Some tested houserules that appear to work...
- Thread starter iamtim
- Start date
Deleriad
Mongoose
iamtim said:
The characteristic rolls were always an anomaly. I ran a *lot* of RQ3. As soon as Dodge came into the game, DEX*5 became problematic. Had more than one situation like the following:
"Everyone make a DEX*5 roll to avoid the falling boulders."
"Can I make a dodge roll instead"
"Yes" and then the later logic of "what's the difference between a dodge roll" and a dex*5 roll?
Most times in BRP the characteristic rolls were used when you weren't sure what else to do:
An "idea" roll of Int*5 when you thought that that a player was being dimmer than his character
A "luck" roll for when there was no obvious recourse to anything else and so on.
What MRQ has done is to make all of the old characteristic rolls into skills which means that they start at a lower level, can be increased further and fit into the opposed rolls system. The problem IMHO is two-fold
1) is a problem with RQ in all versions - the link between characteristic and skill is weak; in MRQ this leads to being able to train up to levels that look odd.
2) some badly explained skills. For example, "Brute Force"; without SIZ equivalency tables and a description of how Brute Force interacts we are left having to make up what exactly Brute Force does. If, for example, the rules for picking up state that a character can lift SIZ = to his STR under normal conditions then a successful Brute Force roll may be able to let you lift up to 5 points more SIZ (critical = 10 more etc, fumble equals take 1d3 damage to abdom). Without that being written down Brute Force cannot be assessed.
To me, it looks like MRQ has been, at times, cut to the bone and occasionally cut too far. There are a lot of innovative ideas in the game that have either not been thought through or have been badly (or not at all) explained in an attempt to get the book out quickly and with a low, low page count. All my opinion of course.
duncan_disorderly
Mongoose
iamtim said:
These all look good, but I'd change "lowest under his skill" to "Highest Roll" for the following reasons
1) No one I have ever played with has ever had a difficulty being able to determine the highest of two 2 digit numbers, even when is very late at night and/or they have been drinking. While the maths involved in determining lowest under skill is not difficult it does involve an extra step (for each dice) and sometimes errors can creep in.
2)It is independant of any modifiers etc, so these need not always be calculated in full (so if you roll under your skill anyway, you don't need to add the bonuses to your skill in order to subtract the number you rolled to find out how well you did)
3) It works equally well for "both failed" as for "both succeed"
4) Although some people will whine about not knowing whether they need to roll high or low, it doesn't make any difference as all bonuses and penalties are applied to the target number not the dice.
Deleriad
Mongoose
duncan_disorderly said:
Agreed totally. I was running an opposed skills system using high rolls win in RQ3 for ages before I slipped out of rpgs - used it instead of the resistance table. I tried a differential system and it just log-jammed too much. Trollkin 43% rolls 21 vs pc 82% rolls 64. Who won? Looks ok on paper, but doing it after 4-5 hours of playing - especially when you're the GM - is too taxing. That an the number of times the players make a roll, pick up dice, you start the maths then someone forgets what the roll is.
Mind you, to make it work, I went to a system of doubles as crits and dropped specials. It does have a problem with skills over 100 and I've never been unambiguously happy with any one solution as each one tends to overemphasise or under-emphasise 100% as a break point.
duncan_disorderly said:
I think the reason why iamtim introduced this method is it doesn't ask for the introduction of a special rule for 100%+ skills.
Nonetheless, I strongly agree with your 4 points. 100%+ skills are quite rare in the game, and I think it is more adequate to add some complexity in rare occasions rather than complexity in all occasions.
The problem with the "high roll under skill" mechanic is that it does not accurately manage skills that are over 100%. And it's counter to the "standard" idea that rolling low is better then rolling high.
I'll freely admit that this part is a preference only, but I personally *hate* the idea that I have to go through some mental gyrations to figure out if I "won" an opposed roll. Ok. I roll the dice. I need to roll under my skill. I want to roll "low", unless my opponent also rolled under his skill, in which case I want to roll as high as possible. Unless I roll too high and fail. But if I do that, then I want to roll as low as possible over my skill...
Ick. While some may balk at the idea of subtraction, I personally find it much easier and less confusing. In the vast majority of cases, you don't really need to do the math either. You can usually eyeball how much you made your skill by...
IMO, MRQ makes this more of a "problem" because they replaced the resistance based stat rolls with opposed skill rolls. In RQ3, for example, there were only three skill pairs that you ever typically applied an opposed mechanic to. Conceal versus search, sneak versus listen, and hide versus scan. So this issue really just didn't come up that often, so the subtraction mechanism wasn't a problem.
It's kind of interesting to consider the changes from a game theory point of view. Another potential problem with the opposed roll system is that it changes the dynamic of the rolls themselves. I suspect this was intentional to avoid ambiquity, but it also removed a comparison dynamic that existed with the stat rolls.
