MRQII is now "wayfarer"

[Atgxtg]

Yes, I did, for a couple of years, until we moved in 2007.

Good. otherwise the argument would have been moot.

Yes, they did. Where she finished school it was possible to choose the subjects

for the final exam, and she did of course not choose mathematics or physics.

But that was becuase of where she went to school. If the school had not offered that option she would have had to deal with it. Maybe she would have gone to another school, or done something else. No one was obligated to accommodate her.

This would not have made reading any easier for her.

True. But they could have provider her with talking books, or someone to read to her. The fact reamins she choose to pursue a career path where she did not have to use math or physics. What she didn't do is excpect people o toss out Newton's Laws becuase she couldn't do the math.

She did not improve her mathematical skill and hardly improve her reading skill,

but meanwhile her problem is recognized as a medical problem (it is now on the

World Health Organization's list as diagnosis F83.1), so the people around her

accept that she cannot overcome this, no matter how hard she would try.

Yes, and her condition isn't used as a justification for everyone who does pooly at math. Or is it?

Right, but at the same time I am well aware that there are people who cannot

follow the mathematics and physics, and that asking them to do this is like as-

king a blind person to paint in colours - it just is not possible for them. The only

remaining choice is whether I want to play with such persons, and if there are

no other problems, I do.

But they do have to deal with the consequences and effects of that math and pysics that you know and incoprorate into the campaign. For example, I have a guy here who doesn't have a very good grasp on basic physics. On more thanone occasion he has tried to do things during a gam that simply won't work. Now becuase the GM does have an idea about how some things work, the player must deal with it in the game. We don't keep the guy from falling if he doesn't look down.

[rust]

But they do have to deal with the consequences and effects of that math and pysics that you know and incoprorate into the campaign.

Yes, of course. I would change neither the setting nor the rules of the game, I

only help them to deal with the setting and the rules where it is necessary.

But I think we should end this here, we are really off topic.

[Atgxtg]

Rust brought up people with math disabilities in response to the statement "I don't know anyone who can't . . . "

And the math was brought up in response to the argument that the 5% and 20% math is "too hard" to do on your head. Anyone who can do 10% in their head (and that is what the pro 10% side say they can do) should be able to do 5% or 20% in their heads as well.

Rusts case of the scientits doesn7t even factorinto the debate, since she probably couldn't work out "10% of X" in her head in the first place.

It's not a case of asking the lame to walk, but one of asking people who can figure out 10% thier heads to do 5% and 20%. Buut, I guess it is a lot like asking the blind to see.

[PhilHibbs]

If chance of special= 1/5 chance of success

Then roll dice and if its a success multiply RESULT by 5

If new value is still a success then the roll is a special success...

So if I roll a 17, then I have scored a special if my skill is 85 or more? No, I only need 83 for 17 to be a special.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

But I think we should end this here, we are really off topic.

No, it's okay, the topic is really off topic now anyway!

[NickMiddleton]

So if I roll a 17, then I have scored a special if my skill is 85 or more? No, I only need 83 for 17 to be a special.

Depends on how you round...

Nick

...who thinks this whole tangent about maths is silly - 5%, 10% or 20% are not hard, and neither are they so onerous that that every player has to do their OWN calculations; now, a system that required everyone to regularly use square roots or something, THAT might be "too difficult". But a system that 80%+ of players can do in their heads and which it's trivially easy for the math savvy players to help out the remaining non-maths savvy 20%- players? Puh-lease, they are far more substantive issues to debate...

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Puh-lease, they are far more substantive issues to debate...

No there aren't and that's the problem! There are simply not enough bugs in the system for us to have a proper whinge.

[rust]

...they are far more substantive issues to debate...

Just go ahead and start the discussion.

[Atgxtg]

No there aren't and that's the problem! There are simply not enough bugs in the system for us to have a proper whinge.

Sure there are. Quite a few of the tables are flawed, and in some places the text contradicts itself. It is just that most of us are so familar with the system that we don't even need to read the rules most of the time. And what bugs there are can be easily dealt with by a competent GM.

