New RQ - Designer Notes Part Three

[threedeesix]

29 minutes ago, fmitchell said:

On the other hand..., On the third hand..., On the fourth hand...

You sure your not playing Gamma World?

[Mechashef]

1 hour ago, fmitchell said:

Last night I was reading RQ2 for the first time in decades, and man there's a lot of stuff that seems weird now.  A "Defense Score" subtracted from all attempts to hit?  No "Dodge" skill ...

I agree, and things like how Defense is increased in a different way than other skills are just wacky. Presumably there for game balence but makes the mechanics inconsistent.

At least looking at the draft of the new character sheet they are keeping Magic Points unlike the confusing Permanent and Temporary Pow if RQ2.

I wonder if human Int and Siz will be 3D6 or 2D6+6?

Whole many people seem to prefer RQ2 over RQ3 it shouldn't be forgotten that some of the changes in RQ3 actually fixed things from RQ2 that needed fixing.

 

[jux]

7 hours ago, fmitchell said:

Not that anyone asked, but my two Clacks on Hit Locations: I go back and forth between that and the Major Wound table.  On the one hand, hit locations are more visceral and more specific.  On the other hand, the probabilities of each location should depend on the weapon used, the distance between fighters, the stance (e.g. one shoulder forward), etc., so it's not exactly "realistic".  On the third hand, it's a game, so arbitrary probabilities of a body part are no better or worse than arbitrary probabilities of a Major Wound effect.  On the fourth hand, it is extra bookkeeping.

TL;DR: it would be nice if hit locations were optional in RuneQuest 2+i, but as it's "tradition" I'm not really expecting it.

I agree that it is extra book-keeping. In the end I may prefer generic HPs with major and why not minor wound chart where one can record injuries. I think it all comes down to injuries, rather than the "1 hit point left" parody.

But one silly side-effect for hit-location is the case where if generic character has let's say 10 HP-s, but the equally strong character with hit locations would have actually more. For example, you do 3 damage to left leg, then 3 to right leg, then 3 to each of the arms - that's already 12 damage. So instead for the combat to be over sooner, it can drag more.

[Corvantir]

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

What problem do you have with Hit Locations? They've been part of RQ since the beginning. In fact, I think RQ was the first RPG to get away from generic hit point.

I have drifted towards the lighter side of role playing games nowadays and such rules appear overly complex to me as a GM, too much book keeping. Note that I don't mind such complexity as a player, I only have my character to bother about, but not as a game master. The same goes for Fumble tables and this kind of things. I thought it was fun at the time but this is no more the case today. I prefer all this to be more free form so I can concentrate myself on what is important, the players, the story and the pace. When rules are too crunchy, I usually fail to manage all this properly because I have too many tedious things to take care of. And as a player, I don't find instant death, chopped arms and legs fun anymore. In my opionion, such things should not happen randomly and are only interesting when they are meaningful to the story or even best when they are leading to further adventures.

To sum up, I think it boils down to preferences and the fact that I am no more interested in managing such things at my table. Here realism, or the illusion of it through the rules, is detrimental to the flow and mood of the story we want to tell. As far as I am concerned, "realism" is better conveyed through descriptions than through rules.

I have been hooked by HeroQuest: Glorantha and I honestly don't know if I will use RuneQuest for my future games. But if I do that, there are things I will certainly remove from the game, be it RQ2 or the new RuneQuest. Hit locations, Fumble tables are among them. And there are other things I will add like Hero Points...

But if I remember well, someone from Chaosium posted that one of the goals was to be able to play story in the HeroQuest style with the future RuneQuest rules. So wait and see, but I will buy the book anyway.  

Edited February 20, 2016 by Corvantir

[Al.]

Hit Locations

On the one hand: many people have played with the RQ2 Hit Locations RAW with no problems whatsoever

On the other hand: I run general HPs, until and unless a Major Wound (1/2 HP a la Stormbringer) is rolled and then we roll for which location is disabled or wiped out

On the gripping hand: one of the cleverest house rules I've seen on t'net was using the RQ3 Missile Hit Location chart for Fists and Thrusting attacks

[TrippyHippy]

Actually, if there is one design feature I'd like to insist on, it's that we ensure that game play is not based upon tabular reference. So, for example, no Resistance tables or Crit/Fumble tables or the like. What I want is for the game to flow intuitively, without having to crack open the book all the time. 

