tgm@ukc.UUCP (T.Murphy) (07/15/85)
I have been playing MERP (Middle Earth Role Playing) for a short
time now and the system seems reasonably sound (aside from too much magic
fro a Tolkien world and the races are too widespread). I liked the idea of
a detailed specific critical hit tables. After playing it I find there are
*too* many criticals. Because everybody has a reasonably large number of
hits damage is not really important. A lucky roll and *zap* your enemy
(or you) is writhing on the ground agonising over a dislocated lumbar
vertabra or something. I don't think we have taken anything out without
criticaling it. Fair enough, fighting is deadly but it shouldn't be
a maiming session.
Tolkien is Hobbit forming,
j^2
Joe Jaquinta; c/o D.U. Maths Society; 39.16 Trinity College; Dublin 2; Ireland
{decvax,seismo,ihnp4}!mcvax!ukc!tcdmath!jayminfranka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/18/85)
In article <161@ukc.UUCP> tgm@ukc.UUCP (T.Murphy) writes: > I have been playing MERP (Middle Earth Role Playing) for a short >time now [...] > After playing it I find there are >*too* many criticals. This is all too typical of such rules, and reflects a lack of understanding of probability. This relates back to the recent discussion of the Runequest fumble table. The problem there isn't that it is unrealistic to hit oneself for max damage, but that it happens much too often. This applies to weapons breakage, as well. Fixing such problems depends on the system. A minimal solution which will work for any system with a critical hit/fumble table is to make a preliminary role when the system says to consult said table, and usually (maybe 5 times out of 6, maybe more often, maybe less) ignore it and just apply the normal result.
req@warwick.UUCP (Russell Quin) (07/21/85)
[sorry, the t key is bouncy on this tty, so there may be typos spell & I have missed!] In article <500@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >In article <161@ukc.UUCP> tgm@ukc.UUCP (T.Murphy) writes: >> I have been playing MERP (Middle Earth Role Playing) for a short >>time now [...] >> After playing it I find there are *too* many criticals. >This is all too typical of such rules, and reflects a lack of understanding >of probability. This relates back to the recent discussion of the Runequest >fumble table. The problem there isn't that it is unrealistic to hit oneself >for max damage, but that it happens much too often. This applies to weapons >breakage, as well. The MERP/Rolemaster combat system uses `criticals' in a different way to Rolemaster: the idea seems to be to speed up combat by reducing the number of dice throws & table look-ups, whilst adding more detail. The system used has a table for each weapon, showing the amount of damage for a given armour type/dice roll combination, and, for about half of the entries, an index into a table (the `critical table') which gives extra detail. The combat system *IS* more vicious; it reflects the reality that if someone hits you on the head with a mace, you are likely to die. The result is to shift the emphasis of the game well away from combat and towards planning & PC/NPC interaction. They don't have results like `hit for max damage' because the damage comes from a table, not from a dice throw; they DO have results like `paralysed from the neck down', and this detail is all the more pervasive when combined with the detailed healing system. But it does mean that anyone can be killed in one blow. I think that it is intentional, not simply a result of an ignorance of probability. I agree that this takes the game away from `have fun bashingorcs', but I don't regret that! - Russell -- ... mcvax!ukc!warwick!req (req@warwick.UUCP) "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace..."
granvold@tymix.UUCP (Tom Granvold) (07/25/85)
-
In a couple of recent articles people where writing that criticals and
fumbles occur too often in RPGs. Fumbles in RuneQuest was given as an
example. Since RuneQuest, second edition, is my favorite RPG I must
respond :-). I have no idea of how often these events occur in 'real life',
but I don't feel that they are too common in RuneQuest.
Fumbles are fun! It may be silly, but having either a PC or NPC fumble
can add a lot of interest to a fight. In this case the departure from
realism makes the game more enjoyable for me.
Criticles on the other hand are needed in certian situations in
RuneQuest. I have seen two very good fighters, 90% or better ability in
the weapon that they are using, with very good armor and additional magical
protection not be able to damage each other unless they roll a critcle hit.
