Armwrestling and snakes! - opposed rolls?

[Rurik]

I somehow suspect Ducks will be given a high Athletics skill by default because of their ability at swimming (and apparently arm wrestling). I doubt cave trolls will be given a high athletics as a base stat.

So the average duck as represented in the rules will probably stand a pretty good chance against an average cave troll.

Of course the GM will have to quickly modify the base athletics skill on the fly by subtracting Dex and adding Siz (all in the name of simplifying the game), but even after the modification the duck shouldn't be in too bad position.

And look out for Triolini (mermen) - I hear they are nigh unbeatable at arm wrestling.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Sorry, read what you wrote to fast, missed that part about it being a big part.

I am now very curious on seeing the rulebook, since I begin to get the impression that it is lacking in more than one aspect. I find it very peculiar that there are no guidelines on how to handle different situations, especially if they are not covered by a skill.

You might, if it were true. . .

 

[Archer]

THe thing is, many abilities are not skill based, but are primarily a factor of a fixed ability. For instance, the ability to lift a heavy object or to resist toxins.

Factoring skill is fine, but as it stands now a character with a 80% atheltics skill is going to be able to pick up and move things that a character with a 25 STR can't.

I don't see how this is an improvement.

I agree with you.
This is not the first BRP Clone I have seen taking this route. And well, it works perfectly fine, until you get to these absurd situations.

Example: Veteran Stan, age 80, STR 3, has an Athletics skill of 85%. His young son, Klaus has a giants strength of 30, but his athletics skill is poor, totaling only 50%.
This just goes against every piece of logic I have within me. Stan, age 80, STR 3, should not be able to lift the boulders on the field. But he is better at it than his young son that has been blessed with a giants strength.

If we want a realistic game there will have to be house rules.

 

[atgxtg]

I agree with you.
This is not the first BRP Clone I have seen taking this route. And well, it works perfectly fine, until you get to these absurd situations.

No, it is just the absurd situation help to point out things. THe situation exists at 16STR vs 8 STR too. Twice the STR (both numerically and by RQ3 calculations), but not twice the lifting capacity.

Without the resistance chart, and everything becoming a skill, attributes don't mean as much.

 

[Archer]

Without the resistance chart, and everything becoming a skill, attributes don't mean as much.

Which has been my point all along
And it is too bad. I do not see much reason to even have the Characteristics if they are not going to be used for anything else than to calculate the "base chance" of succeeding with skills.

Sure, HPs / Hitlocation and some other stuff depend on them. But that could as well have been done with a race template, and dropped the characteristics as well.

I guess the only reason they are still in the game is because there were there in previous editions. Just like the characteristics are there in 3.x D&D; even thouh you never use the values directly, only a value you get from them (attribute modifier).

I would love to be proven wrong, but I do not think I am when I say that there will no not much use for the characteristics beyond calculating "base chance". That is what you get when you develop BRP into a skills-only system, as I have seen before.

 

[atgxtg]

Without the resistance chart, and everything becoming a skill, attributes don't mean as much.

Which has been my point all along
And it is too bad. I do not see much reason to even have the Characteristics if they are not going to be used for anything else than to calculate the "base chance" of succeeding with skills.

There iare RPGs that do that. One way os to use category modifers are your attributes. Thing like Strong, big, etc can become traits/perks/advantages.


Still, maybe MRQ uses Stats in a way not listed. Infomration has been rather sketchy. opposed STATx5% rolls seem so easy to do in mRQ, that I will be suprised in they are not in ther, or something similar.

 

[Mikko Leho]

THe thing is, many abilities are not skill based, but are primarily a factor of a fixed ability. For instance, the ability to lift a heavy object or to resist toxins.

Weight lifting is very much skill based. Granted that one doesn't need much technique with modern gym instruments, but skill becomes top priority for instance when training with kettlebells. One can also "train" to resist poisons by injecting small doses of poison. This gives you gradually immunity to certain poisons. Now is it realistic to have all these fall under one skill, of course not but skills are the way to go IMHO.

 

[Archer]

Well, I guess we will find out eventually.

I just needed some basic info on Opposed rolls and Poison for working on my settings (I want the descriptions and the rules to mesh, and not be totally opposed).

 

[Quire]

Both characters roll.

If only one succeeds, they won
If both succeed, whoever rolled the highest wins
If both fail, whoever rolled the lowest wins

The 'both fail, lowest wins' thing was really doing my head in earlier, but for some reason, this just made it click! In both cases, the roll nearest to your actual skill % is better.

Thanks!

- Q

 

[Dr. Halflight]

Example: Veteran Stan, age 80, STR 3, has an Athletics skill of 85%. His young son, Klaus has a giants strength of 30, but his athletics skill is poor, totaling only 50%.
This just goes against every piece of logic I have within me. Stan, age 80, STR 3, should not be able to lift the boulders on the field. But he is better at it than his young son that has been blessed with a giants strength.

If we want a realistic game there will have to be house rules.

But in this situation, couldn't you have them both just roll against Strength?

