changes to BRP system?

[Mikko Leho]

In every system you can discover some problems if you search long enough. This does not proof that the system as a whole is crap. Sometimes it proves only that there is somewhere a problem which can maybe fixed. In your above example it seems to me that the problem you show comes from an unintuitive way dragon STR stats are determined and not from a broken resistance table.

My point was that you stated the resistance table to be flexible and scalable and tried to prove otherwise. Dragon wrestling is a broken aspect of the game and it can be fixed either by changing dragon's stat rolls or by removing the resistance table as it is. Which way you want approach the problem is a matter of opinion. I would have chosen one route, you would have done it differently.

IMO POW vs. POW is a much better way to show spell effects than saving rolls like d20.

Saving rolls are indeed poor, but there are more ways to do this. I personally prefer Shadowrun's spirit combat.

The fazit is that it seems that you prefer fixed regulations and rules to flexibility. (eg. I assume this from your comment that there should only be one way to resolve conflicts, or that rules should clearly state what to do in a riddle situation, which is not my opinon at all)

I don't expect the rules to tell me how to solve one specific conflicts but more simple guidelines how conflicts should be dealt with. As it stands RQ has several different mechanism to do this: skill check, attribute * 5 check, attribute vs attribute, skill vs skill. Resistance table is used only in attr. vs attr. in the RQ3 rules. All these should be combined into one conflict mechanic, that is useable in every situation. More than one is IMHO bad game designing.

Resistance table is not a bad idea altogether, if it were to be used as the basis of the whole conflict solving mechanic (with skills ranking about 1-20), I would be all for it. Now there are just too many ways to handle conflicts in my opinion.

 

[kintire]

This only however increases the absurdity of the situation: to use INT or skill, apply difficulties by resistance table, static percent or by dividing the target number etc. Numerous ways to solve conflicts are a sign of poor game design

But there aren't really numerous ways to solve a conflict. The resistance table is used to solve direct conflicts, the roll under rule when it is just a success/failure based on your own skill with no defined opposition other than "the difficulty"

My point was that you stated the resistance table to be flexible and scalable and tried to prove otherwise. Dragon wrestling is a broken aspect of the game and it can be fixed either by changing dragon's stat rolls or by removing the resistance table as it is. Which way you want approach the problem is a matter of opinion. I would have chosen one route, you would have done it differently.

It is extremely flexible. It isn't very scaleable, but then there is a genuine question as to how scaleable it should be: after all, a superior power (small p...) should crush a considerably weaker opponent. While dragon wrestling does need work, its a bit of a special case, and altering the stat rolls for dragons is less drastic than ripping out the resistance table.

 

[andakitty]

A later iteration of BRP, Stormbringer 5, supplied which method of resolution to use for varying situations. The resistance table roll is used when overcoming another stat, stat rolls reserved when nothing else seems to fit (can you catch the glass vial the evil sorcerer dropped after he was skewered?). The rules in that are more explanatory of mechanics in general plus introduce some nifty new ones. If you haven't, check it out. It might make more sense, or at least help with what you seem to consider RQ's more questionable rules. As to wrestling dragons, you might want to try dividing the STR+SIZ by 10 and using that number. It works just as well as human sized numbers. The beauty of the BRP system, and its strength, is having multiple methods of resolving probems. And leaving it up to the GM to decide what is appropriate in any given situation. I'm not sure I like MRQ's solution (apparently skills as saves) any better, but I've run percentile systems that work just fine without any thing like a resistance table, too. Ultimately it boils down to what works for you...the resistance table is nice for some situations but not necessary to make the game work as a whole. I'd say if you don't like it don't use it, becouse the game won't break without it and it doesn't even need a replacement. Arguing about it is much ado about nothing.

 

[Cobra]

Have you ever played D20 or more specifically D&D 3.5? It is difficult game with tons of different variables. Although I think RQ could use some streamlining, D&D definitely needs a huge rules overhaul.

I have, and I agree with you.

Cobra

 

[Lord Twig]

So instead of a Resistance Table MRQ now has Resilience and Persistence. I am thinking that these are not so much a 'saving throw' as they are a mental dodge or parry.

Any thoughts on whether that is a good or bad thing?

For one it seems that if you get your Resilience and Persistence skills up high enough, 90%+ you will never need to fear being affected by an enemy spell. Unless there is a way for the enemy to reduce your chance?

 

[andakitty]

Good question. We are missing some key mechanics, I think, and that is the reason no one can say if MRQ is really going to work or not yet. Except for those responsible for it, of course. The rest of us can only keep our fingers crossed.

 

[atgxtg]

Another way they could replace the resistance table is with something what they used for the chart in the Elric/Stormbringer RPG to calculating demon attributes. I once suggesed using this chart (in modifed form) for the db.

