Jump to content

Fatigue...


Trifletraxor

Recommended Posts

I'm not so convinced. While I'm not intrinsically hostile to that sort of structure in some games, I think it works better when there's a stylistic bias in the rules toward the dramatic and abstract than in something like RQ, which is biased toward the concrete.

The irony here is that it's only online that I've run into people who are longtime RQ/BRP players that have such a hyper-literal take on things. My experience "in the real world", as it were, is that most RQ/BRP players tend to play loose and free with things, just like I'm describing. The two biggest pluses for BRP that I constantly hear (in person and on line) is that it "fades into the background" and it's easy to houserule on the fly without breaking anything. Both of those fit my playstyle much more than what you describe. I'm not doing anything that's not quite common and haven't upset anyone or caught them off guard with my style.

I would argue that it's style too. What you describe is similar to using a battlemat with measured distances. Whereas what I do is draw up a map and describe things as rough distances. In fact, I'd argue that how I handle both is much more "realistic" as it provides the fog of war that's going to be missing when players know exactly when things are going up or down, exactly if someone is in range or not, etc.

Agreed. RMS has played some HeroQuest, so I think that sort of approach is second nature to him now.

HQ "ruined" him for normal gaming. :P;)

Apparently, I was ruined for "normal" from the beginning. I remember reading in D&D, T&T, and RQ II how the rules were open for interpretation and that the GM could bend them to make sense, so I've just always done that. I'm completely mystified by people believe there's something sacred about the rules as written. Plus, I'm definitetly an immersionist, so I'm after getting the feel of the world first, so always am willing to bend, or break, the rules to fit my vision of the world....and never willing to go the other way. To me world consistency >> rules.

Personally, I liked the way Ars Magica handled durations, putting then in terms that were easily measured by people without timepieces (whats a minute without a clock?) like Sun (works until sunrise or sunset). Makes magic seem less scientific and more arcane.

Exactly my point. Magic shouldn't work to a time piece. It should work for some rough amount of time, but never be 100% dependable IMO. Plus RQ actually supports me a bit here: magic is specified for X rounds, but rounds aren't a set amount of time (they're roughly 12 seconds, but not exact).

Still, my main reason for doing what I do is simply because I'm not willing to do the accounting. It's just like the fatigue system. It's not terrible, but not worth my time/effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One reason why I like the give & take with various people on-line is that after a bit you can get a read on them, and where they are coming from/style of play. So I could see RMS going with a looser interpretation of things based on some of his posts over at the MRQ board.

Based on some of Nightshade's threads on this site, I believe you two have very different gaming styles.

I can sort of see both sides in this. On the one hand I'm a big fan of the rules adapting to the setting rather than the reverse, but on the other would not want to play in a campaign where the GM stopped/rewrote/or autofailed my actions because they didn't fit his story. As a player, I've played through both situations and didn't like either.

Of course, every style is open to abuse, and each has it own strength and pitfalls. Chances are both of you can bring up the various weakness of each other's approach. All will probably be valid, too, depending on just who is running and playing.

But I suspect neither of you will see "eye to eye" on this issue.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think in groups where it _was_ relevant, it probably just got forgotten a lot of the time (and I'm really suprised by how fast some people's combats went; at the low end, people could spend a lot of time just flailing around locally (after all, when you only have 30%, you're only going to hit one round in three; and even if they don't parry, if anyone's got any armor at all its not that likely a single hit will put them down), and at the higher end there was usually enough healing and protective magic to cause things to take a little while. I rarely saw an RQ fight of any account over in less than 10-15 rounds, and some went noticeably longer.

Most of ours were VERY short because:

- of low armor at the beginning.

- of high damage at higher levels

even with healing magic. It is so easy to disrupt somebody that tries to heal himself while engaged that it is almost impossible. The big healing starts after the fight.

And for long duration, don't forget that, according to the rules, your character collapse when he reaches negative (STR+CON). It is impossible to have very long fights.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no wonder then. Other than one specific player who's been chronically poor over his whole life, we pretty much took it as a given that once you played in a game for any length of time you were going to have at least the basic rules.

...

