From: Burton Choinski (burt@ptltd.com)
Date: Tue 27 Jul 1993 - 17:50:04 EEST
Wayne Shaw notes:
===============================================================================
%% davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) writes:
%%
%% > For example the optional movement rules using a hex-grid or
%% > similar are of no use to me currently. When I get around to getting some
%% > figure type thingies (anyone got a good cheap alternative?) and a map
%% > sheet I'll use them, so I'm glad that they're there.
Actually, what's scary is that I have recently been using my old Traveller
stuff to do combat! My ref screen is my old, beat, green Judges Guild
Traveller screen, which I just use as a note/dice shield (and paperclip typed
tables up to).
Anyways, one session I decided to use a "range band" type system. And it
worked. And the encounter range determination also was very good. So,
rather then maintain a hex sheet, I just keep track of a linear distance.
EXAMPLE: the group is travelling along the road and encounters a band of
broos at 50m. First turn, the broos triple-time it towards them by 12m,
to 38. The sorcerer decides to give himself some more time and backs off his
mount by 10m, to -10. Next turn the broos run again, to 16. Group fires
arrows and spells. Broos run again to 4. Group pulls out hand weapons.
Broo line hits line of characters holding at 0, one makes his maneuver roll and
may penetrate to go after the sorcerer.
The positions may flux back or forth, depending on how much of a running battle
it is (negative if the players are running, positive if they are chasing.
I consider forward to be "positive).
Given this "battle line" idea, Maneuver is useful. If 5 enemies rush 4
defenders, the best you could hope for is to stop 4 of them, assuming the
defenders out maneuver the attackers.
%% Well, from current experience in my playtest campaign, I'd have to say I
%% find no evidence that the current combat is harder or slower to play that
%% earlier editions...perhaps even the opposite. We spend a certain amount
%% of time fumbling around, but that's mostly BECAUSE we are long time RQ
%% people, and have to make sure that we are doing it the RQIV way, or
%% looking up a special case we haven't used often enough to be sure of.
That's how we seem to be. He have been trying to use the varying special
damage based on location, but haven't gotten it all memorized yet, so it is
slower.
Actually, we have been using a d6+SR for combat order (d6+MeleeSR+WeapSR when
closing with the target, d6+DexSR+WeapSR when engaged) and it seems to
do pretty good. It's relatively painless, and no where near as "certain"
as just using straight SR values.
%% > I really like the RQ4 character creation rules. They take longer to
%% > explain than RQ3 or RQ2, to create a simple character (a classic
%% > beginning PC However they are much more flexible, not much more complex
%% > in practice, and require a lot less intervention from the GM.
%% I'd say they are good in that they eliminate the two flaws of previous
%% editions: the hideous randomness of RQIII, and the cookie cutter
%% tendencies of previous editions previous experience set ups. They also
%% provide the extra benefit that they present good quick and dirty NPC
%% matrices.
The new generation is the major reason why the players like RQ now. They
Oh, I have been running my playtests with characters starting out at "Expert"
don't have to have Joe the generic warrior.
levels (64 BP's to work with). What levels is everyone else workign with?
%% > Burton Choinski:
%% > *smirk* What I meant was that nowdays there are about as many percentile
%% > systems as there are numeric systems, and neither is necessarily better
%% > then the other.
%%
%% Could you define "numeric" as you are using it in this context? I think
%% I disagree, but I want to make sure before I go into it.
Sorry, I couldn't think of a better single-word term. I mean systems that
rely on unit numbers for skill rolls, rather then percentages. Examples are
Torg (where the better number wins), Mekton, Traveller: TNE, etc.
%% > has, say 7 marks. Well, 5 marks pays for the skill up to 18, leaving 2
%% > left.
%%
%% You're worried about complexity and you want to add numerical bookkeeping
%% to the experience system? I must be missing the point here.
Yea, it does sound silly. I like the difficulties, and did not want to loose
them.
%% > I COULD make a quick judgement call on, based on my own personal ideas of
%% > physics, biology, and how much I could eat, run or do.
%% > But would rather have a set of consistant info on this stuff.
%%
%% But I think that stuff is intimately tied up in mechanics. I not only
%% need to know what a mount eats in a day: I need to know what happens if
%% you have to put him on half-rations for a few days. Oh, not in great
%% detail, but I need SOME basis to extrapolate from.
%% But I think we're in substantial agreement here.
Yes, that's the stuff I was talking about needing. I don't need a Doctor's
tome of knowledge, just enough data points to guestimate with better accuracy
then I have to now.
%% > If you thing RQ4 is complex, you should have tried Powers & Perils. It
%% > DID try to have info on lots of stuff, down to the supposed magical
%% > properties of natural materials (which, BTW, should be looked at for
%% > possible use by RQ since P&P is kaput...it was good stuff).
%%
%% Actually, if you look, I was arguing with someone that RQ4 WASN'T
%% complex, at least compared to some other popular games on the market.
Oh, I know...I have a terrible tendancy to not put the proper response names.
That comment wasn't to you, it was to someone else who was worried about too
much complexity.
%% And actually, I own Powers and Perils; even started to run it once. It
%% showed how NOT to do a sophisticated system: make everything a special
%% case, instead of coming up with sound core mechanics and showing how to
%% use them in various ways. But it did have interesting features,
%% including some useful mechanical concepts such as the "food point" idea.
We ran it quite a bit for a long time. There were some ideas in it that were
very good, such as the Influence chance and food point ideas. Is there any
reason why the better ideas/info from P&P could not be raided and RQ-ized
since P&P is dead?
Hey, I'd even be willing to try and filter out the gems, If OJ and co.
want. :)
-- Burton
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:40 EEST