The problem with Resists...

gamesmeister

Banded Mongoose
Although this applies to resists in general, I think it specifically applies to magic.

Reading through the magic rules this morning, I just noticed that magic resists aren't opposed rolls. If you successfully make a resist check, all effects of an offensive spell are negated. This is fine until you hit high level, and your Resists spells are up in the 90s - at that stage, you are virtually impervious to Rune Magic, regardless of the power of the caster.

To me this is very wrong, and demonstrates the real problem with basing resists on a skill rather than the old resistance table of days gone by. By using the resistance table, power is always relative. You may be a Rule Lord with very high stats, but the likelihood is, so are the bad guys you're facing. With the resistance table, that equality of power was handled very effectively, but skill rolls do not do so.

I may house rule these spells as an opposed roll, but I'm more likely to go back to the resistance table - as has already been mentioned more than once on these forums, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
 
I was looking at that, too. Without looking too deep into it yet, perhaps using the excess %ge >100% of a Runecaster as a -ve DM to the resister may be a way to go.
 
Ended up going back to using the resistance table and POW vs POW struggle as a limiter for the rune casting skill - one roll to see if the spell works and overcomes the targets resistance, its just a lot simpler and cleaner.

Paul
 
I may not necessarily do POW vs POW rolls though - I may use other Stats instead, such as POW vs CON for a Resilience resist, or POW vs INT for a Persistence one.
 
gamesmeister said:
I may not necessarily do POW vs POW rolls though - I may use other Stats instead, such as POW vs CON for a Resilience resist, or POW vs INT for a Persistence one.
That iwll penalise Divine magic users as their POW is low until they free up (use) Divine spells.
 
Sorry to say, but there are more than a few places where I personally think some of the "improvements" of the new RQ are not really improvements, but actually introduction of rules that needs to be fixed in the future (a later edition of the rules perhaps?). Problems that just did not exist when one used the Resistance table for example (something that has been in RQ/BRP since the beginning).

But to stop discussing my gripes with the system, and to add some sort of solution;

My suggestion would be to add a the houserule that when you make a Resistance roll against a spell, you do it at a Magnitude x 10% penalty.
As such it becomes more difficult to resist more powerful spells, and spellcasters have a measure to use against those powerful characters with 100+% in Resilience, Persistence etc. that is used for Resistance rolls.

It is far from an optimum solution, but it is one.
 
I've long considered the rule that a character can voluntarily take a penalty to her roll, and apply the same penalty to her opponents role. (She can't reduce her own roll below 50% with this penalty.) For someone with a skill above 100%, there is very little reason not to take a penalty to reduce her roll to 100% (except for a reduced chance of a critical.)

So if a spellcaster has casting at 120% and she is casting a spell at a runelord with 105%, she can take a 25% penalty, bringing her level to 95%, and the runelord has to make a 80% roll.

(There is a sweet spot, but assuming that the caster does not know what her opponent's resist roll is, she won't know how much to cut to get to that spot.)

With specializations, the numbers get even more interesting.

The downside is that it is possible to specialize in both casting and resisting, so it's possible for a guy to be practically invulnerable to a certain caster's spells.

Another rule could be that a critical spellcasting roll has to be resisted by a critical resist roll. A "super-critical" spellcasting roll (less than 1% of the effective skill %) needs a super-critical spellcasting roll. A "legendary critical" spellcasting roll (which is a super-critical roll that is converted to legendary by spending a hero point) needs a legendary resist roll.

That shoud keep the runelords from getting too cocky. :twisted:
 
Taking an penalty to induce a penalty is a good solution IMHO.

Specializations? is that something from the companion, because this is the first I have heard about it (I have only the RQ Main rulebook yet).
 
Rule for specializing have been discussed in other threads on this forum.

The idea is that in addition to taking Runecasting (to use one advantage) you could also build up skill in, say, Enchantments. Then when you cast certain spells, you can add your Runecasting % and your Enchantments %. To prevent things from getting totally out of hand, a specialization is limited to half the main skill.

