+100% skill

[simonh]

The hundreds digit is the amount you bump your success level up by, the rest is the number you're rolling against. You just look at your skill and read the last 2 digits. 133% skill? Crit on 33% or less, bump by one. 257% skill ? Crit on 57% or less, bump by 2. No extra calculations required. The numbers are right there in front of you.

I think that still introduces some sharp changes along the skill range though. I assume a "bump" means you increase the success level by one automatically, right?

Sorry, I've corrected the post. I pasted in the test from an old and inaccurate verison of the rule.

Progression is pretty smooth. There are two points at which your ability stalls for a few percent (from 96-99 as with the current rules, and from 101 to 111. Ater that your improvement is a little slower than it was up to 95%, but is fairly linear.

I'll work on a spreadsheet graph.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Lorgryt]

I suspect that if we eliminate halving as a bad idea, and put in criticals (with a crit beating a success), opposed tests work work out fine.

Not really. Using criticals affects the chances of opposed rolls very little (and make the high roll under skill bit seem pretty funky).

Just reverse it.

A 100% against a 220%, both roll 90, the first has a 10 (100-90) the second has a 130 (220-90). If the first had rolled a critical, he gets double his skill as an effect number.

Effect Number: Skill - Roll, with a Critical equaling twice the Skill in place of the roll.

So, a critical roll for someone with 40 against someone who rolls 10 on a skill of 80 would win, but not against some who rolled 10 on a skill of 120... higher skill, more Effect Number, no funky halving.

If you are one of those going, “I know that from someplace,” you have played Bushido/Aftermath/Daredevil. It is a functional rule, and is easy to use. It takes 2 or three uses before every player I have ever had in a game go, “Oh! That is easy!” But, they almost always go, “Huh?” when it is explained to them the first time.

 

[atgxtg]

I suspect that if we eliminate halving as a bad idea, and put in criticals (with a crit beating a success), opposed tests work work out fine.

Not really. Using criticals affects the chances of opposed rolls very little (and make the high roll under skill bit seem pretty funky).

Just reverse it.

A 100% against a 220%, both roll 90, the first has a 10 (100-90) the second has a 130 (220-90). If the first had rolled a critical, he gets double his skill as an effect number.

Effect Number: Skill - Roll, with a Critical equaling twice the Skill in place of the roll.

So, a critical roll for someone with 40 against someone who rolls 10 on a skill of 80 would win, but not against some who rolled 10 on a skill of 120... higher skill, more Effect Number, no funky halving.

If you are one of those going, “I know that from someplace,” you have played Bushido/Aftermath/Daredevil. It is a functional rule, and is easy to use. It takes 2 or three uses before every player I have ever had in a game go, “Oh! That is easy!” But, they almost always go, “Huh?” when it is explained to them the first time.

Some did mention this idea before. It's major flaw is that the math for things like 143%-78% isn't quite as fast an easy as 29-16.

 

[Lorgryt]

Some did mention this idea before. It's major flaw is that the math for things like 143%-78% isn't quite as fast an easy as 29-16.

True. But it is more fair than the halving rule. It is a player issue... what do they want to do.

 

[Adept]

For +100% skills take the amount above 100% from BOTH players. For example 130% vs 80% becomes 100% vs 50% (adjust criticals accordingly)..........If both characters have skills above 100% then deduct the sum of BOTH characters surplus points from each character. For example 120% vs 160% becomes 40% vs 80%.............for VERY highly skilled characters this can still apply. For example 230% vs 180% becomes 20% vs 5% (always have 5% chance of success).

This is really VERY simple. Not sure if it works though. I'm sure someone will do the sums to work out if its fair

I have proposed this and it is very fair, but you only have to subtract the higher skill characters amount over 100 from both. 120 vs 160 only needs to become 60 vs 100, there is really no need to subtract the additional 20 from both skills.

That works. It would get my vote, if I was designing the game or working out house rules.

Personally I don't like the infinitely growing skills, as the scale becomes nonintuitive pretty quick. I prefer slow skill growth (like in Hârnmaster) and a definite maximum skill that is really, really hard to reach (that means, not actually reached for normal humans in their lifetime).

