New Rq Design Notes - Part 7

[Mankcam]

It has always seemed clear to me that the separation in core mechanics between CoC 7E and the new RQ is intentional by design.

However both games have origins in BRP , so from my perspective it makes some sense to have similar Characteristics and skill resolution mechanics. Actual skill lists and almost everything else can be modular, individualised to the setting and the game itself.

But I suspect that the new RQ is RQ2 plus new rules. This is a good thing, given the solid foundation of the RQ2 platform.

Despite this, I can also see merit is some consistency between the two current BRP lines, to make it easier to play both systems. 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Mankcam

[Numtini]

I don't think they need to adopt systems if they're not needed. I do, however, think that if CoC has an elegant way of handling something that RQ2 currently doesn't, that ought to be the first "go to" for the solution. If it doesn't work, well it doesn't work, and you move on. 

[g33k]

On 5/26/2016 at 9:49 AM, styopa said:

It seems to me like it would be a logical goal to try to "revamp" the system for 2016, and then harmonize them across various games.  Sort of a BRP 2016 which then has "COC" flavors, "RQ" flavors, etc.

BGBv2 ?

I'd be on that like Mostali on a newfound mechanism!

[styopa]

1 hour ago, Numtini said:

I don't think they need to adopt systems if they're not needed. I do, however, think that if CoC has an elegant way of handling something that RQ2 currently doesn't, that ought to be the first "go to" for the solution. If it doesn't work, well it doesn't work, and you move on. 

I sincerely hope that the new RQ takes *everything* widely regarded as a "good idea" and implements it.  I get that it's based on RQ2 and they want to remain at least reasonably consistent with former materials* but RPGs (and what players have expected from them, and how they play them) have evolved a lot since 1979 or whenever RQ2 appeared.

*I know the new Chaosium doesn't have ample resources, so this makes sense.  At the same time, this backward focus somewhat condemns us to "oh look, it's Pavis...again".  Glorantha's a big, big world, with tons of cool stuff.  If you browse around, you'll find some fascinating campaigns run in Safelster and other places.  Heck, the (IMO) greatest-ever narrative of one of the old house RQ games was mostly set in Pamaltela.

[DreadDomain]

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 4:13 AM, simonh said:

I don't think it matters as much with RQ4 though. Asking how well it works without any magic is like asking what a chicken sandwich is like without the chicken.

And providing combat rules without non-magical tactical options is like providing a chicken sandwich without bread ?.

My point is even in a world infused with magic, fighters would still use tactics like disarm, feint, trip, etc... RQ, at least for me, was always a game where tactics mattered, at least compared to contemporary games (RQ was more tactical than AD&D for ex.) and RQ6 really epitomized that trend.

[Cowboy Duck]

I'd love if some of the CoC 7e innovations are at least tucked in the back as optional rules, making it easier for me when I go ahead and play that way anyway.

[ItsNags]

As someone who just started with Choasium RPG's with CoC7e, it seems odd to not pull some of those mechanics and make use of them. Adding +20% to skill checks seems much more fiddly then just awarding bonus/penalty die. 

I know some people do not enjoy the CoC7e changes, but I honestly can't imagine playing CoC any other way after starting here. 

[K Peterson]

6 minutes ago, ItsNags said:

I know some people do not enjoy the CoC7e changes, but I honestly can't imagine playing CoC any other way after starting here. 

Well, sure. Your entry point into an Rpg's life-cycle(?) / edition-timeline is going to be a huge influence on your preferences and what you consider to be fiddly, odd, or intuitive. If you haven't played 6th, 5th, 3rd, or prior editions you're not going to have the familiarity with what are the advantages (and, yes, disadvantages) with those editions compared with 7e.

For the record, I don't believe in using fiddly modifiers in task resolution when I can avoid it. I prefer modifiers that line up more with BRP's easy/hard difficulties - which is basically halving or doubling skill based on circumstances - or, for the most part, just sticking with the special success range (20% of skill level).

[Numtini]

Quote

I prefer modifiers that line up more with BRP's easy/harddifficulties - which is basically halving or doubling skill based on circumstances

I'm not great at some mathematical stuff, but isn't a penalty/bonus die within a few percent of halving/doubling the chance?

FWIW, I love the 7th changes and I date from the 1st edition.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Numtini

[trystero]

The exact effect of a bonus or penalty die varies by your skill level: it rises parabolically from skill 1% up through 50%, but then drops off again (at the same rate) from 51% upward. At 10% or 90% skill, for instance, the effect is about +/- 9 percentiles, while at 50% skill it's about +/- 25 percentiles. So in general it's more than half the skill chance when you're in the low-skill range, and significantly less than half the chance in the high-skill range.

I started with 2nd edition in 1984 and am another who has come to prefer the 7th-edition changes.

Edited June 2, 2016 by trystero

[K Peterson]

3 minutes ago, trystero said:

The exact effect of a bonus or penalty die varies by your skill level: it rises parabolically from skill 1% up through 50%, but then drops off again (at the same rate) from 51% upward. At 10% or 90% skill, for instance, the effect is about +/- 9 percentiles, while at 50% skill it's about +/- 25 percentiles. So in general it's more than half the skill chance when you're in the low-skill range, and significantly less than half the chance in the high-skill range.

That's sound pretty damn weird to me. I'm sure it's accurate.. but weird.

Quote

I started with 2nd edition in 1984 and am another who has come to prefer the 7th-edition change.

To each their own. I started with 2nd edition in 1985, found 5th/6th edition to be the most appealing as time has gone by, and was terribly disappointed by what I saw of 7th edition - a few years ago, and upon final release. I guess I'm the guy on the other side of the fence hoping that New-RQ won't use any game mechanics inspired by 7e. 

In any case, this is dragging this thread pretty far off course. I'm going to refrain from commenting further. 

[davecake]

FWIW, I once had (in a game I was GMing) a PC who qualified for Rune Lord at character creation, under RQ3 rules. A Green Elf, who got x5 on some skills that were necessary to be a Wood Lord (such as Bow), and rolled 2d8 for years of previous experience, getting 15. So +75% to a base bow attack etc. I made him wait for a few sessions to 'pass the examination', but he essentially vastly outclassed the other PCs from the start (some of whom were Westerners with virtually no magic). RQ3 was capable of having very powerful characters at character creation, but it happened somewhat randomly. I much prefer a system that allows you that option if it what you want. 

I also like the idea of a system that can be used for extended down time during play, as well - eg 'after two years in the new city <everyone gets experience> you see the enemy you fled from in the market one morning'

[aknaton]

On 2016-05-27 at 9:54 PM, styopa said:

I sincerely hope that the new RQ takes *everything* widely regarded as a "good idea" and implements it.  I get that it's based on RQ2 and they want to remain at least reasonably consistent with former materials* but RPGs (and what players have expected from them, and how they play them) have evolved a lot since 1979 or whenever RQ2 appeared.

*I know the new Chaosium doesn't have ample resources, so this makes sense.  At the same time, this backward focus somewhat condemns us to "oh look, it's Pavis...again".  Glorantha's a big, big world, with tons of cool stuff.  If you browse around, you'll find some fascinating campaigns run in Safelster and other places.  Heck, the (IMO) greatest-ever narrative of one of the old house RQ games was mostly set in Pamaltela.

I second that. I want to see a new version that could appeal to new players (it's not that productive that the same old crowd buys the same old stuff once more).