I can remember a player who never manage to grasp the rules for casting a spirit magic spell, even after 2 years of play. As a player, I had to help the GM and relieve him of managing some of the players.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for long duration, don't forget that, according to the rules, your character collapse when he reaches negative (STR+CON). It is impossible to have very long fights.

Not entirely true. Character could rest and regain some FPs. So, depending on the situation, it could be possible for some characters to stop and rest for a couple of rounds before continuing. If some side had a numerical advantage and the other controlled a "bottleneck" such as a doorway, you could indeed have some very long fights, with different character taking turns guarding a doorway.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely true. Character could rest and regain some FPs. So, depending on the situation, it could be possible for some characters to stop and rest for a couple of rounds before continuing. If some side had a numerical advantage and the other controlled a "bottleneck" such as a doorway, you could indeed have some very long fights, with different character taking turns guarding a doorway.

This is exactly what I described for our only long fight: People on the verge of collapse, taking breath 1 or 2 MR at a time to regain a few FP and continue fighting.

So yes, it is possible, but I saw that once in 24 years of RQ.

Most of the fight I saw were less than 10 MR.

A few were between 10 and 20 (perhaps 1 in 10).

1 was above 20 MR (and far above, perhaps 50, I don't remember exactly).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly what I described for our only long fight: People on the verge of collapse, taking breath 1 or 2 MR at a time to regain a few FP and continue fighting.

So yes, it is possible, but I saw that once in 24 years of RQ.

Most of the fight I saw were less than 10 MR.

A few were between 10 and 20 (perhaps 1 in 10).

1 was above 20 MR (and far above, perhaps 50, I don't remember exactly).

That matches up fairly closely to my experiences with RQ3, too. Most fights were short and brutal, and smart players tired to keep around 5-10FP to avoid fatigue penalties. One guy figured out that one of the advantages of Spells like Strength and Vigor in a battle was the extra FP points. Vigor 3 and you were usually convered for the battle.

Most of my long battles in RQ3 were along the lines of skirmishes and sitautions where one side had a defible position and the attackers would start an attack, pick off a couple of guards, then fall back behind cover and rest/regroup.

In my eperience, if someone was constantly deep into the negative FPs he was usally just carrying around too much crap to fight. Or he had really poor stats. We had one guy with a 5 STR and 7 CON once. He usually had FP problems (he was the guy who figured out the Vigor 3 trick).

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Most of my long battles in RQ3 were along the lines of skirmishes and sitautions where one side had a defible position and the attackers would start an attack, pick off a couple of guards, then fall back behind cover and rest/regroup.

...

Those mostly are the 10 to 20 MR.

And some of them are really several shorter fights, because between the very short engagements, fatigue is recovered and spell are over (at least for spirit).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That matches up fairly closely to my experiences with RQ3, too. Most fights were short and brutal, and smart players tired to keep around 5-10FP to avoid fatigue penalties. One guy figured out that one of the advantages of Spells like Strength and Vigor in a battle was the extra FP points. Vigor 3 and you were usually convered for the battle.

Most of my long battles in RQ3 were along the lines of skirmishes and sitautions where one side had a defible position and the attackers would start an attack, pick off a couple of guards, then fall back behind cover and rest/regroup.

In my eperience, if someone was constantly deep into the negative FPs he was usally just carrying around too much crap to fight. Or he had really poor stats. We had one guy with a 5 STR and 7 CON once. He usually had FP problems (he was the guy who figured out the Vigor 3 trick).

Another great proof of the elegance and realism of the RQ/BRP rules. :)

I dont know many systems which enable combats where the participants have to rest for a few rounds before continuing the combat. Reminds me a little bit to the lengthy sword fight scene between Arnold and Brigitte in Red Sonja.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another great proof of the elegance and realism of the RQ/BRP rules. :)

I dont know many systems which enable combats where the participants have to rest for a few rounds before continuing the combat. Reminds me a little bit to the lengthy sword fight scene between Arnold and Brigitte in Red Sonja.

Yup. And seeing your adversaries ducking to cover to retake their breath is both satisfying (because that means you're in good position) and dangerous (do you press your advantage and take the risk of being yourself out of breath, or do you also try to recover a little).