In Hârn (as my GM runs it) the absolute maximum skill is 120, and having the higher over 100 surplus subtracted from both combatant's skills workd perfectly fine.

Hârn has some other neat ideas too. If one fighter is up against two opponents, his effective skill is -10 for both offense and defense. Against three this becomes -20 (and no more can fit in the fight).

 

[Rurik]

As it works out using highest roll under skill wins and using lowest roll under skill wins are exactly the same odds wise - there is no difference mathematically.

So it becomes a matter of preference which method to use. I would think if criticals are going to be used to with opposed rolls, then it feels more consistent to use lowest roll under skill wins.

Note using highest or lowest roll above skill does affect the odds (using lowest roll above skill favors the lower skilled character, whiere using highest roll above skill favors the higher skilled character).

So using atgxtgs's additional levels off success instead of halving could just as easily be used with the lowest roll wins method. I would agree with simonh that using a 50%/20%/10% scale would scale better than a 50%/10% scale.

 

[Gnarsh]

Note using highest or lowest roll above skill does affect the odds (using lowest roll above skill favors the lower skilled character, whiere using highest roll above skill favors the higher skilled character).

It does, assuming you simply take "lowest number" as the alternative. The odds of one person rolling higher or lower on 1D100 then another is even. What you're really testing is the likelyhood of making the skill in the first place. Having a higher skill under a "highest roll wins" system automatically provides a larger range of success values that will automatically be higher then the opponents roll (since he can't succeed with as high a number). The odds of me rolling higher then you on 1D100 do not change at all. It's the odds that my higher number will still be lower then my skill that does.

It's why some designers will choose that system. It has the property of being very simple. And if the game did not allow for skills over 100, or even if skills over 100 were rare I'd heartily endorse it. If we were back in the RQ1/2 days when skills over 100 were very very rare, it would work. But RQ3 and beyond starts characters at higher skill levels, and allows for a much faster skill progression. Skills over 100% are relatively common, so the game system really needs to deal with that.

And honestly, part of my dislike for the "high roll wins" system is that everything else in the RQ skills process is about rolling low. I prefer using systems that maintain that mechanic since the players are already used to trying to roll low on their skill rolls, and are used to calculating their crit chances based on that. Having one process for a basic success attempt and another for resolving opposed rolls just seems "odd" to me. It's also questionable in terms of simplicity. The most simple system IMO involves the least number of rolls, and the most consistency in terms of resolution.

 

[atgxtg]

So using atgxtgs's additional levels off success instead of halving could just as easily be used with the lowest roll wins method. I would agree with simonh that using a 50%/20%/10% scale would scale better than a 50%/10% scale.

Hey Rurik, since you seem to like the 50/20/10 idea, here is something neat that can be done with it, that I am thinking of using for a campaign:

1) Halve all weapon damage dice. So dagger becomes d2, shortsword d3, broadsword d4, greatsword d8, etc. (this is rrough, I'll fine tune it later).

2) During an attack subtract the success level of the defender from the attacker. So if the attacker gets a critical success (10%), and the defender gets a normal success, the result is a special succes (20%).

3) For each "degree of success, the attacker rolls 1 damage die. Normal = 1 die, 1/2 =2 dice, special = 3 dice, critical = 4 dice.

So if the attacker in the above example was using a shortsword, he would roll 3d3 dfor a special success.


That is the basic idea. I think it does what the MRQ combat matrix was tying to do.

Some other ideas I have for it:

If the defender has more success than the attacker, it translates into an edge of some sort. Perhaps a free attack./ripote, but perhaps something else too-like maybe getting a free precise attack with the next action or eating up one of the attackers actions or reactions.

Impales/Slash and the like- I was thinking of swiping a couple of ideas from Usagi Yojimo that I think could work out well in MRQ. In UY an impale hasd an automatic wound level drop rather than a damage roll. I was thinking than an impale could drop a location to 0 hp plus the damage roll. In UY you can get out of this effect by retreating-something that would work well in MRQ.
I might condier allowing these special effects in to be taken instead of extra damage dice.

Another UY rule that might work well is that when the results are tied, the defender gets hit, unless he retreats. THis might be an option for normal vs. normal and such in MRQ.

