The Weapon Skill Gap

[Nikk]

I think I've realised a problem that is present in this verison of RQ but not in others. It's a biggy depending no your playing style. It's a problem in two parts.

Imagine there's a group of four players, and three roll up warriors, and the other character is a merchant. So I'm imagining a 'normal' campaign where's it's not all dungeon crawl and hack n'slash but there'll be a fair wad of combat. The warriors stack up on skills and rock in at 80% ish for their beginning skills.

Because the high skill of starting characters is so high, there's already a sizeable gap in combat skills. Your merchant (and it doesn't have to be a merchant, make him a scholar, a thief, or whatever 'non-warrior' character you fancy - other than a wizard 'cos presumably their concentration on spells will balance them out) is going to have to devote at least a fair amount of points to push him into the 50-60 barrier so that when a fight breaks out he doesn't get turned into pate.

The second part of the problem is even if our merchant does that, he's screwed. As the campaign progresses the warriors will quickly advance (a) higher and higher in their weapon skills and (b) get hold of Metal and Death Runecasting, bung some points in it, and waddle around loaded up on Bldaesharps and wot not. The merchant now has a problem. Without the tick system of original RQ (which was a bit naff, I'm not suggesting bringing it back) when the merchant fights he won't actually get any better because, presumably, he'll be investing his points in mercantile skills (or thief skills, or scholar skills etc...) and won't be spending any on combat (after all, if he was going to spend Hero Points on combat skills he may as well have begun being a warrior). Whereas previously, you'd just naturally get better by fighting. But the GM, to face off the power of the warriors, will have to put in increasingly powerful creatures, which will become more and more unbalanced compared to the merchant.

Quickly, very quickly in my estimation (although I'd need to play a game before I made a final judgement) the merchant will be unable to engage in combat.

But what a bugger! In my imagined 'normal' campaign there should be room for a medley of combat and non-combat characters (although I find a lot of people make combat characters). But, this is RQ and combat ain't quick. So while a combat or two may not be a substantial part of a story in real time a combat may take up a sizeable portion of a game. And this is RQ, we like that type of combat system (or we'd play something else). But this means that the player of the merchant will have to sit around bored as hell for a lot of the time (I've actually seen this in my high level RQ III game where it's impossible for non-combat orientated characters to come into the game for this exact reason).

Either everyone must play combat orientated characters, which is odd considering the list of professions on offer, combat must be quite rare, which is odd considering the amount of space dedicated to comat and the fact that RQ isn't historically a combat-lite game, or have a weaker monster follow every party of monsters around ready to party with the merchant (or thief, or scholar) which is just plain unrealistic.

 

[zanshin]

I agree this is a potential problem Nikk and it is one of my concerns about the new advancement system.

One potential fix is to spread the advancement awards out (timewise) but make them larger, and confine each skill to having 1 advancement roll between awards. That way the merchant can bung an award into quarterstaff and dodge quite legitimately, and spread the rest around his interactive skills etc while the combat monsters will have shield, runecast bladesharp, combat stats etc, but not outstrip the merchant completely.

Cult required skills are another way of rewarding the non warrior for diversifying, and forcing the combat guys to spend on other skills.

Other fixes - training in research orientated skills takes time/money but not advancement rolls (i have a professional qualification through study, but have killed no broo at all in my life :wink: )

Finally have the best magic come from non combat cults.

Good luck, and thanks for thinking of this, had not ocurred to me.

 

[simonh]

Zanshin is right. HeroQuest has a similar problem inthat skill increases tend to get concentrated into a few skills. One way out of that is to award more improvements less frequently, or just occasionaly hand out a double wadge of improvements. This won't overpower the characters because you can only improve any one skill once, so the extra improvements wil spread out into non-core skill areas.

Another factor is that skills in MRQ are much more broad than in RQ. No seperate Attack and Parry for example measn your merchant can improve his attack and parry chances, instead of just parry as he'd probably have had to do in RQ3.


Simon Hibbs

 

[Enpeze]

No problem at all, just make a beginner characters skill cap for weapon skills. 50-60% should be good for this. I do this since 20 years with BRP and it works perfectly. Dont forget you are the GM and in the end its your decision and responsibility which skills a player has and which not.

 

[atgxtg]

That is the problem with "Spend points" system. Players are going to concetrate thier XP spending on those areas they conside important.

One possibile solution would be to place restreictions on how XP is spent. Something like not being able to raise the same skill twice in a row. THis would slow down the warriors and let the merchant keep in the game.

Another solution, an IMO a better way to to it, is to just use the old skill check system.

 

[simonh]

That is the problem with "Spend points" system. Players are going to concetrate thier XP spending on those areas they conside important.

And this is a problem because? Sorry, but this seems to me to be a valuable and important feature.

One possibile solution would be to place restreictions on how XP is spent. Something like not being able to raise the same skill twice in a row. THis would slow down the warriors and let the merchant keep in the game.

It would penalise everybody equaly, and force everybody to become widely capable generalists. Anything that lets a merchant muscle in on combat skills is goin to let combat specialists diversify into trading skills.

