Dodge and Jump

[Mugen]

I saw on a Character sheet that 2 skills (Dodge and Jump) have a skill base which is a multiple of DEX (x2 and x3, respectively).

Do I get it right when I understand the Agility bonus is also added to this base ?

If this is true, I do not understand the logic here.

Did you want to show those skills beneficied more from DEX than others ? If so, why don't other skills get such treatment ? For instance, I would see skills such as Fast Talk or Oratory beneficying more from CHA than other Communication skills.

[Mugen]

Hum... So, I'm the only one concerned by this ?

That must be me, then...

Edited June 23, 2017 by Mugen

[Darius West]

19 hours ago, Mugen said:

I saw on a Character sheet that 2 skills (Dodge and Jump) have a skill base which is a multiple of DEX (x2 and x3, respectively).

Do I get it right when I understand the Agility bonus is also added to this base ?

If this is true, I do not understand the logic here.

Did you want to show those skills beneficied more from DEX than others ? If so, why don't other skills get such treatment ? For instance, I would see skills such as Fast Talk or Oratory beneficying more from CHA than other Communication skills.

I think the notion is that these are also supposed to be somewhat easier than some other skills.  Take issue with that if you wish.  The idea being that even without training most characters will be in the 30% range for dodge and the 40% range for jump as starting characters.  That is sort of important, as these skills are life savers and few professions teach them, yet they are also things that anyone can do.  At least, that is my reading and interpretation of the underlying reasons.  Your question is a fair one.  I personally think dodge is more difficult than the RQ rules suggest, and am more inclined to adopt the Call of C'thulhu 7th Ed rules in their place.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Darius West

[Mugen]

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

I think the notion is that these are also supposed to be somewhat easier than some other skills.  Take issue with that if you wish.  The idea being that even without training most characters will be in the 30% range for dodge and the 40% range for jump as starting characters.

Well, you can achieve the same result by setting a base value of 30 or 40 to those skills.

 

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

 I personally think dodge is more difficult than the RQ rules suggest, and am more inclined to adopt the Call of C'thulhu 7th Ed rules in their place.

In RuneQuest 3, Dodge had a base value of 05 (+Agility bonus).

[styopa]

I'd say it's simply that this skills are more raw talent to start than anything (and meanwhile sort of justifying a little higher than usual base values).

 

[Darius West]

Just now, Mugen said:

Well, you can achieve the same result by setting a base value of 30 or 40 to those skills.

 

I can see advantages in the granularity of making it Dex based.  Clumsy characters should be made to suffer because it is funny.  On the other hand I am inclined to think that Strength plays a part in jumping too.  Don't get me wrong, I see your point, and I think your criticism of these rules has merit.  

4 minutes ago, Mugen said:

In RuneQuest 3, Dodge had a base value of 05 (+Agility bonus).

 

I have always thought this was more realistic, assuming a dodging ability that doesn't involve the Call of C'thulhu 7th Ed notion of hitting the dirt as a form of dodge.  The martial art of Aikido is all about dodging, so a "standing dodge" fighting style is definitely possible, but hard to do.  The notion of dodging by falling prone a la CoC 7th Ed also has its merits imo.  Personally I would include them both with the CoC option having a bonus, because it has a penalty in the following round.

[Mugen]

5 hours ago, styopa said:

I'd say it's simply that this skills are more raw talent to start than anything (and meanwhile sort of justifying a little higher than usual base values).

Hmmm... As I said above, I think other skills, especially in the Communication section, could definitely be treated the same way.

[styopa]

32 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Hmmm... As I said above, I think other skills, especially in the Communication section, could definitely be treated the same way.

I wouldn't disagree.  Heck, RQ6 went whole-hog and IIRC every skill's base was the sum of stats.  I don't think it's a bad idea, just a different way to handle it.

Certainly a place houserules would work too.

[Jason D]

Dodge and Jump are both primarily built on muscle reaction and exertion, hence the base chance being based primarily on the raw characteristic. 

Orate and Persuade are skills one learns through social interaction. You can have a naturally high CHA and have no idea about public speaking, such as creating a convincing argument and keeping an audience rapt, or figuring out how to sway someone in the short-term that helping you is in their best interests. 