 

[Rurik]

1) Halve all weapon damage dice. So dagger becomes d2, shortsword d3, broadsword d4, greatsword d8, etc. (this is rrough, I'll fine tune it later).

2) During an attack subtract the success level of the defender from the attacker. So if the attacker gets a critical success (10%), and the defender gets a normal success, the result is a special succes (20%).

3) For each "degree of success, the attacker rolls 1 damage die. Normal = 1 die, 1/2 =2 dice, special = 3 dice, critical = 4 dice.

Sounds pretty good. It is a little bit heavy on the calculations side for me to try at first, but definately has potential.

I have a couple of ideas to throw at you though. Rather than changing weapon damage you could do something with the AP's of parry's (similar to what they do now) and add back in damage to weapons. Remember right now as MRQ is written the only way to damage a weapon is to target it specifically.

Maybe say special parry vs normal attack - block 2xAP and do rolled damage to attacking weapon or some such. Critical vs normal parry, Max Damage, 1/2 AP blocked, damage in exess of AP also dealt to weapons hp, you get the idea.

Just a thought.

 

[atgxtg]

I was changing the damage becuase it adds in the idea that a more skilled swordsman will deal more damage than a less skilled one.

Rather than using the difference, we could simply have both sides make thier roll and get the effects. For instance, a 1 die/2die/3die/4die effect for the attacker, and a 1xAP/2xAP/3XAP/4XAP for the defender.

Note that this will give light weapons a chance to block heavy weapons, if the defender gets a better degree of success than the attacker. So your 3AP quartstaff will actually be able to deflect a greatsword if the attacker only gets a fair result and the defender rolls a good enough parry.

 

[Enpeze]

the best rule for skills over 100% (which are always quite rare) is to reduce the bigger skill to 100% and deduct the difference to the skill max from the smaller skill.

Eg. Player A has 156%, player B has 91%. After the method, player A has 100% and player B has 35%. (91-56) This should be a good solution and easy to calculate.

 

[atgxtg]

the best rule for skills over 100% (which are always quite rare) is to reduce the bigger skill to 100% and deduct the difference to the skill max from the smaller skill.

Eg. Player A has 156%, player B has 91%. After the method, player A has 100% and player B has 35%. (91-56) This should be a good solution and easy to calculate.

It has been discussed. The problem is with how people percieve skills over 100%. With a "subtract the difference" rule the relationship is linwerar and can cause difficlities when a 150% character goes up against a 275% character.

With a "subtract the difference" syste the 150% character suddenly becomes incompetent. THis just doesn't happen with real fighting. Someone good enoguh to be a master is always a serious threat.

 

[Enpeze]

It has been discussed. The problem is with how people percieve skills over 100%. With a "subtract the difference" rule the relationship is linwerar and can cause difficlities when a 150% character goes up against a 275% character.

With a "subtract the difference" syste the 150% character suddenly becomes incompetent. THis just doesn't happen with real fighting. Someone good enoguh to be a master is always a serious threat.

Maybe he is a serious threat but against a 275% monster he is dead meat. RQ should be linear in all respects. In my games every skill and attribute is linear (except SIZ to some extent). Just a matter of simplicity and design. BRP should be easy not complicated. So I prefer the skill modifiers of new MRQ with simple and elegant +-20% between each step (from easy to hard) to approaches of older BRP variants. (like this bad and ridiculous CoC skill doubling rule for point blank shots)


See it in this way.275% is 125% better than 150%. 125% is a whole life of training.

And regarding to your comment that "this just doesnt happen with real fighting". No living human (neither you nor I) knows a guy with 150% or with 275%. (ok, I know some extremly good martial artists which have, I would guess, around 90-100% in RQ terms, but thats another story ) So, sorry you cannot claim this. We have to rely on rule mathematics to operate with such high skills because, lacking heros like Harrek the Berserk on earth, we dont know how it would play in out in reality.

 

[Gnarsh]

With a "subtract the difference" syste the 150% character suddenly becomes incompetent. THis just doesn't happen with real fighting. Someone good enoguh to be a master is always a serious threat.

Ever actually fought in a fencing tournament? Ever seen a class Bish fencer go up against an Olympic level fencer? He's going to be just as badly worked over as a beginner will be by that B level fencer.

