[Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 69, Issue 12

Hervé Kias hkias at pt.lu
Sat Sep 13 02:55:06 EST 2014


Hello there,

I am a newcomer on the mailing list. I am 41 and lives in Luxembourg. I have 
played RQ for the last 20 years even though I have not been able to play 
much recently (wife, kids, job... well you know that by heart).

Anyway, I have always been slightly embarassed by the "probabilistic" 
approach of improving skills in RQ. Indeed, with bad luck, you can end up by 
learning nothing after a scenario (i.e. no percentage gain) thanks to lousy 
dice rolls. Nothing is more frustrating. On the other hand, systems with XP 
points (like D20) are too deterministic  in nature : you always get to 
improve (unless you are farming goblins with a lvl 20 PC, but I assume the 
GM will play a scenario with a decent challenge for the PCs), even when you 
actually should not learn anything.

I guess the best system lies in between. Here is what I use :

- Each use of a skill in stressful situations entitles a check (whether it 
is a success or a failure, as I believe we also learn from our failures). 
Thus a player could have 5 or 6 checks or more in many different skills at 
the end of the gaming session.
- At the end of the gaming session, players when players roll for their 
skill improvement, I allow them to multiply by 3 each check above the 1st 
one : this number will act as a bonus on the roll for improvement so the 
skill will very likely improve. Ex : a PC with 5 skill checks will roll with 
a bonus of 12% (not including his bonus category). Great PCs with 100%+ 
skill will have slightly more success but not to the extend where he will 
get 300% !
- A fumble or a crit entitles to an immediate skill roll, whether the skill 
was used in a stressful situation or not. Why including the fumble ? Because 
people also learn after having experienced an epic failure (I will secure my 
shield strap better NOW, even though, it may still snap in the future due to 
bad luck or particular conditions). This roll cannot be modified using the 
above system.

The stat padders that stab rats or are incentivized to switch to something 
else so they can improve would have to rethink their options.

Cheers,

RV


-----Message d'origine----- 
From: runequest-request at rpgreview.net
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 3:37 PM
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Subject: Runequest Digest, Vol 69, Issue 12

Send Runequest mailing list submissions to
runequest at rpgreview.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
runequest-request at rpgreview.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
runequest-owner at rpgreview.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Runequest digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: RQ 6 Failed Athletics (Styopa)
   2. Re: RQ 6 Failed Athletics (Stephen Posey)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 22:33:09 -0500
From: Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com>
To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest at rpgreview.net>
Subject: Re: [Runequest] RQ 6 Failed Athletics
Message-ID:
<CAOKbp334W8TWPcsHeM3k1v=AJn4wHrnEs5ayBL1sdmBfr8Db0Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I think part of the 'golf bag of skills' thing comes from the finite nature
of the check-system.  If you get a check, then no amount of subsequent use
"helps" you, in the sense of potential improvement.  So players are
incentivized to switch to something else that they can improve.
What my players like very much (and it's derailed 100% of the 'no, you
can't just stab rats for a skill check' thing) is our house rule:
Success or a fumble (ooh, don't do THAT again!) gets you a check, special 2
checks, crit 3 checks.  That's how many times you get to roll against the
skill for improvement in the next skill-check opportunity.  Once you have a
check, subsequent results give you tick marks (1, 2, or 3).  (If you
already have a single check, and get a crit, it's increased to 3 checks, it
doesn't give you ticks then.)  Those tick-marks can be spent by the player
either pre-roll to increase the chance to fail (ie get a skill check) 1:1.
If they don't spend them for that, then they can use them 10 ticks:+1 on
the benefit of a successful skill roll.  In any case, when one does the
skill checks, all accumulated checks/ticks are obliterated.
Yes, it accelerates skill growth a little, but I'm not averse to that
either.  It's still bloody hard to increase past 100% so (shrug).

