100 wrestles

[Deleriad]

It seems to me that the core mechanic in MRQ is the skill roll and it comes in two flavours: simple and opposed. There are two things I'm interested in when it comes to comparing skills in an opposed skill roll. How absolutely good a skill is and how good compared to another person. For example, if Albert is 40% arm wrestling and Bill is 20% arm wrestling and they wrestle until someone wins and do it once a day for 100 days: how often should Albert win and how often Bill? Should Albert win twice as often as Bill, less often or more often?

Then, say a year later, Albert is now 80% and Bill is 40% and they repeat the experiment. How often now? The issue is does a change in "absolute" skill effect the relative ability? Is 80 vs 40 the same or different to 40 vs 20?

What do other people think given the three scenarios below.
100 wrestles
1) Albert 40%, Bill 20%. How many times should Albert win?
2) Albert 80%, Bill 40%. How many times should Albert win?
3) Albert 160%, Bill 80%. How many times should Albert win?

I'm not looking for a statistical analysis based on a percentile system, I'm looking for what people think should happen.

Bruce

 

[Vadrus]

There is the follow up, Bill has STR 18, Albert has STR 3, shouldn't Bill tear Albert's arm off regardless of skill levels?


Vadrus

 

[Exubae]

Vadrus, A bit mean there, Deleriad just picked a lousy skill for the comparison.

The halving rule is a bit limited but its ok for quick and dirty situations - hopefully the 'legends' book is supposed to have an improved system for 100%+ skills - personally I've gone with Simon's methodhttp://simon.hibbs.googlepages.com/runequest

Paul

 

[sexy_davey]

I say, bring back Burly Bob...

 

[sexy_davey]

A bit churlish that, as I didn't actually answer the question - sorry....

My gut reaction is that Albert should win twice as often as Bill for each of the three scenarios. I don't think the rules would reflect that, and even as I type, I'm questioning that answer. it's a good question - give me a minute...

*thinks*...

 

[Vadrus]

Vadrus, A bit mean there, Deleriad just picked a lousy skill for the comparison.

The halving rule is a bit limited but its ok for quick and dirty situations - hopefully the 'legends' book is supposed to have an improved system for 100%+ skills - personally I've gone with Simon's methodhttp://simon.hibbs.googlepages.com/runequest

Paul

Not that mean really, it's just one of the many situations where MRQ poses a situation but fails to give a clear and logical outcome. Technically a STR 3 character could outlift a Giant under the current rules if he devoted enough skill increases to his Athletics skill.


Vadrus

 

[Deleriad]

Well, just to clarify, perhaps chess would be a better comparison.

Albert is 40% at chess and Burly Bob is 20%. (ditto 80 vs 40, 160 vs 80). This is not an attempt to pick holes in MRQ but more to see what the relationship between absolute and relative skills are.

For example, should someone who is 160% at chess win 2 games to every 1 he loses if playing someone who is 80% at chess or, for example, should the person who is 160 win something like 95% of the time?

Bruce

 

[Exubae]

it's just one of the many situations where MRQ poses a situation but fails to give a clear and logical outcome. Technically a STR 3 character could outlift a Giant under the current rules if he devoted enough skill increases to his Athletics skill.

Stopped noticing this kind of thing about two weeks ago when my mind slipped into read the spirit of the rules rather than the letter, but even that has holes in it

 

[Vadrus]

Well, just to clarify, perhaps chess would be a better comparison.

Albert is 40% at chess and Burly Bob is 20%. (ditto 80 vs 40, 160 vs 80). This is not an attempt to pick holes in MRQ but more to see what the relationship between absolute and relative skills are.

For example, should someone who is 160% at chess win 2 games to every 1 he loses if playing someone who is 80% at chess or, for example, should the person who is 160 win something like 95% of the time?

Bruce

If you took 160% (Chess Grand Master or very close) vs 80% (very good club player, possibly even county champ), then the 160% skill player would win at chess probably about 95-99% of the time.

Real world skill seems to operate on a more logarithmic (probably spelt worng) scale than most game systems, an example is my martial arts teacher, he's a 3 or 4th Dan and I'm a lowly blue, if he goes all out the chances of me defeating him are next to nil, in fact the chance of me landing any telling blow on him at all is very low.

However, I freely accept that most players are unhappy at finding themselves in a situation where they have no real chance of winning so games systems tend to be a lot kinder on people with lower skills than they really aught to be (especially with many players who seem to have dice that defy the laws of probability by a very wide margin, oh look another natural 20 what are the odds of that :roll: ).

I'm currently working on a homebrew set of rules that are very harsh if your opponent outranks you significantly and am very aware that my players reactions are likely to be negative to this aspect. But I'm determined to try it out and see how it goes, will let you know what they think (minus any bad language of course - they tend to be brutally honest).


Vadrus

 

[GoingDown]

Not that mean really, it's just one of the many situations where MRQ poses a situation but fails to give a clear and logical outcome. Technically a STR 3 character could outlift a Giant under the current rules if he devoted enough skill increases to his Athletics skill.

I think that STR 3 character wrestling with giant should get situational modifier at least -80%, or even higher. It is just GM:s responsibility to apply those modifiers.

 

[Trifletraxor]

There is the follow up, Bill has STR 18, Albert has STR 3, shouldn't Bill tear Albert's arm off regardless of skill levels?


Vadrus

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!


Opposed skills. That was never much of a problem before. Only I can remember was the stealth vs. perception rolls, which I added a small house rule to. What other skills are involved in MRQ?