Fun, realistic, so good.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another great proof of the elegance and realism of the RQ/BRP rules. :)

I dont know many systems which enable combats where the participants have to rest for a few rounds before continuing the combat. Reminds me a little bit to the lengthy sword fight scene between Arnold and Brigitte in Red Sonja.

Yes & no. For a one on one fight, such would be unlikely in real life, but would be unlikely in RQ3, too. Basically limited to fights better very experienced (rune level), or completely inexperienced combatants, probably will some decent APs and/or Protection.

For a larger skirmish or full fledged battle, then yeah, people would back off to rest up every so often.

FPs do provide some tactical options, as well. It is a viable tactic to use wolf pack tactics, switching out attackers to tire someone down.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

FPs do provide some tactical options, as well. It is a viable tactic to use wolf pack tactics, switching out attackers to tire someone down.

Like roman legionaires who rotated units to always have 'fresh' units in front line lof combat, contrasting with the earlier phalanxes who were compact, and could not replace the losses.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason why I like the give & take with various people on-line is that after a bit you can get a read on them, and where they are coming from/style of play. So I could see RMS going with a looser interpretation of things based on some of his posts over at the MRQ board.

Based on some of Nightshade's threads on this site, I believe you two have very different gaming styles.

That could be. I also wouldn't be surprised if we'd be much closer in actual practice than it sounds like online. Part of the deal here is that you're hearing all my GMing secrets.;) The players around the table don't necessarily know what I'm tracking and not tracking, what I'm fudging and not, etc.

I can sort of see both sides in this. On the one hand I'm a big fan of the rules adapting to the setting rather than the reverse, but on the other would not want to play in a campaign where the GM stopped/rewrote/or autofailed my actions because they didn't fit his story. As a player, I've played through both situations and didn't like either.

To be clear here, I in no way run with a story of my own. My stories are very much products of my players/characters design. Sometimes they know exactly what they want to do and we play that story...with all of the unknowns and twists that the world throws at them. If they don't have a starting point, I'll toss a bunch of possible plot hooks out there and develop whichever one they go with. It can be longterm, a session or even less than a session, or a complete red herring. The fun thing is I usually don't know until later. When I'm talking about consistency, I'm talking about the world. If magic works like X in the world (even if X is "completely random and variable") then it works that way. If it doesn't, then something is obviously up. That's independent of the story the players, and I, are telling. I'm about as anti-rail road, planned plot as you can get and have any structure.

When I do make interpretations of the rules that differ from written, I either inform everyone ahead of time (ie. clear houserule) or I let them know before they decide on a course of action. For example, if I'm going to rule that some skill will be at a negative, I assume the character has a better assessment of the situation than the player ever can and so would have a good idea of their odds of succeeding. The players always know the odds of doing something ahead of time, unless there's a very good reason to add a hidden modifier on there. Also, if someone declares an action and for any reason I rule that it's at a negative, or can't happen, or similar, I always allow the player to change their action to something reasonable and logical for the situation. I always assume that the characters have a good grasp on what's going on, even if my communication with the players doesn't translate it properly. For example, it's been mentioned in this thread that some players never get efficient with their characters magic. I typically would help such a player along because I don't know why the fictional character should be unable to effectively use his/her powers, just because the player can't master the rules.

If you read into my posts that I do something other than above, then maybe others are being misled by my posts. What I don't do is slavish follow the rules when they don't make sense for the situation at hand, or when they're too fiddly for what they return, which is obviously completely subjective.

Of course, every style is open to abuse, and each has it own strength and pitfalls. Chances are both of you can bring up the various weakness of each other's approach. All will probably be valid, too, depending on just who is running and playing.

My approach works for me and only for me, or that's all I'll guarantee. I've read about hordes of abusive GMs who'd be terrible running things as open as I do. However, I've never run into them, mostly because I've almost always GMed, and on the rare occasion that I play, I've generally played with people who learned how to GM from me.

But I suspect neither of you will see "eye to eye" on this issue.

Probably not, though I suspect if he sat at my table that he'd thoroughly enjoy himself. (How's that for complete arrogance about my ability to convert people to the dark side! >:-> )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes & no. For a one on one fight, such would be unlikely in real life, but would be unlikely in RQ3, too. Basically limited to fights better very experienced (rune level), or completely inexperienced combatants, probably will some decent APs and/or Protection.