(Although my "Utgardloki" system allows characters to build up specializations as high as they like, just that only half the main skill applies when the skills are added. There could be other advantages to a high specialization %.)

The runelord could also specialize in Resist Influence, thereby gaining the benefit to his Resist roll.

Specializations probably make this Resist problem worse, except that a caster with a high basic skill could attack the runelord with a spell that he does not have a specialized resistance to.

Maybe at some point I'll write up an article on this idea and submit it to S&P.
 
I've been considering a very simple houserule for this and similar issues: Resistence = POW x 5% and Persistence = CON x 5%. The skills go up and down the stat changes but cannot be improved through experience. It's basically introducing stat rolls back from BRP, but sticking with the MRQ skill system rather than introducing the Resistence Table. In fact, I'll probably do the same thing for STR and DEX and ditch the Athletics abilities for most situations there too: gets rid of the duck winning arm wrestling against a troll syndrome. (Either that or I'll allow people to total their Athletics skill and appropriate stat skill and roll those as opposed.)

Unlike previous versions this still means that someone with a high POW or CON is virtually impervious to Rune Magic, but that makes far more sense to me than allowing experience to do it. If that makes it too tough to affect someone with magic, maybe I'll introduce a Resistence vs. Resistence opposed roll. That's identical to a POW vs. POW roll but uses the MRQ mechanics rather than the BRP Resistence Table.
 
Ah, it is kind of hard knowing it is a house rule when it is not mentioned as such. I am far from familiar with all the houserules that has been discussed on this forum, and I doubt I am the only one.
I suggest that we refrain from refering to houserules outside the thread they were initially discussed, or clearly label them as house rules (you might have done that and I missed it, if so, I am sorry).
 
I suspect that the future of MRQ is going to be written quite literally by the house-rulers. Pretty much all the threads lately seem to include how people are houserulling this & that.

I doubt much of the MRQ core book is going to make it into the RQ-game the community will end up playing.
 
atgxtg said:
I suspect that the future of MRQ is going to be written quite literally by the house-rulers. Pretty much all the threads lately seem to include how people are houserulling this & that.

I doubt much of the MRQ core book is going to make it into the RQ-game the community will end up playing.

That last statement might be a little strong. Houserules here and there, I can see and will do. OTOH, the same is true of RQ2/3 which I houserule pretty liberally too. The beauty of RQ (and all things BRP) to me is that I could always tweak here and there without breaking anything else. The game is logical enough that a houserule in one area doesn't have a big affect elsewhere...unless that's what I'm after. I guess what I'm saying to your post is "So what? Everybody houseruled the heck out of RQ, Stormbringer, and other BRP games too, so I don't see it as a big deal."

YMMV, IMO, so on and so forth of course! :)
 
atgxtg said:
I suspect that the future of MRQ is going to be written quite literally by the house-rulers. Pretty much all the threads lately seem to include how people are houserulling this & that.

I doubt much of the MRQ core book is going to make it into the RQ-game the community will end up playing.

I think this is a good thing (not only a bad thing which it obviously also is). We will see variations of the basic RQ rules in the future, either in new RPGs using them as a basis, or through the official inclusion of house rules discussed here on the forum, or through house rules being adopted by a large number of players due to them being good house rules.

It shows that despite its flaws, people like RQ and want to play it.

I have seen games in the past being developed through house rules that later has been included in the rules as official rules.

I love that I can tweak the rules without breaking them. Try to change even the smallest piece of D&D and you end up having to redesign the whole system.
 
Back to the first point, how about this? You can't raise your Resist scores to more than double their original base value. So if you've got a CON 11 DEX 12 POW 13 you start with Dodge 22, Persistence 23, Resilience 24. Best you can end up with is 44/46/48 respectively. Of course building the appropriate stat will give you a slight leg up by improving your base chance. Feeling generous? Allow training up to 3 times base score for 66/69/72 (Those of you actually using those Hero Point thingies, yeurgh, could give a big bonus for burning one off..). Or Dodge x3 others x2 etc. Simple, adjustable as desired, doesn't need mucking about with mechanics and still gives runecasters a chance against heavily built opponents.

