Jump to content

RQ Glorantha desiderata: give me a charsheet with boxes to tick!


smiorgan

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, threedeesix said:

Its a game, and games should be fun. I let each group determine what's fun for them, and we go from there.

Agreed, but it goes both ways.  I like to game in worlds that feel plausible.  If other people at the table are constantly going off and doing things which would be implausible if the game setting were real, then it's no fun for me.  And a lot of the stereotypical tick-hunting examples strike me as implausible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true, and that's where compromise is the key. The players need to have fun, but not at the cost of wrecking the world that the GM is creating.

At the end of the day, whether it is Skill Checks via Ticks or Skill Checks via Improvement Points, the GM should ultimately only allow what is plausible for the genre and the character, even if there may be haggling involved at times. 

Whatever works for the GM and troupe I reckon

I would be happy whichever route Chaosium goes with for RuneQuest Glorantha. Tick Boxes are very classic, but Improvement Rolls are also pretty good; they are both just unlocks to the Sklll Check Rolls.

I think the main thing is that the Skill Check Roll itself remains the same. I have always really liked that actual skill increase is never a certainty, and that even the skill point gain is a variable roll. This core mechanic is iconic and a hallmark feature for BRP, one of the really cool things that shows how innovative the system has been, and currently remains so.

Edited by Mankcam
  • Like 3

" Sure it's fun, but it is also well known that a D20 roll and an AC is no match against a hefty swing of a D100% and a D20 Hit Location Table!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Pentallion said:

Then the problem with tick boxes IS a myth in other words?

For me, it is a problem, one that I sorted by limiting experience.

For others it isn't a problem and they are happy to continue doing things their own way.

Edited by soltakss
  • Like 2

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, soltakss said:

For me, it is a problem, one that I sorted by limiting experience.

For others it isn;t a problem and they are happy to continue doing things their own way.

Yes. It really is one of the easiest things to mod in the system. If you want to add ticks to RQ6, you can just do it. If you want to add experience rolls to CoC, it's not an issue. I'm never going to lose sleep over how the designer's plan to handle it in an upcoming BRP game, which means I feel no great need to get into passionate arguments on the Internet to convert people to my way of thinking on it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, nDervish said:

Agreed, but it goes both ways.  I like to game in worlds that feel plausible.  If other people at the table are constantly going off and doing things which would be implausible if the game setting were real, then it's no fun for me.  And a lot of the stereotypical tick-hunting examples strike me as implausible.

True, but you cant just quote part of my post and not the part relevant to your argument, I also said...

"If the players can come up with some rational as to why they need to use the skill in a particular situation..."  :)

Rod

Join my Mythras/RuneQuest 6: Classic Fantasy Yahoo Group at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RQCF/info

"D100 - Exactly 5 times better than D20"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update the tick rules with some 'realistic' moderation. Limit the number of ticks that can be learned from. Add a short paragraph to explain it.

While a person can try and succeed at many many different tasks, most people can only retain a certain amount of learning. This would often be the most relevant (important to them, profession or life calling), enjoyable (more likely to take in something they like), eventful/meaningful (that last parry that saved them from within an inch of death really stuck in their memory and answered some sword play questions the student was struggling with), easier to remember (learning that takes less effort or thought, a good trainer knows how to help a student focus on what they prefer to avoid but need), or complementary (repeating similar skills eases learning when there are common elements between skills).

Only the top few events would be mentally digested. So allow a player to choose a limited number of ticked skills that make sense (depending on the degree of the tone of realism in the game session).

The maximum number could depend on a time period (eg: per day, per session, per month). Could be moderated with "down-time required to absorb" and let it "sink in" (again, depending on the style of play). Stress might reduce the ability to absorb and learn.

Smarter or "more tuned in" or "enthusiastic" characters might be able to absorb more (based on INT, POW or EDU) - some people need to first learn how to learn or be "coach-able" (even if they are "clever" with a high INT). For a 'balanced' game, allow all players the same number of ticks that can be learned from.

A type of stat could be used for this (either hard set, or calculated from other stats): LRN or LAP (Learning Aptitude).

Edited by dragonewt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, dragonewt said:

Update the tick rules with some 'realistic' moderation. Limit the number of ticks that can be learned from. Add a short paragraph to explain it.

While a person can try and succeed at many many different tasks, most people can only retain a certain amount of learning. This would often be the most relevant (important to them, profession or life calling), enjoyable (more likely to take in something they like), eventful/meaningful (that last parry that saved them from within an inch of death really stuck in their memory and answered some sword play questions the student was struggling with), easier to remember (learning that takes less effort or thought, a good trainer knows how to help a student focus on what they prefer to avoid but need), or complementary (repeating similar skills eases learning when there are common elements between skills).

Only the top few events would be mentally digested. So allow a player to choose a limited number of ticked skills that make sense (depending on the degree of the tone of realism in the game session).

The maximum number could depend on a time period (eg: per day, per session, per month). Could be moderated with "down-time required to absorb" and let it "sink in" (again, depending on the style of play). Stress might reduce the ability to absorb and learn.

Smarter or "more tuned in" or "enthusiastic" characters might be able to absorb more (based on INT, POW or EDU) - some people need to first learn how to learn or be "coach-able" (even if they are "clever" with a high INT). For a 'balanced' game, allow all players the same number of ticks that can be learned from.

A type of stat could be used for this (either hard set, or calculated from other stats): LRN or LAP (Learning Aptitude).

