Fatigue...

[threedeesix]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Now I'd probably just do a quick roll of dice for each stairwell and if someone blows his skill roll, he get hurt, two failures and he drops. Probably get results similar to doing it out the long way, too.

But I bet your players still look back on that battle in a way they wouldn't have if it was finished with just a couple of skill rolls.

Rod

[TRose]

I used the RQ3 fatigue and did not have much of a problem. And my main character at that time started in the negative with a bastard sword, full suit of Chain and shield. I just remembered what my starting penalty was and remembered to subtract one every turn.

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think mostly becuase it is very, very easy. I'd say easier than most other fatigue systems. Probably not that useful, but easy.
IMO, fatigue isn't as big a deal as (over)encumberance.
...

That's also what we thought, and that's why we used the default rule:
easy to use.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

...
It's a solid method. A few games use fatigue levels, and that works out okay, too. Doing something strenuous requires a test, and the more strenuous the more difficult or often the test.

I also liked the way the James Bond RPG handled it. You got so many minutes of activity, based on stats, and then you were exhausted and suppered a penalty (about 1/2) to rolls. In extreme cases (like in the outback on a hit day) exterion counted at a faster than normal rate.
...

It also works.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by RMS

You've certainly had a different experience than mine. My players generally have been very efficient and very clever with magic use. I have to guide them through things the first few sessions but they have generally run with it after that.
...

Except for 1 player (in around 20 years), same for us. Some tactics were very tortuous and required coordinations between several characters.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by threedeesix

But I bet your players still look back on that battle in a way they wouldn't have if it was finished with just a couple of skill rolls.

Rod

I'm not sure. I'd like to think so. Haven't seen that particular people in years. I have fond memories of it, and it was talked about a bit in the years after.

But, I think it is memorable because it was a one-off big event. It I had run fights like that all the time, it wouldn't have worked out as well. I know a guy who did run big fights all the time, and after awhile it just got boring.

Run enough (too much) combat, especially the trading blows variety, and combat looses it's excitement. The good players can usually figure out the odds, and an experienced GM generally knew them before the battle started. So playing it out can become a formality. Plus with games like RQ, 50+ combatants works out to 2-3 criticals every round. Since the PCs are usually outnumbered, they are the ones who tended to be on the receiving end of a lucky hit that kills someone.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

It wasn't a tactical problem, just a bookkeeping one. It worked like this. Let's say the PCs were setting up to attack a foe. The foe has guards, but isn't aware of the PCs.
-First the PCs maneuver/sneak in close enough so that their spells won't wear off before they reach the foe.
-Then they spend 2 or 3 rounds getting their magic up. GM has to note exactly which spells are cast on which round/SR to know when stuff is going to wear off.
-Now a minute or so gets used up as PCs try to coordinate for a simultaneous attack.
-The fighting breaks out. The PCs usually cut through the guard pretty quick. About 2/3rd go down in one round, with a couple of guys holding on for a round or two due to failed rolls, bad luck, etc.
-The the real fight breaks out. The rest of the NPCs are usually alerted by the fighting and stat doing their spells and other preparations ad hoc. More bookkeeping. People start popping in at odd turns and SR, and there is some maneuvering for position, delays and such.
-All this requires keeping track of spell durations, and MP expenditures. Since virtually everyone had some battle magic in RQ, it usually meant more bookkeeping than ticking off fatigue points.
-Toss in allied spirits, POW crystals and Divine Magic spells and Fatiue points were usually the last thing I was worried about. I was more cornered about when the Bladesharp, Countermagic, and Protection spells were due to wear off.

Ah, I see. You were stuck managing everyone else's bookkeeping too. That explains a lot.

Well, it was for a game system in which ENC is not a big issue. Fatigue in that game was more in terms of how long can you keep running, or how many hours you can travel cross country without sleep? In that game the asnwer was important to determine if you could escape the people who were chasing you.

Well, honestly, most non-gritty spy games don't typically need to deal with encumberance at all, so I get your point.

Fatasy RPGs tened to need more fatigue and ENC rules as some players will "tank" it up, and others like to carry the kitchen sink.

