From: Burton Choinski (burt@ptltd.com)
Date: Tue 31 Aug 1993 - 05:02:35 EEST
Graeme A Lindsell
%% John Medway writes:
%% > Perhaps there should be a maneuver skill, but that number is only used
%% > when averaged with the skill of the character with the attack & parry
%% > combination used. Ex.
%%
%% I'd hate to have to work out this average given how often one's skill
%% is modified, and I couldn't really justify not changing the average when
%% one gets a modifier.
Why don't we just use the RQ4 draft mechanic of adding 1/5 of a "helpful"
skill. Perhaps DEX x5, +1/5 Maneuver. Thus, trained warriors with maneuver
will do better that equal warriors without.
David Cake...
%% I want to know wether RQ Lite is what people are really interested in,
%% before I work on inventing stylish complications to combat and sorcery.
I look at RQlite as RQ with some simplifications to speed things up, but
I want many of the things in the draft.
%% Anyway, thats enough ranting on the topic. What precisely should be in
%% the long awaited RQ Lite? A simple set of optional rules is something that
%% would be very easy to create, certainly a lot easier to put together than
%% the large amount of work that has gone into the current RQ4 draft.
Actually, I'd rather look for a 'RQslim' then 'RQlite'. I look for smooth,
fluid rules, not 'lite' rules with stuff missing. For that reason, I sort
of use the same basic mechanics with Parry and Dodge...it goes easier.
David Dunham
%% True -- how can we encourage PCs to wear less armor? In real life, people
%% didn't walk around like tanks.
I usually try and place a social stigma to it...the watch harrases them
more often, they get worse deals at stores, etc. :)
Loren J. Miller
%% First, RQLite would have rules modules, each of which could add
%% complexity if desired. The basic game would be stripped down and
%% intended for use in a universal setting, a lot like BRP. The rules
%% modules would all be directly compatible with the basic game.
Well, I agree it should be modular. I don't know if we should go "generic".
%% The skill system would be a simple binary success/failure system, with
%% special successes for impaling weapons added in (since that's a
%% popular part of RQ and I like to encourage PCs to use spears).
Sounds okay. Mark one 'yea'
%% difficulty would be handled by adding the base chance to the roll when
I like the varying dice rolls. One 'nay' :)
%% rolling for skill increase, and skill check frenzy would be addressed
%% Criticals and/or hit
%% locations would be a rules module that you could add in if you want.
%% Frankly speaking, I don't think you need both a critical system and a
%% hit location system in the same game; they cover the same function.
While I like the idea of "levels of success" (fumble-fail-succeed-special
-critical), I'm not fond of how the damage is done for those levels.
I know impale should have some special stuff, as should crush weapons,
but I'm still mulling over the best ways to handle special vs. critical.
%% The initiative and combat system would be simplified, without all the
%% rules-bound special options in RQ4, but with ways for the GM and
%% players to roleplay combat options without consulting lots of rules to
%% do so. I'd lean towards defining spell casting as an action that takes
%% all round to do, disallowing simultaneous casting and fighting. The
%% modular SR rules would allow people to use the old rules if they want.
Like I said, I use 1d6+SR for personal initiative. I agree that the
%% The magic system would cover spirit magic only, and would allow either
Dropping Divine magic would be a BAD idea IMHO.
special options could use re-writing. I also think magic is best kept
as a "either-or" system -- you use steel, or you use magic. :)
%% the MPx5% chance of success or the auto-success rule to be used
%% (options) with the note that in Glorantha you should use the MPx5%
%% rule.
%% The weapon damage and armor rules would be amended as per Oliver's
%% draft changes. The reason for this is to allow characters to wear less
%% than full armor and still have a good chance of surviving minor
%% fights. Characters wear maximum armor because it's better to run slow
%% and have to turn and fight than to get chopped up.
I agree with this. I like the new Armor and weapon stuff.
%% Character generation rules would be based around sample characters of
%% scholar, heavy infantry, cavalry, light infantry, assistant shaman,
%% noble son or daughter, farmer, fisher, sailor, ruffian, bureaucrat,
%% artisan, trader, laborer, and initiate as a start. The RQ4 generation
%% rules (fixed to reduce overly common combat skills) would be a rules
%% module that you could add on to these rules, as would a simple
%% CoC-style set of rules.
I LIKE the RQ4 character professions. When the RQ3 professions are
converted it comes out pretty good and it's at least somewhat compatable.
%% Monsters and NPCs would be made available in the form in which you
%% actually use them. Rather than being presented with all
%% characteristics, their combat stats and skills would be presented so
While nice if you wanted to generate creature varients, it DID seem a
%% In addition to the rules modules mentioned above, there would be a
Hmmm. Sounds like a better idea for a TotRM article then trying to convince
tad much to present rollups. Perhaps the Powers & Perils way of
creature variation would be the way to go.
%% rules module allowing you to run diceless RQ. This is a huge boon to
%% live roleplaying groups and to those who want to get up from the table
%% every once in a while.
AH to spit out a suppliment.
David Dunham
%% I'm currently thinking that an Elric-like system where you defend as
%% appropriate against each attack (-30% to defend against successive attacks
%% in a round, and you can choose parry or dodge at the time of the attack) is
%% more playable (you don't have to roll as often in standard combat, and
%% don't need statements of intent for defense), and handles the problem of
%% "throwing away an option of parrying." All-out defense could be +30% on the
%% first defense; all-out attack could be -30% to your first defense.
This sounds good. Perhaps I'll try it.
-- Burton
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:29:21 EEST