How possible are High Skills?

[Lord Twig]

This might have been brought up before, but how likely is it for a character to get a 200%? Let alone a 500%?

From what I can tell after you reach 100% you can only go up 1% at a time since it is impossible to roll over your skill after 99%.

It would take 100 assigned skill increase rolls to get to 200%. That is a loooong time.

This also means that my proposed method of handling high skills (which no one has commented on, so I will continue to bring it up ) should work fine.

Once again. If you have over 100% and you succeed in your roll, you can roll again against your skill -100 and if you succeed again you can add that result to your total roll. Continue until you fail or can not subtract a full 100%. So if you had 450% you would be able to roll up to 5 times assuming you never failed (96-100 for the first 4 and 51-100 for that last) and add them all together. Keep in mind that you can only really fail on the first roll, after that a failed roll just means that you can not add any more to your total.

This means that even a 450% can roll 5 ones, succeed, (or roll a 5 and then a 99 and not be able to add any more) and still be beaten by a guy with 15%. But what are the odds!

 

[iamtim]

That's exactly why I think the halving rule isn't going to come into play as much as many other people seem to think it will.

It's one thing if you start out playing "epic level" characters, and I can see it being an issue there. But if you're playing "starting level" characters, wow, it's going to take a long time before you need to worry about the halving rule. And if you do? It's probably because your GM is putting you up against some badass to prove your worth; in that case, the halving rule works to your advantage!

 

[atgxtg]

I see this as a "Rune Level" problem more than anything else. When I ran RQ in the past (both RQ2 and RQ3) only a couple of handfuls of characters broke the 100% threshold, let alone the 200%. MOst of those were Rune LOrds in my Gloranthan-based campaigns. In my other campaigns I might have had one or two characters get over 100, and about as many hit the 90s.

The thing is-RQ was playable at the high levels before and if Glorantha is going to be playable, the game has to be able to handle that now.


Then again, it is the non-combat skillls we are talking about, and I never recall running a "Master Orator" competion or the like.

COMMENT ON THE METHOD-
Well I think it would work and be fair, which puts it ahead of the offical method and the majority of the alternatives proposed. I think it would work fine out to around 200%. A double roll at 100% isn't too bad. It is the over 200% area where is will bog down a little, but I've haven't seen those numbers come up much. Maybe it could be simplified a bit. Something like adding another d10 per 100% and rolling att the tens dice together and taking the best? I mean the one's die isn't that significant and it might be faster than picking up the dice two or three times.




IMO, the best way is the old way. No halving. Roll against skill and crits beat non crits. Low roll wins on ties. It quick, easy, and it works. Lack of special successes hurts it a bit iMRQ, but not as bad as halving.

If gives the low skilled character a slight chance of lucking out, but generally favors the one who spent all that extra time practicing.

 

[Lord Twig]

I see this as a "Rune Level" problem more than anything else. When I ran RQ in the past (both RQ2 and RQ3) only a couple of handfuls of characters broke the 100% threshold, let alone the 200%. MOst of those were Rune LOrds in my Gloranthan-based campaigns. In my other campaigns I might have had one or two characters get over 100, and about as many hit the 90s.

The thing is-RQ was playable at the high levels before and if Glorantha is going to be playable, the game has to be able to handle that now.

I completely agree, although we had a quite a few characters break the 100% barrier, there was only one or two after 15 years that went over 200% in a skill.

Then again, it is the non-combat skillls we are talking about, and I never recall running a "Master Orator" competion or the like.

Indeed, the ones I was talking about that went over 200% was in their primary weapon attack skill. Other skills when over 100%, but not that many and not by much.

COMMENT ON THE METHOD-
Well I think it would work and be fair, which puts it ahead of the offical method and the majority of the alternatives proposed. I think it would work fine out to around 200%. A double roll at 100% isn't too bad. It is the over 200% area where is will bog down a little, but I've haven't seen those numbers come up much. Maybe it could be simplified a bit. Something like adding another d10 per 100% and rolling att the tens dice together and taking the best? I mean the one's die isn't that significant and it might be faster than picking up the dice two or three times.

Thanks for the comment!

I see your point about wanting to roll less dice, but to me that makes the math and the understanding of the rule more complicated. What I liked about my suggested system was that it is so simple to understand. I realize that many people will think that having to add numbers in the middle of the game will slow things down, but I really doubt it will make that big a difference. And again, you don't have to roll again if you fail or if you already succeeded on the first roll.

IMO, the best way is the old way. No halving. Roll against skill and crits beat non crits. Low roll wins on ties. It quick, easy, and it works. Lack of special successes hurts it a bit iMRQ, but not as bad as halving.

If gives the low skilled character a slight chance of lucking out, but generally favors the one who spent all that extra time practicing.