Some SF games too; any game where the presence or lack of gear can make a signficant difference in your chance of success risks this. Especially if long travel without vehicles or mounts is possible.

From what I've seen working at a hospital, yeah they do. Its part of the adrenaline dump thing. When you get scared/excited/injured the adrenaline kicks in and you go into hypermode. Once it wears off, you crash. Someone who is already injured is already on the crash part of the cycle. Even worse, an injury acts as a constant distraction, so they susally don't rest back up to full stamina.

Fair enough.

Not in hand. But I think I can find some. Proving that being injured reduces stamina seems like an autokill to me. I'll dig for some evidence if you want.

No, if it fits with your personal experience in that context, I'm willing to take it at least provisionally. That question was more in the light of "why do you think this?" than "Show me."

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by RMS

Wow! I've never bothered with tracking everything like that. PCs track their own MP. NPCs have whatever MP they need to power whatever they should logical have. Magic wears off when it makes sense to wear off. I'm certianly not clicking off melee rounds to 5/10/15 minute points. For one thing, it's magic, so I assume that it's not mechanistic at all. That 5 minutes is an approximation IMO, so magic goes down whenever it seems reasonable that it's gone down.

That's got just about nothing to do with what the rules actually said to do, though. In fact, the rules refered to the duration of spirit magic both in terms of real time and melee rounds.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

That's got just about nothing to do with what the rules actually said to do, though. In fact, the rules refered to the duration of spirit magic both in terms of real time and melee rounds.

No it doesn't.

It's a stylistic difference. Sort of what I was referring to about the difference in eras. Back with RQ was written, everything was spelled out in clear, consistent terms. Spells lasted exactly so many turns, fatigue penalties were X% and so forth. Now a lot of gamers take a more open approach. For instance, I'd be more inclined to have spells with a duration last for a "scene" rather than X minutes and so on. It greatly simplifies play, with little to no downside.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by RMS

You've certainly had a different experience than mine. My players generally have been very efficient and very clever with magic use. I have to guide them through things the first few sessions but they have generally run with it after that.

There are always players who just never grasp the mechanics of some game concepts; while we've got a generally very gamist sort of group (and I'm including the extended membership we've had over three decades here) there have always been people who just couldn't grasp strike ranks in RQ, couldn't manage how to roll normal dice in Hero, or whatever. Some of them still didn't seem to know how after, well, years.

The irony here is that I was just remarking to someone the other day how I thought RPG players in general are much more literal with rules now than I remember in the "old days where we'd just wing it". It might just be me though. I bought the original games, read them, and taught them to everyone and have GM'd 90% of the time, so it might just be me and my impatience with looking things up, tracking things, and all things fiddly. (To be fair, I would have gone into more detail 20 years ago too. Time constraints now make me even more impatient with minutia.)

That'd never fly, locally. Consistency of rules is considered a virtue around here, and things like the GM having to fake it are considered an unfortunate occasional necessity. And we're a pretty big bunch of grognards (the average age in the hobby is probably 20 years at this point).

There was a period with some of the very early games where you had little choice; OD&D or even original Traveller were so sketchy in spots that you were completely on your own if you hit something unusual, but there's a reason we moved away from games like that.

Most of my RQ groups have been on the smaller end (2-4 players). I can't even imagine running for 70 characters. Our big battles might get into the 20-30 range with allies, followers, etc. on both sides but that's it.

I have to admit that's--boggling. 70 RQ characters, even most of the cookie-cutter--wow.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Kloster

No, it just means that most of combat didn't last a long enough duration to reach negative points, or if they do by 1 or 2, there was no roll on which that change anything.

I still think in groups where it _was_ relevant, it probably just got forgotten a lot of the time (and I'm really suprised by how fast some people's combats went; at the low end, people could spend a lot of time just flailing around locally (after all, when you only have 30%, you're only going to hit one round in three; and even if they don't parry, if anyone's got any armor at all its not that likely a single hit will put them down), and at the higher end there was usually enough healing and protective magic to cause things to take a little while. I rarely saw an RQ fight of any account over in less than 10-15 rounds, and some went noticeably longer.