From: Tim Leask (tsl@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU)
Date: Tue 01 Feb 1994 - 19:22:25 EET
Loren J. Miller writes:
>
> Given that some people like Paul Reilly think we should discard the
> "lower is better" philosophy in RQ, what is their reason for sticking
> with that philosophy for critical and special successes?
>
> If I wanted to abandon the lower is better philosophy I'd also change
> the way crits and specials are computed, so that people didn't have to
> divide by 5 or 20. Here's the first thing I'd try.
>
> Any roll where the ones digit is a 0 and the tens digit is even is a
> critical. If it is a success then it's a critical success, if it's a
> failure then it's a fumble.
>
> Any roll where the ones digit is a 0 or 5 is a special. If it is a
> success then it's a special success (impale, etc). If it's a failure
> it's a botch (if you use that rule).
>
> This system is also a simple comparison system, just like the high roll
> under skill system for skill contests. Do you like it? For the most part
> it's simple, but if skills get over 100 then you have to do some weird
> stuff to get it to work out the same.
[ Stuff about skills > 100% deleted for brevity ]
I for one am in favour of Loren's System. It also makes resolving
skill contests easy - higest successful roll wins.
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.
One possible problem is that special and critical parries would occur
less frequently because of the recycled dice roll.
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.
Cheers,
Tim Leask
================================================================================
Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in
University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow."
Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko.
Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| --
e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au
================================================================================
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:33:28 EEST