapred to RQ/BRP.

[Atgxtg]

I don't believe for a moment you can separate those off the way you want to here, since I've seen this problem on a lot of otherwise good players over the years, and heard considerably more. It didn't exactly used to be a big mystery that RQ games suffered from this. That doesn't suggest to me that its an issue limited to a small number of poor players, but a not uncommon property of players as a group that the open ended number of possible rolls brings out.

No its the players. Some basic mathematics skill will reveal that the more rolls that are made in a game, the greater the chance of a PC getting killed. So a player who opts to try for twice as many rolls is taking twice the risk. It is a faurly universal rule in RPGs, too. THe effect is less pronounced in games with increasesing hit points and limited damage (D&D), and more pronounded in games where one hit can kill (RQ/BRP), but it exists in most RPGs to some degree.

Insureance comapnaies and casinos clean up on just this fact.

Again, you seem to think they'd complain about it. They wouldn't. That doesn't mean it was good for the game. Nor do I buy "better players" is the answer, as I saw way too many people over the years exhibit tendencies in this direction. I have to conclude its a disease quite capable of coming up in an average player group.

Perhaps, but then averafge players don7t seem to have a good grasp of math. I used to work at a sotre where we sold lottry tickets and was amazed at how much money people would throw away without an inkling of the odds. THe store would regualry have to fire new help becuase they would play a whole roll of scractch tickets and expect to be able to pay for it out of thier winnings.

I used to be amazed at how many people didn't understand the basic concept that lottery tickets have to take more money in than they pay out to be profitable.

If it happens with enough players enough times, I'm afraid I can't agree. Dealing with the reality of the psychology of gamers as a group is one of the things I do, in fact, expect a rule set to address. The fact the problems it can create aren't universal is, honestly, not a good enough answer in some cases; at least not good enough for me to be tolerant of blowing off rules changes that do indeed address such problems.

No , if it happens enough with "good players" then those players aren't very good. Good players would catch on by the second or third untinely death. I warned my group about the hazards of skill check hunting, and most of the players caught on fairly quickly, after seeing soem PCs get nailed taking unnessary risks.

Yes, I7ve hard players argue it, but once they start dying I ask them how it was working out for them.

Especially since the objections to the change in this particular case seems little more than pure grognardism, since the number of permitted rolls can easily be set so that its not a problem for normal advancement.

No, it isn't grognardism, it's where or not you have a classes RPG or not. It also has the effect of making character develpment a rewaed from the GM rather than one of natural progression.

Or put bluntly, some people have no need for this? That's not a good enough reason if enough people do, especially since it can serve them and not harm you.

To asnwer bluntly, that7s a load of bull. Most D&Ders I7ve games with can't handle RQ. RThey come in with a bunch of false expectations and an undeserved belief that they "know" how to play, and usually get killed off fairly quickly, using tactics that work fine in D&D. That doesn7t mean there is a problem with RQ/BRP, and that the game system needs to be changed to accomodate players who won7t learn. Likewise, if groups continuely go skil check hunting and get wiped out for the trouble, it7s not the fault of the expereince system.

The people who are opposed to the skill check system ususally claim that it prmotes skill ckeck hunting. You case history, with higher mortaility rates disproves that. If players want to "play the lottery" with thier PCs lives, and start suffering lots of casualties, yet they stubbornly continue doing the same thing, they have no one to blame but themselves.

[Nightshade]

The people who are opposed to the skill check system ususally claim that it prmotes skill ckeck hunting. You case history, with higher mortaility rates disproves that. If players want to "play the lottery" with thier PCs lives, and start suffering lots of casualties, yet they stubbornly continue doing the same thing, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Frankly, "blame" is to me, completely irrelevant. If its common enough, it creates a problem and I see a virtue in fixing it. Given there's perfectly good ways to fix it without harming anything else (you just set the checks such that they'll cover the normal range of expected skill usage) there's no argument I see to counter that other than its change and someone doesn't like it.

You seem to be focused on the idea I'm talking about what problems it causes for individual players, but they aren't the only ones I see this as hurting; I see it as harming the game as a whole when it occurs.

[Nightshade]

No, it isn't grognardism, it's where or not you have a classes RPG or not. It also has the effect of making character develpment a rewaed from the GM rather than one of natural progression.

Oh, and this? This is silly. Limiting the number of rolls does not make the game a classed game, and BRP has always made development effectively a reward from the GM, since the GM always got to decide if the roll was relevant. As such he always could say "Not a meaningful roll". This was particularly easy to do with all kinds of non-combat skills.

[Nightshade]

It actually makres a rather radical change in the game.

With a limited number of imrpovment rolls instead of a variable number of skill chekcs, players end up focueing on a small number of skills, and let everything else slide. The net effect is "classless" character classes. PCs just can7t imrpove of magic and weapons and horsemanship, and stealth.

That is one reason why MRQ has a fairly small skill list, comapred to RQ/BRP.

This is only the case if you set the number of rolls too low. Set it at, say, six to eight per check cycle, and normal users will almost never even notice it, and it won't noticably channelize people.

[Rurik]

I could be wrong, but I'd always felt that MRQ design choice about handing out Improvement Rolls had more to do with giving the GM's more control over improvement than 'fixing' skill check hunting. It is a way of allowing the GM more control over the rate of progression/improvement and can be used for rewarding good roleplaying (as can Hero Points).

