Quote from: Imperator;646010I agree with the above posts, and that is why RQ 3 better represents a verosimilie simulation, IMO. There your abilities will increase your basic %, so if you have equal training, a guy with better abilities will have better chances, but most of it is still training and skill.

...right up until a grizzly bear tears the head off your unarmed special forces ninjaman.

Quote from: The Traveller;645403While we're on the subject, I recall jibbajabba had mentioned previously as part of the reasoning for his skill-heavy preference, in the case of people like Usain Bolt versus other athletes, randomness is reduced considerably. Usain might only lose one out of every five races, but from a quick back of the envelope calculation (feel free to correct this) if in a skill 1-10 plus stat 1-10 plus d10 system one person has 5 more than everyone else (total 10+1d10 versus 15+1d10), the more skilled has a 20-30% chance of losing out on average. So a 1:1:1 ratio stacks up fairly well even in extreme situations.

Obviously when it comes to the Olympics we're talking about 25+1d10 versus 30+1d10 but same idea.

Usain bolt is racing with people who are all in the top 1% neigh the top 0.0001% of runners.

In your 1:1:1 Random:skill:attribute model based on a d10 for ease. someone with average skill and average training say a 6:6 can beat Usain who is 10:10 1 time in 10  (Usain rolls a 1 for a total of 21 and the Other guy rolls a 10 for 22).

This is simply not the case. its never going to happen Usain can race teh 20th best guy in the world and will beat him every single time, unless Usain false starts and gets disqualified.

the same is true of Federer at tennis or Man U playing football. The idea that inexperienced  team can suprise Man U is laughable. In soccer you can play a spoiling game and defense with 10 men behind the ball and rather like San Marino did against England the other week you loose 7-0.

Taking combat directly lets look at MMA. Anderson Silva is currently pretty much unbeatable. 16 consecutive wins.  He is like Tyson in his pomp.
The facts do not indicate a 1:1:1 model works well to emulate skills.

Now like I said 1:1:1 might be fine for a game and might produce the correct sort of play but it isn't close to producing real emulation of skill which is closer to 70:20:10  Skill: stat :Random.

Quote from: jibbajibba;646020Usain bolt is racing with people who are all in the top 1% neigh the top 0.0001% of runners.

In your 1:1:1 Random:skill:attribute model based on a d10 for ease. someone with average skill and average training say a 6:6 can beat Usain who is 10:10 1 time in 10  (Usain rolls a 1 for a total of 21 and the Other guy rolls a 10 for 22).

The last sentence there was "Obviously when it comes to the Olympics we're talking about 25+1d10 versus 30+1d10 but same idea." The subtext was that (1-10)+(1-10)+1d10 can be pushed beyond those boundaries by a dedicated minmaxer.

Maybe he's got a base 12 in the stat (as a benefit), excellent quality shoes (+2 on the roll) and he's been doing nothing else but sprint since he first saw daylight (skill 16). Very difficult to do, but possible, skill training gives diminshing returns as you advance but if you're doing something for many years you are going to get very good at it. That gives him a base 30. The best normal racer would have skill 10 + stat 10 + 1d10 which means even on his best day he isn't outrunning Usain, unless he rolls open ended flukes and so on. In completely outsize skills you can move the numbers around until they fit, while still staying logically consistent.

A competing minmaxer who only managed 25 might win one race out of five with Usain, while still regularly kicking the ass of the best normal sprinter.

Quote from: jibbajibba;646020The idea that inexperienced  team can suprise Man U is laughable.

Good thing nobody was saying that then.

Quote from: jibbajibba;646020Now like I said 1:1:1 might be fine for a game and might produce the correct sort of play but it isn't close to producing real emulation of skill which is closer to 70:20:10  Skill: stat :Random.

Sorry, it looks very much like 1:1:1 base produces by far the best emulation in a repeatable manner, and doesn't suffer from weaknesses due to outsize monsters etc. Keep in mind though that in the example of Usain given above skills are somewhat weighted, in real numbers it's more like 6:8:5 stat:skill:dice, but it's not nearly as weighted as you're talking about while still producing realistic results.

Quote from: The Traveller;646019...right up until a grizzly bear tears the head off your unarmed special forces ninjaman.