There are many, many real-world examples of people that are attractive and charming, and yet come across as complete idiots when speaking publicly... but I am hard-pressed to fink of examples of highly-agile people who are not good at jumping and feats of body-eye coordination (like dodging).  

[Mugen]

9 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

Dodge and Jump are both primarily built on muscle reaction and exertion, hence the base chance being based primarily on the raw characteristic. 

Orate and Persuade are skills one learns through social interaction. You can have a naturally high CHA and have no idea about public speaking, such as creating a convincing argument and keeping an audience rapt, or figuring out how to sway someone in the short-term that helping you is in their best interests. 

There are many, many real-world examples of people that are attractive and charming, and yet come across as complete idiots when speaking publicly... but I am hard-pressed to fink of examples of highly-agile people who are not good at jumping and feats of body-eye coordination (like dodging).  

Thank you for your detailed answer ! 

I'm still not convinced those skills needs a special treatment

Edited June 25, 2017 by Mugen

[Darius West]

On 6/25/2017 at 7:10 PM, Jason Durall said:

Dodge and Jump are both primarily built on muscle reaction and exertion, hence the base chance being based primarily on the raw characteristic. 

Orate and Persuade are skills one learns through social interaction. You can have a naturally high CHA and have no idea about public speaking, such as creating a convincing argument and keeping an audience rapt, or figuring out how to sway someone in the short-term that helping you is in their best interests. 

There are many, many real-world examples of people that are attractive and charming, and yet come across as complete idiots when speaking publicly... but I am hard-pressed to think of examples of highly-agile people who are not good at jumping and feats of body-eye coordination (like dodging).  

1

I always wondered why so many people had a phobia about public speaking; now I understand that they have probably all met you Jason *chuckle* .

I think it is correct to say that a high Charisma is not the same as a high orate skill, but provides a certain personal magentism that will give a beginner a bit of a bonus, and that the rules reflect that.  Exactly how much of a bonus has always been up for grabs in various game systems.  RQ and BRP based games in general don't give much bonus for stat when compared to systems like Storyteller or D&D (where Attributes are generally good for about half your skill).  If you want an awkward thought, perhaps BRP's low stat bonus is due to the people creating the game having lower stats and thus assuming innate ability plays less of a role (jk)? 

Perhaps the attractive and charming people spent their character points in different Charisma based skills?  Perhaps they just "rolled badly"?

dexterity

dɛkˈstɛrɪti

noun

1. skill in performing tasks, especially with the hands.

Isn't it odd that dexterity really doesn't mean what most games say it means.  I personally have always preferred co-ordination as a description:

coordination

kəʊˌɔːdɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

1. the organization of the different elements of a complex body or activity so as to enable them to work together effectively.

"an important managerial task is the control and coordination of activities"

2. the ability to use different parts of the body together smoothly and efficiently.

 

So really the notion that Dexterity i.e. someone is good at doing tasks with their hands... has nothing to do with agility, and really nothing at all to do with dodging.  Personally I blame Gary Gygax for that one, because it has been around since the beginning.

[styopa]

30 minutes ago, Darius West said:

I always wondered why so many people had a phobia about public speaking; now I understand that they have probably all met you Jason *chuckle* .

I think it is correct to say that a high Charisma is not the same as a high orate skill, but provides a certain personal magentism that will give a beginner a bit of a bonus, and that the rules reflect that.  Exactly how much of a bonus has always been up for grabs in various game systems.  RQ and BRP based games in general don't give much bonus for stat when compared to systems like Storyteller or D&D (where Attributes are generally good for about half your skill).  If you want an awkward thought, perhaps BRP's low stat bonus is due to the people creating the game having lower stats and thus assuming innate ability plays less of a role (jk)? 

Perhaps the attractive and charming people spent their character points in different Charisma based skills?  Perhaps they just "rolled badly"?

dexterity

dɛkˈstɛrɪti

noun

1. skill in performing tasks, especially with the hands.

Isn't it odd that dexterity really doesn't mean what most games say it means.  I personally have always preferred co-ordination as a description:

coordination

kəʊˌɔːdɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

1. the organization of the different elements of a complex body or activity so as to enable them to work together effectively.