In RQ3, if you and I were playing tug of war, we might compare STR versus STR (or perhaps STR+SIZ?). The ambiguity that I've run into with this is the question of "who rolls?". Do I get to try to overcome your str? Or do you try to overcome mine? This seems like a problem, and it's one that MRQ "fixes", by having both roll on an opposed roll system. If you notice, the opposed roll system always results in one winner and one loser, but both parties get to roll. This would seem to fix the "who rolls?" quandry.
However, I don't really think it was a problem that needed fixing. Because what you lose is the "both succeed" or "both fail" results. How I would resolve that tug of war would be to have each try to overcome the other. If both fail, then neither made progress. If both succeed, then neither made progress. In order to "win" you have to overcome the other guy without him countering your roll with a success of his own.
This idea worked very naturally in other areas as well. In a grapple contest, I might need to overcome your str to immobilize a location, but you need to overcome mine to break free. By having two separate rolls with different results, it's possible to have a situation where I'm still holding onto your arm, but haven't immobilized it yet. With an opposed roll system, that result will never happen because either I suceed, or you do. There's no middle ground.
I'm just kinda rambling about this, but it's an interesting observation IMO. The opposed roll system changes more then just the odds...
I'll freely admit that this part is a preference only, but I personally *hate* the idea that I have to go through some mental gyrations to figure out if I "won" an opposed roll. Ok. I roll the dice. I need to roll under my skill. I want to roll "low", unless my opponent also rolled under his skill, in which case I want to roll as high as possible. Unless I roll too high and fail. But if I do that, then I want to roll as low as possible over my skill...
Ick. While some may balk at the idea of subtraction, I personally find it much easier and less confusing. In the vast majority of cases, you don't really need to do the math either. You can usually eyeball how much you made your skill by...
IMO, MRQ makes this more of a "problem" because they replaced the resistance based stat rolls with opposed skill rolls. In RQ3, for example, there were only three skill pairs that you ever typically applied an opposed mechanic to. Conceal versus search, sneak versus listen, and hide versus scan. So this issue really just didn't come up that often, so the subtraction mechanism wasn't a problem.
It's kind of interesting to consider the changes from a game theory point of view. Another potential problem with the opposed roll system is that it changes the dynamic of the rolls themselves. I suspect this was intentional to avoid ambiquity, but it also removed a comparison dynamic that existed with the stat rolls.
In RQ3, if you and I were playing tug of war, we might compare STR versus STR (or perhaps STR+SIZ?). The ambiguity that I've run into with this is the question of "who rolls?". Do I get to try to overcome your str? Or do you try to overcome mine? This seems like a problem, and it's one that MRQ "fixes", by having both roll on an opposed roll system. If you notice, the opposed roll system always results in one winner and one loser, but both parties get to roll. This would seem to fix the "who rolls?" quandry.
However, I don't really think it was a problem that needed fixing. Because what you lose is the "both succeed" or "both fail" results. How I would resolve that tug of war would be to have each try to overcome the other. If both fail, then neither made progress. If both succeed, then neither made progress. In order to "win" you have to overcome the other guy without him countering your roll with a success of his own.
This idea worked very naturally in other areas as well. In a grapple contest, I might need to overcome your str to immobilize a location, but you need to overcome mine to break free. By having two separate rolls with different results, it's possible to have a situation where I'm still holding onto your arm, but haven't immobilized it yet. With an opposed roll system, that result will never happen because either I suceed, or you do. There's no middle ground.
I'm just kinda rambling about this, but it's an interesting observation IMO. The opposed roll system changes more then just the odds...
Dr_Snugglebunny
Mongoose
We use some similar rules in our house RQ3 campaign (11yrs and running!), with levels of success etc. Dodges and parries cancel out levels of attack success; parries still require weapon AP to block damage if equal success level, whereas dodges factor in ENC/armor etc. Not perfect but it has worked well for us.
Extra levels of success (>1) can be used to choose from various options--- impale, pick location, halve armor, knockback, disarm, etc. Makes combat much more interesting than special=impale; critical=max damage/ignore armor. Has played out very well.
Some old examples here (not updated lately):
http://www.geocities.com/rqsummaries/rules/housecombat2.html
Might inspire some MRQ house rule ideas.
Extra levels of success (>1) can be used to choose from various options--- impale, pick location, halve armor, knockback, disarm, etc. Makes combat much more interesting than special=impale; critical=max damage/ignore armor. Has played out very well.
Some old examples here (not updated lately):
http://www.geocities.com/rqsummaries/rules/housecombat2.html
Might inspire some MRQ house rule ideas.
Trifletraxor
Mongoose
Deleriad said:
The characteristic rolls worked fine. Characteristic x 1-10, depending on the situation.
STR: used resistance rolls instead.
CON: fatigue, rdrowning, educe bleeding/be heroic, resist disease.
SIZ: used resistance rolls instead.
