RuneQuest Rules Rumour Control

[MongooseMatt]

Well they say 'pride goeth before the fall'.

I've uploaded a new version of my MRQPC and this now includes standard Opposed Tests with the option for High Skill Rules.

I've double checked my maths and it appears that the stats do scale linearly through the 100% margin break.

I deliberately created this tool because I was concerned that the stats weren't obvious... and they clearly were neither obvious nor intuitive to myself.

So, unless my mathematics are awry (and I would love someone else to check them) it appears that Opposed Tests are not at all broken through the 100% margin.

Sorry about complaining before! I'm happier to know that the system is robust to be honest.

Vaguely annoying - I was constructing a system to prove the same thing

 

[bluejay]

Matthew, feel free to use my MRQPC or adapt it as you wish. It will be a great tool for stopping future arguments on this or other boards.

As I said in another post, I was creating this tool to check out the way the stats worked ... mostly to stop any arguments and get a decisive answer.

I'm happy to have a solid answer, even if it proved I was wrong!

 

[WildHealer]

Hi all,

Sorry to be a pain guys, but maybe I'm missing something - don't we still have the same problem? The Very High Skill halving rule is still throwing the same issue.

Do the opposed contest rules (including Dodge & Parry, which as written are opposed contests) use the 100%+ halving rule? If so, as far as I can see the maths are still showing anomalies - James' gadget with the latest mods still shows the same thing (try Attacker 50% vs Defender 90% and Attacker 50% vs Defender 110%, both with and without combat and using the very high skill rule).

Without the Halving Rule the maths work out - I don't think that's ever been an issue.

Let me know if I'm doing something wrong.

Cheers,

Sarah

 

[Mikko Leho]

Do the opposed contest rules (including Dodge & Parry, which as written are opposed contests) use the 100%+ halving rule? If so, as far as I can see the maths are still showing anomalies - James' gadget with the latest mods still shows the same thing (try Attacker 50% vs Defender 90% and Attacker 50% vs Defender 110%, both with and without combat and using the very high skill rule).

Don't use the High Skill Rule and your results should make more sense. Apparently you don't halve skill values in combat.

 

[Itto]

Do the opposed contest rules (including Dodge & Parry, which as written are opposed contests) use the 100%+ halving rule? If so, as far as I can see the maths are still showing anomalies - James' gadget with the latest mods still shows the same thing (try Attacker 50% vs Defender 90% and Attacker 50% vs Defender 110%, both with and without combat and using the very high skill rule).
Sarah

I now think, as I've posted on the other thread, that combat does not use the Very Skill High Rule. As it has its own tables for working out the resolution, where as non combat skills don't.

 

[bluejay]

Yeah, it seems that there continue to be more anomalies just in the regular Opposed Tests (i.e. out of combat).

I'd really like someone else to check my working in my code if possible.

If the code is correct (and I tried to write it as simply as possible to prevent errors) then as soon as the 'attacker' goes below 86%, the 'defender's' chance of winning decreases if they increase their skill from 100% to 101%.

If the attacker's skill is higher than this value (and I was testing using 90%) then there are no problems for the defender going across the 100% boundary.

I need to spend a lot more time looking into this before I can say anything for definite now...

 

[Halfbat]

I'm struggling to get the tester to work at present, but it would be interesting to see just how much of an anomaly this actually is and whether it is worth putting up with slight anomaly for the sake of a smooth and simple rules system.

 

[SteveMND]

Can I suggest you read the relevant bits yourself, not as someone who is thoroughly intimate with them, but as if you're seeing them for the first time. I've been in design & specification work for donkey's years, and it's often when someone actually tries to document a product that too much familiarity results in ambiguity and lack of clarity.

I think this is one of the most important things any publishers should take into consideration, whether a first-time e-publisher or a multinational game company. If you're working on a project for six months straight, you are going to know it forwards and backwards, and you will become so familiar with it that possible problems can be accidentaly glossed over because you so intimately know what a certain rule or passage is suppose to mean even if that's actually not what it says.