SGL.

 

[simonh]

I think that STR 3 character wrestling with giant should get situational modifier at least -80%, or even higher. It is just GM:s responsibility to apply those modifiers.

If a game system offers a mechanic specificaly designed to resolve a situation, then I thnik it's reasonable to expect it to do so satisfactorily without havig to apply arbitrary modifiers for situations that obviously ought to be covered by the rules.

I would expect as a GM to apply modifiers in a lifting contest in an unusual situation, such as one character being covered in itching powder. I don't expect to have to apply arbitrary modifiers to make the system work just because one character is very much stronger than the other.

Having said that, I think MRQ handles the Giant versus Weedling lifting contest fairly well. A Giant will have a base Athletics (Brute Force) skill of about 98%, whereas the weedling with STR 3 will have a base of about 15% or so. It would take a stiff dose of athletics training to make that up, so in practice while not absolutely perfect, the rule does work fine.

 

[GoingDown]

I would expect as a GM to apply modifiers in a lifting contest in an unusual situation, such as one character being covered in itching powder. I don't expect to have to apply arbitrary modifiers to make the system work just because one character is very much stronger than the other.

So STR3 character has equal changes to lift something about SIZ8 than STR18 character, if their athletics skills are equal? I don't think it works that way.

STR3 character perhaps can lift something like SIZ6 with succesfull athletics roll. STR18 character doesn't even need roll for lifthing things like that, but he still needs roll if he is lifting SIZ18 things, which on other hand is nearly impossible (-80%) for STR3 character.

 

[Utgardloki]

In another thread, I suggested a mechanic whereby rather than determine success or failure of a wrestling contest or lifting exercise, a successful Brute Force roll would raise the character's "effective strength" score a point (or three points for a critical success) higher than her actual strength.

I also suggested that spending a Hero Point would grant +2 to the character's "effective strength", in addition to the bonus from a successful skill check. (Another Hero Point could also be spent to reroll the skill check, as provided in the rules.)

Then for a lifting exercise, just compare effective Strength to Size, and allow it if Strength >= Size, disallow if Size > Strength.

For a wrestling contest, compare effective Strength scores, and the higher one wins. If they are equal, then do an opposed roll to determine who wins.

So Strength 3 Bob has no chance against Strength 18 Bill. Strength 13 Sue might have a chance, if she rolls a critical, spends a hero point, and then wins an opposed skill roll against Strength 18 Bill.

As for characters with equal Strength, I'd just consider how the opposed roll mechanism works, and then rate the NPC's according to how well I want them to do against the PC's.

However, it should be possible for a master to win almost every time against a novice or an expert. An expert should usually win against a novice, but a novice might get lucky in such a contest.

 

[simonh]

I would expect as a GM to apply modifiers in a lifting contest in an unusual situation, such as one character being covered in itching powder. I don't expect to have to apply arbitrary modifiers to make the system work just because one character is very much stronger than the other.

So STR3 character has equal changes to lift something about SIZ8 than STR18 character, if their athletics skills are equal? I don't think it works that way.

I agree it's odd. Bearing in mind the characters will likely have similar SIZ because the stat range for SIZ is smaller, you're looking at a Brute Force base skill range of from about 15% for weak characters to about 30% for strong characters. That's a much smaller difference that we're used to in RQ.

In fact we don't realy have rules for lifting heavy objects. We know the skill, but not how to use it against objects of various weights and sizes so this is all very difficult to judge precisely.

 

[Trifletraxor]

The "Brute Force" part of the Athletics skill sounds like it works very poorly. Needs a lot of rule-tweaking to work, and is obviously much less realistic than a STR roll.

SGL.

 

[Trifletraxor]

In fact we don't realy have rules for lifting heavy objects. We know the skill, but not how to use it against objects of various weights and sizes so this is all very difficult to judge precisely.

can't be done, STR x1, STR x2, STR x3, STR x4 or STR x5.

GM's call. Works perfectly.

SGL.

 

[GoingDown]

can't be done, STR x1, STR x2, STR x3, STR x4 or STR x5.

GM's call. Works perfectly.

I would use athletics (brute-force) with -20%, -40% etc. penalties regarding of the height of the object in question AND character's strength.

GM's call. Works perfectly.

 

[Exubae]

I would use athletics (brute-force) with -20%, -40% etc. penalties regarding of the height of the object in question AND character's strength.

Lacks in realism a bit but then again its only a game at the end of the day.

Still prefer the using STRx5 it just seems brute force overlaps the scope of Strength.

Brute force also implies you could get to a skill % where a character could lift unfeasibly large objects.
i.e.
Bob the demolitionist Str 3, Athletics(Bruteforce) 210% could lift a size 36 monolith.

Though I suppose you could deduct objects SIZ from lifters STR to get a x5 penalty to the Brute force roll.
i.e.
(36-3) x 5 = -165
Which would give Bob only a 45% chance of lifting said bolder.

Sorry if its a bit bitty... thinking on the fly

Paul

 

[Arkat]

Having the raw strength to lift something and the knowledge of how and where to lift are different things. I think that's what the Atheletics: Brute Force tests are driving at. For it to be a working mechanic though they need to factor in Strength. Say for every 1pt difference in STR vs STR or STR vs SIZ there is a 5% shift in your Athletics Skill. That way two pc's, one with a 10 STR and one with a 20 STR but both at 50% Athletics would have different odds of moving a SIZ 15 boulder (25% for the 10 STR, and 75% for the 20 STR pc).