"an important managerial task is the control and coordination of activities"

2. the ability to use different parts of the body together smoothly and efficiently.

 

So really the notion that Dexterity i.e. someone is good at doing tasks with their hands... has nothing to do with agility, and really nothing at all to do with dodging.  Personally I blame Gary Gygax for that one, because it has been around since the beginning.

I don't know that semantic dissection is terribly useful here?

We all understand that characteristics are GENERALIZED representations of peoples abilities, don't we?

Certainly we can all think of someone who's dexterous (in terms of hand-eye coordination) but couldn't balance on a 12" wide balance beam.  Certainly we know people who are BRILLIANTLY smart but can't recall where they parked their shoes last night.  CHA isn't appearance (any more), but....it's a stand-in approximation.   DEX isn't specifically reflexes, coordination, balance, speed, or agility...but a simplified concatenation of all of them.

Unless you want to have 20+ stats that quantify every nuance of a persons physical, intellectual, psycho-social, magical(?), etc (and we've all seen games that go down that road)  I think most people are comfortable with the admitted simplification of STR, CON, SIZ, INT, POW, DEX, CHA.  

[styopa]

21 hours ago, Mugen said:

Thank you for your detailed answer ! 

I'm still not convinced those skills needs a special treatment

The simple answer would be: then don't give them such in your game.

To be clear: I'm truly NOT telling you to 'shove off'' at all, I hope that's not implied.  It's what's GREAT about d100 games (IMO): they're so bloody amenable to these sorts of comfort-level tweaks that just make it 'feel better' for a given GM/group.

I like where Jason and Jeff are going with RQ, I truly do.  But I'm fully expecting that once the rules come out, I'm going to have (and quite freely share, for anyone that wants it) a rather large compendium of houserules that will make the game more fun, playable, interesting, logical in my opinion.  

[Yelm's Light]

Agreed.  I expect that my game will be HR'ed more toward RQ2.  For instance, I've never been a big fan of Passions; to me it's just unnecessarily regulating RP (especially when it comes to high Rune skills effectively taking control of the character).  The people I've played with have generally been evolved enough from the hack & slash mentality that it's unnecessary, and I'm well able to goose players in certain directions if circumstances warrant it.  ("Your character really wouldn't do that, you know.")

Edited June 28, 2017 by Yelm's Light

[styopa]

1 hour ago, Yelm's Light said:

Agreed.  I expect that my game will be HR'ed more toward RQ2.  For instance, I've never been a big fan of Passions; to me it's just unnecessarily regulating RP (especially when it comes to high Rune skills effectively taking control of the character).  The people I've played with have generally been evolved enough from the hack & slash mentality that it's unnecessary, and I'm well able to goose players in certain directions if circumstances warrant it.  ("Your character really wouldn't do that, you know.")

I agree in principle, but then we have to remember: we who have played RQ for in some cases decades hopefully aren't the key audience.  In a sense we're easy: we're probably going to buy most RQ products anyway (I paid full retail for daughters of darkness...).

The goal,I hope, is more to produce a rules set that introduces a new generation of players to RQ who may have never even imagined there was fantasy life outside of d&d5e.  In that sense I think passions and runes are interesting tools even if I as a gm may not even use them.

[g33k]

On 6/28/2017 at 11:44 AM, Yelm's Light said:

Agreed.  I expect that my game will be HR'ed more toward RQ2.  For instance, I've never been a big fan of Passions; to me it's just unnecessarily regulating RP (especially when it comes to high Rune skills effectively taking control of the character).  The people I've played with have generally been evolved enough from the hack & slash mentality that it's unnecessary, and I'm well able to goose players in certain directions if circumstances warrant it.  ("Your character really wouldn't do that, you know.")

I dislike rules overriding a player's choice about their character.  In the case of Runes... I think the RAW (in the core, I don't think this appears in the QS?) sound pretty good.  Chaosium has said that if a Rune is over 80% and there's an obvious "embody the Rune" choice to make, you can still choose to NOT do so... but your Rune affinity reduces.

And because the Runes are metaphysically fundamental to the world, this seems good to me.

