+100% skill

[AKAramis]

Target number methods

• do nothing, no crits
• do nothing but use crits (Default combat assumption)
• Halving of skill when appropriate, no crits (Default non-combat assumption)
• Halving of skill, crits based upon full skill (AKA Crits Pre)
• Halving of skill, crits on rolled target (AKA Crits Post)
• Decrement skills evenly, no crits
• Decrement skills evenly, crits pre
• Decement skills evenly, crits post
• Do nothing, but adjust result by amount over 100, no crits
• Do nothing, but adjust result by amount over 100, crits are values over 100. (Basically, Pendragon)
• Do nothing, but adjust result by Critical Range, crits are over 100.
• Do nothing, but adjust result by Critical Range, crits are over TN

All of these have different effects on chances.

Plus, there are reading variations for same quality of result:

• Highest Roll in best quality wins
• Lowest Roll in best quality wins
• Highest success if both succeed or lowest fail if both fail (Default mRQ, Pendragon)
• Furthest distance from Target Number wins within same quality (EQ)
• Closest to TN wins in category

And then, of course, a few other options involving the skill system:

• Double fails in opposed is no success at all (Does major violence to halving of skills).
• Determine only by success levels (Crit, Special, Normal, Fail). Note that special is not defined in mRQ, and crits are optional in mRQ outside combat.
• No crits in combat.
• Reactions to declared attack, not successful attack
• Reactions oppose separate roll from the initial attack.

 

[Adept]

You are assuming a rediculous amount of forward planning. The resistance table is a simple mechanism put into the game in the late seventies. They most surely didn't think about, and decide that this is the mechanism that will give just the results we want when a tribal spirit of POW 30 faces off against a more powerful spirit of POW 40.

Get real...

Yes they did. Take a look at the RQ2 book. The Spririt Table and other info in the shaman section has references and examples of rules with Spirits with POW abouve the nomral human scale. Examples in the book include POW 26 spriits, and the spriti table has POW scores up to unlimed (Deity) with a "typical" spirit having a POW Of 3D6+6.[/quote]

The "resistance table" algorithm is a very simplistic part of the RQ game engine. I can't believe you people are treating it like some great stroke of genous.

Especially the people who like to play with very high skils and statistics, I would have thought would like something that scales better and works on a greater range than the >10 point difference possible there.

 

[atgxtg]

The "resistance table" algorithm is a very simplistic part of the RQ game engine. I can't believe you people are treating it like some great stroke of genous.

Considering that it is now the core merchanic for the majority of RPG products on the shelves today, it just might be a great stroke og Genius. How many other 20 year old RPG ideas have become core concepts in the modern RPG world?

Especially the people who like to play with very high skils and statistics, I would have thought would like something that scales better and works on a greater range than the >10 point difference possible there.

I don't think you are understanding our argment. It is not that we want Uber-high skill scores all over the place. It is just that we are going to have to deal with them, and in a fashion that dits in with the way things work in GLorantha. Old RQ and HeroQuest, have mechanics for dealing with situatins becuase they come up in GLorantha.

Having a chance, even a slight one, is better than just having the dragon eat you. Sure, it is probably going to end up that way, but it is a lot less agrivating and makes for a better RPG situation. Especially as characters can get drawn into certain sitatuions by circmstance. A fledging PC never knows when he might be hit with a lightbringer's summons or aFace Chaos.

In addtion Glorantha does have all those Rune Lords running around and fighting with each other, and you just can't cap it off. It doen't work that way there. Esssentially the whole HeroQuest concept sort of falls flat on its face if the PCs can't achiieve superhuman to godline abilties.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

I don't think you are understanding our argment. It is not that we want Uber-high skill scores all over the place. It is just that we are going to have to deal with them, and in a fashion that dits in with the way things work in GLorantha. Old RQ and HeroQuest, have mechanics for dealing with situatins becuase they come up in GLorantha.

That is just so bang on. Because sooner or later the situation is going to come up, and will have to be dealt with - and it's not confined to Glorantha either.

It does strike me though that this is going to be a much rarer situation than we might have originally feared.

* The opposed roll mechanism doesn't apply to combat.
* It doesn't apply to normal skill use.
* It only applies with skills above 100

So that massively narrows down the number of situations in which it will become a problem. Most of those big > 100 skills are likely going to be weapon skills, and very few of the other skills make sense in an opposed roll situation. I count Influence, Perception, Persistence, Resilience, Sleight and Stealth. Possibly also Runecasting, although it's not totally clear. So it's really a very very small problem that's led to the game being damned as "broken"...

