STR vs Brute Force

[gran_orco]

There is a spell in spellbook (I do not remember which of them: maybe ... chains, or something like that ) that hold the PCs in place with STR 30.
How do you face this value with athletics?

 

[soltakss]

I'd just use an Opposed Roll of STR x 5 vs Athletics.

 

[Deleriad]

There is no rule for it. One day there might be when MRQ gets thoroughly overhauled.
There are two problems: the Brute Force skill (which doesn't work) and lack of thought-through replacements for the resistance table.

How I would do it in a way which seems consistent with MRQ is to say that you roll a Brute Force check with a negative modifier equal to STR*2. So, if the glue has a STR of 12 then it would give -24% to the Brute Force check. You could also say that if the STR*2 is greater than the character's Brute Force, that the character simply cannot succeed at the test.

You can use opposed rolls of STR*5 vs Brute Force (the odds work out much the same as minus STR*2 I believe) but generally opposed rolls are only used when a force is actively participating.

 

[Utgardloki]

What I would do is compare STR + 1D6 to STR + 1D6. The PC has to beat the spell in order to move.

With a successful Brute Force check, the PC can add one to her STR for the purpose of this comparison. With a critical success, she can add 3 to her STR for this purpose. If she spends a Hero Point, she can add 2 for each Hero Point she spends.

 

[gran_orco]

I think that the method of deleriad is a god one, and the other one of soltakks, too.
I would use Brute Force vs STRx2, and an opposed roll with other cases.
Thank you for your answers! :wink:

 

[Sinisalo]

It shouldn't read STR 30 but really should say something like:

Make an opposed resolution test using Athletics against an Athletics score of 150%.

Sorry to be so rude about this but the level of mistakes in MRQ is absolutely shocking. There is no mechanic for comparing STRs, the writers should have known this.

 

[gamesmeister]

Sorry to be so rude about this but the level of mistakes in MRQ is absolutely shocking. There is no mechanic for comparing STRs, the writers should have known this.

As much as I try and defend MRQ at times (and I really do), I have to agree with this.

I play with guys who have a very strong D&D background, both past and current playtesters, and they cringe at some of the mistakes I have to try and fix. D&D has plenty of faults, but it's rules are solid and consistent. MRQ on the other hand is chock full of holes, and it gets embarassing at times trying to explain them away. It also becomes much harder to convince my players that we should carry on playing MRQ instead of reverting back to the aforementioned game, or another quality game such as those produced by White Wolf.

I love Glorantha, and historically I love RQ, but these mistakes are, as stated above, quite shocking at times.

 

[Cleombrotus]

It is certainly a pain in the arse. However, the system we play at the moment; RQ3 rules, RQ2 Armour, and MRQ tweaks (Hero points, fatigue, mass combat, several skills, legendary abilities, rune integration (on its own), second age gloranthan lore) is the best RQ system I've yet seen. I'm more enthusiastic for it now than I have been in a very long time.

I am personally disappointed that MRQ is such a mess, but I'm over it now (I was seriously sulking about it last year, but then I'd naively shelled out a fortune in the faith that it had actually been playtested - you're never going to convince me that it has been).

Cynical at first, I do see some really good ideas about Glorantha coming out of the Mongoose camp, and even if the rules system is a bit ropey, I can see the ideas behind the gameworld as really adding something. I think that the EWF is so esoteric and mystical that it defies playing, in many ways, but it makes for an excellent backdrop. I thought that the idea of characters as mercenary heroquesters for the Jrusteli was a bit too simplistic, but I'm starting to feel it as a really good representation of their spiritual rape of the world.

I think that the second age cult versions throw some really good angles on third age cults, and give a bit more perspective to how much was lost at the cataclysmic end of the second age which I'd always felt was a little underplayed, at least in the stuff that I've read.

 

[Sinisalo]

I think that the EWF is so esoteric and mystical that it defies playing, in many ways, but it makes for an excellent backdrop. I thought that the idea of characters as mercenary heroquesters for the Jrusteli was a bit too simplistic, but I'm starting to feel it as a really good representation of their spiritual rape of the world.

Yeah, I've gone EWF crazy myself. It just goes to show the quality in the Second Age material. I'll give Mongoose that at least.

Have you read Greg's History of the Heortling Peoples? Very like King of Sartar with a few contradictions with Robin Laws's stuff to make it interesting. Lots of EWF material!