You can do what you SHOULD do, what your deepest being (i.e. your high-powered Rune affinities) and the universe, which is made of Runes WANT you to do; or you can turn away from that... at a notable personal cost.  Because the Rune affinities are not tools -- like a hammer or a sword or needle-and-gut -- to be picked up when wanted and set down when you're done.  They sing your song, and you sing theirs; they are part of who you are.

Turning away from the need of your Runes is like turning away from the needs of your sword-brother or your spouse:  yes you CAN do it, but the relationship weakens.

Like @styopa I expect to have HR's for RQG that I implement basically as soon as I play... but also like him, I'm liking this edition A LOT; the more I see of it, the more I like it !

 

[GamingGlen]

I'll wait until I see the entire rules before I get excited about them.

I hope they go with RQ3+ method instead of RQ2 method of figuring out the characteristics' adjustment to skills, whether by category or direct.  I dislike the large steps from RQ2, you either have a 13, 17, or 21; nothing in between matters.  Also, this is a percentile system, why the +5 jumps in RQ2, including the gains from training?  That makes the system more like a glorified D20 system.  We don't even know if they will have skills grouped by category, although they do hint at it with some of the spell descriptions (i.e., +20% to Perceptions skills).  When I put the QS characters in my spreadsheet, I guessed at the categories, using RQ2 & RQ3 as guide.  I came up with two algorithms, based on RQ2, and based on RQ3 although I used 9 instead of 10 as the base number.  The two systems came with nearly identical numbers for the average person.

Like others, I'll be implementing some house rules with the new game.  I'm not keen on Passions or this new Rune thingamajig from what I've seen so far.

[Jason D]

6 hours ago, GamingGlen said:

I'll wait until I see the entire rules before I get excited about them.

I hope they go with RQ3+ method instead of RQ2 method of figuring out the characteristics' adjustment to skills, whether by category or direct.  I dislike the large steps from RQ2, you either have a 13, 17, or 21; nothing in between matters.  Also, this is a percentile system, why the +5 jumps in RQ2, including the gains from training?  That makes the system more like a glorified D20 system.  We don't even know if they will have skills grouped by category, although they do hint at it with some of the spell descriptions (i.e., +20% to Perceptions skills).  When I put the QS characters in my spreadsheet, I guessed at the categories, using RQ2 & RQ3 as guide.  I came up with two algorithms, based on RQ2, and based on RQ3 although I used 9 instead of 10 as the base number.  The two systems came with nearly identical numbers for the average person.

Like others, I'll be implementing some house rules with the new game.  I'm not keen on Passions or this new Rune thingamajig from what I've seen so far.

A few quick replies: 

• We're using the RQ2 method of skill category modifiers.
• Training merits a die roll for improvement. 
• I'm not sure how to address "more like a glorified D20 system" when RQ was a significant influence on the design of D&D 3rd edition. 
• Skills are clearly grouped by categories on the quickstart characters. We originally provided the skills category modifiers, but these were confusing to non-RQ players, who didn't know if they would modify the values provided. 

As has been said before, one of the virtues of the BRP system is its modularity. It's quite easy to remove subsystems, houserule things, and add new systems onto it. 

 

[Mugen]

6 hours ago, GamingGlen said:

I'll wait until I see the entire rules before I get excited about them.

I hope they go with RQ3+ method instead of RQ2 method of figuring out the characteristics' adjustment to skills, whether by category or direct.  I dislike the large steps from RQ2, you either have a 13, 17, or 21; nothing in between matters.  Also, this is a percentile system, why the +5 jumps in RQ2, including the gains from training?  That makes the system more like a glorified D20 system.  We don't even know if they will have skills grouped by category, although they do hint at it with some of the spell descriptions (i.e., +20% to Perceptions skills).  When I put the QS characters in my spreadsheet, I guessed at the categories, using RQ2 & RQ3 as guide.  I came up with two algorithms, based on RQ2, and based on RQ3 although I used 9 instead of 10 as the base number.  The two systems came with nearly identical numbers for the average person.

Like others, I'll be implementing some house rules with the new game.  I'm not keen on Passions or this new Rune thingamajig from what I've seen so far.

