[RQ-Rules] Re: Performance Improvements

[Andrew Mellinger]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Alan K. Crandall wrote:

> Combat is now more "Stormbringer" than RQ.  Hit locations are gone (but
> retained as optionals for special cases).
> Eliminated critical hits but retained Impale and the Slash and Crush
> options - so those are now the "critical" hits.
> Armor is an average of the AP the character is wearing.

When I was playing a stormbringer game a few years back we made a table 
that generages an armor randomizer based on the pieces instead of an 
average.  I'll dig it up and try to send it.

> Kept the "Stormbringer" major wound thing but bagged the table of inuries
> that came with it.
> Gave a more generous hit point bonus.
>
> --- most of this is because we wanted a more "D&D" like kind of campaign,
> where the characters were less brittle, a little more superheroic - BUT not
> falling into the D&D "Oh, I'm tenth level - watch me wipe out an army of
> orcs single-handed" thing.

    Right we've tried to do that too but keep the the lethality.  One of 
the central focus of AQ was the ability to support characters with skills 
well above 100% and even play superheroes up in the 400% percent.  I 
borrowed some ideas from Mr. Perrin and reworked them to d20.

> NEVER ever ever substituted APP for CHA.  Never!  I found the whole concept
> insulting - especially since the original RQ gave such a beautiful, accurate
> description of the whole concept of CHA.  We use CHA.  Always have, always
> will.

I've always had problems with CHA.  I think that CHA is such a complicated 
aspect that I've never liked having it as an attribute.    Big discussion 
here, this could use a new thread.

> I also learned that you can't just shoehorn everything into the Glorantha
> model.

<snip>

Absolutely.  Glorantha has such a special feel that it is hard to work 
with.  Harn also has a really different feel, and it is nice to contrast 
the two.

-Andrew