From: Burton Choinski (burt@ptltd.com)
Date: Wed 23 Jun 1993 - 18:40:41 EEST
Nick Brooke comments:
------------------------------------------------------------
| ii) "Mathematical accuracy" -- I'm against it. I like the current
| three-point bands in the Hit Points Per Location chart, 'cos they make
| character creation and off-the-cuff combats a lot quicker and easier. I
| dislike the overly-literal RQ3 "Skill Results Table" chances for Special
| Success 'cos they don't make intuitive sense (I'd play more simply: 01-05%
| = impale on a 01; 26-30% = impale on an 01-06; etc.). I don't see why the
| huge and fiddly tables have to be introduced: they don't make anything
| measurably better or easier, IMHO.
Streamlinging (i.e. making many RQ rules to be "rules of thumb") has to have
some limit, else we start to lose the detail we want. I see no problem
with the extended table. Perhaps just stating the data in an easier format
is better. Which would you prefer, for the section that details the location
hitpoints? A table, or a set of rules: "For humanoids, arms have HP/4 hits,
legs, abdomen and head have HP/3 hits, chest has 2xHP/5. Round all
fractions up." A table is nice, for the math impared. Perhaps something
more generic:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .... etc
A 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 .... .25
B 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 .... .333
C 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 .... .4
Have said chart have a few other convienient values (.1, .2, etc).
Then have something like: "Humanoid -- Arms (A), Legs/Abdomen/Head (B)
Chest(C)"
| iii) Fatigue -- who cares? Honestly, guys, some of the systems I've seen
| would fatigue players and gamemasters more than combatants! This is a
| comparatively unimportant part of the rules, surely not worth the amount of
I have to agree. Fatigue is such a bother to use for me that we don't use
it. Have it as an optional rule (IMHO).
OJ's comments for feedback:
------------------------------------------------------------
| Finally, one of the reasons we're trying to playtest this system
| as extensively as possible, and gather as much feedback as possible,
| is that we can't say for sure exactly what people consider broken
| enough to justify making changes to it. This is something we've done
| in the second draft, and hope to continue doing in the third.
Part of the reason why my players are gung-ho into RQ now is the improved
rules, and the possibility of even better ones.
| An excellent example of this is weapon damage and damage bonus.
| simplify and smooth the weapon values (which might range from 1d4 to
| 1d10, not 1d4, 1d4+2, 1d4+3, 1d6, 1d6+2, etc.) simplify calculating and
| rolling damage (a scimitar might do 1d8+2 vs. 1d6+2+1d4), simplify
| calculating armor values (layering would be built into the listed armor
| types and values), and make the results of damage more interesting (on
| occasion, you'd be nicked instead of having your arm cut off). Would
| this be worth it? Hard to say from our point of view, but something
| we'd love to get playtester feedback on.
This, combined with the combat option to reduce attack skill by 20% (i.e.
remove one crit %) to gain +1 damage is much better. Keep it. :)
| APP is yet another example of this - a characteristic with a
| number of problems. Is it worth changing to something like CHA or
| PRE? If most of the feedback we get favors a change, it becomes
| a very likely candidate for change. If it does not, it will likely
| stay the way it is.
I think having APP (or whatever) represent personal magnitism, presense,
aura, bearing, etc. rather than physical beauty is the better way to go.
And as such, a renaming should be done to prevent future confusion.
Loren J. Miller suggests:
------------------------------------------------------------
| How about going the other way and making the other skill vs skill
| systems conform to the combat system? I roll my lockpick against the
| locksmith's skill, we both fail, there is no effect. I try again. This
| time I succeed and so does the locksmith. My attempt is parried. The
| third time I fail and the locksmith succeeds. I have been defeated. My
| skill is insufficient to pick the lock. If the third time would have
I like this. It solves the "pick locks until you get it" problem and
provides a good reason why.
Mystic Musk Ox notes:
------------------------------------------------------------
| % roll: 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% ...
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ...
| Mod : +45 +40 +35 +30 +25 +20 +15 +10 +5 +0 -5% -10% -15% ...
| Attr : +9 +8 +7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 +0 -1 -2 -3 ...
I think your table is off by one, but I get the general idea.
For characteristics, simply add the difference from yours to his to 10
and roll less then or equal to that on 1d20. Quick and easy.
Skills can follow in the same way, divide by 5.
Why roll percentage when it's really just a d20? We don't have percentage
hit locations, do we?
Oliver gives us a new SIZ table:
------------------------------------------------------------
| Old RQIII New RQIV
|
| SIZ Kg. Increment Kg. Increment
| 1 5 5 5 5
| 2 11 6 10 5
...
| 39 799 66 710 40
| 40 871 72 750 40
| As you can see, it is fairly close to the RQIII SIZ scale,
| but far simpler. I have no clue why they used the scale
| they did instead of doubling every 10 points.
I like it. Much cleaner. It should be extended out like the table in
ol' book 3.
-- Burton
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:03 EEST