Re: Rule systems. RQ3 was improved by tweaking. MRQ (Which does have some good ideas in it) only becomes plausible/balanced as a system after major work on the basic plumbing. Sticking with RQ3? Use the Mongoose source material, it actually seems pretty easy to convert on the hoof. MRQ devotee can splurge on all the supplements and corrections/'optional rules', others can enjoy what will hopefully be a line of high quality support products (It'd be nice for those of us still doin' the old fashioned 'write your own game world' thing if some releases were still generic and not tied down to Glorantha/Lankhmar/Corum etc).
 
RMS said:
atgxtg said:
I suspect that the future of MRQ is going to be written quite literally by the house-rulers. Pretty much all the threads lately seem to include how people are houserulling this & that.

I doubt much of the MRQ core book is going to make it into the RQ-game the community will end up playing.

That last statement might be a little strong. Houserules here and there, I can see and will do. OTOH, the same is true of RQ2/3 which I houserule pretty liberally too. The beauty of RQ (and all things BRP) to me is that I could always tweak here and there without breaking anything else. The game is logical enough that a houserule in one area doesn't have a big affect elsewhere...unless that's what I'm after. I guess what I'm saying to your post is "So what? Everybody houseruled the heck out of RQ, Stormbringer, and other BRP games too, so I don't see it as a big deal."

YMMV, IMO, so on and so forth of course! :)



THe big deal is that with past edtions, you didn't need to houserule things. THat was a matter of preference. With MRQ houseruling is a necessity. Most of the things being houserulled now are thing where everyone is looking for an alterantive to a core rule, rather than individual GMS around thier gaming table.

BTW< I disagree with the "tweak one rule and it won't have a big effect elsewhere" thought. Since the game is all interlinked, changing one aspect of the game requires changes in other areas or new problems will apear. An example is the "extreme lethal" damage tables. Use them and sudddenylu parrying becomes meaninless unless one is using a kite shield.

A change in one area usually affects several other areas.
 
atgxtg said:
THe big deal is that with past edtions, you didn't need to houserule things. THat was a matter of preference. With MRQ houseruling is a necessity. Most of the things being houserulled now are thing where everyone is looking for an alterantive to a core rule, rather than individual GMS around thier gaming table.

This is true, but unfortunately it is largely true with any game I have bought and played (beyond D&D/d20) in the last four years. I think it is phenomenon that is due to a lot of rookie game designers are now beginning to make new versions of older games, a sort of a "new start" for most RPGs.
I think there is very little else to be said there. Most games today are rather "broken" in one aspect or another. The most horrible example must be the Swedish RPG Drakar och Demoner that since 2000 has gone through no less than four editions, each time radically redesigning the basic rules fundamentally. The latest edition finally scratched any semblance to the previous editions and began with an all new system, only a few bits and pieces remains.

atgxtg said:
BTW< I disagree with the "tweak one rule and it won't have a big effect elsewhere" thought. Since the game is all interlinked, changing one aspect of the game requires changes in other areas or new problems will apear. An example is the "extreme lethal" damage tables. Use them and sudddenylu parrying becomes meaninless unless one is using a kite shield.

A change in one area usually affects several other areas.

It is a far cry from d20. Try to change d20 by adding a +2/+3/+4 bonus to an attack/save for a class, or try to create rules for parrying and dodging, or try tweaking any aspect of the rules, and you will end up having to rewrite all the rules form scratch to take into account and balance the rules because of the changes (look at Conan, prime example that it can be done but that it requires a lot of work).

Very few aspects of RQ would radically change every piece of the game just because I change it.
If I change the rules so that a parry always blocks all damage and a successful dodge always avoids all damage, that does not break the system anyway near as much as if I add +2 to the attack bonus of the paladin class in D&D.

In fact, as it stands now, the only really big blunder with RQ seems to be the resist rolls, which can make you invulnerable (or at least as near invulnerable that you may just ignore the 1% failure risk) from certain spells.