INT: get out of befuddle, realize you're demoralized, have the character remember something he have heard before. (never idea rolls! my players were always begging for those. " but i'm stupid, my character has INT 17, he should know what to do...)
POW: acts demonstrating willpower, and the blasted "luck rolls" (for those cases when you're just not sure to be nice or not)
DEX: remain standing after the knockback, avoid falling of the narrow, slippery bridge while running, etc. if dodge or jump is appropriate, please choose the one with the highest chance.
APP: never used.
SGL
Gnarsh said:
The "Higher but still under skill" motif is not dissimilar to bidding on "The Price Is Right", and is predicated in Pendragon.
Pendragon makes skills over 20 (the pendragon equivalent of RQ/BRP's 100) add the amount over 20 to the skill rolls. For simplicity, and reducing the benefit of exceedingly high skills, I'd say add the crit range to rolls for skills over 100 before comparing...
Now, without halving, there is still a benefit to higher skills: 100-199 have a 1% advantage due to autofail rules. Not much of one, but it is there.
Deleriad
Mongoose
To be honest, if I had stuck with resistance tables I would have done what Nephilim did and replace all characteristic rolls with resistance rolls.Trifletraxor said:
Assuming that a human average stat is 10 then
resistance 0: for situations that an average human should rarely fail - equivalent to stat*10.
resistance 5: for situations that average human should succeed at more often than not (roughly equivalent stat *7-8)
resistance 10: average human has 50-50 chance (stat *5)
and so on
I never liked the who stat*X thing especially once modifiers were getting added.
duncan_disorderly
Mongoose
iamtim said:
Point taken re: skills over 100%, but I don't understand this "Counter-intuative" argument.
For any skill, you have a skill %age, from which you derive the Critical %age (at 1/10) score. So, if the skill is 67% then the critical is 6%. These are generally both written on your character sheet, so determining if a dice roll is a Critical, a normal success or a failure does not involve more than picking the highest of two numbers.
Using Roll under, roll high the best roll you can make is exactly = your Critical % (eg 6%) - this will only be beaten by an oponent who also rolls a critical, but rolls more than 6.
So determine the outcome of an opposed roll, each contestant looks at the number on their dice and the number on their character sheet and declares it either a critical, success, failure or fumble. This is, I think perfectly intuitive for anyone who has played RQ, and shouldn't cause any problems to either newcomers or the maths-phobic.
If both contestant has the same result at this stage, then they look at who has the highest number on their dice. Again, a "which number is highest" is both easy and intuative.
Now there might be a problem if any rule mechanic added or subtracted numbers from the dice, rather than the skill %age, but as it is, rolling the dice merely produces a random number, and the result of that roll stands or falls on its own. (If rather than rolling a dice you drew a marble from a cloth bag, each of which was labelled with either "Critical", "Success", "Fail" or "Fumble" and a number from 1 to 100, would you find it counter-intuative that "Critical-6" beats "Succes-12"?
duncan_disorderly
Mongoose
Me too. That's why I advocate a simple comparison of the number on the dice. Is A>B is a much simpler comparison than Is (A-X) > (B-Y)Gnarsh said:
iamtim said:
Having played for some time with "oll-under blackjack" mechanism, I agree some players need some time to catch the logic of this system. But once it is integrated, it is far quicker than a margin of success system like the one you propose.
This is a logic vs playability debate, and I think playability should prevail over logic in this case.
duncan_disorderly said:
Always roll low = intuitive.
Always roll low except for this one situation when both opponents have succeeded then you want to have rolled high = counter-intuitive.
What's hard to understand about that?
Speed is not the issue. Consistency is. And the "both succeed = high roll wins" is not consistent.
iamtim said:
I agree with iamtim that as a matter of style I prefer a game that is "always roll low" or "always roll high".
That being said, RQ has never been an "always roll low" sysem. Improving skills and attributes has always been a roll high mechanic. You could convert it to roll low (Subtract skill from 100) but that adds a level of unnecessary complexity.
The opposed roll mechanic feels a bit wonkey and un-RQ feeling. It's purpose is to have both parties make one roll and have a winner. I have yet to see a better system proposed that is simple. As such I can live with it. I am probably going to implement high roll wins if both fail as well - the math works better that way (favors the higher skilled character).
Rurik said:
I can deal with that because that's a different "sub-system" of the rules that doesn't take place at the same time as other rolls; no one is opposing your improvement, for instance. It's also not a single roll where you need to roll low unless another roll succeeds, in which case you want to have rolled high.
duncan_disorderly
Mongoose
iamtim said:
The system is "Highest roll under your threshold, (with Crit trumping success)*"
So if your skill is 67% and your crit is 6% you want to roll as high as you can under 6, and if you cant do that, as high as you can under 67.
(* which is true under either system - If I have a skill of 61 and roll a 6 (critical) then, under your system I'd still beat your roll of 9 against a skill of 81, even though you are further under your skill than me)
Similar threads