Same deal with martial arts. Same deal with boxing. Same deal with every fighting style I've ever been involved in. There really are "levels" of skill. You're effective against people near your own level, you totally destroy anyone lower then your level, and you get totally destroyed by anyone above your level.

IMO, sliding scale calculations work best to simulate real fighting. I really think you're getting hung up on the idea that 100% is a "master" level. In RQ terms it just means you can hit a human sized target that's not moving too much consistently. You've "mastered the basics" at 100%. Real mastery and skill *starts* at 100% in RQ. It does not end there. The rules should reflect that IMO.

 

[Lord Twig]

With a "subtract the difference" syste the 150% character suddenly becomes incompetent. THis just doesn't happen with real fighting. Someone good enoguh to be a master is always a serious threat.

Ever actually fought in a fencing tournament? Ever seen a class Bish fencer go up against an Olympic level fencer? He's going to be just as badly worked over as a beginner will be by that B level fencer.

Same deal with martial arts. Same deal with boxing. Same deal with every fighting style I've ever been involved in. There really are "levels" of skill. You're effective against people near your own level, you totally destroy anyone lower then your level, and you get totally destroyed by anyone above your level.

IMO, sliding scale calculations work best to simulate real fighting. I really think you're getting hung up on the idea that 100% is a "master" level. In RQ terms it just means you can hit a human sized target that's not moving too much consistently. You've "mastered the basics" at 100%. Real mastery and skill *starts* at 100% in RQ. It does not end there. The rules should reflect that IMO.

I would actually agree with the fact that "Real mastery and skill *starts* at 100%". And that is represented in MRQ. Remember that you do NOT halve combat skills over 100%, you just roll them and look at the chart.

At 100% you can consistently hit what you are aiming at. At 140% you can consistently hit a specific location you are aiming at with a 100% chance (or ignore armor 100% of the time). As you get higher there will be even more that you can do. (Can you take -80 to hit a location AND ignore armor?)

As for skill vs. skill, which is where the halving problem comes in, I prefer my multiple roll idea (which I bet people are getting tired of hearing about. )

 

[Gnarsh]

Let me add one more point here.

The problem with the whole "halve the skill until everyone's under 100%" is that it assumes that skill levels are relative as a ratio of eachother. So a 100% fighter is "half as skilled" as a 200% fighter. That seems to make a lot of sense if you just look at those values. The problem is that it does not scale correctly. The higher value decreases relative to the lower as we increase the scale. This is basic number theory. In the same way that you may have been half your siblings age when you were little but you aren't half your siblings age when you're both in your 40s, skills over 100% in RQ do not scale correctly if you assume it's all relative.

The halving process attempts to apply skills in that relative manner, and maintain each as a ratio of the other. So a 100 versus a 200 becomes a 50 versus a 100. That seems to make sense when looked at statically (one is half of the other, so the ratio is maintained). However, what that also means is that in order for this type of relative skill to work, you must also assume that the 200% warrior's skill increases at twice the rate from that point on all other things being equal in order to maintain the same relative skill.

Skill times are linear. So that is clearly not the case. If we take warrior A with a 100% skill, and warrior B with a 200% skill, and then allow an amount of time to pass for A to gain an additional 100%, then A will be at 200% and B at 300%. Halving (twice in this case), will result in A having 50% and B having 75%. The 100% lead, which earlier made B twice as good as A is now only making him half again as good.

Even ignoring the screwy probability changes that occur along halving points, the very concept is flawed. It does not accurately represent the true relative skill of the opponents. This is largely why I argue that trying to apply them as a ratio is a mistake. Not only does it have both of those flaws, but it's also more complex. One of the stated goals for this release of RQ was to simplify things, replacing mulitplication and division with subtraction and addition wherever possible. Here is a clear example where they should have stuck with that mission statement. Simply subtracting one value from the other resolves issues with skills over 100% in a simple, effective, and (most importantly) fair manner, with a minimum of complexity.

It's just bizaare to me that a game system that did away with characteristic rolls, which worked fine but did require multiplication (simple multiplication, but multiplication nonetheless) would turn around and introduce a vastly more complex process of division in the case of skills over 100% in exactly a way as to make the very case they're addressing (skills over 100%) not work correctly ... or easily.

