RuneQuest II: Fixing the maths

[ledpup]

Hi all

I've been perturbed by how the maths - relating to Skills, Characteristics and Common Magic especially - has been applied in RuneQuest II. This isn't a solely a RuneQuest issue. It's a fairly pervasive issue, across almost all RPGs.

However, I've written two blog entries. The first, discussing the issue. The second, a possible remedy for RuneQuest II. Hopefully, some of you will find at it at least interesting, maybe useful.

1: Advancement rules in roleplaying games
2: RuneQuest II: Fixing the maths

Cya
ledpup

 

[cerebro]

Well,that is the case when it comes to D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, Etc. Same to hit percentage,more or less at every level. But you do get more capable thanks to the Feats.

In Runequest II, I don't see that problem,as characters do get better,and monsters stay the same. A goblin is still dangerous at any level,more so if they are many,and get lucky.

 

[ledpup]

Well,that is the case when it comes to D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, Etc. Same to hit percentage,more or less at every level. But you do get more capable thanks to the Feats.

In Runequest II, I don't see that problem,as characters do get better,and monsters stay the same. A goblin is still dangerous at any level,more so if they are many,and get lucky.

Feats don't change anything, you're still just adding up numbers. I don't fully remember what they do, but it'll be akin to more attacks, or special, almost always numerical effects. 4th edition progressed it to a point that the *only* thing you do is play with arithmetic.

If characters get better and monsters stay the same, that *is* the problem! And of course, if you throw in more goblins it gets more challenging. I actually gave that as an example.

Yes, RuneQuest suffers less than D&D. It's still an issue, however.

 

[taxboy]

Hi all

I've been perturbed by how the maths - relating to Skills, Characteristics and Common Magic especially - has been applied in RuneQuest II. This isn't a solely a RuneQuest issue. It's a fairly pervasive issue, across almost all RPGs.

However, I've written two blog entries. The first, discussing the issue. The second, a possible remedy for RuneQuest II. Hopefully, some of you will find at it at least interesting, maybe useful.

1: Advancement rules in roleplaying games
2: RuneQuest II: Fixing the maths

Cya
ledpup

I don't agree with your logic - as you increase in skill you get to do more and more cool stuff, if i am lousy at climbing but over 2-3 years I become adept via improvement rolls - my character can now do cool stuff.

You are focused on the combat side, i can see what you mean - but advancement means i can fight an ogre and win whereas before 4 Goblins were really hard - so I have improved.

GMs do up the power of monsters to give more challenge but as my skills or magic improve i can do a lot more than just remain static (relatively)

..and the second post is just silly....

You are saying when i learn something new or improve a skill, i get worse at something else...people are not like hard drives, you can keep learning all things - sure some skills that are not practiced can get rusty, but that is a time management issue, i have got worse at Spear cos i practiced heaps with Sword - but even then Spear would only drop to a certian base level and I might get spectacular with a sword..

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your logic at all.

However, like with all game stuff, if you can make it work for you and your players more power to you...

 

[carrknight]

I am just not sure there is something that needs to be fixed.

Say you play in a minor Basketball league and you train really hard to improve. Well at one point you become so good that playing in such league becomes boring and you move up to greater challenges. That's not broken math, that's life.

Now when you play in a major league you do get much tougher competition and the advantage you had before evaporates until you train even harder.
On the other side you do get the benefit of playing against famous opponents, gaining more spectators and being better paid.

Similarly in an RPG. You can use your D&D lvl 20 character to kill kobolds, and hey it's fun. But at one point you want to move to dragons. Higher pay, more rewarding consequences for what you do and stuff like that are your real motivation. And they don't come from math, they come from the roleplaying section. It's not something fixable or not.

You are saying when i learn something new or improve a skill, i get worse at something else.

Well, this actually sort of happens anyway in every RPG. When you increase your skills/raise a level you do get improvements at the cost of others. If you trained spears this month, you didn't train swords and so on.
You do specialize in rpgs, you hardly ever get rusty

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I've been perturbed by how the maths - relating to Skills, Characteristics and Common Magic especially - has been applied in RuneQuest II. This isn't a solely a RuneQuest issue. It's a fairly pervasive issue, across almost all RPGs.

That was an interesting blog, but I sort of dislike the title. 'Fixing' implies there's an underlying mathematical error, whereas I think what you are trying to portray is a new interpretation of how the game model should work. Thus it might have been nicer to say 'Modifying the Maths'.

A couple of points from my perspective.

Firstly as others have said, people do get better by training/studying and then apply themselves to greater challenges. That is indeed life.

Secondly there is a potential game-design flaw in your model which can lead to extreme polarisation of skills, leaving most PCs as two dimensional characters as they attempt to level the greatest advantage out of their caped total value.