Now, I can see arguments in favour of capping Persistence and Resilience at 100. They're innate qualities that reflect willpower and staying power, rather than a measurement of how good one is at accomplishing a task. I'd also bar them from Practice and Research for the same reason, although regular experience seems valid to allow for the concept of "toughening up".

As for the others, well, it would take about 100 adventures to get from 100 to 200 (assuming 1 improvement roll per adventure going consistently into a single skill), so maybe just using the autofail rule would be sufficient to cope with opposed tests? The only real effect of a very high skill in opposed tests would then be to reduce the chance of an autofail (which is very significant in itself). Introducing criticals as another deciding factor would mean that those extra points between 100 and 200 would also mean something.

Thoughts?

 

[seanwalsh]

The current offical rules are:

Combat-do nothing
Unopposed-do nothing
Opposed-Half when appropriate.

THere are lots of alternatives for the halving rule floating around though. Maybe we should compile a list of all the options?

I would like to see a list of other methods for opposed skill checks where one of the skills is greater than 100%.
AKAramis's lists seem to be mostly variations on the three ideas (nothing, subtraction, and division by 2) I listed before but changing how critical successes are determined and discussing different ways to deal with ties.

 

[atgxtg]

The current offical rules are:

Combat-do nothing
Unopposed-do nothing
Opposed-Half when appropriate.

THere are lots of alternatives for the halving rule floating around though. Maybe we should compile a list of all the options?

I would like to see a list of other methods for opposed skill checks where one of the skills is greater than 100%.
AKAramis's lists seem to be mostly variations on the three ideas (nothing, subtraction, and division by 2) I listed before but changing how critical successes are determined and discussing different ways to deal with ties.

There were/are a lot of threads on this buy a few of the ideas not mentioned above, and wnot a variation of the abovewere:

1) to give the halfed character who dropped down fromn over 100 a free "Second-chance" roll as per Hero Point Use.

2) Allow the characters that were halved below 100 to switch thier ones and tens digit after the roll. SO you could read a 95 as a 59 if you wanted to (or read a 59 as a 95).

None of these ideas have been "field tested"

 

[seanwalsh]

The current offical rules are:

Combat-do nothing
Unopposed-do nothing
Opposed-Half when appropriate.

THere are lots of alternatives for the halving rule floating around though. Maybe we should compile a list of all the options?

I would like to see a list of other methods for opposed skill checks where one of the skills is greater than 100%.
AKAramis's lists seem to be mostly variations on the three ideas (nothing, subtraction, and division by 2) I listed before but changing how critical successes are determined and discussing different ways to deal with ties.

There were/are a lot of threads on this buy a few of the ideas not mentioned above, and wnot a variation of the abovewere:

1) to give the halfed character who dropped down fromn over 100 a free "Second-chance" roll as per Hero Point Use.

2) Allow the characters that were halved below 100 to switch thier ones and tens digit after the roll. SO you could read a 95 as a 59 if you wanted to (or read a 59 as a 95).

None of these ideas have been "field tested"

So the other ideas are all just variations of those three, fundamentally?

 

[atgxtg]

Probably not. About ten to fifteen people have gone over this in a half dozen different threads. I'm sure I missed or forgot something. We sort of need to compile it all. I doubt any one person if familar with all the differenrt ideas cooked up.

 

[seanwalsh]

Probably not. About ten to fifteen people have gone over this in a half dozen different threads. I'm sure I missed or forgot something. We sort of need to compile it all. I doubt any one person if familar with all the differenrt ideas cooked up.

Well, I have been following the various threads, arguments and debates, but I haven't seen any other fundamentally different ideas. That is why I was asking.

 

[Rurik]

I am going to try to summarize the methods I can recall reading. I am sure I will miss some. Also is a summary of how they work and possibly my opinion on strengths and weakneses. Some of these methods have had a lot of math done on them by myself and/or others. Others not.

I would say the methods of resolving opposed tests are:

Halving Methods:

Halve, as in rules. Simple but severely penalizes for breaking the 100 threshold.

Halve, High roll wins on both success and failure. Just as simple. Still penalizes but not as bad. I also like giving ties to the higher skill. Affects odds by less than 1% but eliminates re-rolling.

