From: Graeme A Lindsell (graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au)
Date: Tue 08 Feb 1994 - 18:30:53 EET
Graeme replying to Nick's inverted snobbery...
>
> It's Nick Brooke again... Get some proper mailing software, and these
> messages will get shorter.
>
> Graeme says he doesn't like adding to die rolls because that makes fumbles
> more common, and that he also doesn't like making fumbles less vicious (to
It was in fact one of my many reasons as to why I didn't like adding to
die rolls: one of the others is the way it completely changes the game.
> compensate for this). Pretty intractable.
>
I think you'll find many reasonable and tractable suggestions below...
> I see three fairly basic mechanics in RQ:AiG where adding to die rolls is
> IMHO the simplest way of applying a universally-debilitating penalty.
The question is whether we need a universally debilitating penalty, and
whether these penalties are as "universally debilitating" for all groups
of players
>
> (1) Fatigue;
My thoughts on this are already noted.
> (2) adding ENC (or ENC over POW)* to spell casting rolls;
Personally, I've never seen the need to punish spell casting more than any
other skills while encumbered. Are we playing D&D here? ENC doesn't seem
to punish other skills that need concentration (such as say Lore skills) or
those that require a lot of hand movement (like Sword attack or Parry).
Sorcerers in Plate mail doesn't bother me either: they won't wear it most
of the time due to the fatigue penalties, and some Western sorcerers do
wear plate mail anyway, helping the game reflect Glorantha.
> (3) +10 to the die roll per retry at Track, Pick Lock, etc.
>
I think the one-attempt per lock works fine here.
> The first of these instances is in the draft rules already; the latter two
> are my own recent suggestions.
>
> In all three cases, the people who complain loudest will be those with "the
> most toys" -- people with high skills stand to lose most from a decrease in
> Critical and increase in Fumble chance. As an egalitarian type, who'd have
> cheered on the trollkin who gave Rurik one where it hurts, I enjoy this. A
> straight penalty to skill chance or cast chance would go all but unnoticed
> by those "heroic" Rune Lords, etc.
>
Yes, well as I'm not a memeber of the "if you aren't playing peasants you
aren't playing RuneQuest" group, I have a useful counter suggestion in a
similar spirit. Since we're recasting the whole of RQ around direct modifiers
to the die roll, why don't people with skills overs 100% _deduct_ their
skill over 100 directly from the die roll? Helps balance out those difficult
fatigue rules the proles have forced on us, and seems the simplest way to
provide a universally enhancing bonus. Makes perfect sense in the new "Lets
change the die role instead of the skill" regime.
In fact let's really simplify things: Criticals always take place on an 01,
specials on 1-10, fumbles only on 100. Only use direct die roll mods to
change the chances of these happening. Other modifiers like Bladesharp
or irritating environmental effects like total darkness only effect chance
of simple success.
> In the latter two (which were my inventions), a Fumble (under my rules) is
> not disastrous. Losing 1 MP for fumbling a spell cast? That used to be the
> penalty for a simple failure! And how badly can it hurt to lose a track or
> screw up a lock that you already knew was too difficult for you first time?
>
> For the prime example, Fatigue, I'd suggest a *tiny* tweak to the rules. A
> modified fumble is only ever a Standard Fumble. For those without access to
> the current draft, the Standard Fumble is "Lose an action next round". Not
> too bad a penalty, eh?
Not really, I'll agree: almost makes the very rare fumble pointless as
an addition to the system.
>
> So we have three common-enough situations (being knackered, casting spells,
> and trying something you *know* you probably won't get right), for each of
> which the most attractive mechanic (to Nick) is an addition to the die roll
> rather than a modifier or multiplier to the skill percentage.
Oh, I'm not saying that direct adds to die rolls aren't an attractively
simple mechanic, but that if you go that way you either have a system
with unexplained mixed mechanics (ie why a rune lord - or even the peasant,
prince of PC's - has less chance of fumbling when totally blind than when
he's just tired), or you should go the whole hog and completely change the
system.
>
> There's one for the Hobgoblins...
>
But neither they nor foul fiends can daunt my spirit.
>
> PS: Ray said,
>
> > Another oddity is Lodril having two spear enhancing spells, FireSpear
> > and Lava Spear, though Lodril is NOT a warrior cult. This is more
> > spells than most of the spear using warrior cults have.
>
> Lodril is a Phallic cult, not a Warrior cult. The spells are thus entirely
> appropriate for his worshippers, though they are discouraged from learning
> and using them by their prudish Dara Happan (etc.) overlords.
And to answer another of Ray's problems, the reason why Yelmailio doesn't
have any spear enhancing magic is that he lost all his weapon enhancing
magic to Orlanth at the Hill of Gold. Anyway, the powerful Yelmalio gifts
give a much bigger advantage to those lucky enough to get them: a good
25% of 15 year old Yelmalions have 90% in a combat skill.
Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au
"Never make a speech while your angry, or you'll make the best speech
you'll ever regret" "Yes, Minister" but they quoted it from elsewhere.
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:34:34 EEST