Another solution, an IMO a better way to to it, is to just use the old skill check system.

That's certainly a viable option. It's a very well known and playtested system, and pretty simple to administer. If you allow training time as well then the players still have the option of customising the character's development as well.


Simon Hibbs

 

[GoingDown]

No problem at all, just make a beginner characters skill cap for weapon skills. 50-60% should be good for this. I do this since 20 years with BRP and it works perfectly. Dont forget you are the GM and in the end its your decision and responsibility which skills a player has and which not.

I fully agree with you!

Also I might put some restrictions how and what skills players can improve during our play.

 

[Utgardloki]

I intend to use both the improvement rolls and the old way of rolling the skills you use. This way, if you get into a fight you get a chance to raise your fighting skill. The improvement rolls will then allow the PC to develop skills without having to say "I climb a tree for no reason other than to get a chance to bump up my Climb skill."

 

[Gnarsh]

That is the problem with "Spend points" system. Players are going to concetrate thier XP spending on those areas they conside important.

And this is a problem because? Sorry, but this seems to me to be a valuable and important feature.

Not so much a problem, as a design choice. And one that many players and GMs may not agree with. Spend point systems are fine for starting characters. I've always kinda been skeptical of them for ongoing experience though. The reason isn't just that characters will tend to focus on one thing and be useless elsewhere. It's more then that (although perhaps not as big a deal with MRQ). Players will tend to "forget" to increase many ancilliary skills, often to their detriment.

One of the great things about the skill check system from RQ has been that more experienced characters just tended to get better at things that they would likely never spend points on. You'll look down at your character sheet one day and go "Wow. When did my scan reach 80%?". You didn't focus on it, you'd likely never have spent points on it, but there is it.

Certainly, this can be abused by some players, but GMs should control when players get skill checks. If *I* ask them to make a roll, and they succeed, they get a skill check. If they decide to go off and climb a tree, that's their choice, and if they want to spend sufficient hours climbing that tree to qualify as a full training session, they're welcome to do that. But I'm betting the rest of the party will be a couple towns down the road by then...


As a general observation on the OP though:

That issue isn't as big of a problem as it may seem. Obviously, this is going to depend on the makeup of your group, and the degree of hack-n-slash your game employs, but there are a few ways to do this.

One easy solution as a GM is to have larger numbers of opponents with perhaps even variable skills. So the big nasty rune-priest leader will charge in and fight the big burly warrior guys, and maybe a minion or two will go bother the merchant. As a GM, you have control of the NPCs. Use it to your advantage. Don't coddle players or let them get away with something dumb (if the merchant runs up to the big nasty leader guy, feel free to have it cost him a location), but don't punish players for having less combat focused characters.

Another solution is one we've used quite often. Allow players to play two characters each. Obviously, this doesn't work in a large group, but in a large group the merchant should be more protected from harm in combat anyway, right? But in the aforementioned case with 4 players, each could play 2 for a total party size of 8 (still quite manageble) but a player can choose to play a healer or merchant or thief and still have a "combat character".

 

[are]

.. it's not all dungeon crawl and hack n'slash but there'll be a fair wad of combat.

Then it will be stupid to not play a warrior type. 3 of the players made the right choice, the fourth did not. What do you expect, off course most of the players will make characters that will survive the normal encounters.

 

[Yelmalio Sunlord]

this is a problem that came to a painful and delicate head in our group a few yrs ago (we played the pre-avalon hill version).

there were 2 rune chars, a yelmalio and a humakt, and a gang of initiates. the gm handled it quite well w/an idea that's been suggested here: most of the time, you create groups of foes of varied skill. 1 or 2 goons for the above-mentioned merchant to tangle with and a few tougher opponents for the warriors in his party should do nicely.

it isn't always perfect. sure, the merchant could, feeling is oats one day, decide to charge the group of hardened, capable broo instead of the broo-village-idiot placed there for him to battle. if so, then he can make a more combat oriented char to match his new berzerker attitude!

however, for the most part, the split-group method worked really well for us throughout a 12-month campaign. most of the initiates survived, the rune chars felt the dual challenge of tougher opponents and helping the initiates survive, and everybody had a good time.

yelmalio sunlord

 

[atgxtg]

That is the problem with "Spend points" system. Players are going to concetrate thier XP spending on those areas they conside important.

And this is a problem because? Sorry, but this seems to me to be a valuable and important feature.

The "problem" is that players will only improve in those abilities they put points into, not necessarily what they use. So if someone keeps backing up the front ranks with his crossbow, but wants to work on his runecasting skills, he can become 100% with his runcasting ansd still be 25% with his crossbow, despite skewering a hundred foes and casting no spells.

With a 3 pick system everyone is going to foucus and specialze as a fighter, thief, cleric or magic user. They are more effective this way. One fighter, thief, cleric and waizard each at 100% with thier 3 best skills, are generally better than it they were all 25% in 12 skills. The old training rules would have given a way out, but not the new ones.