I've never seen a single gaming project, from RPGs to video games to CCGs, that hasn't had problems discovered almost immediately upon it's release by the general public. Most of the time this is because no matter of proofreading or internal troubleshooting can match the sheer volume of the consumer base, but often it's also because the producers got too familiar with the work and didn't realize that something might be awkward to a person who hadn't spent the last six months watching it develop.

 

[Rurik]

An answer on the halving rule regarding combat would be nice.

In general opposed rolls the halving rule works pretty well, the ratios are the same, any statistical anomalies seem to be relatively minor. This is actually an established mechanic and works ok for me.

The opposed parry rule/results table works well. There is an extra roll, but there is more variety of possible results. Sounds good, definately worth a try.

The problem is only when you put the two together.

In the parry results table, if the parry fails it does not matter what the attacker rolls - both attacker fails and defender fails result in "hit goes throgh as normal" So only the defender is hurt by the halving rule, even if he is the one with the skill>100.

 

[bluejay]

Rurik,

You've definitely hit the main problem with the combination of these two rules.

Unfortunately I am now starting to see some fairly major statistical differences 'across the border' around 100% in regular Opposed Roles.

I've spent the last hour or so correcting the Opposed Tests in my MRQPC and I'm happy with it now.

Checking out some samples of Opposed Tests (NOT combat): -

Attacker 50%, Defender 100%

Attacker wins 18% of the time

Attacker 50%, Defender 101%

Attacker wins over 39% of the time!

Obviously the same problem happens in reverse for Opposed Tests as there is no true 'attacker' and 'defender' and similarly no resulting bias. The High Skill Rule simply always moves in favour of the lower skilled character.

 

[Urox]

Wrong place to discuss this in any depth, I know, but did the guy at you FLGS mention what line was supposed to shut down? Or at least gave a hint?

I would be interested too!

<rumor>
Per the behind the counter talk at my FLGS, the Starship Troopers line of products is heading for the great discount bin in the sky.

They said it was a licensing issue -- Mongoose wanted to expand the universe and create new content, but the license holder was stopping them.

To this effect, Mongoose is supposed to be replacing Starship Troopers with a new line of future/space miniatures.
</rumor>

 

[Cut]

*puh*
And I was afraid the Babylon 5 series was in jeopardy, as I was really considering getting into second edition myself due to the upcoming Guide to the station box...

 

[wartorn]

Rurik,

You've definitely hit the main problem with the combination of these two rules.

Unfortunately I am now starting to see some fairly major statistical differences 'across the border' around 100% in regular Opposed Roles.

I've spent the last hour or so correcting the Opposed Tests in my MRQPC and I'm happy with it now.

Checking out some samples of Opposed Tests (NOT combat): -

Attacker 50%, Defender 100%

Attacker wins 18% of the time

Attacker 50%, Defender 101%

Attacker wins over 39% of the time!

Obviously the same problem happens in reverse for Opposed Tests as there is no true 'attacker' and 'defender' and similarly no resulting bias. The High Skill Rule simply always moves in favour of the lower skilled character.

My head is positively spinning from trying to keep track of this discusison.

I think it is established that there is a mathematical fault with the Very High Skill implementation. The question begs - is there a solution to this problem? And if there is not, isn't 'low skill warriors having a slightly higher chance of overcoming high skill warriors' the best possible fault?

Most players won't start out as very high skilled Rune Lords. In the beginning you'll appreciate the extra bump to overcome high skilled opponents. Once you are a Rune Lord, won't the game be more interesting if the low skill opposition remains a little more of a threat? In my mathematically challenged and humble opinion, while a perfect solution is best, I'm ok with this outcome from a 'we're emulating dramatic fiction' standpoint.

