A very radical departure

[Utgardloki]

I keep thinking, back and forth, whether I should convert the skill system to use D20 instead of D100. I figure it would be relatively easy: just divide everything by 5. The disadvantage would be that the 1% granularity would be lost, although I could allow fractional skills so that these can eventually add up to the next level.

The reason for doing something so radical is to make it easier to play during combat. If a lot of modifiers are going to be added and subtracted (and I intend to replace the halfing rule with a subtracting rule), it may be a lot quicker to have to deal with fewer digits.

So I have to figure, is it worth it to make the change? Or should I stick with D100?

 

[atgxtg]

I keep thinking, back and forth, whether I should convert the skill system to use D20 instead of D100. I figure it would be relatively easy: just divide everything by 5. The disadvantage would be that the 1% granularity would be lost, although I could allow fractional skills so that these can eventually add up to the next level.

The reason for doing something so radical is to make it easier to play during combat. If a lot of modifiers are going to be added and subtracted (and I intend to replace the halfing rule with a subtracting rule), it may be a lot quicker to have to deal with fewer digits.

So I have to figure, is it worth it to make the change? Or should I stick with D100?

If you are at the point where you are ditching the D100, why stay with the core at all? i mean, you are a stone's throw away from Pendragon Pass or HeroQuest.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

The reason for doing something so radical is to make it easier to play during combat. If a lot of modifiers are going to be added and subtracted (and I intend to replace the halfing rule with a subtracting rule), it may be a lot quicker to have to deal with fewer digits.

So I have to figure, is it worth it to make the change? Or should I stick with D100?

I understand where you are coming from. Pendragon is probably my favorite variation on BRP mechanically. For me its easier to -5 from a roll instead of -25% & its easier (for me) to deal with Skills over 20 (If I have a skill of 28, I add 8 to my D20 roll). I don't know that I'll do it, but I have thought about it. However, when developing a New RuneQuest, I agree with the decision to use a percentile roll. If you decide to do, I'll take a gander at Pendragon. Heck, I'd do that anyway.

Doc

 

[Dr. Halflight]

If you are at the point where you are ditching the D100, why stay with the core at all? i mean, you are a stone's throw away from Pendragon Pass or HeroQuest.

I don't think moving MRQ to a D20 takes you into the realm of HeroQuest. I'm fairly fond of rules lite games & HQ is an incredible game, but its a much more vage ruleset than MRQ. If a D20 is the only common denominator, then D&D should be on that list as well.



Doc

 

[SmegmaLord]

Why convert MRQ to D20? Why not just pick up a D20 system and use the Glorantha book?

You cant convert skills to D20 as each interval is 5%, so do you round down?

You could reroll any D20 that hits 20 and accept 1/2 as the funble chance, or even roll the D20 again to deliniate the 5% interval.....hang on thats what you use D100 for.

I think this sound like an attempt to make a new system familiar to someone who prefers playing D20.

ALso skills increase by small percentages, so how can you reward this with a D20 unless you're adding 5% each time as a result of experience?

Also try mimicing the halving rule on a D20..all gets so that you're inventing more rules to get over the fact that you want to use a D20.

I suppose feast and skills, spells and monsters would be worth concertion or even a MRQ/BRP version in one of the D&D worlds!

But I don't think RQ or MRQ is going to let you hack it around without causing you some 'issues'!

CHRIS

 

[Utgardloki]

The difference between using a D20 system, and using MRQ with D20 replacing D100, is that in the first case high rolls are good, while in the second low rolls are good.

Actually, that's not a compelling reason not to use a D20 system. But I think there are a number of features in the MRQ system that make it worthwhile to tinker with, while a D20 system would be a completely different style of play. Some examples:

* D20 has a much more coarse granularity of Size measures than MRQ. MRQ makes it feasible to stat out differences between males and females, while D20 puts them both in Medium. The result is that a 110 pound character in D20 can pin and knock around 300 pound guys as if there was no difference, while MRQ drives them towards different tactics.

* D20 and MRQ have different hit point rules, resulting in different battle tactics. D20 characters can be very heroic, even superheroic. (Although 1st and 2nd level D20 characters are very fragile.) MRQ characters always have to be nerveous about their skins.

* D20 characters progress in characteristics even without spending any attention to these. MRQ characters only progress in characteristics that get attention.

* D20 combat is a lot simpler and more abstract than MRQ combat. MRQ is more detailed and possibly more realistic. (At least you dont have to keep remembering that the 100 hit point guy did not really have half a dozen arrows sticking in him, like Callisto in one of the Xena episodes. In MRQ, you KNOW whether or not you have an arrow sticking in your body, and you feel the effects.)

I very well could do D20 worlds like Ravenloft and Rokugan in MRQ, or MRQ worlds like Glorantha in D20. It depends on what I feel like at the time.