Edited February 20, 2016 by TrippyHippy

[K Peterson]

34 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

Actually, if there is one design feature I'd like to insist on, it's that we ensure that game play is not based upon tabular reference. So, for example, no Resistance tables or Crit/Fumble tables or the like. What I want is for the game to flow intuitively, without having to crack open the book all the time. 

Is there any edition of RQ that doesn't have some aspect of tabular reference? I can't think of any that fit your design preference, unless you're referring to modeling a new version of RQ after HeroQuest Glorantha or another Rpg entirely.

Ironically enough, if you know how values in the Resistance Table are derived, you can calculate them quickly, in your head, without ever needing to crack the book and disrupt play.

[Pete Nash]

14 hours ago, K Peterson said:

This campaign took place within Xoth Publishing's Sword & Sorcery world of The Spider God's Bride. There wasn't a lot of moral ambiguity, or shades of grey, and the best way to deal with many threats was to kill them dead. (Especially Serpentmen wizards. Especially!). There was one situation where the character slayed an NPC who could have turned out to be an ally, and they paid a dear price for their blood-lust. But it did not change their Special Effects selection for the future. They found the most optimal SEs to use across a variety of combat situations, and many of the others were considered inefficient. Multiple copies of combat and SE documents were on the gaming table, but the options did not lead to any decision paralysis.

...

I'd agree that it is great to have options available, and sound rules for the resolution of these options. Personally, SEs did not work that well for me, and I don't find them to be the godsend of cinematic combat resolution that many profess them to be. If they work well for you, stellar.

Well, you have to remember that TSGB was originally written for D&D, where lots and lots of killing is the done thing. Does a S&S campaign mean that you must kill everything in the most brutal efficient way possible? Well going by the Conan tales themselves, it actually is not. Conan is often captured - either by being disarmed or knocked unconscious - so if killing was the best option, he would have died very early into his career.

Now you would rightly point out that Conan is the protagonist of a series of stories, so he cannot be killed when he loses. Yet the tales themselves provide perfectly valid reasons for his survival: the need to interrogate him, the desire to torture him, to use him as a living sacrifice to a 'god', sell him as a slave, out of respect earned earlier in his career, lustful desire, to make him an offer he can't refuse etc and so on.  Conan himself doesn't kill out of hand either. Can you imagine him slaying a woman just because she attacks him with a knife? No his personal ethics generally forbid it, and anyway he has other plans for most of them. Picts are his mortal enemy, as are those who betray him. Soldiers who he faces on the battlefield may or may not be killed depending on whether he truly considers them his foe, or if he has a chance to turn them to his side.

Yes some of the Special Effects are lethal in the right circumstances, but it is the circumstance which makes all the difference. Most SEs can be used to end fights without death. Whether your players want (or even need) to use them all comes down to the genre and setting. Let us just say that the conversion of The Spider God's Bride is perhaps not the best place to showcase the entire range and their in-game value.  

[nDervish]

17 hours ago, Baulderstone said:

Trying to fix the problem of players liking a handful of SEs seems a bad idea. It's saying, "Oh you like doing that, huh? Well, how about I take that away from you." You are much better off presenting combats that make other SEs more attractive than locking options down.

I don't particularly agree.  In just about every other aspect of RPG, whether on the roleplaying side or the tactical side or the resource management side or whatever else, it's generally accepted that having constraints on the players' options is a good thing.  Why shouldn't that apply to SEs?  Is "no, you can't buy a great axe in this town because nobody is selling one" really all that different from "no, you can't cause a Bleed SE this round because you don't have that card"?

