From: Joerg Baumgartner (rq4@sartar.toppoint.de)
Date: Wed 01 Sep 1993 - 20:38:12 EEST
In <8EB53BC71DB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu>, you write:
>> I like to handle it the other way round: let the players roll d100, and
>> see below which multiplyer te result is, this gives me several levels of
>> success without rolling dice over much.
>> Of course this postulates that people can multiply numebers between one
>> and twenty with numbers between one and seven. Normal education ought to
>> produce this skill around the age of eleven...
> The aim of using a standard roll is to speed up play. Most, if not
> all players can multiply those numbers. Many can even do it quickly.
> What they can't do is do them instantly, and so the game slows down.
> To me, the best way to give a player a harmless introduction to a
> game is to give everything he needs to know on the character sheet.
>> The exact nature of modifyers (multiply/divide versus add/substract) has
>> been the topic of many a discussion I had about RQ4 with the players of
>> my group. Both tend to be unfair and unbalanced: either the lower skills
>> are effectively reduced to zero (1 to 5 succeeds), or the higher skills
>> are penalized more than the lower. Neither is the desired effect. Any
>> ideas to solve this?
> I've heard the "reduce to zero" argument before, and never understood
Well, the way I see it there is a problem that demands one success
The problem with this philosophy is that RQ know only
> it. If someone is facing a task that is beyond their ability, their
> chance _should_ be zero IMO. I like the way negative mods can reduce
> a chance of success of the lower skilled to nil while leaving the
> better trained with a decent chance of success. To me, it's a
> feature, not a bug.
level higher than usual. Some guy take it as routine nevertheless, some
hve to switch from routine to alert, some who do it in alert state
quite reliable really have to think and work hard to achieve it, and
some who usually have to work hard now arre chanceless.
fumble >=100-(100-sk)/20, 100 =>true
failure >sk, >=96 =>true
success <=sk, <=05 =>true
special <=sk/5
critical <=sk/20, 1 =>true if sk>=1
(supercrit etc.) ...
where I'd like to see
fumble >(100-sk/20)
real failure >(100-sk/5)
failure >sk+10
stand off <=sk+10
marginal success <=sk
success <=sk-10
good success <=sk/2
special <=sk/5
critical <=sk/20
(supercrit etc.) ...
possibly with Tim Posney's system of multiplying, and getting skills up
Yes, that means even more calculation, or looking up in a table for
more difficult than now
less-than-lighning calculators, but that's the style I'd like to see.
Opinions, Flames...?
-- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:29:30 EEST