A version of halving I proposed was to use the rule as is for non halved rolls and switch to high roll wins on failure when halved. The result of this is a 50 vs 30 contest that is the result of halving 101 vs 60 gives the 101 skilled character a better chance than a 'natural' 50 has vs. a 30.

Halve and use criticals. Barely affects the odds but people like their crits.

Don't halve and use criticals. Puts to characters above 100 at pretty much 50/50 odds, even if one of them is 200 and the other is 100.

Don't halve and add more levels of criticals (such as 50%/20%/10%). Works well, but is a major re-working. Not to hard for those used to this kind of math in their games.

Skill Reduction Methods:

Reduce both skills by amount over 100 of highest skill. Fairest Linear reduction. I plan on using this method (at least at first).

Reduce both skills by Multiples of 100 (no bumping or re-rolling). Can be worse than halving in some cases.

Bump and Re-Roll methods

Bump per 100. Reduce skill by 100's and then roll, bumping the success level per hundred reduction (ala HQ). I do not think this works well with the high roll under skill wins. Some have proposed re-rolling tied level of sucesses, but this has problems at certain points. Skill 110 vs Skill 105 will have a LOT of ties.

Halve and re-roll. Allow a re-roll for the halved party with skill above 100. This has kind of the opposite effect of normal halving (which hurts the higher skilled character more the greater his skill is over the lower skill). Consider skill 101 vs 99. Halve and the skill 101 gets to re-roll and the 99 doesn't - huge advantage for a 2% difference in skill.

Roll and add rolls together per 100 skill per success. Example 250 rolls d100 (for first 100), adds d100 for second hundred, rolls third d100, if roll is less than 50 add to first two rolls. I think this would work pretty well, but can be a lot of rolling. I suspect the high skills has a kind of equalizing effect too, for example 480 vs 410. 4d100 has a LOT of room for varience, I think in the end 480 and 410 may work out be close to a 50/50 contest, but havn't done the math on it.

Other Methods:

Flip Digits. Halved character can flip tens and one's place on roll. Similar to re-rolling, and has the same drawback (101 vs 99). Also doesn't cover being quartered (no, not that you sick bastards - I mean halved twice) and has some issues when both parties can flip that would need working out.

Kill characters who get skills dangerously close to 100. I recommend Skybolt.

 

[atgxtg]

Probably not. About ten to fifteen people have gone over this in a half dozen different threads. I'm sure I missed or forgot something. We sort of need to compile it all. I doubt any one person if familar with all the differenrt ideas cooked up.

Well, I have been following the various threads, arguments and debates, but I haven't seen any other fundamentally different ideas. That is why I was asking.

Primariliy becuase no one wants to make a radical change to the game, just patch it in the easiest most effective manner possible. We just don't all agree or are sure as to what it the best way to do that. About half of the early quick fixes got discarded pretty quickly when the math didn't hold up.

Then there are some differences of opinion of just what the fixed results should be. Plus a lot of people don't care about the math and don't want to change a thing.

Sorry, I sure there will eventually be an option that gets a consensus but not yet.

 

[Adept]

In addtion Glorantha does have all those Rune Lords running around and fighting with each other, and you just can't cap it off. It doen't work that way there. Esssentially the whole HeroQuest concept sort of falls flat on its face if the PCs can't achiieve superhuman to godline abilties.

For what it's worth, I feel my game handles superhuman creatures and Gloranthan heroes in a much better and more satistying way than RQ ever did or will. - A RQ3 version of a superhero with 20 points of armour and a scimitar skill of 284% is far from exciting, at least to me.

My game does have Jareel the Razoress and the rest of the Heroes, and they are absolutely terrifying. What I'm doing, though, is having them be heroes like Achilles and Hector, rather than lvl 36 D&D characters.

I run a Glorantha game, a superhero game and an Amber game with a system that has definite skill caps, and where skills are quickly gained to normal levels but only very lowly reach their peak. In RQ terms the highest skill levels possible would translate to about 110 - 120.

Don't tell me it's impossible, or unsatisfying. It is neither of these things.

 

[Adept]

Considering that it is now the core merchanic for the majority of RPG products on the shelves today, it just might be a great stroke og Genius. How many other 20 year old RPG ideas have become core concepts in the modern RPG world?

Huh? I'm familiar with a pretty wide range of RPG's, and I don't recall seeing the RQ resistance table mechanic anywhere outside Chaosium's games.