One of the original RQ designers (I can't remember which) once said somewhere they regretted the way you only improved skills by succeeding - when in reality you often learn more from your mistakes (failing). The MRQ system allows you to learn from failures too. In the MRQ1 Rules you had to practice/train to 'spend' IR's, but you could spend them on skills you'd used during play without practice or training. Quite sensible really.

I don't have a strong preference either way, I use traditional skill checks with BRP and IR's with MRQ. I don't feel the skill checks in BRP are broken (I always had a bigger problem with the practice rules - once characters became wealthy enough they wanted to spend all their down time practicing and training, 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. Sheesh...), but the MRQ way has some advantages.

Since I'm ambivelent on the whole issue, I guess I'll just fan the flames by calling you both wrong.

[Nightshade]

I could be wrong, but I'd always felt that MRQ design choice about handing out Improvement Rolls had more to do with giving the GM's more control over improvement than 'fixing' skill check hunting. It is a way of allowing the GM more control over the rate of progression/improvement and can be used for rewarding good roleplaying (as can Hero Points).

Well, that's entirely possible; during the playtest of the original MRQ, what was going through the designers minds was fairly opaque to us "down on the ground". I'm more commenting about one possible reason and what I consider its virtues. In a way I'm talking more about a theoretical model than whatever MRQ actually ended up with.

I don't have a strong preference either way, I use traditional skill checks with BRP and IR's with MRQ. I don't feel the skill checks in BRP are broken (I always had a bigger problem with the practice rules - once characters became wealthy enough they wanted to spend all their down time practicing and training, 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. Sheesh...), but the MRQ way has some advantages.

Since I'm ambivelent on the whole issue, I guess I'll just fan the flames by calling you both wrong.

Heh. It is to be noted that I'm currently playing in a BRP game using pretty much the traditional open-ended method. I don't consider it hideously broken, but then, as I noted, I'm a grognard too. I just think people are in too big a hurry to blow off other methods, and I'm reasonably sure some of that is simply out of habit.

[Rurik]

Heh. It is to be noted that I'm currently playing in a BRP game using pretty much the traditional open-ended method.

Ahh, I see. Arguing for the sake of argument's sake. Very good.

I just think people are in too big a hurry to blow off other methods, and I'm reasonably sure some of that is simply out of habit.

Then there is the ALL MRQ=BAD! attitude. Which Mongoose kinda brought on itself with the initial release, but there were some changes that weren't all concentrated pure evil. Fully errata'd (as in the errata to the errata to the update to the clarified version) it was perfectly playable (not to everyone's taste, but no longer broken).

[Nightshade]

Ahh, I see. Arguing for the sake of argument's sake. Very good.

Well, it is a method I've planned to use if I ever get around to the RQ:AIG/RQ3 hybrid house system I occasionally bash on, so its not entirely theoretical for me.

(On the other hand I didn't find the need to introduce that into training, which from the sound of it MRQ does).

Then there is the ALL MRQ=BAD! attitude. Which Mongoose kinda brought on itself with the initial release, but there were some changes that weren't all concentrated pure evil. Fully errata'd (as in the errata to the errata to the update to the clarified version) it was perfectly playable (not to everyone's taste, but no longer broken).

Well, as you say, Mongoose bought a lot of that up front; as one of the playtesters, they didn't exactly make positive brownie points in how they handled that either.

But all reports I've heard is that MRQ2 is a pretty good game, even if not to everyone's taste, and as you say, even a generally problematic system can have good features in it.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Nightshade
typo

[Atgxtg]

Frankly, "blame" is to me, completely irrelevant. If its common enough, it creates a problem and I see a virtue in fixing it. Given there's perfectly good ways to fix it without harming anything else (you just set the checks such that they'll cover the normal range of expected skill usage) there's no argument I see to counter that other than its change and someone doesn't like it.

"It" doesn7t create the problem, the players do. Look, if you had a player who repeatedly did something self descrtuctive, would you change the game system to prevent it?

Acrtions have consequences. Characters who repeaatedly buck the odds and take unnecessary risks pay the price.

You seem to be focused on the idea I'm talking about what problems it causes for individual players, but they aren't the only ones I see this as hurting; I see it as harming the game as a whole when it occurs.

How is it harming the game as a whole? If the players keep dying and can7t figure out why, tell them. If they argue about it, keep reminding them whenever they get killed for it.

I ran a L5R campaign where one guy had a character who had gone to the Crane (Fast-Draw) stylre durling school. Later on, he was playing a guy who had gone to the Dragon (Two Sword Style) School. He got into a fight and instead of drawing both of his blades ASAP, he weaitied and tried to cut his foe down with a Iai strike (fast draw cutting strike). He botched it and got mauled by the time he managed to get both weapon out.

Now, I fet some sympathy for him, becuase it is easy to laspe into the fighting style of a previous character when you swtich characters. But then the guy did it again, and again, and again. He started going through a new character every week, making the same dumb mistake each time, despite warnings from the GM anbd the other players.

Do you believe the GM should have altered the game system to prevent iai strikes just becuase this guy kept messing up?

I don't see anything that supports your argument here.