 

[Gnarsh]

Bah. Yeah. Even after I made the point, I keep using weapon skills as examples myself.

Bad me!!!

It's just easier to visualize relative combat skills I think...

 

[atgxtg]

It has been discussed. The problem is with how people percieve skills over 100%. With a "subtract the difference" rule the relationship is linwerar and can cause difficlities when a 150% character goes up against a 275% character.

With a "subtract the difference" syste the 150% character suddenly becomes incompetent. THis just doesn't happen with real fighting. Someone good enoguh to be a master is always a serious threat.

Maybe he is a serious threat but against a 275% monster he is dead meat. RQ should be linear in all respects.

Except RQ was never designed to be linear, and the numbers are not. If you want to go with a linear system you'd hgave to up the stats for all the animals. Bears would go from a 34 STR to an 80. Dragons would go up to around STR 250.

JUst wrokjing out a reasonable range for human stats with a linear scale becomes much more difficult.

Linear is easy, but it generqally sucks in RPG terms. It also makes a big difference on the damage scale. Technically twice the STR translates into twice the damage.

If and when you get to modern day firearms the whole thing goes right down the circular file. Your typical .50MG round has over 30 times the enrgy of a 9mm round. A typical rifle has about ten times the enegy of a 9mm round.

LInear doesn't work well in RPGs, that is why practically every RPG out there uses a non-linear scale.

In my games every skill and attribute is linear (except SIZ to some extent). Just a matter of simplicity and design. BRP should be easy not complicated. So I prefer the skill modifiers of new MRQ with simple and elegant +-20% between each step (from easy to hard) to approaches of older BRP variants. (like this bad and ridiculous CoC skill doubling rule for point blank shots)


Actually I find the +20% to be bad and rediculous and the doubling more realistic and sensible.

See it in this way.275% is 125% better than 150%. 125% is a whole life of training.

And regarding to your comment that "this just doesnt happen with real fighting". No living human (neither you nor I) knows a guy with 150% or with 275%. (ok, I know some extremly good martial artists which have, I would guess, around 90-100% in RQ terms, but thats another story ) So, sorry you cannot claim this. We have to rely on rule mathematics to operate with such high skills because, lacking heros like Harrek the Berserk on earth, we dont know how it would play in out in reality.

No, I disagree with you. The 90-100% is what constitutes "mastery" in RQ. In real life terms, this is the level of master craftmen and you master swordmen or martial artists. According to most people at that level, it is really just the beginng step.

If we went with the 275 slaughter the 125 idea, there is really no point in running the game anymore. You wind up with two situations:

1) NPC has the high edge-NPC kills PC. THe PC doesn't have a chance so he looses. This is not a good idea. MOst fantasy fiction has the underdog hero overcoming great obstacles. Not with this idea.

2) PC has the high edge. PC slaughters everything he runs into except the other 275% level guy-and those are sort of rare. The rest of the time is a walkthrough. THis is also bad for gaming. If the GM tries to counter by puitting up lots of high skilled bozos the whole thuing gets pretty stupid. I've seen this happen in D&D. We would all wondewr what level the farmers were with all these high HD monsters running around.

 

[atgxtg]

It has been discussed. The problem is with how people percieve skills over 100%. With a "subtract the difference" rule the relationship is linwerar and can cause difficlities when a 150% character goes up against a 275% character.

With a "subtract the difference" syste the 150% character suddenly becomes incompetent. THis just doesn't happen with real fighting. Someone good enoguh to be a master is always a serious threat.

Maybe he is a serious threat but against a 275% monster he is dead meat. RQ should be linear in all respects.

Except RQ was never designed to be linear, and the numbers are not. If you want to go with a linear system you'd hgave to up the stats for all the animals. Bears would go from a 34 STR to an 80. Dragons would go up to around STR 250.

JUst wrokjing out a reasonable range for human stats with a linear scale becomes much more difficult.

Linear is easy, but it generqally sucks in RPG terms. It also makes a big difference on the damage scale. Technically twice the STR translates into twice the damage.