That's part of why I don't bother with them. In the vast majority of cases in RQ they simply don't come up. Fights are over with in a few rounds so there's no real reason to track them. Note: while I don't track FP, I do use RQII encumbrance rules so nobody over equips for battle.

FPs do provide some tactical options, as well. It is a viable tactic to use wolf pack tactics, switching out attackers to tire someone down.

That's the best rationale I've heard for using them to this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's part of why I don't bother with them. In the vast majority of cases in RQ they simply don't come up. Fights are over with in a few rounds so there's no real reason to track them. Note: while I don't track FP, I do use RQII encumbrance rules so nobody over equips for battle.

Yeah. When I was running RQ3, I used to let fatigue slide, unless I knew before hand that it would be a factor, such as when I has a big fight planned, or if people were overburdened and intro the negative FP points beforehand.

That's the best rationale I've heard for using them to this point.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could be. I also wouldn't be surprised if we'd be much closer in actual practice than it sounds like online. Part of the deal here is that you're hearing all my GMing secrets.;) The players around the table don't necessarily know what I'm tracking and not tracking, what I'm fudging and not, etc.

Possibly. On-line conversations sometimes take a lot longer to work out that a quick face top face. I've had a couple of situations where I disagreed completely with someone over how they did something, but when we compared notes we were essentially doing the same thing, but from opposite directions. Sort of like do you cap off the power level of the PCs to fit the campaign, or adjust the campaign to fit the power level of the PCs? Same end result, different approach.

I can also see your point about what you are doing and what the players think you are doing. I do that as well. For instance, when things get dull I sometimes roll dice, or ask someone to roll dice, and then look at my character log with their stats and perception skills on it.

One thing I tried to explain to some fledgling GMs in my gaming group was just how often I screwed something up, just that I usually managed to cover it up or fix it before the players noticed. Experienced GMs can usually perform damage control faster the the PCs can spot the problem. It is something that can be intimidating to new Gms, too. They see things going smoothly, then go ito shock when they run for the first time, and it doesn't come off so easily.

To be clear here, I in no way run with a story of my own. My stories are very much products of my players/characters design. Sometimes they know exactly what they want to do and we play that story...with all of the unknowns and twists that the world throws at them. If they don't have a starting point, I'll toss a bunch of possible plot hooks out there and develop whichever one they go with. It can be longterm, a session or even less than a session, or a complete red herring. The fun thing is I usually don't know until later. When I'm talking about consistency, I'm talking about the world. If magic works like X in the world (even if X is "completely random and variable") then it works that way. If it doesn't, then something is obviously up. That's independent of the story the players, and I, are telling. I'm about as anti-rail road, planned plot as you can get and have any structure.

When I do make interpretations of the rules that differ from written, I either inform everyone ahead of time (ie. clear houserule) or I let them know before they decide on a course of action. For example, if I'm going to rule that some skill will be at a negative, I assume the character has a better assessment of the situation than the player ever can and so would have a good idea of their odds of succeeding. The players always know the odds of doing something ahead of time, unless there's a very good reason to add a hidden modifier on there. Also, if someone declares an action and for any reason I rule that it's at a negative, or can't happen, or similar, I always allow the player to change their action to something reasonable and logical for the situation. I always assume that the characters have a good grasp on what's going on, even if my communication with the players doesn't translate it properly. For example, it's been mentioned in this thread that some players never get efficient with their characters magic. I typically would help such a player along because I don't know why the fictional character should be unable to effectively use his/her powers, just because the player can't master the rules.

Thant sounds about right with me. I've tweaked my share of RPGs (and then some) over the years. I think the important thing is to try to be fair and consistent. If something doesn't work as expected, there should be a reason, even if the reason is as simple as the PC being misinformed.

My approach works for me and only for me, or that's all I'll guarantee. I've read about hordes of abusive GMs who'd be terrible running things as open as I do. However, I've never run into them, mostly because I've almost always GMed, and on the rare occasion that I play, I've generally played with people who learned how to GM from me.

