From: boris (mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com)
Date: Tue 15 Jun 1993 - 19:58:24 EEST
A few random notes on various subjects over the last few days.
1. THE CASE FOR CHARISMA
Actually, I'll start with the case against APP. It's the next thing to
useless in every RQ game I've either played in or GMed. Male PCs will
nearly always sell it short, (though female PCs will typically have more).
And no matter how I stress it ("the priest doesn't seem to like you, he
averts his gaze when talking to you, he seem to be spending much more time
with Jannon the Handsome", etc) they will still do the same. Why?
BECAUSE IT'S ONLY REAL EFFECT IN THE RULES IS A MEASLY SECONDARY ADD TO
COMMUNICATION! (Sorry, I'll try not to shout anymore.) So, APP is broken.
We need to either replace or discard it.
I've played almost no RQ2 (and left that one campaign quickly because it
was a munchkin romp). Consequently I don't know how well CHA was done in
it. I've been told, many times however, that RQ2 handled CHA better than
most games. Be that as it may, CHA doesn't have to be a roleplaying
crutch. There is a need for something like it, if nothing else than as a
base for social skills. Currently, INT is the primary base for these.
I'm sorry, folks, but I know LOTS of really brainy people that don't have
the first clue in social situations (myself included, except I'm not sure
I meet the first criterion). And I know lots of clueless twits who breeze
through social matters easily. Basing skills such as Bargain, Beg, Fast
Talk, Orate, or Savoir Faire (which Custom, a knowledge skill, really
doesn't cover) on INT is silly. CHA would be much better. Another thing,
having some upper limit on bound spirits would be handy. CHA in RQ2 had
that function, and it makes some sense. There is no such limit currently.
So it seems to me there is a hole in RQ3 and in the current draft that
CHA would fill. I wouldn't get rid of the communication skills, as Loren
seems to be advocating (correct me if I'm wrong here). Elvis may not have
been very good at acting, and Hitler may have been a lousy haggler, but
that's just because they never tried to develop those skills. Keep the
skills, and base them on, say, CHA + INT/2 + POW/2 - 20. Which leads me
nicely to point #2.
2. THE CASE FOR POW
Yeah, I realize that POW goes up and down a lot. However, divorcing it
completely from skills is a cure worse than the disease. I agree with
Paul, if we remove POW from all skills but magic, what the hell ARE we
measuring? How are we to have any clue to a real world analog to POW if
all it's used for is to cast spells? I always saw POW as much more than
just the amount of magical energy someone could use. It's also Willpower,
Drive, Luck, and many other things. As such, it should be a factor into
many skills. It wouldn't bother me a lot if it were a secondary add in
nearly everything, I see it as that encompassing.
That said, what would be a cure for the problem of refiguring skills each
time POW changes? Well, what we have always done is ignore it. Skill
bonuses are added in when skills are learned. You use them when checking
for skill increases, as a modifier to the die roll or the hours spent in
training, but if POW (or STR or CON or anything else) goes up or down, the
skills don't change. The only exception is from the effects of magic;
Coordintation 4 would add 8 to all DEX skills, Suppress INT 5 would
subtract 5 from all INT skills. But that is as much due to the nature of
the magic as anything else, IMO. This fix very simply eliminates the
problem, and allows POW to add it's influence where it should.
I also like Paul's suggestion of making maximum POW based on original POW.
This will add more variation in characters, and tend cause players to
devote more points to POW in point build games. Many times I've seen
people drop their POW 2-3 points below what they want, to raise another
characteristic, knowing they would recover it in pregame experience.
Basing max on original would tend to limit such behavior.
BTW, I do like the idea of balancing each skill category in regards to
characteristic modifiers. This fixes something I was always dissatisfied
about in RQ3.
3. DAMAGE BONUS
I also would like to see damage more as in Pendragon (or GURPS) with each
character having a base damage and each weapon modifying it. But I won't
lose any sleep if it stays the way it is in the 2.0 draft. I don't much
care for a straight add, unless the player may roll 2d6 for each +7 add
(and say 1d6 for each +4). I like variability.
4. FATIGUE
I'll have to cast my vote against the die roll mods also. Making a lot of
stupid mistakes is better modelled by a skill modifier, and lowering the
autofailure level as someone suggested (sorry, I forgot who). Getting
tired shouldn't make catastrophic mistakes 10-20 times more likely. It
doesn't make sense, folks.
5. SPECIAL COMBAT OPTIONS
These should either be made much easier to learn (say, no learning at all
required) or much easier to perform (say, not requiring a special to
succeed). As it is, very few will even bother. Tom Zunder's proposal
in the 6-4 RQ Daily makes sense; allow skill masters to learn the
maneuvers much like the ki skills in RQ:Nihon. Starting chance is less
than the current case, but it can be improved much more easily.
6. SKILL VS SKILL
The simplest method I've seen proposed was by (I think) Nick Brooke, who
Every scheme I've see so far involves additional rolls, and/or doing non
trivial calculations (by non trivial, I mean something other than adding
or subtracting. I personally don't have a problem with taking the nth
derivitive of the skill, but some of my players are art-school types [hi
Rebecca] so let's please keep this simple).
suggested doing it Pendragon style; if all rolls are of the same level of
success, whoever rolled highest in that level wins. One roll, no math.
Unfortunately it's somewhat counter RQ, where the low roll is always best.
So, instead say whoever rolled the most under the level needed wins. One
roll, some math, but only subtraction. Or even easier, though not as fair
to those with high skills, whoever rolled lowest in the level of success.
So if Clumsy Joe rolled an 05, barely a special of his skill of 25, and
Graceful George rolls a 7, easily special in his skill of 89, Joe wins.
But if Joe had rolled a 6, it would no longer be a special, and George
would win. This is not as satisfying as the other, but is very simple.
I wouldn't mind either one. But after the initial roll, to divide the
skills by 10 and compare with another roll on the resistance table? A bit
too complicated, IMO.
Well, that's all for now. Bye.
----
(*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <|
How sharper than a serpent's tooth is my Truespeared pike.
Yelmic proverb.
Boris
|><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:47 EEST