Jump to content

MRQII is now "wayfarer"


Recommended Posts

What's all this nonsense I hear about RPGs teaching kids math then? Percentages and rounding is pretty damn basic, and easy.

So is the math behind the Resistance Table, but a lot of people seem to have problems with it.

I'm one of those "blessed" with the ability to do critical and special chances in my head (I can also do he QR ranged for the James Bond RPG in my head at the same time). And no, I don't find it difficult. For critical all one needs to remember is the 30/50/70/90/10 breakpoints. For specials the 3 and 8 breakpoints. Heck, most of the time I doN7t even need to do the "full math" but can get a good ballpark idea based on the skill% and the die roll. But, a lot of gamers can't or won't do that. In fact, get angry if a game expects them to do any math.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 321
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Using doubles is nice and neat but given that 2 of the doubles are 99 and 00 then criticals become a little less common and fumbles become probably too common in proportion to normal failures.

Also the "parallel d20" doesn't work for skills over 100%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait to see the increase of chatter in this thread beyond the already high level when it is announced that Wizards of the Coast have bought the rights to RuneQuest and Glorantha, for a D&D4E version. ;D

Or by PEG, for Savage Worlds..... O:)

... as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...

Edited by dragonewt
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems I really should finish my "Mysteries of Pavis" supplement for Call of

Cthulhu, the one about Griselda and her trained schoggoth (with frikkin' laser,

of course), before someone else writes something of that kind ... B-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, there are some roleplaying "sages" who claim

that Runequest, all in all, was the most influential system ever published.

Edit.:

To give an example, this is what Ron Edwards, the author who came up with the

GNS Model of roleplaying, wrote about BRP/Runequest in his essay on simulatio-

nism:

Ron Edwards is less of a sage and more of a pretentious clown. I mean an "abashed synecdoche" of a clown. ;-D For anyone that wants to know why, and have a laugh while doing so take a look at Jim bob's rebuttal of Edward's crank theories.

http://jimboboz.livejournal.com/7305.html

Edited by Conrad
To add the link to Jim Bob's funny rebuttal.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Broo & Burrows?

Broo & Burrows! Who is going to break the bad news to the Scorpion Men?

It was hard enough convincing all those people that Griffin Mountain was actually an Island.

Personally, I am not bothered by the though of Greg pimping out Glorantha to other RPGs. Considering all the changes that have happened to Glorantha, and that various systems that ave already been used with it, nothing else could really hurt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That gives a very different progression over 100%. Instead of your special chance going up by 1% for each 5% of skill increase, it goes up 1 for 1.

Yup, it would. Can't fault your math.

But any method other than the one givenin the rulebook will give a different progression.

All you can really do is settle on something that you can accept.

You might be able to do a partial "bumb" using another D10. If that is equal to or lower than below a certain threhold (lsay 2 or less for 100%) you bump the result.If not,you don't.

Another possibility would be to roll the % oover 100 separate from the 100% and combine the two results in sum way.

Just what is it that you are trying to achieve? I'm feeling creative. :)

Edited by Atgxtg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just what is it that you are trying to achieve? I'm feeling creative. :)

Easier calculation for levels of success. I was extolling the virtues of the MRQ/Wayfarer system of divide-by-ten-and-round-up, as it is trivial to calculate the critical chance for any skill, as compared to RQ3/BRP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easier calculation for levels of success. I was extolling the virtues of the MRQ/Wayfarer system of divide-by-ten-and-round-up, as it is trivial to calculate the critical chance for any skill, as compared to RQ3/BRP.

Ah. Well I suppose the answer would depnd on how much more difficult you find the RQ3 method in comparison to MRQ. I find the RQ3 math trivial enough, but I do use a few mental shortcuts.

But how does skills over 100% factor into your problem? I find figuring special and crtical chances for skills over 100% to be just as easy (or difficult) as for skills under 100%.

Are you trying to use a Harn-like mechanic of treating results ending in mutiples of 5 as specials?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But how does skills over 100% factor into your problem? I find figuring special and crtical chances for skills over 100% to be just as easy (or difficult) as for skills under 100%.

I'm not actively pursuing any alternatives, just talking about them. Someone mentioned rolling a parallel d20 to indicate crit, special, and fumbles. I pointed out that that doesn't scale above 100%, and neither does the "bump". So you're trying to answer a question that I'm not asking, I'm not sure anyone really is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not actively pursuing any alternatives, just talking about them. Someone mentioned rolling a parallel d20 to indicate crit, special, and fumbles. I pointed out that that doesn't scale above 100%, and neither does the "bump". So you're trying to answer a question that I'm not asking, I'm not sure anyone really is.

