From: Joerg Baumgartner (rq4@sartar.toppoint.de)
Date: Tue 01 Feb 1994 - 11:45:28 EET
Tim Leask:
> Loren J. Miller writes:
> [a system with crits/fumbles on 0, etc.]
> I for one am in favour of Loren's System. It also makes resolving
> skill contests easy - higest successful roll wins.
And causes RQ: AiG to be quite incompatible to today's RuneQuest
players who are the most likely customers on the first hand, and might
well p*ss them off.
> This system could also be used for combat by making it a skills
> contest. The system could work as follows:
> The combatants make a single roll to determine the outcome for the round -
> the one who makes the highest roll under their attack skill is the attacker
> the other is the defender,unless a special or critical is rolled in which
> case the combatant with the higher level of success is the attacker.
> The defender determines if they parried successfully
> by checking that their orignal roll was under their parry skill.
Sounds like Pendragon to me, not like RQ/Basic Roleplaying. This is
actually the part of Pendragon rules I like least, but that's personal.
I grew into roleplaying with an attack/parry system all the time, and
while I experienced other systems, I found them wanting in involvement
from my side.
One thing I use to advertise RuneQuest in Germany (e.g. tomorrow night
in a lecture) is to stress its similarity to Cthulhu, which is so
popular that most player you meet will at least know it. You learn the
basic rules once, then remember some specialities, and start playing.
I'd hate to have to remember the _differences_ each time I switch to
Elric or Cthulhu (or an old RQ campaign).
Even if I get accused to shoot down any attempt to improve the skill
Don't fix what ain't broken!
resolution method, I think the old system is fine if used
appropriately.
> Hey it's just an idea that popped into my head - it probably needs some
> work and should probably be an optional rule. Do others see any merit in
> these scheme - I'm sorry if something like this has already been dealt with.
It sure has merit, only it ain't good ole RuneQuest. It's rather the
brave new world of yet another roleplaying system. If yet another
optional rule, RQ4 will get into a new edition of Murphy's rules under
that section. Some day we might collect the "Tome of Optional Options"
from suggestions from this list. <G>
-- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:33:26 EEST