Well, I'd say it works for you and your gaming group. As long as it works for the group too, I don't think there is a problem with the style. If it worked for you, and only you, and your group was miserable, that would be something else.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony here is that it's only online that I've run into people who are longtime RQ/BRP players that have such a hyper-literal take on things. My experience "in the real world", as it were, is that most RQ/BRP players tend to play loose and free with things, just like I'm describing. The

All I can speak of is the people I've encountered, and most of them paid at least as close an attention to such things as seemed to come up and be practical. Certainly all the local GMs did, and in the heyday of the extended group we had, that probably included at least 7-10 GMs.

two biggest pluses for BRP that I constantly hear (in person and on line) is that it "fades into the background" and it's easy to houserule on the fly without breaking anything. Both of those fit my playstyle much more than what you describe. I'm not doing anything that's not quite common and haven't upset anyone or caught them off guard with my style.

I'd suggest you just haven't hit the right people. Some people are intrinsically more fussy in the area than others. Locally, for example, we're far more careful about playing fast and loose with rules in _most_ games, and we're if anything less tolerant about it in a gritty and potentially lethal game like most BRP varients than others.

I would argue that it's style too. What you describe is similar to using a battlemat with measured distances. Whereas what I do is draw up a map and describe things as rough distances. In fact, I'd argue that how I handle both is much more "realistic" as it provides the fog of war that's going to be missing when players know exactly when things are going up or down, exactly if someone is in range or not, etc.

While there's some virtue to that, all it really does is move it to your judgement, and there's nothing saying your judgement is, well, bluntly, the best to use here. GM common sense is often, frankly both counterfactual and inconsistent; the first is tolerable (rules tend to be counterfactual to some degree or another) but the latter, not so much.

Apparently, I was ruined for "normal" from the beginning. I remember reading in D&D, T&T, and RQ II how the rules were open for interpretation and that the GM could bend them to make sense, so I've just always done that. I'm completely mystified by people believe there's something sacred about the rules as written. Plus, I'm definitetly an immersionist, so I'm after getting the

I don't. I believe, however, the proper modify the rules is systematically int he form of houserules; and that in the end, anything else is at least asking for, if not delivering inconsistencies that serve no good purpose.

Still, my main reason for doing what I do is simply because I'm not willing to do the accounting. It's just like the fatigue system. It's not terrible, but not worth my time/effort.

As long as your players don't care, there's nothing wrong with that. Its just not what the rules say (and they say the rounds aren't any set length, but in practice, they never treat them that way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on some of Nightshade's threads on this site, I believe you two have very different gaming styles.

And I'll freely admit that to some degree this is an issue of a set of preferences on our part locally that aren't typical these days, and that vary a bit from system to system. For example, I've certainly played in games with durations in "scenes" (a few Storyteller systems for example) or where things were otherwise a bit subjective. I'm not entirely fond of them, but I'm more tolerant of them in games designed for certain purposes than others. I just happen to think their rigor has always been one of BRP, and specifically RuneQuest's virtues, so I don't see a point in importing it there; it would be moving away from what I think the strengths of the system are.

That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate places where too much is too much, and that there isn't room for disagreement as to where that is. I've noted I found the RQ3 fatigue bookkeeping more niggling than served any real purpose for example.

I can sort of see both sides in this. On the one hand I'm a big fan of the rules adapting to the setting rather than the reverse, but on the other would not want to play in a campaign where the GM stopped/rewrote/or autofailed my actions because they didn't fit his story. As a player, I've played through both situations and didn't like either.

Honestly, it doesn't even have to be that bad; I just don't find I like a game where the rules are overly plastic, because I never know what to expect from one time to the next. I don't consider offloading consistency on the GM to that sort of degree a virtue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could be. I also wouldn't be surprised if we'd be much closer in actual practice than it sounds like online. Part of the deal here is that you're hearing all my GMing secrets.;) The players around the table don't necessarily know what I'm tracking and not tracking, what I'm fudging and not, etc.

Well, I have a personal ethic here that I generally dislike applying rules to players I wouldn't pay attention to myself; so for the most part, if I'm not bookkeeping something, the players know it because they aren't expected to either. And since I don't do their bookkeeping for them...