THe way it works is that you take the stat vlaue (or other number you are using) double it, and that is the die roll. So a 4 would be a D8, a 5 D10, etc. For values grater than 1D10 you start over, so a score of 6 would be 5+1 for D10+D2. SO this way a 10 stat would roll 2D10, but a 16 stat would roll 3D10+1D2.


BTW, I don't see a problem with using the resistance chart for dragon wresling. Sure there can be a big spread in stat scores, but that also repensents a very big spread in SIZ scores and thus relative weights/masses of the two dragons, typically in tons. If a dragon weights 20-30 tons more than another, it probably should be able to push the small one around.

IMO, the wide spread between human score ranges is more problematic, since you can end up with character with stat socres 2-3 or even 6 times as much as another human.

 

[Mikko Leho]

BTW, I don't see a problem with using the resistance chart for dragon wresling. Sure there can be a big spread in stat scores, but that also repensents a very big spread in SIZ scores and thus relative weights/masses of the two dragons, typically in tons. If a dragon weights 20-30 tons more than another, it probably should be able to push the small one around.

Difference of 9 in sizes doesn't mean difference of tons. After all the largest difference between humans is 10, which I would say translates to roughly over 100 kg in weight difference. Should a dragon easily bash around another dragon, which is weighting 100 kg less than the one doing the bashing? No way of telling dragons being creatures of imagination, but this is how it works in RQ.

There have been a lot of suggestions how to fix or replace resistance table, which is fine but I am not interested in tweaking the rules myself. I haven't played RQ or any other BRP game in years. I am just interested how the new edition of RQ will play.

 

[andakitty]

That's good, because there is nothing to 'fix'.

 

[Enpeze]

atgxtg-IMO, the wide spread between human score ranges is more problematic, since you can end up with character with stat socres 2-3 or even 6 times as much as another human.

I dont think this is a big problem. If you compare the STR of a very little child with the STR of a wrestler. The latter IS at least 6 times stronger than a child. (if not more) And compare the APP of Maggie Thatcher with the APP of Claudia Schiffer. The latter is I would say 100 tim...... :twisted:

Mikko Leho - There have been a lot of suggestions how to fix or replace resistance table, which is fine but I am not interested in tweaking the rules myself. I haven't played RQ or any other BRP game in years. I am just interested how the new edition of RQ will play.

I am glad that up to now the resistance tables remained in the game as they are. I am not against improvements but replacement? Please no. Its so useful for me.

May I ask why you stopped playing BRP games? What do you play now?

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

I never much liked the Resistance Table either. The mechanic is somewhat suspect, to my mind. But there's no denying it's use for feats (small "f") like moving a SIZ 30 boulder, and it reduces the scope for accusations of arbitrary GM decisions. I'm interested in seeing what it's going to be replaced with, because there absolutely has to be a usable replacement mechanic for this stuff.

 

[andakitty]

The replacement, if there is one, may be no more than stat x multiplier. It works, but it takes a lot more judgement from the GM.

 

[atgxtg]

Difference of 9 in sizes doesn't mean difference of tons. After all the largest difference between humans is 10, which I would say translates to roughly over 100 kg in weight difference. Should a dragon easily bash around another dragon, which is weighting 100 kg less than the one doing the bashing? No way of telling dragons being creatures of imagination, but this is how it works in RQ.

Thge SIZE chart in RQ is not linear. A difference in 1 point of SIZ isn't a flat difference of +50 or +100 kg in mass, but a instead increases the mass by 9.05%. So that means it follows a progession of every 8 SIZ points doubling the mass, until you hit SIZE 94, when the progression starts to even out until it reachs +1 tobn per SIZ. Check the table in the RQ 3 GM's book, page 161.

So if a typical Dragon is SIZ 70, it has a mass of around 10800-11699 kilograms, or appromately 11 tons.
A 9 point difference results in masses of around 5 tons (SIZ 61 Dragon) and 24 tons (SIZ 79 Dragon), meaning a swing of -5 tons to +13 tons. THat s becuase the +/-9 SIZ means a 218% difference is mass, size. So you SIZ 70 dragon is over twice as big as the SIZ 61 Dragon.


SO with the actual ratio in mass for a SIZ 70 vs. SIZ 61 Dragon is the same as the ratio for a SIZ 18 human (119-129kg) vs. SIZ 9 human (55-58kg), around 2.2 times.

So there isn't anything wrong with the resistiance table.

THe problem lies in the fact that the way the stats are generated for Dragons, has been adjusted to reflect the SIZ ratings. FOr example, with a human the SIZ range is 8-18, 13 is the statistical mean, with a range of 11 possible results and a stadnard deviation of 3.32 points. Statistically most (over 68%) humans should (and do) fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean (so most humans should have a SIZ between 9.7 and 16.3).