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Steve Perrin <steve.perrin at gmail.com>
wrote:

>  These days, I hand out Experience Points (somewhere between 3 and 5 as a
> rule) and you can spend a point to get an Experience roll against a Skill
> you have checked. If unsuccessful, you can spend another point to roll for
> the same skill, but that expends a point. Once a skill has increased, that
> check gets erased, but you can save a check for several games before
> finally using a point to try to increase.
>
> You can also spend Experience Points (in various numbers) to gain talents
> or increases in characteristics, so sometimes points are saved for that
> purpose.
>
> In games I have played with Mac McMahon (now, alas, gone from us) as GM he
> would let you roll if you had 5 checks on a skill. This lets you either
> spread your experience widely or focus on special skills.
>
> Both methods tend to reduce check shopping as a regular activity.
>
> Steve Perrin
>
> On 9/11/2014 5:53 AM, Lawrence Whitaker wrote:
>
>  It that's true for you then consider yourself fortunate.
>
>  Seems I've been lucky. As I said, I've certainly seen debates, but never
> especially nasty ones.
>
> For certain gamers of a min/max mindset, skill checks are equivalent the
> much coveted Experience Points in certain other games, sometimes provoking
> a most unseemly desperation to use every skill in just about every game
> session in order to get the skill checks.
>
>  Oh, I don't doubt it happens! The Golf Bag of Weapons syndrome is
> infamous... :)
>
> I've grown to the perspective that skill increase checks should probably
> be meted out by the GM rather than *automatically* generated by the
> player's actions (note that I say "player's" rather than "character's"
> intentionally).
>
>  I completely agree. There are many arguments for GM control over how
> many improvement rolls characters receive and I do think they out-trump a
> lot of the arguments for the old Skill Ticks for Successful use arguments.
> But I don't want to get into such arguments here. I (and RQ6) agrees with
> you though.
>
> On 11 September 2014 08:44, Stephen Posey <stephenlposey at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lawrence Whitaker
>> Sent: Sep 11, 2014 8:03 AM
>> To: RuneQuest Rules
>> Subject: Re: [Runequest] RQ 6 Failed Athletics
>>
>>  Thank you for saying that. I have recently been involved in a discussion
>>> with some very unpleasant people on a different forum (which I left as a
>>> result) who were in absolute denial about this, claiming that every test
>>> of a skill in RuneQuest requires a skill roll (and that skill checks
>>> where
>>> the only way to gain experience).
>>
>>
>>  Wow... that's...
>>
>>  Fortunately I've rarely come across such close-mindedness within the RQ
>> tribe. I know that the Skill Check method of experience has its 
>> adherents,
>> but I've never come across any especially *nasty* arguments over either
>> when to roll or X is better than Y for experience. You did the right 
>> thing
>> by walking away.
>>
>> It that's true for you then consider yourself fortunate.
>>
>> For certain gamers of a min/max mindset, skill checks are equivalent the
>> much coveted Experience Points in certain other games, sometimes 
>> provoking
>> a most unseemly desperation to use every skill in just about every game
>> session in order to get the skill checks.
>>
>> I've grown to the perspective that skill increase checks should probably
>> be meted out by the GM rather than *automatically* generated by the
>> player's actions (note that I say "player's" rather than "character's"
>> intentionally)..
>>
>> Stephen Posey
>> stephenlposey at earthlink.net
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Runequest mailing list
>> Runequest at rpgreview.net
>> http://mail.rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> Will there be time enough and World for me to sing that song?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing 
> listRunequest at rpgreview.nethttp://mail.rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://mail.rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>
>


-- 
-Steve
(my personal email)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://mail.rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20140911/166f8bc5/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:37:12 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: Stephen Posey <stephenlposey at earthlink.net>
To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest at rpgreview.net>
Subject: Re: [Runequest] RQ 6 Failed Athletics
Message-ID:
<1292110.1410529033068.JavaMail.root at elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://mail.rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20140912/d3f04987/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Runequest mailing list
Runequest at rpgreview.net
http://mail.rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net


------------------------------

End of Runequest Digest, Vol 69, Issue 12
***************************************** 





More information about the Runequest mailing list