 

[burdock]

I think it is established that there is a mathematical fault with the Very High Skill implementation. The question begs - is there a solution to this problem? And if there is not, isn't 'low skill warriors having a slightly higher chance of overcoming high skill warriors' the best possible fault?

I see your point......also, in many respects, the artistry of a game is more important to me than its mathematical accuracy. I would rather a game was made by story-tellers and artists than mathematicians! And so it is perhaps unfair to put the designers under such austere mathematical scrutiny....It couldn't have happened in the olden days before The Internet!

Also it is true that in Runequest2 someone with attk 180% vs someone with def 85% has less of an advantage than someone with attack 85% vs someone with def 65%.....even though the the difference in ability is higher. The only advantage was in the increased chance of Critical and Special successes.

 

[WildHealer]

Also it is true that in Runequest2 someone with attk 180% vs someone with def 85% has less of an advantage than someone with attack 85% vs someone with def 65%.....even though the the difference in ability is higher. The only advantage was in the increased chance of Critical and Special successes.

Yes, but there was never the situation where a character was actually worse off by being more skilled, which is precisely what we're facing here. I'm by no means a mathematical nitpicker, but even with my rudimentary skills I know that my 100%+ skilled characters from my RQ3 game will just explode in MRQ as it currently stands.

Sarah

 

[bluejay]

I see your point......also, in many respects, the artistry of a game is more important to me than its mathematical accuracy. I would rather a game was made by story-tellers and artists than mathematicians!

Hmmm... you mean like Reiner Knizia?

 

[Urox]

I would rather a game was made by story-tellers and artists than mathematicians!

You want the rules written by mathematicians and the flavor/setting to be created by the story-tellers.

 

[Rurik]

I see your point......also, in many respects, the artistry of a game is more important to me than its mathematical accuracy. I would rather a game was made by story-tellers and artists than mathematicians! And so it is perhaps unfair to put the designers under such austere mathematical scrutiny....It couldn't have happened in the olden days before The Internet!

The thing is a game system can only go so far in 'ruling' storytelling and artistry. Those are arts, and must be mastered outside of rules.

You can have 'realistic' or 'gritty' rules that in no way force or simulate role playing or storytelling - and with good players and a good gm you can have an experience rich in storytelling and roleplaying. You can get the best of both worlds.

You can't have both with a narrative system like HQ. It forces the narrative style, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. But you lose the visceral brutality of the RQ mechanics.

You can see Stafford's evolution towards this in RQ->Pendragon->HeroQuest. I love Pendragon, and he was moving towards the hero stuff with passions and traits, etc. I love that system, and before I had caught wind of MRQ was considering trying out Pendragon Pass (RQ magic grafted onto Pendragon rules for running a multi-generational campaign in Dragon Pass - google it, seems pretty cool). I think in HQ goes too far in that direction.

In short, I want my rules to provide solid mechanics for resolving world interactions, and let the artistry be handled by the minds of the players.

 

[atgxtg]

That is the classic confict with RPGs. The trade off between simplicy and realism. Simplier makes it easier to use, more relasitic lets you use it for more.

BTW, Stafford didn't write the rules for RQ or HQ. He did write Pendragon, not to mention Prince Valiant.

 

[Rurik]

That is the classic confict with RPGs. The trade off between simplicy and realism. Simplier makes it easier to use, more relasitic lets you use it for more.

BTW, Stafford didn't write the rules for RQ or HQ. He did write Pendragon, not to mention Prince Valiant.

I know he didn't do the mechanics for RQ, but that is where this all started. Pendragon Rocks. I consider him a driving force behind the direction of the Hero Wars/Quest. He is in the HQ book credited with: HeroQuest Design (I know, I know, Robin Laws...)

But most importantly, he was the common thread that tied my RQ->Pendragon->HeroQuest example together. A perfect example of the One Extreme->Nice Balance->Another Extreme thing I was rambling on about.

How was Valiant? I have never seen or played it, nor know anyone who has. Any good?