[PhilHibbs]

Another datum, in the interest of fairness, I just asked one of my players what the special chance is with a 78% skill, and a minus 15% penalty, and he answered instantly "13", which is correct. I had to think for about 10 seconds to decide that I agreed.

[Atgxtg]

Another datum, in the interest of fairness, I just asked one of my players what the special chance is with a 78% skill, and a minus 15% penalty, and he answered instantly "13", which is correct. I had to think for about 10 seconds to decide that I agreed.

Grab a box of treats, and toss him asnack whenever you want him to perform that trick. Works great on animals and students.

We have one guy in our group who can total up dice really fast. And another guy who takes forever, and as often as not, getsit wrong. Guess which one is the engineer.

But the thing is, most of the time no one really has to do the math. The really low rolls and high rolls are easy. So there are only a few cases where you have to stop and figure out if a roll is a special or not. For instance, for any skill with a success chance of 43% or higher, any roll below 10 is a special.

[PhilHibbs]

For instance, for any skill with a success chance of 43% or higher, any roll below 10 is a special.

* edit * ok I misread you, didn't notice "below", I read that as "10 or below" in case you saw my original reply questioning your calc.

Edited June 18, 2011 by PhilHibbs

[PhilHibbs]

I can now calculate special chances in my head almost instantly. It was quite a revelation when it clicked. Maybe everyone could do it, if they spent long enough figuring out how they can do it - not everyone does maths in the same way, different methods work for different people. Here's roughly how my brain does it:

• Find the nearest 5%. Did it end in a 3 or an 8? Then go up rather than down. Other rounding directions are then obvious to me, and 3 and 8 look similar.
  
• For results of 50 or below, I can divide by 5 straight away.
  
• For results above 50, if the result is a multiple of 10, either double it and divide by 10 (for odd multiples of 10) or divide by 10 and then double (for even multiples of 10). e.g. 60 => 6 => 12. Otherwise, round to the nearest even multiple of 10, divide by 10 and double, then add or subtract 1. e.g. 75 => 80 => 16 => 15, or 45 => 40 => 8 => 9. Sometimes I don't go to the nearest even multiple, if I've recently done the calculation for the odd multiple.
  

That may sound complex, but I can do in under 2 seconds, I don't have to think about every decision, they just happen that way automatically. The important thing to me was to round the number first before dividing or multiplying.

I now accept that "it is easy for me", but I still contend that it is not easy for everyone.

We have one guy in our group who can total up dice really fast.

I have always had that knack.

Edited June 22, 2011 by PhilHibbs

[soltakss]

That's pretty much how I do it.

Double and knock the end 0 off, if it's a multiple of 10, or round up.down to the nearest 10, double and knock the end 0 off and add/subtract 1 depending on whether you rounded up or down.

It really should be in the rules as an easy calculation.

You can now work for a company of accountants and auditors, oh, hang on ...

[daddystabz]

Who would've thought BRP was the game for the mathematical elitists?

Get real people. No one is saying the devs need to necessarily dumb down the game or that they are asses for not putting out a simply mechanic. I AM saying though I vastly prefer MRQ II's 10% crit and no special success model. It is easier and more intuitive. Quicker too.

[rodney418]

Get real people. No one is saying the devs need to necessarily dumb down the game or that they are asses for not putting out a simply mechanic. I AM saying though I vastly prefer MRQ II's 10% crit and no special success model. It is easier and more intuitive. Quicker too.

Quoted for truth. My regular gaming group are well above average intelligence (one has a Masters degree, heading towards a Ph. D, and she's certainly far from being a dumb-ass) and they all HATE the 20% Special rule, not because they can't do math, but because they come over to hang out, drink and eat chips, and have fun; and doing math isn't fun (at least for them).

Now you may disagree with that, and that's cool if you do. I personally don't find it a problem to calculate 20% of something, but the players don't like it and it's their game as much as mine. Apart from that one thing they love the BRP system because they can look at a character sheet and go "hmm.. I have a 42% chance of doing this, therefore I need to roll 42 or less". Difficult roll or Easy roll is half that or double that, that's relatively intuitive. 10% of that is easy, just drop the last digit. Anything more than that starts to impact the fun of the game to a considerable number of players, and that's the reality of the situation.

