COMMENTS

From: Burton Choinski (burt@ptltd.com)
Date: Mon 23 Aug 1993 - 17:00:58 EEST


John Medway replies...
%%>> From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski)
%%>> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 11:34:18 EDT
%%>>
%%>> I suggest also that age start at 14-16 (d3+13). Each level of a template
%%>> details the aging, at 1d6+3 per level.
%%>> ...
%%>> Now, the actual age rolls could be tweaked. I based it on Master level,
%%>> subtracting base age and dividing by 4. Perhaps initiate could be
%%>> just 1d3 per level (since it is so lacking in skills). Perhaps it could
%%>> be 1d6 for normal occupations.
%%
%%Something like this should be explicit in the final version of the system,
%%though I'd say, since the packages are unequal, so should the time required
%%be.

  My Assuption was that Each career would be nearly the same. If you
  noticed the skill breakup in my example (many days back), it used the
  same skills listed in the RQ3 template (more or less). As such, each
  occupation would have ~the same number of basic skills. There would be
  variances in optional skills, which would tweak the ocupation costs a bit.

%%It seems a bit severe for zero->Trained ( as in barely trained ) to
%%require the same number of years as does Expert->Master, in any template.

  True. Perhaps it could go 1d4/1d6/2d4/2d6 for years?
  
%%In some cases it may be necessary to pro-rate the time spent in a template,
%%such as when determining when a character is eligible for initiation. This
%%crops up in a messier fashion when there are already two templates whose
%%times overlap ( often an Official will be a Noble at the same time, Soldier+
%%Initiate, etc. ). In these cases the ref should make a determination of what
%%percentage of the time was package A, and what was B, etc.

  What do ya want, a complete solution? :) It's Runequest, not Burtquest. :)

  Seriously, That is an interesting problem I didn't think of. Anyone have any
  ideas around that?

Graeme A Lindsell notes...
%% Joerg writes:
%%
%%> Not even the PRE-system is a complete rewrite; it keeps most of the
%%> spells we know from the current version and thus keeps up
%%> compatibility.
%%
%% Well I liked Burton's rewritten sorcery skill system as well: the spell
%%plus knowledge system that was posted a couple of months ago

  Thanks. Only problem is it's only a little (perhaps half) compatable with
  RQ3 sorcery, if that's where AH is trying to stay with.

%% My complaint with the Easy/Medium/Hard is more the way it has
%%been implemented than the idea: I can see easy skills racing away from
%%all the other skills at a great rate. I think they could be implemented
%%using the task difficulty system rather than the experience system.

  I disagree, sort of. The difficulties in the draft seem to emulate how
  hard it is to learn/master those skills. I can see Medicine being harder
  than leatherworking being harder that quarterstaff. Odds are, if I tried
  to take up all three I'd ramp up faster in quarterstaff.

  When they MAKE their rolls, the assumption is the task is "routine"
  difficulty. If it is "simple" task you give a bonus to their roll. If
  "difficult" they get a reduction. But the definition of "routine" will vary
  by the skill used. What might be a "routine" lockpicking is very different
  from a "routine" use of a combat skill -- there is a differance in time
  scales, details and the like. And (to go modern for a sec) a "routine"
  surgery is beyond my ability, though it may be just another days work for
  Joe doctor.

%% His other comment hasn't been addressed nearly as much: that the
%%effect of most spells are not instantaneous. I haven't been able
%%to think of an elegant way of implementing this; has anyone else
%%had any bright ideas? From Greg's comments in the TOTRM interview,
%%he seems to think magical powers should be rather more ambiguous than
%%in the current RQ draft.

  Depends on how you want to do it. Making Spirit magic more fickle
  (i.e. using Paul's Animalistic Shamans where you don't cast spirit spells,
  you bribe spirits to do the effects) can be as simple as rolling a d6
  each round (including the round cast). If you get a 6, the spell finally
  activates. Bribing excess mana adds +1 to your roll. If you ask an INT 3
  Heal spirit (i.e. does a Heal 3 spell) to heal you, and you bribe it with
  2 extra mana (spending 5 total), that and each round thereafter you need
  to roll a 4+ on 1d6 for the healing to begin (as it dithers and ponders your
  request). Once it activates you no longer need to roll. If you REALLY need
  a spell, 5 mana ABOVE that needed will guarentee (sp?) that it goes off
  that round...it just gets expensive to do it that way all the time.

  Yes, it's a cheap mechanic, but it's fairly painless IMHO.

%%ii) "Dispel Magic" style Heals: in order to heal a wound, a spell must
%%equal or exceed the damage entirely. ie a 2 point heal doesn't effect
%%a 3 point wound at all, but can heal 1 and 2 point wounds. You would
%%need to keep track of individual wounds ie: a limb incapacitated by
%%3x2 point wounds could be healed using 3 Heal 2's; a limb incapacitated
%%by 1x6point wound would need Heal 6 or better. This makes dedicated
%%Healers with big Heal spells more important, as well as enhancing
%%Divine and Sorcery spells. (Actually, did someone propose this
%%recently?)

  I like this. Much better visualization of Healing. To promote this idea
  it would be good to rename "Heal" to "Close Wounds". And anyone who can
  command a Big heal spirit would have good business. :)

%% Arm: 3/6/9
%%
%% would be more useful. As damage was taken, the player could note it
%%down next to the location: when he takes 3 points of accumulated damage,
%%it is useless, 6 crippled, 9 destroyed.
%%
%% Comments?

  Problem is arm and leg locations stop taking effective hits at DOUBLE
  damage. The triple damage rule is only on a single hit, and even then it
  still only takes up to double damage when applied to the overall hits.

  Still, the triple damage = maim/sever makes the concept of needing a Heal
  that can handle all that damage in a single go, rather then piddly little
  Heal 1's in series that much stronger.

%% One of Greg's other comments about RQ damage is that it doesn't address
%%pain: everything either works or doesn't, there is no reduction in ability
%%with wounds. Does anyone have any ideas about how this shoud be addressed?

  Each point of damage reduces your abilities by 5%. The way I have been
  doing strike ranks, each person rolls 1d6 and adds their SR rating.
  Turn goes low->high. With this way of doing it, I'd also say each point
  of damage adds 1 to your SR as well.

   -- Burton

0,,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:54 EEST