Dragon SIZ is calulated on 20d6, for range of 20-120, 70 is the mean, and a total range of 101 points for a standard deviation of 10.05 points. So over 68% percent of the Dragons have a SIZ between 60 and 80. THat is great statistically, except that the SIZ chart isn't linear, so the results are skewed bigtime.

The result of this means that a dragon's SIZ and mass can vary from 20 (141kg) to 120 (125 metric tons). That wide a swing is what throws the whole thing out of whack statistically, with the Dragon's mean SIZ by mass(62570kg) being closer to SIZ 90 than SIZ 70.

The problem is that as creatures get larger, thier stat range increses at a rate that is completly out of proprtion with its SIZ/mass.


The solution, as previously pointed out, is to condense the scale used to determine statistics for larger creatures to fit with the masses on the SIZ chart (or go to a lineral SIZ calululation). Basically we just need to make the ranges less random and put in more of a set value.

THat does cause a few problems with damage bonus and hit points though, since those two abilites are calualted linearly.

THe good news is, most beings don't have stats with a 20d6 shift, and so the problem is pretty much a non issue unless a GM is running a Giants & Dragons type of campaign.

BTW, It is worth noting that Mongoose seems to have gone ahead and condensed the stat range chart, so this problem will be less pronounced in MRQ.



[/b]

 

[andakitty]

Thanks, always wondered if there was a formula behind it.

 

[Turloigh]

(snip) ... SO with the actual ratio in mass for a SIZ 70 vs. SIZ 61 Dragon is the same as the ratio for a SIZ 18 human (119-129kg) vs. SIZ 9 human (55-58kg), around 2.2 times.

So there isn't anything wrong with the resistiance table. [/i][/b]

(Sigh of relief) THANK YOU so much. Now I feel better! 8)

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Of course, the other stats would also have to be non-linear for the likes of STR vs SIZ to make sense.

 

[atgxtg]

Of course, the other stats would also have to be non-linear for the likes of STR vs SIZ to make sense.

Yup, and they are. BUt gnerally, most stats stay in a fairly low enough range so as to work together, THe only stats that get big are STR & SIZ and to a lesser extent CON and POW.

STR needs to be up there so that a certain STR level allows someone a chance to lift something with the same SIZ. THat's why most cxreatueres have STR scores about the same as thier SIZ scores.

CON is up there just to make the HP work out, and to account for larger creatueres being more reistiant to poision, requirng larger doses. Personally I'd prefer CON to get back to the 3D6 range from RQ2, and simply factor in SIZ with CON for posion effects.

POW gets up there to relfect supermnatural beings.


TO make Dragons match up better statistically, change STR and SIZ to something like 2D6+63. THe only reasl drawback to this is that, in many ways, the numbers mean less as the get bigger. THe difference between a 8 SIZ and 18 SIZ tends to be more significant that the difference between a 68 SIZ and a 78 SIZ. Both ranges mean an swing of 5 hit points, but that 5 point shift means a lot more to a human that to a 50 HP dragon. Likewise the old damage bonus scale gave a lot of variance at the low end, but eventually turned into a 16 pts = +1d6.

If MRW uses a smother damabe bonnus chart (like starting at +1d2 at 22, and increasing the die by 1 per 2 points) then the variance in SIZ would be significant at high values.

 

[andakitty]

:shock: You COULD make the dragons a bit smaller...that sounds like a dragon with elephant genes.

 

[atgxtg]

:shock: You COULD make the dragons a bit smaller...that sounds like a dragon with elephant genes.

I didn't pick the 70 SIZ, the folks at Chaosium did. I did the math based on the "standard" sized (i.e. gigantic) RQ dragon from RQ3 ("dream dragon") a creature with an average SIZ of 70. That means it has approximately four times the mass of an elephant! I'm guestimating (by using the SIZ formulas for Wyrms ) that a "standard" dragon is appoximately 19 meters (60) feet long. Much bigger than an elephant.

 

[Mikko Leho]

May I ask why you stopped playing BRP games? What do you play now?

The dual nature of RQ eventually put me off: the world is very high fantasy with heroes doing earth shattering deeds while the rules depict gritty survival. It was fun while it lasted, but after some time I moved on to Call of Cthulhu, which I found great but repetive after some time. That ends my exposure to BRP. Currently I am gamemaster in Dust Devils and a player in a D&D campaign. Best roleplaying experiences I have gained gamemastering Over the Edge campaing and playing WHFRP.

Thge SIZE chart in RQ is not linear. Check the table in the RQ 3 GM's book, page 161.

I have Finnish version of the rulebook and it doesn't mention size scale. At least I can't find any reference to what you are writing. It might explain some of my difficulties.