I am perfectly happy with that, to be honest. As others have pointed out, wild animals should be very skilled apart from having good stats. We succeeded in hunting them because we hunt in packs and we use traps, mostly.

In a one-to-one hand-to-hand combat between a bear and a special forces guy, I would bet on the bear.

Quote from: Imperator;646047In a one-to-one hand-to-hand combat between a bear and a special forces guy, I would bet on the bear.

It would be the result of such a conflict in my game as well. Mankind's natural weaponry is just too wimpy to damage the bear, and the skill difference would just drag the fight out.

This of course goes out the window with some fantasy characters. Anyone willing to bet against Conan for example?

Quote from: Imperator;646047I am perfectly happy with that, to be honest. As others have pointed out, wild animals should be very skilled apart from having good stats. We succeeded in hunting them because we hunt in packs and we use traps, mostly.

In a one-to-one hand-to-hand combat between a bear and a special forces guy, I would bet on the bear.

I was being ironic, the point is if you weight skills disproportionately as yourself and jibbajabba seem to favour doing, the special forces guy should be tearing the head off the bear.

Quote from: The Traveller;646122I was being ironic, the point is if you weight skills disproportionately as yourself and jibbajabba seem to favour doing, the special forces guy should be tearing the head off the bear.

Well, that is going to depend on other factors apart from skill.

For example, in RQ 3 an expert warrior (75+%) armed with a sword and shield is going to be able to attack once a round for 1d8+1+damage bonus (most probably 1d4 or maybe 1d6), and his sword and shield may stop on a sucessful parry 12 points of damage.

A brown bear can do either 2 claw attacks or a claw & bite attack. Claws do 3d6 in damage, minimum skill 45%. Bite is 1d10+2d6, minimum skill 30%. These are the basic skills of a barely adult bear, is only reasonable to assume that the bear may be more skilled. The bear has a natural armor of 3 points, so sword's damage goes to 1d8-2+db. Also, the bear has more hitpoints and more fatigue points.

Yeah, the warrior may be able to win, but odds are quite against him

Quote from: Imperator;646295Well, that is going to depend on other factors apart from skill.

For example, in RQ 3 an expert warrior (75+%) armed with a sword and shield is going to be able to attack once a round for 1d8+1+damage bonus (most probably 1d4 or maybe 1d6), and his sword and shield may stop on a sucessful parry 12 points of damage.

A brown bear can do either 2 claw attacks or a claw & bite attack. Claws do 3d6 in damage, minimum skill 45%. Bite is 1d10+2d6, minimum skill 30%. These are the basic skills of a barely adult bear, is only reasonable to assume that the bear may be more skilled. The bear has a natural armor of 3 points, so sword's damage goes to 1d8-2+db. Also, the bear has more hitpoints and more fatigue points.

Yeah, the warrior may be able to win, but odds are quite against him

Again you missed the point. The kung fu master of the deadly unarmed arts should beat the crap out of a bear most of the time if you weight skills heavily, instead of almost never which is what would really happen.

Let's go back to Usain Bolt, he's getting a good workout today. Since he's got a ridiculously high world beating dash skill, he should be able to outrun an average cheetah right, since a cheetah might be quite skilled at dashing but not world class or anywhere near it? Of course not, this is ridiculous, the animal's skill is hugely outweighed by its stat.

Unless you want to get rid of skills and stats entirely and just use "proficiency" or something as a base, not derived from anything.

Quote from: The Traveller;646122I was being ironic, the point is if you weight skills disproportionately as yourself and jibbajabba seem to favour doing, the special forces guy should be tearing the head off the bear.

No give the Seal his core weapon an assaut rifle and I will give him better than fair chance of killing a bear ....

In hand to hand combat you are forgetting some core stuff.
The Seal can avoid the bears blows and hit the bear far more often. This is likely. However, the bear's size and strength render the blows of a human silked opponent  useless. The Bear is protected by a lot of muscle you need to get through to hurt it and the impact of the human to the core mass of a bear is really important.
Basically in 'game terms' a bear can ignore the first 10 points of damage from a hit they can roll this much damage off each blow to the mass of it's body.
A man just doesn't do enough damage to get past that buffer, not without a spear or a sword or an AR15.