That said, I think the whole 'Illusion of Advancement' issue is more a question of what challenges a GM provides in their campaign. It is the GM's job to give his players a sense of achievement. At one end of the scale he can do this by keeping NPCs at fixed skill values so they are increasingly easier to beat... or at the other extreme he can just give out greater material wealth, social status and responsibility.

However, what it boils down to is that, the tougher the challenge the more enjoyment the players experience. So PCs are always going to attempt the difficult and near impossible because it is more dramatic and fun. Even if a group adopted your perfectly reasonable Static Total Skill Points style of campaign, it could still be undermined by a GM who didn't adapt the campaign challenges to fit that model.

Thus personally I don't think the mechanical advancement system, in RQ at least, is illusionary. Its what the GM does with your PCs where any problem, if any, lies.

That said, as always, if it works for you then run with it and enjoy every moment!

 

[ledpup]

Hi Pete, others

I changed the title. You're correct, there isn't an error and it's clearly a deliberate decision that most RPG designers have made.

I'm not saying people don't get better by training, etc. I've made allowances for that. This isn't about modeling the real world either. If it were, I guess I could say "if you don't use it, you lose it."

Do characters improve without boundaries? I'm suggesting that whatever we may believe, it's the dice (in RPGs) that create the boundary. When you have a skill of 220%, I'm not entirely sure what that could mean. Even with penalties applied, it's a bit hard to fail. In unopposed tests (e.g., combat), I don't understand why you'd roll the dice. A spell/effect could take 170% from that, but you could do the same thing with someone with skill of 95% and reduce their skill to 50%. The same result.

Ultimately, I'd don't agree that players want tougher and tougher challenges. All they want is to be able to feel that no matter how tough it might seem right now, there is something they can do to change things. Most of the time they want to be able to succeed. Sometimes it's okay if they don't. Therefore, the probabilities should hover around the same area. Often 70-90%, dropping to 50-70% when it gets rough, and 30-50% when it's really nasty. All the GM should have to think about are the probabilities in those terms. Not 155% vs 175%, etc. We can do the maths, sure, but you don't get anything extra added if we allow infinite improvement. In fact, you don't get anything added when you go over 100%, just like you don't get anything in D20 once you go over 20. Unless you include arithmetic as a bonus.

It's not a big deal, you're correct. Maybe just an interesting point to ponder on for a moment, if nothing more.

Thanks for the comments everyone.

Cya
ledpup

 

[Simulacrum]

Some interesting points there, but in the end a lot of this comes down to preferred style of play, surely? The "maths arms race" can for some people be the point of the exercise, but in my experience both as player and GM the desire to get more powerful is not to be able to wade through more poor bloody kobolds but to feel up for taking on bigger challenges that the setting promises are out there for those big and brave enough.

For Age of Treason (forthcoming) I incorporated a cap on how high skills can go without magical enhancement, and this is based on 5x Basic Percentage (="aptitude"). Now I know very well that's a rules tweak some people will rage against, and frankly if they don't like it they can drop it and stick to RAW. But it has a purpose in the setting, which is a) to set a "limit" to human capabilities which is a driving force behind why some people are desperate to get their hands on things like magic and enchantments (or performance enhancing drugs for that matter), b) it allows some nuance between people well schooled in a skill, and people less well schooled but simply better at it because they have the right characteristics for the job. This is also modified by the notion of Talents, which can be bought with Hero Points or recieved as a divine favour.

Maybe I missed it in the blog, but the key benefit of skills over 100% that didn't seem to get a mention is to take into account difficulty and increase the chance of a critical success - which makes perfect sense to me. If I'm 120% at something I'm the guy to call on when a job with a -40% difficulty modifier hoves into view, and I can charge for my services accordingly.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I changed the title. You're correct, there isn't an error and it's clearly a deliberate decision that most RPG designers have made.

Thanks ledpup, I appreciate that.

Do characters improve without boundaries? I'm suggesting that whatever we may believe, it's the dice (in RPGs) that create the boundary. When you have a skill of 220%, I'm not entirely sure what that could mean. Even with penalties applied, it's a bit hard to fail. In unopposed tests (e.g., combat), I don't understand why you'd roll the dice.

This brings up an incidental issue about the speed of character progression. I agree that raising skills well beyond 100% can seem rather pointless, save for situations where a PC may potentially face massive penalties (climbing a ice covered wall for example).

In one of the original playtest campaigns we've now been playing for 50+ episodes with skill improvements awarded after almost every session. However, despite 21 months of play nobody has yet raised a skill to over 90%. My personal character has the following skills for example...

