From: Malcolm Cohen (malcolm@num-alg-grp.co.uk)
Date: Fri 03 Sep 1993 - 12:22:17 EEST
Joerg writes:
> Well, the way I see it there is a problem that demands one success
> level higher than usual. Some guy take it as routine nevertheless, some
That is one approach, not necessarily the correct one.
[...]
> The problem with this philosophy is that RQ know only
[...]
> where I'd like to see
[huge table...]
> Yes, that means even more calculation, or looking up in a table for
REACTION:
---------
Ugh.
I do not think this solves the problem at all, and is too complicated.
Including both additive steps and multiplicative steps is neither simple nor
elegant.
Why does it not solve the problem? Because many modifiers to skill usage are
small (e.g. hit with missile when target is moving, -10%), if we make the steps
in the table small enough to handle all of these it will be a big complicated
table ("I got a partial-semi-special success, do I hit it?" "No, it got a
super-normal dodge, so it is only a glancing blow").
DISCUSSION:
-----------
Currently we have two kinds of skill modification:
(a) multipliers (e.g. for using bow at long range)
(b) additive/subtractive (e.g. striking from high ground).
Both of these approaches would seem to have good real-world analogues.
(e.g. for a 20% bow user, a moving target probably would halve their hit
chance, whereas for an experienced bow user, say 90%, it only doubles their
chance of missing).
Currently, for modifiers which are not listed in the rules, the GM decides
which type to use (they are making up the value after all, they can make up
how to apply it as well).
Whichever of these is used, we need to have a way of deciding (perhaps after a
set number of tries) that the problem is "too hard" for the user at this time.
WTP:
----
If the perceived problem is that it is too "complicated" to have 2 different
styles of modifier, I am in favour of keeping the additive ones. Why?
(a) compatibility with RQ3 (the attack modifiers are the most visible ones, and
they are additive.
(b) finer-grained adjustment is possible (+10 vs +20 vs +30, etc.).
(c) addition is simpler than multiplication by the numbers needed to get
reasonable modifiers (e.g. x1.25, x1.5, x1.75, x0.75)
(d) AD&D folk understand about adding ("+1 to hit"...ok, only joking).
ROLLING FUMBLES and CRITICALS:
------------------------------
The easy way of doing away with the table for <=100% skills (and the method I
used way back in RQ1!) is to say
roll 01-05 success + roll again, second roll succeeds => success is critical
96-00 fail + roll again, second roll fails => fumble
Of course in RQ1 there were no specials (except for impales...) so a reroll was
only necessary 1 roll in 10 for everything except spear (et al) attack, for
which reroll 1 in 4.
Since most RQ combats are over in 10 rounds, each player need only reroll (have
a chance of a crit or fumble) twice (one attack, one parry) in the whole melee.
Even for impalers, the rerolls in a 12 round melee are only 3 attack and 1
parry. (Those who say that RQ combats take all evening can refrain from saying
this is too much right now - I mean hey, each player only makes 1 extra die roll
per hour).
Perhaps this is not "faster" than using a table, but it certainly requires less
mental effort than (subtracting one (?) and multiplying by 20). It also has no
rounding error at all, in fact no rounding - if you have a skill of 30% you get
a critical chance of 1.5%, not 1% (crit chance for 29%) and not 2% (crit chance
for 30%). Eliminates the breakpoint effect.
Admittedly this method is less attractive in RQ3 (or in RQ2 if the optional
slash et al rules are used) since special success mostly means something.
Actually, when I run combats (in RQ3+) the skill result table is right in front
of me so it is not exactly difficult to look up the occasional result for
specialness/etc. In fact I see this as a big non-problem.
--
...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
(malcolm@nag.co.uk)
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:29:38 EEST