It did work and everyone could understand it, but it never really felt quite right to me. I was always trying to think of a better way to do it. Never could think of a really good way though. In that sense I sympathize with Mongoose a whole lot. I have been thinking about this for decades and could not come up with a good, fast solution.

 

[aknaton]

I would rule that no matter what your skill score is, you succeed on an improvement roll of 96-00 and may increase by 1D4+1 point.

For me there are also some onther thing that are a bit fuzzy. For instance when my chacter should learn a new advanced skill what should i count as the current skill for calculation of time and level of mentor? Should I use 0 or the base carachteristic score for that skill (my INT for shiphandling for instance), or maybe something else?

 

[simonh]

This might have been brought up before, but how likely is it for a character to get a 200%? Let alone a 500%?

From what I can tell after you reach 100% you can only go up 1% at a time since it is impossible to roll over your skill after 99%.

Not quite, the chance of a fail is 96-00 for characetr with skills up to 199%. It's still a low chance though. Traditionaly there was always a minimum chance of raising a skill. In RQ3 it was your skill category modifier (if positive). In Elric it was your INT score.

In MRQ the only ways to boost your chance are using research, which can give up to a +10 or +20 bonus on to the die roll, or by learning from a master, who gives his critical chance as a bonus (if he makes a roll, blah, blah). This means powerful characters realy must have a mentor, otherwise your character's rate of advancement will be much slower even than under RQ3.


Simon Hibbs

 

[atgxtg]

Totherwise your character's rate of advancement will be much slower even than under RQ3.


Simon Hibbs

Your rate of advancement will ALWAYS be slower than under RQ3. The limit to the number os skill improvement rolls assures that.

 

[simonh]

Your rate of advancement will ALWAYS be slower than under RQ3. The limit to the number os skill improvement rolls assures that.

True. What were they thinking? Designing a more open ended system that's supposed to scale to 300%+ skill levels and then cripple skill advancement rates. Weird. Any official comments on this? Anything coming up in the Companion that might mitigate the problem?

Simon Hibbs

 

[AikiGhost]

Ill be using the old BRP style rule Ive always used.

You increase on a roll above 100 - INT even for skills above 100%

 

[soltakss]

In RQ2, we had a high level campaign that started with prior experience or straight rollups and ended up with characters ranging from 150% to 300%.

It is ridiculously easy to get high skills if you play the same characters every week for 5 or 6 years.

In RQM, of course, it is restricted in that there are limited experience rolls. I haven;t read the rule about increasing skills by 1% over 100%, if it is true then I don't like the idea.

In any case, with the open-ended magic system, you can have spells that add whatever you like to a skill. So, I could have a charcter with Sword 90% and cast Bladesharp 20, if I had a high enough skill/enough runes, and get 190% skill straight away (assuming Bladesharp works in the same way - I don't have my rules with me).

Someone with 90% Perception could, in Glorantha, stick on Storm Bull's Ear and have his Listen doubled to 180%, then cast some Perception-altering magic and boost it to over 200%.

Depending on whether Divine Magic is going to make a reappearance, you have (combat) spells such as Berserker (x2), Crush (+10% per point or was it +20%?). So, Maul 90% with Berserker, Bludgeon 20 and Crush 10 gives you 90x2 + 100 + 100(or 200) = 380% (or 480%).

OK, so you now say "but nobody would have that kind of magic!" and I say phooey! Of course they can if it is built up over a period of time.

For non-combat skills, you can still get magic that increases them in similar ways. If the spells aren't there in the official rules, then make them up!

So, high skills are very easy to get.

We have been playing RQ for about 6 or 7 months and our PCs are around the 60-70% mark, playing every week and having restricted experiance rolls (I combine Hero Points and Experience Points and give 1D6+6 for a scenario that takes more than a week to run). They will fairly soon be over 100%. With magic, they can get over 100% now.

 

[simonh]

In RQ2, we had a high level campaign that started with prior experience or straight rollups and ended up with characters ranging from 150% to 300%.

Ok, but that was using the RQ2 rules, not MRQ. I can't rememebr the RQ2 rules in detail, but I am surprised you amanged to get to such high skill levels without significantly patching the advancement system.

Note that with MRQ you are being much more generious with your experience awards than the main MRQ rules, in fact about 3 times more generous. Also your post implies that you award advancements every session, whereas the actual rules say you only do this in breaks between adventures.

Arguing that the main rules are not a problem for you, when you've already patched them significantly to be considerably more generous, is hardly playing fair.

Not every gaming group plays the same game with the same characters very week for years on end. I'd venture to say that you're at the extreme end of a very wide statistical spectrum of play patterns.


Simon Hibbs

 

[soltakss]

Ok, but that was using the RQ2 rules, not MRQ. I can't rememebr the RQ2 rules in detail, but I am surprised you amanged to get to such high skill levels without significantly patching the advancement system.