When I do make interpretations of the rules that differ from written, I either inform everyone ahead of time (ie. clear houserule) or I let them know before

Just to make it clear, I make plenty of houserules, depending on the system and my needs. I tend to avoid doing them on the fly as much as humanly possible, though, and I generally avoid rules (and systems that use rules) that are overly plastic in application; I'm not a big fan of subjectivity in rules application.

Probably not, though I suspect if he sat at my table that he'd thoroughly enjoy himself. (How's that for complete arrogance about my ability to convert people to the dark side! >:-> )

While I might not respond as negatively as some of my posts might suggest, I wouldn't put bets on that; I'm an awfully bad player because I GM so much, and my views as to rules extend into my play (to the degree I've seen GMs boggled because I argued against non-standard and non-houseruled rules interpetations in my favor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'd say it works for you and your gaming group. As long as it works for the group too, I don't think there is a problem with the style. If it worked for you, and only you, and your group was miserable, that would be something else.

I completely agree. I'm sometimes a bit cynical on the Net because I've encountered a few too many GMs in real life who thought their particular styles were fine and worked well and who's players, while not confrontational about it, had, shall we say, a different take. But I try to keep that down to a dull roar, because its a fundamentally no-win situation for the person on the other side; what proof can they offer, after all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have a personal ethic here that I generally dislike applying rules to players I wouldn't pay attention to myself; so for the most part, if I'm not bookkeeping something, the players know it because they aren't expected to either. And since I don't do their bookkeeping for them.

I dunno, I can disagree a bit here. For one thing the players only have to track one character each, and their characters are the central focus of the campaign. But the GM has to track virtually everyone else, and many such characters have only "walk on" parts.

I doubt I'd track fatigue too closely for, say, trollkin, as I would not expect them to last long enough to get tired. If one somehow did hang around a bit, I'd just apply an ad hoc penalty, and maybe track FP from there. After all, if he stuck it out that long, maybe he WAS a little better than 37% after all.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of ours were VERY short because:

- of low armor at the beginning.

Even a couple points can keep you up. If an opponent doesn't have a damage bonus, the average damage from most of the melee weapons is in the 4-6 range; 2 points of armor will often take that down where you can take a hit or two depending on the roll and where they land.

- of high damage at higher levels

Its virtually as easy to boost armor magically as it is damage.

even with healing magic. It is so easy to disrupt somebody that tries to heal himself while engaged that it is almost impossible. The big healing starts after the fight.

Small healing spells are quick enough few melee attacks can land before they're off. You just don't try and to the big ones (at least on yourself) while in melee.

And for long duration, don't forget that, according to the rules, your character collapse when he reaches negative (STR+CON). It is impossible to have very long fights.

Yes, but if you aren't already encumbered rather heavily, that can take rather more than the length of time I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, I can disagree a bit here. For one thing the players only have to track one character each, and their characters are the central focus of the campaign. But the GM has to track virtually everyone else, and many such characters have only "walk on" parts.

All true, and none of it changes my personal ethic here.

I doubt I'd track fatigue too closely for, say, trollkin, as I would not expect them to last long enough to get tired. If one somehow did hang around a bit, I'd just apply an ad hoc penalty, and maybe track FP from there. After all, if he stuck it out that long, maybe he WAS a little better than 37% after all.

Well, that's only an issue because of the bookkeeping overhead on the RQ3 style fatigue. As I've noted, I was never that fond of that version in the first place because its simultaneously too fiddly _and_ often too irrelevant. When I used the AIG version, I paid attention to it for everyone, as typically I was going to only have to do it 1-3 times per fight. I certainly paid attention to NPC magic point usage, however, as its too important too often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All true, and none of it changes my personal ethic here.

Not a problem. You can choose to do as much work as you want. THere is a point of diminishing returns, however.

Well, that's only an issue because of the bookkeeping overhead on the RQ3 style fatigue. As I've noted, I was never that fond of that version in the first place because its simultaneously too fiddly _and_ often too irrelevant. When I used the AIG version, I paid attention to it for everyone, as typically I was going to only have to do it 1-3 times per fight. I certainly paid attention to NPC magic point usage, however, as its too important too often.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

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...