Stan has a 3% chance to succeed. Klaus has a 30% of success. If neither succeed. Low roll wins. Personally, while I eventually liked BRP's usage of attributes, whate I've seen previewed in MRQ is more akin to my preferences. But, since I won't get the rules until tomorrow, all of this is just supposition & opinion.

DOc

 

[Urox]

Without the resistance chart, and everything becoming a skill, attributes don't mean as much.

Which has been my point all along
And it is too bad. I do not see much reason to even have the Characteristics if they are not going to be used for anything else than to calculate the "base chance" of succeeding with skills.

There iare RPGs that do that. One way os to use category modifers are your attributes. Thing like Strong, big, etc can become traits/perks/advantages.

As described above, MQ is looking to be more HQ than RQ, replacing d20s and bumps with d100 and halves (along with of replacing extended combat contests with hit point system).

And while it will irk some of you, I will repeat myself and say that HW/HQ has basically been a failed game.

 

[atgxtg]

And while it will irk some of you, I will repeat myself and say that HW/HQ has basically been a failed game.

I don't agree with you that HQ ihas basically failed. It is doing quite well and printed several supplements.

I will mention that HQ has not ben universally embranced by the RQ community as the replacement for RQ.

 

[atgxtg]

THe thing is, many abilities are not skill based, but are primarily a factor of a fixed ability. For instance, the ability to lift a heavy object or to resist toxins.

Weight lifting is very much skill based. Granted that one doesn't need much technique with modern gym instruments, but skill becomes top priority for instance when training with kettlebells.

Yes, but there is only so much training can do in this instance as compared with natural ability. A STR 10 Character might be able to train to lift more than a STR 12 character (and probably imrpoving the 10 STR in the process), but a STR 7 Duck should not be able to outlift a STR 21 Dark Troll just because of a higher Athletics skill. Can the duck lift a dragon?

There has got to be something more to it that just a skill roll. Maybe something like being able to lift a certain amount, based on STR or STR+SIZ without a skill roll, and then making an althetic test after that point. So maybe the STR 7 duck can lift 100 lbs for free, 200 with a athletics test. THe troll could lift 350 lbs without a athletics roll, 700 with a roll,or some such.

One can also "train" to resist poisons by injecting small doses of poison. This gives you gradually immunity to certain poisons. Now is it realistic to have all these fall under one skill, of course not but skills are the way to go IMHO.

"I've spent the last few years developing an immunity to iocane powder."

Actually, you can "train" to resist some poisions by injecting or ingesting them in minute quantaties. You can't build an immunity to all posions though. Some toxins, potassium cyanide, actually biuld up in your system over time, and taking minute quanties just makes it easier for them to eventually kill you. Leodarndo daVinci was aware of this and actually would extract cyanide from the seeds of apples and inject ti into other plants. Eventually, he was able to produce some apples with stronger than normal cyanide concentrations. THen he would send gift baskets to people he didn't like. A few gift baskets and someone dropped dead with no apparent cause.

THe other problem with a skills approach is that it certainly shouldn't apply to a "new" posion, and physical health and conditioning (not to mention SIZ) are important. Totally skilled based ignores that.

Hopefully there is more to this that just making a saving throw.

 

[mthomason]

Example: Veteran Stan, age 80, STR 3, has an Athletics skill of 85%. His young son, Klaus has a giants strength of 30, but his athletics skill is poor, totaling only 50%.
This just goes against every piece of logic I have within me. Stan, age 80, STR 3, should not be able to lift the boulders on the field. But he is better at it than his young son that has been blessed with a giants strength.

If we want a realistic game there will have to be house rules.

But in this situation, couldn't you have them both just roll against Strength?

Stan has a 3% chance to succeed. Klaus has a 30% of success. If neither succeed. Low roll wins. Personally, while I eventually liked BRP's usage of attributes, whate I've seen previewed in MRQ is more akin to my preferences. But, since I won't get the rules until tomorrow, all of this is just supposition & opinion.

DOc

I know thats precisely what I'll be doing. The rules say to use a skill for everything, but this is one of those cases where some GMs will believe they have a better way than the rulebook. I don't see this as a failing of the new RQ rules, I see it as something I disagree with. If anything, the new RQ is doing pretty well in my eyes as I've found very little I disagree with in the rulebook - with most other games I have to write out a supplementary house rules sheet

 

[Mikko Leho]

Yes, but there is only so much training can do in this instance as compared with natural ability. A STR 10 Character might be able to train to lift more than a STR 12 character (and probably imrpoving the 10 STR in the process), but a STR 7 Duck should not be able to outlift a STR 21 Dark Troll just because of a higher Athletics skill. Can the duck lift a dragon?

At ridiculous situations I would use "GM says no" card. This is a problem for some and I have few persons in my usual gaming group, that believe if something is in the rulebook then it is the law. Naturally I disagree :roll:

After these kind of arguments I have the feeling that MRQ is not for me. All this talk about success percents and weapon damages have not had any effect on me. At the same time I shun the idea of having to keep up strike ranks, wounds etc during sessions. I have had good experiences with RQ and CoC years ago, but now I am more and more inclined to believe that they are things of the past as is MRQ.