Ah. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way MRQII handles skills over 100%. Ex: Your Athletics skill is 120%. Your enemy is opposing you with an Athletics skill of 100%. You take a -20 penalty to your skill and he takes the same penalty to his and then you will vs. 100. So your skill is now 100% and his is now 80% and you both roll. You simply take a penalty to both people by how much the highest skill level is above 100%.

Edited by daddystabz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way MRQII handles skills over 100%... You simply take a penalty to both people by how much the nighest skill level is above 100%.

Yes, that's a nice simple mechanism for opposed rolls. It has always been a tradition in RuneQuest, though, that the mightiest hero can be felled by a single trollkin. Everyone's vulnerable to the "lucky crit" (except the character in an old campaign of mine who had so many Hit Points from strengthening enchantments that he survived a 01 crit to the head with a heavy crossbow). Still, that 01 is still a crit, and even if you have 500% skill, you only have a 50-50 chance of beating it. Hm, that raises an interesting point. If you have 50% skill and I have 500%, what happens? You are always going to have a 5% chance, I think, and a 1% crit chance, so what does my skill get reduced by? The reduction should be capped at 45%, I think, your-skill-minus-5.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way MRQII handles skills over 100%. Ex: Your Athletics skill is 120%. Your enemy is opposing you with an Athletics skill of 100%. You take a -20 penalty to your skill and he takes the same penalty to his and then you will vs. 100. So your skill is now 100% and his is now 80% and you both roll. You simply take a penalty to both people by how much the nighest skill level is above 100%.

RQII had something similar in just one skill, lock picking. But in that case the amount over 100% of the locksmith's skill was simply deducted from the lock picker's chance. I think I prefer that approach, penalising both seems like a game device more than a measure of what 100%+ skills can do (unless there's more to it than that, I haven't read MRQ2).

Link to post
Share on other sites

RQII had something similar in just one skill, lock picking. But in that case the amount over 100% of the locksmith's skill was simply deducted from the lock picker's chance. I think I prefer that approach, penalising both seems like a game device more than a measure of what 100%+ skills can do (unless there's more to it than that, I haven't read MRQ2).

It isn't "penalising both" really, because you are already penalised by having your skill over 100 largely wasted in an opposed contest. The winner is the person who succeeds with the highest die roll, which means if you don't do something about it, people with skills over 100 have no relative advantage other than their crit chance. By reducing both, you let the highest skilled person keep their advantage, whilst the lower skill person loses out. For example, if I have 150% and you have 100%, the only difference is in my higher crit chance. However, if we reduce you to 50% and me to 100%, I'm now guaranteed a win if I roll between 51 and 95 (and you don't crit). So I'm not being penalised at all. Except, I suppose, if it's a combat then my chance of getting an "Ignore Armour" CM is reduced, as that only happens on a crit. Still, you're defending yourself so that's how it works out. 10% chance is still ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RQII had something similar in just one skill, lock picking. But in that case the amount over 100% of the locksmith's skill was simply deducted from the lock picker's chance. I think I prefer that approach, penalising both seems like a game device more than a measure of what 100%+ skills can do (unless there's more to it than that, I haven't read MRQ2).

Roughly as Phil says. RQII uses a blackjack method for opposed skill contests. If both parties get same level of success then highest roll wins. (Note that if both fail or fumble no one wins). By definition there is no higher number than 95 that can be rolled as a success. Therefore if your skill is 150 vs 70 then what happens is that the highest skill is reduced to 100 and the amount of reduction is taken off the lowest skill. So 150 vs 70 ends up as 100 vs 20. If you don't do that then much of the skill over 100 is effectively wasted. E.g. 130% vs 100% is as near to 50/50 in who wins as you can get.

I personally prefer the old RQ2 attacks over 100 rule where, simply, skill over 100 is subtracted from the opponent. So 150 vs 70 ends up as 150 vs 20. Similarly, 150 vs 120 ends up as 130 vs 70 rather than 100 vs 70. It has one annoying problem though: contests with more than 2 people. E.g. if the contest is between 150%, 120% and 70% then under RQII it would be 100 vs 90 vs 20. Under my system it becomes a bit complicated as you have to figure what to reduce the highest skill by.

At this point someone is about to start typing "why don't you just calculate who won by most" so I'll simply ask them to read the 102 other threads about the topic of opposed rolls in a roll-under percentile system where the skill can exceed 100. Like democracy, there is no good solution, just the one you prefer to live with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me make sure I've got this straight. Let's say I have a TOTAL skill level of 45% in Athletics in BRP. I roll percentile on an Athletics check and roll a 32. This is a success in BRP. With a total of 45% in this skill I'd need to roll a 01-03 to roll a crit. I'd need to roll a 01-09 for a special success. I'd need to roll a 89-00 for a fumble result. Is this correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...