In any case, I simplified the origin of the card idea somewhat.  It actually came from a desire to allow players to play with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the rules, which isn't really possible with RQ6-as-written, with SEs being the biggest obstacle to that.  (Not just knowing what SEs are available, but also the strategy around knowing when it's better to pick an SE that can be resisted vs. picking one that works automatically.)  From there, I jumped to using SE cards pedagogically, in which case I would have allowed players to use any SE they know the mechanics of, whether it's in their hand or not.  And then, from that point, using the cards restrictively, where you can only use an SE that's in your hand, is only a small step further.  I don't know which of these modes would work best in practice, but I fully suspect that it would vary from group to group based on the individual table's preferences.

[Al.]

2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Actually, if there is one design feature I'd like to insist on, it's that we ensure that game play is not based upon tabular reference. So, for example, no Resistance tables or Crit/Fumble tables or the like. What I want is for the game to flow intuitively, without having to crack open the book all the time. 

I'm not sure that I have any power to insist upon anything. But I do agree with that guiding principle

RQ has always been pretty good for 'everything you need is on the character sheet'

One of the reasons (the other being I like to have more special effects i the game) for me moving to Special on a half and Critical on a a tenth's to remove the need to look at the levels of success chart. I know that some people are numerate enough to calculate fifths and twentieths on the fly, and I salute that; but for me easier is better

[el_octogono]

As a player I like hit locations but as a GM not so much. I can't create creatures on the fly without looking for a hit location chart that goes with the creature form. Stormbringer 4th was the first game I GMed and creating creatures and demons as you go was almost a necesity. It is all a matter of preferences but I dislike when I have to cut the flow of the game, story or climax to look for a specific rule, specially when it is not a really important one.

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2016 by el_octogono
Writing with autocorrect in a non english cellphone = bad idea.

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, Al. said:

Hit Locations

On the one hand: many people have played with the RQ2 Hit Locations RAW with no problems whatsoever

On the other hand: I run general HPs, until and unless a Major Wound (1/2 HP a la Stormbringer) is rolled and then we roll for which location is disabled or wiped out

On the gripping hand: one of the cleverest house rules I've seen on t'net was using the RQ3 Missile Hit Location chart for Fists and Thrusting attacks

How are you handling armor variability by location? Just not worrying about it, or are you using die based variable armor absorption? 

SDLeary

[Baulderstone]

1 hour ago, nDervish said:

I don't particularly agree.  In just about every other aspect of RPG, whether on the roleplaying side or the tactical side or the resource management side or whatever else, it's generally accepted that having constraints on the players' options is a good thing.  Why shouldn't that apply to SEs?  Is "no, you can't buy a great axe in this town because nobody is selling one" really all that different from "no, you can't cause a Bleed SE this round because you don't have that card"?

It's just that there is already a constraint on SEs as you need to of achieve certain success levels to use them. I see the cards leading to regular situations where a player gets great roll and gets no or a lesser benefit. When someone with a three card gets a critical while their opponent fumbles, it's going to be very likely that they won't be able to apply three cards to the situation. Given that it is a rare event, it could easily create frustration and annoyance with the rules. 

If a player is looking to buy a great axe in town, then it suggests its something new they want to try, so its no big deal to delay them acquiring it. However, let's look at the character who has a great axe. Part of the coolness of the weapon in the Sunder SE. You can try and just chop an opponents shield in half. With the cards system, that becomes a very rare occasion. The Sunder card is going to spend a lot more time in the hands of people that can't use it. Same with Impale Impaling weapons should be able to Impale, and it feels odd to lock the result behind a card draw. Entangling weapons no longer seem worth having in the game at all. 

Certain SEs really don't feel like they should be restricted. Close and Open Range don't seem like things that should be restricted to showing up maybe once every other combat. 

Another side effect is going to be prolonged combat length. If you can't apply Special Effects strategically, they have less effect on the game, making attrition more central. Even earlier editions without Special Effects had reliable means that meant critical results had a powerful effect. 

Ultimately, it seems like the system would lead to larger analysis paralysis over the long haul. In a typical game, players soon have an idea of exactly what SEs will work for a situation. With cards, players will always be confronted with a mishmash of Effects that don't really do what they want to do. This can lead to people staring at their useless hand, wondering what to do with it. 