 

[andakitty]

Here is one for you. For a simple, fast game to use as a 'break' from my usual BRP game I have decided to pick up Castles and Crusades as a sort of sop to the folks in my group who usually play 3.5 (Iron Kingdoms or Game of Thrones, to be exact). The scenarios are tending to be quite good, and as a bonus they are easily convertible to just about any game system you can think of, including percentile skill based ones. That is mostly because the stat blocks are very short and succinct, but give everything you really need to know about the npc/critter. I am very glad I decided to get it. It is going to add to my repertoire of scenario ideas big time, and the main campaign Troll Lords doing has a very good feel to it. It will be great with C&C, SB, or MRQ. It is definitely worth looking into if you are thinking of mixing and matching the systems in any way, and is probably a better option than 3.5.

 

[King Amenjar]

I keep thinking, back and forth, whether I should convert the skill system to use D20 instead of D100. I figure it would be relatively easy: just divide everything by 5. The disadvantage would be that the 1% granularity would be lost, although I could allow fractional skills so that these can eventually add up to the next level...

If you are at the point where you are ditching the D100, why stay with the core at all? i mean, you are a stone's throw away from Pendragon Pass or HeroQuest.

It would be even closer to the old FGU games like Aftermath and Daredevils, where your skill was determined with a D100, but then you divided by 5 and rolled a D20 for all practical purposes.

 

[homerjsinnott]

Castles and Crusades
.

Sounds interesting, but where did they get that name from?

It's so stupidly retro (and not fashionable in any way).

I mean they might as well call it something like, I dunno, Dungeons and Dragons or Pits and Pikes or Swords and Sorcery or Caverns and Creepy Crawlies......no, wait!

They sure don't want to encourage any muslims to play.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Castles and Crusades
.

Sounds interesting, but where did they get that name from?

It's so stupidly retro (and not fashionable in any way).

I think that may have been the intention.

_________________________________

Converting to d20 is not actually that radical. I think it was mentioned before that RQ2 used blocks of 5%, which is effectively already a 1 to 20 scale. The old Resistance Table was nothing more than a variation on the d20 core mechanic, if you want to be honest about it.

The maths are definitely easier on a 1 to 20 scale, which is always good.

A nice bonus is that it would bring the skill scores into the same general range as the characteristic scores. Lots of potential for creative use there.

 

[wartorn]

They sure don't want to encourage any muslims to play.

lol! good point.

The name is trying to evoke the elder days of d&d (and from your reaction I'd say it does so successfully!) It essentially takes the 3.5 mechanics and backwards applies them to D&D Basic edition. So once again Elf, Dwarf and Halfling are classes, for example, but AC goes up.

 

[atgxtg]

I keep thinking, back and forth, whether I should convert the skill system to use D20 instead of D100. I figure it would be relatively easy: just divide everything by 5. The disadvantage would be that the 1% granularity would be lost, although I could allow fractional skills so that these can eventually add up to the next level...

If you are at the point where you are ditching the D100, why stay with the core at all? i mean, you are a stone's throw away from Pendragon Pass or HeroQuest.

It would be even closer to the old FGU games like Aftermath and Daredevils, where your skill was determined with a D100, but then you divided by 5 and rolled a D20 for all practical purposes.

You mean like Bushido. Ohh, I remember stealling Bushido battle table for an AD&D Celtic campaign I ran a decade or so ago.

 

[atgxtg]

Here is one for you. For a simple, fast game to use as a 'break' from my usual BRP game I have decided to pick up Castles and Crusades as a sort of sop to the folks in my group who usually play 3.5 (Iron Kingdoms or Game of Thrones, to be exact). The scenarios are tending to be quite good, and as a bonus they are easily convertible to just about any game system you can think of, including percentile skill based ones. That is mostly because the stat blocks are very short and succinct, but give everything you really need to know about the npc/critter. I am very glad I decided to get it. It is going to add to my repertoire of scenario ideas big time, and the main campaign Troll Lords doing has a very good feel to it. It will be great with C&C, SB, or MRQ. It is definitely worth looking into if you are thinking of mixing and matching the systems in any way, and is probably a better option than 3.5.

What is C&C like,anyway. I never heasrd of it until I came to these forums, and I starting to get a little curious. Probably something about the whole knightly thing that has my interest.

 

[andakitty]

Oh, boy. That's a BIG question, since I just started reading it. Wartorn is incorrect about the races as classes thing, though. It is a retro-fit AD&D type game. The title apparently derives from a gaming club in the Midwest. The basic mechanic is D20 without the bells and whistles, i.e. no feats, prestige classes, attacks of opportunity, or even a skill system. There is something called the 'Siege' engine (not kidding) with which you make attribute rolls that mimic skill use. That is, if you need to climb a tree you roll versus Dexterity with an appropriate modifier. Classes have 'class abilities' which seem to essentially be enhanced attribute rolls. Like a thief being better at climbing the tree than everyone else. Some attributes have a better chance of success than others (they are called primes), which is supposed to emulate a basic skill system and could easily be developed into one. As it is, if it seems reasonable that a character would have a skill he gets a chance at it...otherwise it plays a lot like old D&D. A lot of the silly Gygaxian stuff that always ruined D&D for me in the old days is gone though, like spells for Rangers. It is still a rigid class and level system but one which is easily 'fixed', even convertible to a full skill system if you wanted. Especially the modules, which are looking cheap and tasty...and since the statistic blocks are usually one or two lines the modules are easily convertible to anything. Like MRQ. Stats are very similar, five of seven. It's got some things in common with D20 but the feel is very different; this little game feels like a cleaned up grognard's dream. It's the D&D we wish had been published to start with. Hey, I'm thinking about running it as is, and you guys know how I feel about 3.5 and class and level in general. Oh, yeah, it's a real nice rulebook. It's free wheeling in feel, simple, looks like it would be easy to run and fast playing, looks solidly functional overall. I'm not trying to sell the thing, but I do like it. In spite of what it is.