I would like to make what you suggest more simple. Just say two. Have the players choose the checks for the two most significant events of the session (period since the last time they were allowed to roll checks). Perhaps INT, or the average of INT and POW allow additional checks to be rolled; say an additional check for every three points (or fraction thereof) above 10. This would give most the ability to roll three, a few 4, and on rare occasions someone with 5. 

I would leave EDU out of this, as in games that have it, it is much more the characters wisdom, what they know, rather than reasoning ability. 

No additional stats please! If we compiled all the stat suggestions from this board for different circumstances, we would probably have almost as many as we have skills! :D

SDLeary

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

I would like to make what you suggest more simple. Just say two. Have the players choose the checks for the two most significant events of the session (period since the last time they were allowed to roll checks).

In a way, you are really blending the tick rules and the experience roll rules. You get x amount of experience rolls for the session, but can only spend them on things that are ticked. 

23 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

Perhaps INT, or the average of INT and POW allow additional checks to be rolled; say an additional check for every three points (or fraction thereof) above 10. This would give most the ability to roll three, a few 4, and on rare occasions someone with 5. 

I would leave EDU out of this, as in games that have it, it is much more the characters wisdom, what they know, rather than reasoning ability. 

The issue with giving bonus checks for INT is that a lot of skills are physical. A high DEX character should have as proficient at learning physical skills as a high INT players is at learning academic skills. 

Here is my 1 AM, untested, barely thought about idea: Have each player pick any one stat they want at the end of each session. If they can make a successful roll with that stat, they get one more experience roll in a skill tied to that stat. It seems like a quick and simple solution to me at the moment. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some skills that should go up without experience checks, too - if you're spending a season or two with Praxian nomads, you should get an automatic chance to increase Praxian language, customs, and survival. The real question will be how many and what kind of skills will be used to handle such specialized knowledge/experience. The more different skills you introduce, the less able will a character be.

Academic as well as physical skills have the possibility of learning the wrong thing which sort of works (and often can be acquired quickly), but only to a limited level of proficiency, which then has to be unlearned (painfully, with a decrease in performance) in order to rise to higher levels. I have encountered this with as different fields as languages, physics, archery or musical instruments.

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I think the main thing is that the Skill Check Roll itself remains the same. I have always really liked that actual skill increase is never a certainty, and that even the skill point gain is a variable roll. This core mechanic is iconic and a hallmark feature for BRP, one of the really cool things that shows how innovative the system has been, and currently remains so.

Skill gain is actually a certainty in RQ6, presumably because you have to spend IP to be able to roll at all.  Roll high, and you gain d4+1% in the skill; roll low and gain a flat 1%.  I expect this is to make players more willing to spend IP on skills that are already high, since there's no risk that it will be a complete waste.

5 hours ago, dragonewt said:

Smarter or "more tuned in" or "enthusiastic" characters might be able to absorb more (based on INT, POW or EDU)

I prefer the way that the existing rules do this:  Add INT (RQ6) or INT/2 (BGB) to your roll before comparing it to your current skill rating.  High-INT characters don't get more rolls, but each roll is more likely to increase the skill.  (In RQ6, the number of IP gained is affected by CHA, though.)

3 hours ago, Joerg said:

There are some skills that should go up without experience checks, too - if you're spending a season or two with Praxian nomads, you should get an automatic chance to increase Praxian language, customs, and survival.

In my house rules for introducing ticks to RQ6, I cover that by allowing players to tick one or more additional skills before they start rolling for skill advancement.  (Before rather than after is to ensure that this is used to broaden their skill base, not to hyper-focus advancement of a specific skill.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Baulderstone said:

The issue with giving bonus checks for INT is that a lot of skills are physical. A high DEX character should have as proficient at learning physical skills as a high INT players is at learning academic skills. 

The issue is the ability to process what you have learned. Someone with a higher INT supposedly has a higher cognitive ability, and thus is able to perceive variances that give them the path forward with the skill. This is irrespective of the skill being physical or mental. By averaging this with POW, you are bringing luck, and stumbling upon the improvement as a possibility. Thus, the "smarter" and "luckier" the character is, the quicker they will advance.

As a side bonus, it can somewhat balance out some of the minmaxing of STR, SIZ, and DEX with physical characters, if thats an issue in anyones games.

SDLeary

Edited by SDLeary
grammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2015 at 2:16 AM, threedeesix said:

True, but you cant just quote part of my post and not the part relevant to your argument

Of course we can, this is the Interweb!

  • Like 2

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2015 at 9:05 AM, smiorgan said:
On 12/6/2015 at 1:03 AM, hkokko said:

We have a house rule - use RQ6 Improvement rolls (only a certain number of improvement possible) but only on skills you have used. This has worked well with us. There are couple of interesting suggestions above to add to that (critical + common knowledge or some specific knowledge or even insight.. roll to gain extra improvement). 

That's a very good rule, which seems to take the best of both worlds. I like it a lot.

Agreed!

I allow unlimited tick-hunting until some pre-defined skill-level (generally either 50% or 75%); sometimes I allow 1-2 "core" skills unlimited improvement to 90%.  Then it's like the above -- you need a tick to make the improvement-check, but there's generally far more ticks to choose among, than there are improvement-rolls available to check for improvement.  I allow an extra tick for a crit or a fumble, and this CAN mean TWO rolls to improve a single skill; I've considered only letting those same 1-2 "core" skills have that double-tick option, but haven't implemented that.  For Glorantha, these "special" skills obviously MUST be cult skills...

This honestly is a bit more fiddly than I like, but at the same time it also IMHO/IME gives even more of that feel of "learning/growing from the experiences the character had" that was such a revelation to me back in 1980 when I first met the RQ rules (after level-based systems).

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
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...