 

[Mikko Leho]

I will repeat myself and say that HW/HQ has basically been a failed game.

For a failed game it sure seems to have a lot of material coming out: http://www.rpg.net/columns/interviews/interviews13.phtml

 

[atgxtg]

After these kind of arguments I have the feeling that MRQ is not for me. All this talk about success percents and weapon damages have not had any effect on me. At the same time I shun the idea of having to keep up strike ranks, wounds etc during sessions. I have had good experiences with RQ and CoC years ago, but now I am more and more inclined to believe that they are things of the past as is MRQ.

INteresting, but that leaves the question as to what you do think is for you, and what rpg system isn't "of the past"?

Most RPGS share several underlying concepts, so you end up running into a lot of the same things in other games.

 

[Archer]

At ridiculous situations I would use "GM says no" card. This is a problem for some and I have few persons in my usual gaming group, that believe if something is in the rulebook then it is the law. Naturally I disagree :roll:

I know exactly what you mean. I a player in one of my groups that are particularly insistent on this, and very argumentative when it comes to a situation where he thinks I have done something "wrong" according to the rules. Sheesh...

After these kind of arguments I have the feeling that MRQ is not for me. All this talk about success percents and weapon damages have not had any effect on me. At the same time I shun the idea of having to keep up strike ranks, wounds etc during sessions. I have had good experiences with RQ and CoC years ago, but now I am more and more inclined to believe that they are things of the past as is MRQ.

Well, rolling intiative (strike rank) is not that much of a mess actually, especially of you only roll it the first round of combat.

I do it like this (example values);
Players; 32 34 12 15
Enemies: 23 23 11 12

I roll values for enemies, write them down on one line. Then I write the players Initative on the row above, in the order they sit, left from right.
If you have troubles following the initative with this, I recommend you also circle the highest and the lowest init score, and then draw lines according to the initiative, easy to follow.

Another solution; Use cards, take some sturdy and colored paper, and cut small cards. One color for the PCs one for the NPCs/Enemies.
Write the character names ont he PC cards, and write Just something like Enemy 1, or whatever on the generic bad-guy cards. When you have decided the initative order, you just lay out the cards in that order, from left to right. Then it is easy as cake to follow initative.

In those games where we have used minatures on occassion, and I have a miniature representing each players character, and we at the moment dont use them for positioning, I arrange the minis on a line, left to right, according to iniatative.

My main issue is that it is a mess to have to keep track of HPs per hit location. In BRP / BRP Clones in the past, there was usually a total HP. And this allowed me a neat little trick. I ignored damage per hit location, used only Total HP, but cut it in half. When the HPs ran out, the hit location that was last struck got the serious injury.
I ran it this way for over 10 years without the players ever noticing.
Now I have to find a similar way to make the bookkeeping a minimum.

 

[HyrumOWC]

My main issue is that it is a mess to have to keep track of HPs per hit location. In BRP / BRP Clones in the past, there was usually a total HP. And this allowed me a neat little trick. I ignored damage per hit location, used only Total HP, but cut it in half. When the HPs ran out, the hit location that was last struck got the serious injury.
I ran it this way for over 10 years without the players ever noticing.
Now I have to find a similar way to make the bookkeeping a minimum.

In the two adventures we've done so far we've given each NPC their own HP/Hit Location chart. This should help GM's keep track of NPC hitpoints because all they have to do is mark them off each NPC entry.

Hyrum.

 

[Archer]

My main issue is that it is a mess to have to keep track of HPs per hit location. In BRP / BRP Clones in the past, there was usually a total HP. And this allowed me a neat little trick. I ignored damage per hit location, used only Total HP, but cut it in half. When the HPs ran out, the hit location that was last struck got the serious injury.
I ran it this way for over 10 years without the players ever noticing.
Now I have to find a similar way to make the bookkeeping a minimum.

In the two adventures we've done so far we've given each NPC their own HP/Hit Location chart. This should help GM's keep track of NPC hitpoints because all they have to do is mark them off each NPC entry.

Hyrum.

That is a big help, and a very good idea for publishing scenarios.
But I have a question, for those of us who collect these books, and do not want to make marks in them, will you offer a pdf download with the NPCs, so that a GM can print those and mark of HPs on instead?

My notes when we actually were running with Hit Location HPs, used to look; RL -5, LA 2, etc.
It works, as long as there are no more than four to five NPCs involved.

That is why I am considering the following "trick"; Ignore HP per Hit Location, use a generic HP instead (Average of Siz+Con/2, or just Con). I have not done the math, by my GM experience, and my gut feeling is that it would pan out just about same as if I had used HPs for each hit location.
But that is something that can only be determined by actual play, or setting up a simulator, something which would require a lot of programming, and something I am not well versed in doing, to create a statistics model for each method to give a good idea on how my "trick" works compared to official rules.