Well, not at all. We used the standard rules (minimum of INT when rolling experience, increase by 5%). It just took a long time.

Note that with MRQ you are being much more generious with your experience awards than the main MRQ rules, in fact about 3 times more generous. Also your post implies that you award advancements every session, whereas the actual rules say you only do this in breaks between adventures.

Possibly we have a few more points than is normal, but as we combine Her Points and Experience Points, this makes them choose to have Experience of keep Hero Points for play.

We have experience at the end of every scenario. If a scenario takes a single session, they get 1D4+4, if it takes more than one session they get 1D6+6. That's not a lot, really.

I haven't had a chance to read the RQM rules in detail so I don't know the recommended number of experience points, but I would guess they are simply recommendations not hard and fast rules.

Arguing that the main rules are not a problem for you, when you've already patched them significantly to be considerably more generous, is hardly playing fair.

That's fair enough, but it is still fairly easy to get high skills, it just takes longer. Half the experience points given out, twice as long to get high skills.

Not every gaming group plays the same game with the same characters very week for years on end. I'd venture to say that you're at the extreme end of a very wide statistical spectrum of play patterns.

Possibly.

If I played with characters for 5 sessions and then moved to something else then I wouldn't expect to get high skills.

If I played one-off scenarios then I wouldn't expect high skills.

If I played a campaign that lasted for a long time then I would probably expect to get high skills.

But, I was pointing out that it was entirely possible to get high skills in a game. Which it is.

 

[simonh]

Actualy, I've made a meistake. In MRQ you get an automatic increase of 1% even if you fail your skill increase roll. In other BRP games you didn't. This will make a significant difference.

I'm still not sure if it's more generous overall than RQ3. In that system your chance if increasing a favoured skill was usualy about 15%, for an increase of (on average) 3.5 points. That's an average increase of about 0.525%.

In MRQ it's a 5% chance of a 2.5 point increase, and a 95% chance of a 1 point increase. That's an average increase of 1.07%, discounting Mentors and training. You will probably get fewer skill increases in MRQ, but can choose which skills they go to, so characters will tend to become more specialised in fewer skills than in RQ3 or Elric/Stormbringer.

In MRQ, training if you have a Mentor is much better than normal experience, whereas in RQ3 it was worse. This swings things even more solidly in MRQ's favour, provided that training with mentors is a common occurance.


Simon Hibbs

 

[Enpeze]

If I played with characters for 5 sessions and then moved to something else then I wouldn't expect to get high skills.

If I played one-off scenarios then I wouldn't expect high skills.

If I played a campaign that lasted for a long time then I would probably expect to get high skills.

If I play a campaign with really tough fights I wouldnt expect high skills.

A nice GM can always help his players to get high skills. But I would not credit a system per se as responsible to get high skills. It depends rather on the style of the game and the preferences of the participants.

 

[atgxtg]

So, high skills are very easy to get.

We have been playing RQ for about 6 or 7 months and our PCs are around the 60-70% mark, playing every week and having restricted experiance rolls (I combine Hero Points and Experience Points and give 1D6+6 for a scenario that takes more than a week to run). They will fairly soon be over 100%. With magic, they can get over 100% now.

I think you misunderstood the comment. It nnot that you can't get high skills in MRQ or that a particular skill will or will not advance at the same rate as in previous edtions of RQ. It is that overall advancement will always be slower becuase you are not improving as many skills at the same time.

In RQ you could wind up with a half dozen or more skill checks at the end of an adventure. In MRQ you usually wind up with 3. This is like skill points in D&D. You can either work on mastering out one or more skills as soon as possible. or you can spread out your imrpovements and have a more slowed development.

THose 60-70%s that you have, might have skills as high as a RQ3 group (I agree with you about RQ2 advacement, it's almost twice as fast as RQ3), but they don't have the depth & breadth of a RQ3 group. Not unless they have bneen getting more improvent rolls than the suggested average.

 

[King Amenjar]

In MRQ, training if you have a Mentor is much better than normal experience, whereas in RQ3 it was worse. This swings things even more solidly in MRQ's favour, provided that training with mentors is a common occurance.

Simon Hibbs

Which means that advancement is even more under the control of the GM. If you want the PCs to get up to 120% with ease, give them lots of mentors.
Simon Hibbs... that's a familiar name, but I can't remember why...

 

[Rurik]

It is worth mentioning that there a lot less skills in MRQ. Stealth and Perception for example were broken into many different skills in previous editions, so 3 checks may go further than some expect.

And it is GM discretion how many to give out. I am planning on giving some rolls on certain skills over and above the normal assigned ones. For example if during a game players are stranded on a mountain in winter for a week or two, I will give the whole party a survival roll on top of their normal ones.