If and when you get to modern day firearms the whole thing goes right down the circular file. Your typical .50MG round has over 30 times the enrgy of a 9mm round. A typical rifle has about ten times the enegy of a 9mm round.

LInear doesn't work well in RPGs, that is why practically every RPG out there uses a non-linear scale.

In my games every skill and attribute is linear (except SIZ to some extent). Just a matter of simplicity and design. BRP should be easy not complicated. So I prefer the skill modifiers of new MRQ with simple and elegant +-20% between each step (from easy to hard) to approaches of older BRP variants. (like this bad and ridiculous CoC skill doubling rule for point blank shots)


Actually I find the +20% to be bad and rediculous and the doubling more realistic and sensible.

See it in this way.275% is 125% better than 150%. 125% is a whole life of training.

And regarding to your comment that "this just doesnt happen with real fighting". No living human (neither you nor I) knows a guy with 150% or with 275%. (ok, I know some extremly good martial artists which have, I would guess, around 90-100% in RQ terms, but thats another story ) So, sorry you cannot claim this. We have to rely on rule mathematics to operate with such high skills because, lacking heros like Harrek the Berserk on earth, we dont know how it would play in out in reality.

No, I disagree with you. The 90-100% is what constitutes "mastery" in RQ. In real life terms, this is the level of master craftmen and you master swordmen or martial artists. According to most people at that level, it is really just the beginng step.

If we went with the 275 slaughter the 125 idea, there is really no point in running the game anymore. You wind up with two situations:

1) NPC has the high edge-NPC kills PC. THe PC doesn't have a chance so he looses. This is not a good idea. MOst fantasy fiction has the underdog hero overcoming great obstacles. Not with this idea.

2) PC has the high edge. PC slaughters everything he runs into except the other 275% level guy-and those are sort of rare. The rest of the time is a walkthrough. THis is also bad for gaming. If the GM tries to counter by puitting up lots of high skilled bozos the whole thuing gets pretty stupid. I've seen this happen in D&D. We would all wondewr what level the farmers were with all these high HD monsters running around.


Tunnels & Trolls uses a linear scale and one major gripwee is that if you encounter something that outclasses you, it mops of the palce with you.



Arguments about fencing or martial arts tournaments don't really hold water here. On a battlefieldl, in a real fight things are a lot different. High skilled guys can and do get killed by lesser skilled opponents. Fencing in particular is a joke, with so many restriction on what constitutes a hit that the fighting style is completely differenrt that a real fight. Saber is about the only fencing weapon with some credibility.

Take a loot at Kenjutsu. Miyamoto Mushashi, the legendary swordman, noted that severasl of his opponents had greater skill and technique than he did, but he had a greater will to win.

 

[Gnarsh]

Except RQ was never designed to be linear, and the numbers are not. If you want to go with a linear system you'd hgave to up the stats for all the animals. Bears would go from a 34 STR to an 80. Dragons would go up to around STR 250.

Historically, RQ (and most other RPGs) are linear. One glance at the resistance tables for all previous verions of RQ should show you this. A 5 vs a 10 has the same odds as a 15 vs a 20 (or any other two values with 5 points separating them). A D&D warrior with a tohit roll of 12 with a +4 sword increases his hit roll by 4 points. He does not increase it by 20% of his starting value. In fact, you'll be incredibly hard pressed to find any game system that is not linear at heart.

Sure. The stat values in relation to "real" relative siz/str may not appear linear, but that's just a game convention. The application of those values *is* linear. And we're talking about game application here. How do two skills compare to eachother? How do two stats compare to eachother? The values themselves are arbitrary. It's how they interact that matters.

Linear is easy, but it generqally sucks in RPG terms. It also makes a big difference on the damage scale. Technically twice the STR translates into twice the damage.

If and when you get to modern day firearms the whole thing goes right down the circular file. Your typical .50MG round has over 30 times the enrgy of a 9mm round. A typical rifle has about ten times the enegy of a 9mm round.

LInear doesn't work well in RPGs, that is why practically every RPG out there uses a non-linear scale.