The combat in this type of situation goes on for too long as it is. Reduce
the chance to get a critical, and it makes matters worse. It sounds like
RuneQuest has a flaw in this situation. Also just like with fumbles,
criticals can be fun.
I guess what I am saying is that the rules must balance realism against
enjoyment. If I wanted absolute realism in combat, I'd join the SCA (Society
for Creative Anachronisms) since that is as close as I can come without
risking real combat. Of course everone has their own idea of where this
trade off should be made. For me one of the things that i do not like about
D&D is that wearing better armor makes you harder to hit. In RuneQuest
better armor reduces that damage taken if you are hit. Therefore I prefer
RuneQuest. I am sure that there are people who feel the opposite. To each
their own.
Tom Granvold
Tymnet
Cupertino, Calif.
decvax!ucbvax!oliveb!tymix!granvold
D&D is a trademark of TSR Inc.
RuneQuest of a tradmark of either Chaosium or Avalon Hill (I'm not sure which)jeffh@brl-tgr.ARPA (the Shadow) (07/26/85)
> > I have been playing MERP (Middle Earth Role Playing) for a short > >time now [...] > > After playing it I find there are *too* many criticals. > > This is all too typical of such rules, and reflects a lack of understanding > of probability ... They main question here is one of playability. In a real sword fight, one would see a lot of parrying and blocking, which takes up long time without inflicting any damage. This reflects a real person's emphasis on staying undamaged rather than a gamer's em- phasis on inflicting maximum damage. To role play all that time consuming survival interest would be BORING, so game designers compress it as much as possible. Probability is thrown out the window so the game won't be. > The problem there isn't that it is unrealistic to hit oneself [or anyone] > for max damage, but that it happens much too often. This applies to weapons > breakage, as well. Most real sword fights end with a deadly lunge (or slash, or smash) at a (pardon me) critical moment. I think the ICE system (parent to MERP) reflects that reality better than most systems. > Fixing such problems depends on the system. As you can tell, I don't percieve it as a problem. If you don't want to suffer from too many criticals, don't fight anything bigger than you, or make sure you have a couple of good healers in your party. "In times of crisis it is of utmost importance not to lose one's head." -M. Antoinette the Shadow ARPA: <jeffh@brl> UUCP: {seismo,decvax}!brl!jeffh
mab@druca.UUCP (BlandMA) (07/27/85)
I agree with Tom Granvold that the probabilities of critical hits and fumbles in RuneQuest are about right (1 in 20 successful hits is a critical, 1 in 20 missed hits is a fumble: the better you are with your weapon, you critical more often and fumble less often). In actual play, there really aren't very many fumbles, and there is usually at least one critical in each of our melees, but ordinarily not more than one or two. The previous discussion on RuneQuest fumbles focused on the "hit self for maximum damage" fumble. Actually, most RQ fumbles are far less devastating. As I look at the RQ3 fumble table, more than half of the time a fumble will cause you to do something like lose your next attack, drop your weapon or shield, or attack at a disadvantage during the next round (because you were distracted or your vision was impaired). Only 6% of fumbles cause you to hit yourself, and another 6% cause you to hit a friend (those two trolls that hit themselves for maximum damage were defying the odds). But if you compare RQ combat with the critical hit tables in a game like MERP or variant D&D, an "effectively" critical result does appear to happen more often in RQ than simply 1 in 20 successful hits, because of its detailed hit location system. In a typical critical hit table, one possible result of a critical hit might be to sever an arm, which disables your opponent. In RQ, however, a "normal" hit to your opponent's arm can sever it if you roll enough damage. A critical hit in RQ does maximum damage, ignoring armor, so it is usually a disabling blow. What this means is that someone (PC or NPC) invariably gets disabled in the first two or three rounds of a RQ melee, even if no "critical" hits have been rolled. This sounds much like the results that Joe Jaquinta, the originator of this discussion, had with the MERP criticals. The lesson is that combat is deadly, you can be killed or maimed by one good blow, so maybe combat should be a last resort (but trollkin-bashing is so much fun...). -- Alan Bland ihnp4!druca!mab AT&T Information Systems, Denver CO