 

[Sinisalo]

I think that the EWF is so esoteric and mystical that it defies playing, in many ways

I'm playing the Empire and Dragonspeaker cults as the charlatans and pyramid scheme sellers they really are, with the real mystics and Draco-orlanthi in the background transforming themselves regardless. A bit like the creation of the Church of England as a cynical tool of the state contrasting with the passion of real protestants trying to divorce themselves from Rome.

Just my opinion, though.

 

[Dreamfall]

A duck with STR 6, SIZ 3 and DEX 8, had found a chest full of gold coins and trained his Athletics to 105% (Brute force would be 100%). He then decided to compete in rope pulling contest against a great troll, with STR 26, SIZ 26 and Athletics (brute force) 52%. So 100% vs. 52%, and the audience was amazed who the winner was...

 

[weasel_fierce]

I generally like MRQ but I've kept the resistance table. It does its job with far less fuzz.

The new opposed roll mechanic can work too, by assigning a "skill" as the difficulty

 

[Sinisalo]

A duck with STR 6, SIZ 3 and DEX 8, had found a chest full of gold coins and trained his Athletics to 105% (Brute force would be 100%). He then decided to compete in rope pulling contest against a great troll, with STR 26, SIZ 26 and Athletics (brute force) 52%. So 100% vs. 52%, and the audience was amazed who the winner was...

Yes, you're right, it does look wrong until you realise RQ has always done this. In RQ3 you regularly had 6ft 5in, 18 stone muscle men with dodge at 85%, leaping about the place like gazelles. And Jump as well. Dumbasses with INTs of 8 and APPs even worse with very high Orates and Fast Talks.

It's nothing new at all.

 

[weasel_fierce]

yeah, there's always been a disconnect there. To an extent I like it. Your stats determine your starting point (and in RQ3, how quickly you improve) but if you work at it, you can train yourself to be a great swordsman, even if you arent the strongest or fastest in the world.

 

[Deleriad]

yeah, there's always been a disconnect there. To an extent I like it. Your stats determine your starting point (and in RQ3, how quickly you improve) but if you work at it, you can train yourself to be a great swordsman, even if you arent the strongest or fastest in the world.

It has always been an element of RQ. In RQ3, if your skill category modifier was below zero I *think* you couldn't get over 100% in those skills but I seem to recall it was quite hard to end up with a negative modifier.

I'm very tempted to make Brute Force a separate skill in the following way.
Brute Force: base score =STR*2+SIZ*2. Brute Force cannot be increased beyond STR*5. If the base score is already higher than that then you still have the base score but the skill cannot be increased. Brute Force skill cannot be increased by more than 1% at a time.

I am also very tempted then to have a set of 3 "Attribute Skills" (derived from the option in the players guide errata).

Brute Force (STR*2+SIZ*2) - max STR*5.
Persistence (INT*2+POW+CON) - max POW*5
Resilience (CON*2+STR+POW) - max CON*5

Skills increase by only 1% per increase.

To figure out a "strength vs strength" contest then you either have a Brute Force opposed roll or Brute Force rolled with a negative modifier equal to the STR of the item.

 

[Rurik]

One house rule I've considered for applications where for example STR should oppose STR directly is to give +5%/-5% for each difference in the stat.

So a STR 6 Duck with a 100 Athletics opposing a 26 Str Troll with a 50 athletics would be at -100% while the troll would be at +100%.

However the same Duck versus a STR 11 Human with a 50 Athletics would be only at -25% (or 75%) while the Human would be at +25% (75%) - even odds as the Ducks incredible skill manages to compensate for his lack of strength against the unskilled Human.

 

[gran_orco]

One house rule I've considered for applications where for example STR should oppose STR directly is to give +5%/-5% for each difference in the stat.

So a STR 6 Duck with a 100 Athletics opposing a 26 Str Troll with a 50 athletics would be at -100% while the troll would be at +100%.

You should oppose STR vs SIZ, should not you? But this idea is good, too.

 

[Rurik]

One house rule I've considered for applications where for example STR should oppose STR directly is to give +5%/-5% for each difference in the stat.

So a STR 6 Duck with a 100 Athletics opposing a 26 Str Troll with a 50 athletics would be at -100% while the troll would be at +100%.

You should oppose STR vs SIZ, should not you? But this idea is good, too.

You could, the idea works for any contest you think should oppose Characteristics. I was envisionong both sides actively pulling - maybe even opposing STR+SIZ vs. STR+SIZ works in this case.

This mechanic simulates the old resistence table fbut still uses skill. Actually, it is a bit harsher than the old resistence table in that each point of difference between the stats actually results in a 10% swing in the odds.