Maybe you're using a different definition for linear then everyone else? Because reading that last bit sure appeared to be a strong argument for why ratio based systems would suck for RPGs. Because if you actually used them, then that .50MG would have to deal 30 times as much damage as a 9mm. Whereas in a linear system, you might just give it an extra die of damage or something.

Perfect accuracy in terms of the real world is less important then playability. RQ only appears to be ratio-based because of the percentage values. But ultimately, that's no different then a d20 rolled in any other game. And in every single one I've ever seen, you *add* values together. You don't multiply. Your reflex bonus is *added* to other factors to generate your AC in D&D. It's not multiplied. Bladesharp *adds* percentage points to your skill. It does not multiply.

Damage bonuses are added to base damage. Not multiplied.

I could list off the aspects of a dozen different games and show you how they are virtually all linear in use, but we'd run out of space on this forum.

If we went with the 275 slaughter the 125 idea, there is really no point in running the game anymore. You wind up with two situations:

1) NPC has the high edge-NPC kills PC. THe PC doesn't have a chance so he looses. This is not a good idea. MOst fantasy fiction has the underdog hero overcoming great obstacles. Not with this idea.

2) PC has the high edge. PC slaughters everything he runs into except the other 275% level guy-and those are sort of rare. The rest of the time is a walkthrough. THis is also bad for gaming. If the GM tries to counter by puitting up lots of high skilled bozos the whole thuing gets pretty stupid. I've seen this happen in D&D. We would all wondewr what level the farmers were with all these high HD monsters running around.

I'm not sure what your point is here. RQ is a skill based game. Skill is therefore analgeous to levels in level based games. Not a whole lot of 15th level paladins being bothered by 1st level orcs IMO (or even 5th level, or 10th level for that matter). And not a lot of first levels taking on Balrogs and winning.

Of course the 275% guy willl tromp the 125% guy. He should. A game system in which he can't defeat that opponent 99% of the time is seriously flawed IMO. I guess I don't get what you're after here. You want a skill based game system in which vastly superior skill doesn't really matter much? The GM should be crafting the adventure to the skill and power level of the characters. That's no different no matter what RPG you play. It's no different here. That 125% guy is cannon fodder against a party with 275% skills. I don't see a problem with that. Scenario balance is the GM's job. It's not like he can't face the PCs with higher skilled and more powerful foes if he wants. He's the GM.

Tunnels & Trolls uses a linear scale and one major gripwee is that if you encounter something that outclasses you, it mops of the palce with you.

*cough* What part of "outclassed" is unclear? I'm confused...

Arguments about fencing or martial arts tournaments don't really hold water here. On a battlefieldl, in a real fight things are a lot different. High skilled guys can and do get killed by lesser skilled opponents. Fencing in particular is a joke, with so many restriction on what constitutes a hit that the fighting style is completely differenrt that a real fight. Saber is about the only fencing weapon with some credibility.

Of course high skilled guys get killed by lesser skilled opponents. Because they get overwhelmed. They fall (fumble). They just plain miss (bad rolls still happen). You surround that 275% guy with 5 125% guys, play it out and let me know if he was able to defeat them all. Baring an equally significant magical advantage, I'm pretty sure he'll get slaughtered.

The fencing argument is valid. Because we're comparing skill levels. Not other environmental effects. Those other things (like being outnumbered, slipping on a banana peel, etc) are covered in other parts of the rules. They should not change the basic way two skill levels interact. Fencing is a perfect example because it's stylized to the point where the *only* thing that matters is direct skill at fencing. Since we're discussing just the interaction between two skills, with no other factors involved, it's a relevant analogy.

If nothing but skill versus skill matters, then the 275% guy should never lose to the 125% guy (or lose very very rarely). Obviously, other factors will play a part. But we should not incorporate those into the skill vs skill component of the game. You should start with a base of "pure" skill versus skill, then add in other factors. How you do that is up to you, but you should make sure that the base case (two people attempting opposing skills on a featureless plain with no other factors present) works correctly. As in everything, you build the foundation first, then you pile stuff on top of it.

Take a loot at Kenjutsu. Miyamoto Mushashi, the legendary swordman, noted that severasl of his opponents had greater skill and technique than he did, but he had a greater will to win.

Sure. And you're welcome to include a "will to win" stat in your RQ game.