The no total hps (punching bag syndrome), halving rule, dual or one attack roll, less effective parries/dodges are frustrating and perhaps not the best ideas seen in RPG rules, but they work (I think current RQ will need at least an edition or two more before the rules have all their "weirds" worked out). Which can not be said about the resist rules for spells.

It definetly shows that it is very hard trying to make something that is better than Basic Role-playing (including previous editions of RQ), but not being allowed to make it BRP.

Fact remains that the basic structure of BRP works so well that it is very very hard to replace it with mechanics that works in an equally easy played and logical manner.

It is a shame that the desingers of current RQ has replaced the Resistance table with such a nice mechanic as the opposed rolls (the only mechanic that can replace it) and then they do not use it enough for such things as spells vs resistance.

Making a spell casting roll opposed by the resistance roll to resolve the "conflict" would have been perfectly in line with how the basics of MRQ works. Unfortunately they instead choose a simple unopposed roll to resist spell effects.

So to return to the original topic, perhaps that is just what we need to solve the problem. When a spell is resisted, the spellcaster makes a secondary casting roll that is opposed by the targets resistance roll.

In the Arkana campaign setting I am writing for these rules, I am going to use either the Magnitude x 10% penalty or the opposed roll as described above for the magic system. I just have not given it that much thought yet.

I think it will be a sure bet to assume that we are going to see a lot of variations of the RQ rules, if RQ should succeed in becomming a standard OGL system like d20 has been for a large number of settings and games.
At least it is a beginning, perhaps the "best" RQ rules will in the future not be made by Mongoose, but a third party. Pretty much like what Mongoose has done to WoTC.
 
Regarding D&D vs MRQ

I've found it much easier to house rule D&D/other D20 systems. It's relatively obvious what changes can and can not be made, at least to me.

MRQ is a lot harder because things are more interconnected. For example, my specialization houserule is essential for a RQ - Modern concept, but it has the side effect of making it frustratingly difficult to hit opponents in combat who happen to be built with a high Dodge score. So I need new house rules so that combat does not become torture for the players.

On the other hand, some of my house rules (such as allowing characters to take penalties that they also apply to their opponents) help to fix problems in other areas I hadn't considered. Those are good house rules.

Regarding fixing the Resist Spells problem

So far I've noticed three solutions: subtract 10x the magnitude of the spell, make resisting spells an opposed roll, or allow a caster to take a penalty which also applies to the target's resist roll.

I think the second and third solutions would work. The first solution won't completely solve the problem if there are characters around who can build up Resistance to 175% or better, because such characters still become practically immune to magic.
 
Again, I'm guessing we'll see something new in a future product. Maybe Legendary Heroes?

The halving rule is supposed to be re-addressed in Legendary Heroes

The combat chart issues are supposed to be re-addressed in a future unnamed combat supplement.

I'm seeing a pattern here.

I thinking Mongoose should have named the core rules something else and just went with Rune Quest specific stuff in those products. With Rune Quest on the cover, you'd assume that's what you're getting. What you are actually getting is a generic, basic, and modular core rules set with some RQ flavoring. I don't think we're going to see actual RQ until we get Glorthana, Magic of Glorthana, and Cults. We'll see.
 
MRQ vs D&D
Guess it is just my familiarity with BRP and BRP-Clones/Derivatives in general that makes me feel that it easier to change the small things.

I tried to introduce parry/dodge rolls in D&D, but quickly had to give up because it became apparent that I would have to rewrite huge sections of the rules to make it work.

I have never before been so limited with an RPG that I have to rewrite most of the rules by just changing a small portion of them, at least not to that extent.

If I wanted to add a system for Hong Kong Chambra style martial arts, it could easily be put into MRQ, but would be a bloody nightmare to make work within the confines of d20, and still have the right "feel" in them.
This is what I have been talking about.

As for Resist alternatives
I guess it all comes down to style of play. As someone on the RQ OGL list said; Are you going to run a game in the style of Hyboria, where heroes can shrug off spells because they are strongwilled?

That put the whole issue into perspective for me.
It all depends on your style of play. Period.

That said, it would have been nice with some optional rules in the main rules on how to handle the resist rolls. They would not have needed much space.
 
Back
Top