The bear on the other hand  will not hit the skilled fighter often but when he hits the force of his blow will break bones and his natural weapons will cut someone open like a ripe melon.

So you need to differentiate combat skill from damage and damage resistance.
A flyweight boxer might have loads more skill than a heavyweight but the fact that the small guy does 1d6 dmage with a punch and the heavyweight can buffer 4 points off each punch makes the small guy weak in combat. On the other hand the heavyweight deals 1d6+2 damage and the flyweight can only buffer 2 points of damage so the damage the Heavyweight does with each punch is much greater if he can hit.

So separate the skill system from the damage resolution mechanic.

Now with weapons things change a heavyweight can not buffer blows from a knife any more than a small guy, so the small guy hits 3 or 4 times more often and that does huge amounts more damage.

Quote from: The Traveller;646302Again you missed the point. The kung fu master of the deadly unarmed arts should beat the crap out of a bear most of the time if you weight skills heavily, instead of almost never which is what would really happen.

Not necessarily because, again, we are talking about different scales. Now, the kung fu master should beat the crap out 99 times out of 100 of an unskilled oponent with excellent stats that fights in his same scale.

QuoteLet's go back to Usain Bolt, he's getting a good workout today. Since he's got a ridiculously high world beating dash skill, he should be able to outrun an average cheetah right, since a cheetah might be quite skilled at dashing but not world class or anywhere near it? Of course not, this is ridiculous, the animal's skill is hugely outweighed by its stat.

Or maybe the cheetah has a ridiculously higher dash skill. Or maybe its dash skill is not in the same scale as a human.

Quote from: Imperator;646295Well, that is going to depend on other factors apart from skill.

For example, in RQ 3 an expert warrior (75+%) armed with a sword and shield is going to be able to attack once a round for 1d8+1+damage bonus (most probably 1d4 or maybe 1d6), and his sword and shield may stop on a sucessful parry 12 points of damage.

A brown bear can do either 2 claw attacks or a claw & bite attack. Claws do 3d6 in damage, minimum skill 45%. Bite is 1d10+2d6, minimum skill 30%. These are the basic skills of a barely adult bear, is only reasonable to assume that the bear may be more skilled. The bear has a natural armor of 3 points, so sword's damage goes to 1d8-2+db. Also, the bear has more hitpoints and more fatigue points.

Yeah, the warrior may be able to win, but odds are quite against him

Stupid question unrelated to the main thread topic: how deadly is BRP, without all the D&D hit point inflation and such? In a long campaign of it, would people be likely to be replacing characters after a couple of sessions, or do most manage to keep a character for a full campaign?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;646318Stupid question unrelated to the main thread topic: how deadly is BRP, without all the D&D hit point inflation and such? In a long campaign of it, would people be likely to be replacing characters after a couple of sessions, or do most manage to keep a character for a full campaign?

when I played runequest back ine hday and a good few days ago it was... the first few encountewrs are kind of luck based. As you start to add experience and equipment, you survive more. Then it's a matter of what you decide to fight.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;646318Stupid question unrelated to the main thread topic: how deadly is BRP, without all the D&D hit point inflation and such? In a long campaign of it, would people be likely to be replacing characters after a couple of sessions, or do most manage to keep a character for a full campaign?

It is deadly, certainly. How much depends on the concrete iteration of the system, but weapons hurt a lot. A human character usually won't be able to soak more than two hits before going down. For example, a dagger does 1d4+2, and you probably may add another d4 due to size and strength, so youwill be doing 7 points of damage every hit and the average human has 12. Nasty.

This forces people to be ultra-smart and careful with combat, even with low-skill foes. If you are careful, avoid unnecessary combat and try to use every advantage, you may do well. Certainly, you won't be replacing PCs every 2 sessions, or at least not in my 25 years of experience since I got RQ and CoC. Attrition rate is not that high (specially if you play RQ and have magic healing), but unless you try to turn every combat to your advantage, is highly unlikely that you will end the campaign without some PC turnover.

Cool thanks Just curious.

More importantly perhaps than death itself, if you use the location HP rules, it is rather quick to toss someone out of combat, since most locations on average will have 3 - 4 HP, and loosing all of them in a location is a severe hindrance for your fight abilities - if you can stand from pain at all.