A core mechanic? (Active - Passive +10) *5%
That's just a quick and dirty mechanic that should have evolved over the years. It never did. Parhaps it was clever for it's day in the original RQ, but it's not some great epiphany.

 

[Rurik]

Primariliy becuase no one wants to make a radical change to the game, just patch it in the easiest most effective manner possible

I run a Glorantha game, a superhero game and an Amber game with a system that has definite skill caps, and where skills are quickly gained to normal levels but only very lowly reach their peak. In RQ terms the highest skill levels possible would translate to about 110 - 120

Personally, I like fixes that stay as close to the MRQ way of doing things as possible, or most importantly, work with published stats. Major changes means tweaking or converting the published material that comes out.

I would rather patch a rule once than convert a bunch of supplements later.

 

[Rurik]

Sorry, I sure there will eventually be an option that gets a consensus but not yet.

A concensus as in everybody? Really?

Maybe I'm just too cynical. :?

 

[atgxtg]

Considering that it is now the core merchanic for the majority of RPG products on the shelves today, it just might be a great stroke og Genius. How many other 20 year old RPG ideas have become core concepts in the modern RPG world?

Huh? I'm familiar with a pretty wide range of RPG's, and I don't recall seeing the RQ resistance table mechanic anywhere outside Chaosium's games.

A core mechanic? (Active - Passive +10) *5%
That's just a quick and dirty mechanic that should have evolved over the years. It never did. Parhaps it was clever for it's day in the original RQ, but it's not some great epiphany.

Itis the core mechanic for the d20 system. D10+Mod vs TN is the same. Just add 10 to any RQ passive resistance nuimber and you get the same math.

 

[RMS]

For what it's worth, I feel my game handles superhuman creatures ... snippage... Don't tell me it's impossible, or unsatisfying. It is neither of these things.

I didn't see anyone claiming that it's not possible. In fact, I actually like the idea of having a scale bound on both ends. The problem is that what you're describing is going to be too far away from RQ or BRP (in any version) to be useful to those wanting to simply fix the problems in MRQ. You'd have to restat every single NPC in every adventure to make what you describe above work. If you want to do all of that work, that's fine. I for one, don't have any interest in it. I'm willing to accept the NPC stats as written and just play them. What I want is a system that handles those stats without breaking. RQ2 and RQ3 handled this just fine. MRQ apparently doesn't, so there does need to be a way to do it.

I should note here that my current thoughts are to simply use the stats as written, but reintroduce the special success. That wouldn't break anything and would give 5 levels of skill resolution for each side to compare and contrast.

 

[RMS]

Itis the core mechanic for the d20 system. D10+Mod vs TN is the same. Just add 10 to any RQ passive resistance nuimber and you get the same math.

You're around here too much! I was just getting ready to answer that one and decided to read the rest of the posts first. Yes, the resistance table was something quite original and has filtered down into about every game using any kind of die vs. target number since.

I should note that the resistance table itself is simply a clever adaptation of the D&D combat resolution and saving through mechanics, but the epiphany was that it could be used for such a wide range of applications. That was a fairly new concept. In fact, one of the overlooked unique things about RQ is that moved so far away from other RPGs that only handled combat with well defined mechanics. Maybe you just had to be there at the time to appreciate some of this...

 

[atgxtg]

I should note here that my current thoughts are to simply use the stats as written, but reintroduce the special success. That wouldn't break anything and would give 5 levels of skill resolution for each side to compare and contrast.

I thought of that awhile back. I evenmentioned that by adding special success in all the combat matrices are instantly workable.

I'm jiust wondering if we should stick with the 1/5th (since cric=tcals have gone up), or go with a 1/2 rule. With 1/2 the people who don't like to do math can't complain. If someone can't divide by 2 they couldn't run the game anyway.

 

[Don Allen]

I have not seen all the methods but for skills over 100% so I'm sure that this was one of them but here is my idea...

Take the amount you have over 100 (after all modifiers have been figured in) and subtract it from the lesser score. Now both roll and use the book method of seeing who won. If subtracting from the lower amount brings them to 0 or lower then they cannot win. (A Balrog. A demon of the ancient world. This foe is beyond any of you. Run....!)

Example... 150 vs. 75. The 75 would have to subract 50 from his percent chance giving him 25. You now roll 100% vs. 25%.

I know the idea probably sucks but...oh well.