 

[Utgardloki]

you guys know how I feel about 3.5 and class and level in general.

Oh, and I was thinking of a way to bring classes and prestige classes into Runequest.

My concept is that certain abilities, such as high magnitude Psychic abilities, can only be used by those who have several levels of psychic training, each of which requires, say, ten hero points to buy. Of course, PCs can ignore classes, and classes only grant those abilities integral to the class, no BAB progression, etc. But still, I guess a hybrid system is not for everybody.

 

[atgxtg]

you guys know how I feel about 3.5 and class and level in general.

Oh, and I was thinking of a way to bring classes and prestige classes into Runequest.

My concept is that certain abilities, such as high magnitude Psychic abilities, can only be used by those who have several levels of psychic training, each of which requires, say, ten hero points to buy. Of course, PCs can ignore classes, and classes only grant those abilities integral to the class, no BAB progression, etc. But still, I guess a hybrid system is not for everybody.

Back! Back! Keep it Away! Arrrghhhh....

 

[atgxtg]

Oh, boy. That's a BIG question, since I just started reading it. Wartorn is incorrect about the races as classes thing, though. It is a retro-fit AD&D type game.

Sounds a lot like an AD&D game to me from your decription too.

BTW, Have you see the LOTR game from Decipher? It isn't a bad game. It has "professions", but thweir only affect are to tell you want skills you can get at a discount, and to give you acess to a half dozen or so special abilities that you have to buy with "picks".

 

[andakitty]

I had LOTR for a while, and traded it off for Tekumel stuff. The rules looked OK to me, but I have heard it is more or less broken. Very, very pretty book and a good read, though.

Believe it or not, I think C&C looks playable. I might suggest a trial session to my group. :shock: Lord knows they have been wanting to play one of those shiny D20 games, but this is as close as it gets for me, I am NOT going down that road again. By the way, the general reaction to MRQ in my group is 'meh', or just a shrug. They don't seem to be impressed, but that could be because they are so used to my BRP game and CoC. Steve needs to get off his butt and run something for a change..grumble, grumble..but if he did it would be D20. I feel trapped.

Looks like an interesting idea, Utgardloki. Go for it. I'm really burned out on that kind of system monkeying, but I'd probably go along with it as a player. My main complaint with 3.5 is the level of detail and intricacy. There is way too much of that to make whatever flexibility it produces worth it, at least to run. By me, anyway.

 

[atgxtg]

I had LOTR for a while, and traded it off for Tekumel stuff. The rules looked OK to me, but I have heard it is more or less broken. Very, very pretty book and a good read, though.

Ah you should have tried it. It isn't broken. It has some trouble spots, mostly in some errors, but if you get the errata it is very playable. Any idea what was supposedly "broken"in it?

I mentioned it becuase it does seem like something along the lines of what you might want. It is really a skill/point based system with a few D&D trappings that it seemed to have inheriented from a WotC game that wasn't printed.

 

[AKAramis]

I had LOTR for a while, and traded it off for Tekumel stuff. The rules looked OK to me, but I have heard it is more or less broken. Very, very pretty book and a good read, though.

Ah you should have tried it. It isn't broken. It has some trouble spots, mostly in some errors, but if you get the errata it is very playable. Any idea what was supposedly "broken"in it?

I mentioned it becuase it does seem like something along the lines of what you might want. It is really a skill/point based system with a few D&D trappings that it seemed to have inheriented from a WotC game that wasn't printed.

I've not run LOTR, but I have run several D-Trek one-offs. Decipher's Trek uses the exact same engine as their LOTR. It plays well. Basically, every X Experience points, you get 5 development points... which you can spend on anything. You can have up to two professions (Adding a profession costs 5 DP...) and what are class skills and abilities. When you add a third profession, one of the two you held goes away, but NONE of it's abilities do aside from the dev costs.

The system is no more broken than any other skill based system with professions to provide reduced costs.

Think of it this way: the effect is kind of like allowing +1% on raises to your profession skills; you now would have a strong reason to stay within, but not one that prevents outside skills.

LOTR as a game is a great read, and looks VERY playable. I just don't think Middle Earth in the late 3rd, nor the 4th age, are really good places for adventuring. Love the rules, love the setting, don't think ANY LOTR game is playable on anything that I'd recognize as Middle Earth.