One possibile solution would be to place restreictions on how XP is spent. Something like not being able to raise the same skill twice in a row. THis would slow down the warriors and let the merchant keep in the game.

It would penalise everybody equaly, and force everybody to become widely capable generalists. Anything that lets a merchant muscle in on combat skills is goin to let combat specialists diversify into trading skills.

Exactly.

What helps to maintain the speciliasts's edge would be the sort of choices he makes with thos "off" picks. A warrior could work on another weapon, dodge, first aid, or some other skill useful to combat. A merchart could work on appriase or craft skills in addtion to a weapon.

In then end it leads to more broadly based characters.

Another solution, an IMO a better way to to it, is to just use the old skill check system.

That's certainly a viable option. It's a very well known and playtested system, and pretty simple to administer. If you allow training time as well then the players still have the option of customising the character's development as well.
Simon Hibbs

I liked the old improvement rules and the training rules. I always find the XP for play stuff artifical. Especially with the traning stuff. Hey, in real life, If I go find someone to train me, I can keep rasing my skill al long as I want to (until the money runs out, or I reach the limits of my self or my master). In MRQ, I'd need to go out and earn some XP/improvement checks.

But then, the old iomprovement rules were one of my favorite parets about RQ. Easy to do, easy to track, no XP to tally. t might have been the one feafutre of RQ that most of the D&Ders I ran with it liked. No long wait for the GM to add up and divide XP awards, no levelling process, just a gradual progression.

 

[mthomason]

The "problem" is that players will only improve in those abilities they put points into, not necessarily what they use. So if someone keeps backing up the front ranks with his crossbow, but wants to work on his runecasting skills, he can become 100% with his runcasting ansd still be 25% with his crossbow, despite skewering a hundred foes and casting no spells.

We've gone for "any skill that gets used at least twice during a game session", as opposed to picks. Skills that didn't get used will have to be trained during downtime if a character wants to get an increase.

 

[Nikk]

Another factor is that skills in MRQ are much more broad than in RQ. No seperate Attack and Parry for example measn your merchant can improve his attack and parry chances, instead of just parry as he'd probably have had to do in RQ3.

Upon reflection, I think you're right. I was still in previous RQ mode of thinking, where to be a good fighter you needed at least two combat skills, and possibly more. With three improvement rolls a session, the merchant can bung one in weapon skills and two elsewhere whilst the combat characters can concentrate on multiple skills including Dodge, Reslience, Runecasting and increasing stats - all of which appear useful but not neccessary to go toe to toe with a greeblie. I'd have to run a campaign, but I reckon that should sort it.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Does the Companion rulebook have rules for training between adventures?

 

[mthomason]

It's in the main rulebook (Practise and Research, p95)

 

[SmegmaLord]

The general opening thread was my merchant can't kill things and Bob's barbarian is lethal.

Well why are you taking a merchant down a dungeon, consider that every character does not have to be a killing machine, but will have skills that the barbarian will not (like trade, ability to get valuable information that would not normally be offered to a flesh spattered grunting ape-creature - think Conan at a Tea party!!)

This is called roleplaying. Sometimes you character is rubbish certain environments...he specialises, so choose wisely or choose barbarians.

Also the skil advancement system will allow your merchant to increase his skills at a faster rate than the barbarian (who must roll above his skill to gain from experience , he's learnt most of what there is to know).

I don't see any of this as a problem

CHRIS

 

[Sigtrygg]

Sorry, I should have asked if the Companion has more rules, options, and the like for downtime training and research?

 

[simonh]

Another factor is that skills in MRQ are much more broad than in RQ. No seperate Attack and Parry for example measn your merchant can improve his attack and parry chances, instead of just parry as he'd probably have had to do in RQ3.

Upon reflection, I think you're right. I was still in previous RQ mode of thinking, where to be a good fighter you needed at least two combat skills, and possibly more. With three improvement rolls a session, the merchant can bung one in weapon skills and two elsewhere whilst the combat characters can concentrate on multiple skills including Dodge, Reslience, Runecasting and increasing stats -

I think that 3 skills increases per session, as recommended by the book is incredibly stingy. The more I think about it, the more I'd consider 3 or 4 increases most sessions, but occasionaly awarding from 5 to 7 awards to give players the the chance to increase less-used skills without compromising their ability to raise what they consider to be their core skills.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Halfbat]

I think that 3 skills increases per session, as recommended by the book is incredibly stingy. The more I think about it, the more I'd consider 3 or 4 increases most sessions, but occasionaly awarding from 5 to 7 awards to give players the the chance to increase less-used skills without compromising their ability to raise what they consider to be their core skills.

I think it probably depends on the length of each "session" or what each GM qualifies as a session and enough downtime to improve the skills, but by my style I can't help but agree it's generally stingy. Sometimes players don't get a chance to rest properly in a session but have to go several sessions until they can take a really good breather or get back to a safe haven.

Those skills which were actively used (and not ("I'll Jump over the pit to get an experience roll") seem to qualify for an automatic practice roll (I suppose if more detail were needed, perhaps with a less of an increase), on top of whatever you award for the session.