I'm simply trying to identify issues that the system could create. Maybe have a hand size closer to ten might mitigate some of the issues. I think that simply giving a short list of suggested SEs to new players gives the same benefits as the cards without the frustrations. 

[jux]

3 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Actually, if there is one design feature I'd like to insist on, it's that we ensure that game play is not based upon tabular reference. So, for example, no Resistance tables or Crit/Fumble tables or the like. What I want is for the game to flow intuitively, without having to crack open the book all the time. 

I on the contrary like all the random effects/tables. I don't want them to be too harsh - I don't wish to roll which limb I have lost for example. But I want them to enrich some small details of narrative into the game. DCC is very successful line and is full of awesome tables. Unfortunately I hate d20 system.

[pachristian]

Restrictions are good.

Something to keep in mind is that adventure is often based more on what the characters cannot do instead of what they can. If Gandalf could have just teleported Frodo to Mount Doom, there wouldn't have been a story. If the players can fly, climbing Condor Crags is not an adventure. You get a narrative - and a game - when the players have to do something clever and creative to get around limitations that their characters have.

[Baulderstone]

11 minutes ago, pachristian said:

Restrictions are good.

Something to keep in mind is that adventure is often based more on what the characters cannot do instead of what they can. If Gandalf could have just teleported Frodo to Mount Doom, there wouldn't have been a story. If the players can fly, climbing Condor Crags is not an adventure. You get a narrative - and a game - when the players have to do something clever and creative to get around limitations that their characters have.

Was this a response to an earlier post. I agree with what you are saying, I am just trying to fit it into the context of the thread. 

[Baulderstone]

48 minutes ago, jux said:

I on the contrary like all the random effects/tables. I don't want them to be too harsh - I don't wish to roll which limb I have lost for example. But I want them to enrich some small details of narrative into the game. DCC is very successful line and is full of awesome tables. Unfortunately I hate d20 system.

I'm a big fan of DCC myself. Despite my reservations about using SE cards, I like some crazy randomness, especially with magic. I love the way every spell has some side effect unique to the caster in DCC. The tables in DCC, however, are designed to be tables. SE's in RQ5 aren't.

SE's cover a range of things that would be in entirely different tables in more random game. They cover special attacks that particular weapon types make. They cover critical results for both attack and defense. They cover applying fumbles. They cover special maneuvers. They cover choosing to make non-lethal attacks. As a list to pick from, they make sense. Putting them all in the same deck of cards or table becomes a mess without some careful thought put into the design. 

[pachristian]

Sorry - I was responding to an earlier post. Also a general idea.

[Atgxtg]

16 hours ago, fmitchell said:

 A "Defense Score" subtracted from all attempts to hit? 

Yeah, IMO Defense is one of the "broken" rules of RQ2. It was very hard to get initially, require good stat scores, but it could be improved with experience. Once it got up past 15% or so, it started to climb just like a beginning skill and made the fights even more lopsided.  

[Atgxtg]

16 hours ago, fmitchell said:

Not that anyone asked, but my two Clacks on Hit Locations: I go back and forth between that and the Major Wound table.  On the one hand, hit locations are more visceral and more specific.  On the other hand, the probabilities of each location should depend on the weapon used, the distance between fighters, the stance (e.g. one shoulder forward), etc., so it's not exactly "realistic".  On the third hand, it's a game, so arbitrary probabilities of a body part are no better or worse than arbitrary probabilities of a Major Wound effect.  On the fourth hand, it is extra bookkeeping.

TL;DR: it would be nice if hit locations were optional in RuneQuest 2+i, but as it's "tradition" I'm not really expecting it.

Personally I would like to keep hit locations, but get rid of the specific hit points per location. Just use the Major Wound, 1/2 hit point threshold. It doesn't make much difference in the values for most PCs. and would eliminate a table and some bookkeeping. Oh, and it would make it very easy to have hit locations be optional, since it would essentially be the major would game mechanic.