It will be RQ2 style, and the reason was explained some times ago by Jeff Richards. There are 2 exceptions to this rule : Dodge and Jump, whose base value will be equal to 2xDEX + bonus, and 3xDEX + bonus, respectively (which means you'll sometimes get 2% or 3% from DEX, and sometimes 7% or 8%...

The reason behind this choice is that POW can change very often, and it would mean you'd have to modify all skills related to POW every time you learn Runic magic, or make en enchant.

I do think the best choice was to remove POW from skill base values and use the same skill bases for each skill inna category instead of skill bonuses, but that's only my opinion.

Also, there will be skill categories, as you can see in the RQ QuickStart, and they will be the same as in RuneQuest 3.

 

[g33k]

7 hours ago, GamingGlen said:

I hope they go with RQ3+ method instead of RQ2 method of figuring out the characteristics' adjustment to skills, whether by category or direct.  I dislike the large steps from RQ2, you either have a 13, 17, or 21; nothing in between matters.  Also, this is a percentile system, why the +5 jumps in RQ2, including the gains from training?  That makes the system more like a glorified D20 system...

I admit that the RQ2 characteristic breakpoints for skills was always among my least-favorite details.  I am considering altering that for my RQ2 campaign based around "Borderlands & Beyond".  I've always liked the symmetrical bonus&penalty based around the 9-12 average -- those FOUR values have neither bonus nor penalty; the next THREE values share a small bonus/penalty, the next TWO values a medium bonus/penalty, and the SINGLE values of 3 & 18 have a large bonus/penalty.

I was originally meh with d100-in-5%-increments vs. d20.  Like you, I saw it as "same as d20 just with a different die, to be different for the sake of different-ness," and I was unimpressed!  But when I realized how much of the crit/special/fumble flavor was based on fine-slicing those 5% increments, I got much happier.  So what if the character-build and downtime skill-increases were in 5% increments... in game-play, it was always the crits and specials and fumbles that I cared about!

Here's my suggestion for HR'ing the 5% skill-gain thing, though:  2d4.  It averages to 5%, yet still gives meaningful variation.  As a sum-of-dice, it bells to that core value, so game-balance and progression are as-designed (n.b. leaving the "unobtainable Rune-Level problem" unaffected).  It lets you play odds-shifting for when you want to (e.g. "that skill-check was for a CRIT not just a hit, so roll best-2-of-3d4" or "... so re-roll any result of "1" or "... so roll 1d4+4" or whatever else suits).

 

[Yelm's Light]

17 hours ago, g33k said:

I dislike rules overriding a player's choice about their character.  In the case of Runes... I think the RAW (in the core, I don't think this appears in the QS?) sound pretty good.  Chaosium has said that if a Rune is over 80% and there's an obvious "embody the Rune" choice to make, you can still choose to NOT do so... but your Rune affinity reduces.

And because the Runes are metaphysically fundamental to the world, this seems good to me.

You can do what you SHOULD do, what your deepest being (i.e. your high-powered Rune affinities) and the universe, which is made of Runes WANT you to do; or you can turn away from that... at a notable personal cost.  Because the Rune affinities are not tools -- like a hammer or a sword or needle-and-gut -- to be picked up when wanted and set down when you're done.  They sing your song, and you sing theirs; they are part of who you are.

Turning away from the need of your Runes is like turning away from the needs of your sword-brother or your spouse:  yes you CAN do it, but the relationship weakens.

Like @styopa I expect to have HR's for RQG that I implement basically as soon as I play... but also like him, I'm liking this edition A LOT; the more I see of it, the more I like it !

 

I don't see Runes as quite that integral to the world.  If anything, followers are encouraged to emulate their particular god/dess, but as has been shown in real religions, there is a wide variety of degrees of such emulation, even among those who are titularly in positions of authority.  Slavish commitment to 'what the Runes want you to do' in application is a little more than I want to dictate RP choices.

[DreadDomain]

10 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

A few quick replies: 

• We're using the RQ2 method of skill category modifiers.