Athletics 65%, Boating 26%, Brawn 70%, Culture (Quinpolic League) 60%, Dance 23%, Draconic Mysticism 10%, Driving 28%, Evade 53%, Evaluate 25%, First Aid 28%, Influence 59%, Insight 60%, Language (Seshnegi) 78%, Language (Waertagi) 31%, Lore (Monsters) 74%, Lore (Seshnela) 80%, Lore (Stygianism) 79%, Lore (Swamp Spider) 30%, Perception 71%, Persistence 69%, Resilience 69%, Riding 28%, Shiphandling 88%, Sing 25%, Sleight 28%, Stealth 51%, Survival 28%, Swim 65%, Unarmed 73% and Harpoon 87%.

Common Magic 55%, Manipulation 62%, Sorcery (Grimoire of Dim Depths) 72%, Divine Magic (Stygianism – Ship of Life) 79%, Pact (Magasta) 63%

So save for the occasional piece of augmentation magic we rarely experience the heady levels of mastery. Of course as players we like to apply our Improvement Rolls to those skills we used during adventures and nobody is out to game the system for maximum effect.

Most of our major 'advancement' is via reputation, performing ethical deeds and gaining increasingly more potent enemies, such as the Inquisition of the Rokari Church (a real sign of success). Despite a fair amount of combat and facing some near unbeatable opponents we have survived due to wits or innovative spell use rather than needing super-high skills.

However I know other folks have different play styles, so it'd be interesting to see how far PCs in their campaigns have progressed.

 

[Dan True]

You are also not taking in the severe penalty of advancing skills to where they mean trouble. If you advance your skill to more than 100 + INT, you will only gain 1 sp each time you spend an improvement roll. In effect if you want a skill at 190% (say, a heroic swordsman so brilliant that he can take on a dragon), he will have severely limited himself in other skills. Skills he could have had at 80%-90% now if he had spread them out...

So the really high skill levels will probably never be achieved, as a good swordsman also need to put imp. rolls in Athletics, Brawn, Resillience and so on. And I would rather have all skills at 85%, than 150% sword&shield and 40% in the others.

But again, I can see your point if you prefer that gaming style. I (and my players for that matter) would definitely not go for it.

But if you use this in a campaign, I'd be happy if you share the experiences. You do raise an interesting point.

- Dan

 

[cerebro]

Well,that is the case when it comes to D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, Etc. Same to hit percentage,more or less at every level. But you do get more capable thanks to the Feats.

In Runequest II, I don't see that problem,as characters do get better,and monsters stay the same. A goblin is still dangerous at any level,more so if they are many,and get lucky.

Feats don't change anything, you're still just adding up numbers. I don't fully remember what they do, but it'll be akin to more attacks, or special, almost always numerical effects. 4th edition progressed it to a point that the *only* thing you do is play with arithmetic.

If characters get better and monsters stay the same, that *is* the problem! And of course, if you throw in more goblins it gets more challenging. I actually gave that as an example.

Yes, RuneQuest suffers less than D&D. It's still an issue, however.

Runequest does not suffer from that at all. Since there are no Challenge rating. Challenge rating is how much of a challenge a group of monsters will provide to a certain Party Lvl of players. Since when you go up in Level,so does the CR of the encounters your Dm will throw a you, theres no real progress. Just the illusion of one. Thats the logic behind the blog.

Runequest improvements are relative to the monsters. You had a 10% in a weapon skill, now you have 20%. How is that not improvement?.

Feats do change characters in D&D. They give access to game mechanics. Spring Attack,for example, lets me Hit a character and run away from him. Rendering his Full attacks useless.

 

[PhilHibbs]

You are also not taking in the severe penalty of advancing skills to where they mean trouble. If you advance your skill to more than 100 + INT, you will only gain 1 sp each time you spend an improvement roll.

Most of the time, yes, but you have your INT as a percentage chance to get 1d4+1. Could be worth getting your INT up, especially if you can get it as a heroquest reward.

 

[Deleriad]

You are also not taking in the severe penalty of advancing skills to where they mean trouble. If you advance your skill to more than 100 + INT, you will only gain 1 sp each time you spend an improvement roll.

Most of the time, yes, but you have your INT as a percentage chance to get 1d4+1. Could be worth getting your INT up, especially if you can get it as a heroquest reward.

Actually once your skill hits 101% you only get half of your INT added to the roll. For someone with an INT of 15, that's a 9% chance of getting 1d4+1 and a 91% chance of getting 1 so you're talking over 80 improvement rolls on average to reach 200.
Then once over 200 you only 1/4 of your INT and so on.

 

[ledpup]

You are also not taking in the severe penalty of advancing skills to where they mean trouble. If you advance your skill to more than 100 + INT, you will only gain 1 sp each time you spend an improvement roll.

Most of the time, yes, but you have your INT as a percentage chance to get 1d4+1. Could be worth getting your INT up, especially if you can get it as a heroquest reward.

Yeah, I think Dan has misunderstood the rules a little here.

"When an Adventurer wants to improve a skill that exceeds 100%, he only needs to roll against a target value of 100. However, if his current skill is between 101–200% he only adds half his INT to the roll."