Ironically, one thing that might help would be to add more hit location tables. Aftermath has hit location tables that depend on how someone if fighting. Someone fighting with a rapier, with the weapon pointing forward (presented) uses a different hit location table than someone fighting behind a shield  (reposed), and the different tables meant that the guy with the rapier tended to get hit more on his weapon arm while the guy with the shield tended to get hit on his shield more. 

Oh, and to make things a bit more "realistic" we could swipe the hit location rules from Flashing Blades. in that RPG the attacker picks a target, rolls 2D20 for hit location, and takes the result closest to what he was aiming for. It's quick and painless to run, and really helps.

 

 

[Al.]

5 hours ago, SDLeary said:

How are you handling armor variability by location? Just not worrying about it, or are you using die based variable armor absorption? 

SDLeary

Not worrying about it (And selling suits in complete sets)

Speaking only for myself I'd either use die based armour variability OR Hit Location; I'm far too lazy to use both

[hkokko]

4 hours ago, Baulderstone said:

SE's cover a range of things that would be in entirely different tables in more random game. They cover special attacks that particular weapon types make. They cover critical results for both attack and defense. They cover applying fumbles. They cover special maneuvers. They cover choosing to make non-lethal attacks. As a list to pick from, they make sense. Putting them all in the same deck of cards or table becomes a mess without some careful thought put into the design. 

I agree. Earlier there was discussion of that players used only few of the effects. It might be a "style" they use or they have not discovered the uses of others.

In my game I see many being used with more being used by more tactical gamers - trip opponent is very common as it is very useful, when you are down, you will end up being in world of hurt, press advantage is also a nasty one and used too often, compel surrender very effectively, disarm opponent sometimes, overextend quite often, bash sometimes, impale often. If they get the criticals then bypass armor, choose location, maximise damage, force failure all come into play, often in nasty combinations. Only one that got boring was choose location so I made a house rule of having it available only in critical. 

[styopa]

41 minutes ago, hkokko said:

In my game I see many being used with more being used by more tactical gamers - trip opponent is very common as it is very useful, when you are down, you will end up being in world of hurt, press advantage is also a nasty one and used too often, compel surrender very effectively, disarm opponent sometimes, overextend quite often, bash sometimes, impale often. If they get the criticals then bypass armor, choose location, maximise damage, force failure all come into play, often in nasty combinations. Only one that got boring was choose location so I made a house rule of having it available only in critical. 

Meh, I think "trip" and some of these others were artifacts of the extraordinarily punishing nature of SEs in RQ6...the benefit of special effects was so radical that it paid to pursue them intrinsically.  I just found them happening far, far too frequently in every combat (we joked that they should be called CE's: "common effects").  It also made it trivially easy for a couple of relatively puny combatants to lock down a much better fighter...inordinately so, in my book.

[hkokko]

9 minutes ago, styopa said:

Meh, I think "trip" and some of these others were artifacts of the extraordinarily punishing nature of SEs in RQ6...the benefit of special effects was so radical that it paid to pursue them intrinsically.  I just found them happening far, far too frequently in every combat (we joked that they should be called CE's: "common effects").  It also made it trivially easy for a couple of relatively puny combatants to lock down a much better fighter...inordinately so, in my book.

The name is perhaps wrong - they used to be called combat maneuvres or something similar earlier I think. i think the happening frequency is just about right - they are taking the place of the specials, crits and fumbles from earlier editions. It also makes it necessary for players or opponents to parry or they endanger themselves to a SE - or they might go for pure attacks and truat that opponent does not succeed with SE.  Puny opponents are mooks (rabble and underlings) - they cannot do SEs - there were some special effects which big opponents do not worry about...

[TrippyHippy]

9 hours ago, K Peterson said:

Is there any edition of RQ that doesn't have some aspect of tabular reference? I can't think of any that fit your design preference, unless you're referring to modeling a new version of RQ after HeroQuest Glorantha or another Rpg entirely.

Ironically enough, if you know how values in the Resistance Table are derived, you can calculate them quickly, in your head, without ever needing to crack the book and disrupt play.

Pendragon is the ideal. The recent editions of RQ, up to RQ6 have moved towards reducing tabular use in play with things like special effects over combat tables. I'd like to see this design objective upheld.