Because of that I rarely use any other modifiers now, because it slows down the game and makes it less fun for some of the players, who would rather role-play than do math, no matter how simple that math might be. Basically in my games most of the time the player gets a choice of Easy, Normal, or Difficult chance to do something, and that's about it. I'm seriously thinking of adopting the MRQ 10% Critical and getting rid of Specials as well - as Daddystabz says, it's just easier and more intuitive.

When I first started running BRP I thought the Special and Critical rules were great, but my players are slowly disabusing of that notion I'm afraid.

[RosenMcStern]

This thread is sorely off topic. However, I wish to add my 2 clacks now.

If you do not want to use the full range of BRP levels of success, there is nothing wrong in it. However, like all rules, this mechanics has also to do with combat balance, and changing it will impact combat in an unpleasant way. First of all, the impale rule is now an inherent mechanics in how BRP damage works. Even CoC, that does not have specials, has it. The point is that much of the damage dealt by arrows and bullets (especially small caliber bullets) depends on the fact that one hit in five does double damage. Changing this to one hit in ten will make some weapons way less effective, and make some techniques like backstabbing or using sustained fire with small firearms or low-power lasers not viable.

Secondly, there is the issue of the combat matrix. In a fight between two rune levels, there will be an unparried blow every three rounds or so, and the chance of not having any roll below 20 for more than 5 consecutive rounds are negligible. If the threshold goes down to 10, then it is entirely possible to have a combat that lasts 10 rounds without a wound. Definitely less fun than doing some maths now and then.

In short, there is nothing wrong in wanting a less variable range of specials. But simply porting over the MRQ / Legend criticals to BRP will not result in an improvement. The correct (and really obvious) solution would be to use MRQ and _ALL_ of its rules for combat.

[rodney418]

You make good points as always Rosen.

[sdavies2720]

... The correct (and really obvious) solution would be to use MRQ and _ALL_ of its rules for combat.

"Correct" meaning, "If you want to move from the BRP-tiered success system to a 10%-tiered success system, the correct..." Right?

And if you are ok with the BRP-tiered system, the correct solution is to stick with that.

Sorry, but I don't want to see this wander further afield into one-true-wayism accusations and counters

Steve

[RosenMcStern]

"Correct" meaning, "If you want to move from the BRP-tiered success system to a 10%-tiered success system, the correct..." Right?

Definitely. BRP works fine as it is. MRQ wins in hand-to-hand combat, but lacks the (playtested) rules for integrating firearms, particularly automatic ones, into combat. So both work fine. It depends on what you want in your game.

[icebrand]

Who would've thought BRP was the game for the mathematical elitists?

Get real people. No one is saying the devs need to necessarily dumb down the game or that they are asses for not putting out a simply mechanic. I AM saying though I vastly prefer MRQ II's 10% crit and no special success model. It is easier and more intuitive. Quicker too.

Ok, in our current house rules (available as "retroquest" on a pdf ) you have 10% crit chance... Rounding down.

So you discard the units, and that's it. For combat, and then, only for attacks, you have special success, that is 2x crit (add +1 if the units are 5-9). That gives about 27%ish to hit on a 100 vs 100 vs. the 16ish? % of BRP, making stuff go fast.

Even if you keep using 5% crits, making the calculation simple (rounding either up or down, rounding down is usually easier) works BETTER than RAW imho. You don't even need to keep track of every %. Just do "discard units, /2 for crit and x2 for special". You lose minimum granularity, and gain "noone has to do math, ever"... (if they can't do a simple /2 x2 on a 1-digit number the GM sure can!)

[daddystabz]

To be clear, I never said I was going to paste MRQII's levels of success and 10% crits on top of BRP. What I actually advocated is ENTIRELY replacing BRP's combat system with my preferred MRQII combat system. Doing so avoids completely all the potential problems Rosen described above. When taking into account firearms and the specials associated with things like impale, etc. you then only need to do a bit of tweaking.

To make things even clearer, I am fine with BRP's core system as per RAW. I do enjoy 10% crits and no special successes when playing in my MRQII group but if my group for my upcoming BRP game is ok with RAW I certainly am too.

Edited June 23, 2011 by daddystabz