If my INT were 16 and skill were 133%, I'd have an 8% chance of improving by more than 1%. If my skill were 233%, I'd have only 4% chance.

Nevertheless, my argument isn't how slowly or quickly one advances numerically, it's an essential point about numerical advancement in-itself. Even a 1% increase starts the maths war.

 

[ledpup]

Actually once your skill hits 101% you only get half of your INT added to the roll. For someone with an INT of 15, that's a 9% chance of getting 1d4+1 and a 91% chance of getting 1 so you're talking over 80 improvement rolls on average to reach 200.
Then once over 200 you only 1/4 of your INT and so on.

Ha! That's what I get for taking my time in writing a response!

 

[PhilHibbs]

Nevertheless, my argument isn't how slowly or quickly one advances numerically, it's an essential point about numerical advancement in-itself. Even a 1% increase starts the maths war.

I see - but people like it. It feels good to advance your character. What's the difference between Joe the thug on the street corner, and Harrek the Berserk? Big numbers. You can get there, and there's a game system that shows you how to do it. Numbers are a way of taking absolute power away from the GM, and I've seen GM power abused too often to say that that's a bad thing.

Also, what maths war? I don't recognize the problem.

 

[taxboy]

You are also not taking in the severe penalty of advancing skills to where they mean trouble. If you advance your skill to more than 100 + INT, you will only gain 1 sp each time you spend an improvement roll.

Most of the time, yes, but you have your INT as a percentage chance to get 1d4+1. Could be worth getting your INT up, especially if you can get it as a heroquest reward.

Hi INT is a real benefit in this game, as is High CA...

 

[ledpup]

Nevertheless, my argument isn't how slowly or quickly one advances numerically, it's an essential point about numerical advancement in-itself. Even a 1% increase starts the maths war.

I see - but people like it. It feels good to advance your character. What's the difference between Joe the thug on the street corner, and Harrek the Berserk? Big numbers. You can get there, and there's a game system that shows you how to do it. Numbers are a way of taking absolute power away from the GM, and I've seen GM power abused too often to say that that's a bad thing.

Also, what maths war? I don't recognize the problem.

Re: liking "advancement". You didn't read my blog post closely. Quote: "It's fun to think your character is getting better and better [...]"

What I'm arguing against is not advancement per-say, but numerical advancement, in particular.

Of course, GMs abuse their power, what I'm saying is that the game forces them to do it! As the characters get those extra 10% or 20%, the GM needs to respond in kind to keep the game challenging *and* fun. So the players might end up feeling gypped. But it isn't the GMs fault, it's how the game is designed to be played.

A non-numerical advancement system, wouldn't work like this at all. The only example I have of a game that does this is Diaspora. Not that I'm saying you should play it - RuneQuest/Glorantha is great - but you could have a look to see what I'm getting at.

Nevertheless, numbers, big or otherwise, ain't going to save you from a jerk of a GM.

 

[PhilHibbs]

Re: liking "advancement". You didn't read my blog post closely. Quote: "It's fun to think your character is getting better and better [...]"

What I'm arguing against is not advancement per-say, but numerical advancement, in particular.

Of course, GMs abuse their power, what I'm saying is that the game forces them to do it! As the characters get those extra 10% or 20%, the GM needs to respond in kind to keep the game challenging *and* fun. So the players might end up feeling gypped. But it isn't the GMs fault, it's how the game is designed to be played.

Honestly I've never encountered the problem. Players face tougher opponents, that's what they expect.

 

[Dan True]

Re: liking "advancement". You didn't read my blog post closely. Quote: "It's fun to think your character is getting better and better [...]"

What I'm arguing against is not advancement per-say, but numerical advancement, in particular.

Of course, GMs abuse their power, what I'm saying is that the game forces them to do it! As the characters get those extra 10% or 20%, the GM needs to respond in kind to keep the game challenging *and* fun. So the players might end up feeling gypped. But it isn't the GMs fault, it's how the game is designed to be played.

Honestly I've never encountered the problem. Players face tougher opponents, that's what they expect.

I agree, I've encountered the problem in d&d but not in RQ.
In RQ the way the monsters are tougher is not necessarily because they have tons of combat skill or hit point, but because they can do more besides. When the adventurers first encounter goblins, it may be some sad little creatures with 35% combat skill, low evade/athletics/brawn encountered in a forest glade.

Later in the campaign you can make the goblins a tougher challenge simply by putting them on a ledge, giving them slings & shields and a tunnel to escape into should they face ranged weaponry or magic. You haven't really done anything the players won't like, but these goblins will be a much tougher encounter - and will demand of the players that they have a higher evade and athletics skill than they had when facing sad goblins in a glade.

But again, if your players like the system. Fine. I just know I wouldn't go for it, and neither would my players. We like to customise our character and feel them growing in more ways than just RP/character development.

- Dan