atgxtg said:
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.