 

I always thought attributes on a 1-20 range and skills on a 1-100 range was one of the best mix because it is then easy to make every attribute value meaningful to skills. I am still befuddled the method forcing unatural breakpoints is seen as a good thing and was chosen.

That the second and third break points are so high clearly diminishes the influence of attributes on skills and is a stark contrast with Dodge and Jump which are very much dependent on DEX.

In the end, it is not a deal breaker (simply annoying) and it is still better than attributes having no influence at all on skills.

Still going through the QS and my impression is generally positive.

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by DreadDomain

[g33k]

8 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

I don't see Runes as quite that integral to the world.

From http://www.glorantha.com/understanding-the-runes/ ...

Quote

The Runes are the building blocks of Glorantha. They are symbols, archetypes, embodiments, and the actual matter and energy of the world.

Obviously, however:  YGMV!

8 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

Slavish commitment to 'what the Runes want you to do' in application is a little more than I want to dictate RP choices.

But you don't HAVE to.  The player can always choose to do something different.

It's just that a very-high Rune Affinity may suffer if you disregard it that way...  But again, YGMV.

Edited July 3, 2017 by g33k
ygmv

[kaydet]

On 7/2/2017 at 7:20 AM, Yelm's Light said:

I don't see Runes as quite that integral to the world.  If anything, followers are encouraged to emulate their particular god/dess, but as has been shown in real religions, there is a wide variety of degrees of such emulation, even among those who are titularly in positions of authority.  Slavish commitment to 'what the Runes want you to do' in application is a little more than I want to dictate RP choices.

I don't think that the intention behind the Runes/Passions is to give the GM authorial control over the characters, nor do I think that a good GM would run it that way. 

Firstly, the compulsion only occurs when an adventurer has a high runic affinity (over 80%), which indicates that a player has spent significant time and effort to increase his level of runic affinity -- a dedicated choice on the part of the player, with in-game rewards for that behavior. The runic compulsion is the counterpoint to that, providing a risk-reward calculation. Choosing to boost your runic affinity should have some kind of risk-reward benefit: you enjoy some serious bonuses, but you carry with you the consequences of embodying (a piece of) a god. This is a pretty constant and integral part of Glorantha.

Secondly, I do not think that the compulsion takes the form of the GM telling the player what his character does. After all, the runic descriptions are very vague; a smart player and a good GM should be able to come up with a way to satisfy his runic affinity while still allowing plenty of player agency. Sometimes restraints and restrictions can bring out the best creativity.

Lastly, there is also a factual statement: if you have a high runic affinity, you have obviously been acting like your god -- if you do not act like your god, you do not have a high runic affinity.

[Yelm's Light]

15 hours ago, kaydet said:

I don't think that the intention behind the Runes/Passions is to give the GM authorial control over the characters, nor do I think that a good GM would run it that way. 

Firstly, the compulsion only occurs when an adventurer has a high runic affinity (over 80%), which indicates that a player has spent significant time and effort to increase his level of runic affinity -- a dedicated choice on the part of the player, with in-game rewards for that behavior. The runic compulsion is the counterpoint to that, providing a risk-reward calculation. Choosing to boost your runic affinity should have some kind of risk-reward benefit: you enjoy some serious bonuses, but you carry with you the consequences of embodying (a piece of) a god. This is a pretty constant and integral part of Glorantha.

Secondly, I do not think that the compulsion takes the form of the GM telling the player what his character does. After all, the runic descriptions are very vague; a smart player and a good GM should be able to come up with a way to satisfy his runic affinity while still allowing plenty of player agency. Sometimes restraints and restrictions can bring out the best creativity.

Lastly, there is also a factual statement: if you have a high runic affinity, you have obviously been acting like your god -- if you do not act like your god, you do not have a high runic affinity.

I wouldn't say it's obvious at all, since most gods are associated with multiple Runes and Runes aren't specific to one particular deity.  However, given the multiple personalities of gods such as Orlanth, it might be difficult not to act like him as a follower.  Also, given that it's suggested that positive Runic affinities begin at a minimum of 60% and experience isn't codified in the QS, it's not clear how much effort it would take to get to 80%.

A smart player doesn't need guidelines in the first place.  They seem to be geared towards those inexperienced at RP'ing.