WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlements https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/t89929 Runboard| WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlements en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:16:24 +0000 Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:16:24 +0000 https://www.runboard.com/ rssfeeds_managingeditor@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds managing editor) rssfeeds_webmaster@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds webmaster) akBBS 60 Summary of "WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlements"https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557627,from=rss#post557627https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557627,from=rss#post557627Filler summary. Am too bored of this process to read through 8 pages at this point. If it's been more than three days since I posted this filler and you want a summary, create a new thread and remind me! Thanks!nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:13:29 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557626,from=rss#post557626https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557626,from=rss#post557626This is just for everyone Runboard is going to buzz about an update to the thread: we're going to discuss the precise nature of our travel system in a new thread, just 'cause this one's 8 pages. See you there! *re-closes*nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Wed, 25 May 2005 05:41:50 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557625,from=rss#post557625https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557625,from=rss#post557625Wow, I gave this 3 days and it didn't even need one. Close'd!nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Thu, 19 May 2005 16:54:34 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557624,from=rss#post557624https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557624,from=rss#post557624We will have to return here later to fix individual items and that has to wait for three other discussions (Deathblow, Armour, Treasure) to close. We'll have to return later still to clarify Travel. I want all other Settlement and Travel discussions finished in 3 days.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Sat, 14 May 2005 03:35:26 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557623,from=rss#post557623https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557623,from=rss#post557623I think we're all assuming this, but it's best I put it down that the locations that are "always" in a village (alehouse, inn) would naturally be in every larger settlement. It's the other ones that are randomly selected from.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Sat, 14 May 2005 03:23:55 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557622,from=rss#post557622https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557622,from=rss#post557622Not to bad of rules, but I'd more then likely limit this to only larger cities. Smaller cities don't take to contests to well since they are constently being assaulted by the creautres lurking in the dark. Maybe that would be a possible option... Say that villages only have access to a certain number of the 'extra' areas to visit, while Cities have abroader range of those same places to visit. Example being: A village may just have the alehouse/inn... It's not alot but it gets some income from passer-bys that happen through. A city though could have the arena, Inn/alehouse, and a couple other places since they are larger and can afford to have much more options. *EDIT* Ok that stunk for me trying to explain what I meant... Anyways here is the better way... So you have location A location B location C location D* location E* location F** location G** So you have 7 different locations. Villiages could only have the locations without any * next to then(So location A-C), but these could be random depending on a die roll. A small city would have access to location A-E Since it has a bit more funds and could potentially havemore for warriors to do. Now a large city would have access to all the location but still random on which ones show up... So maybe a large city get 4 of those options where as a village would only get to roll for one of theirs.nondisclosed_email@example.com (golembane)Fri, 13 May 2005 13:10:40 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557621,from=rss#post557621https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557621,from=rss#post557621This also seems sound, though I figure it's just a manner of time before another post comes in saying that the warrior's opponent would be chosen based on them. *waits to see*nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Thu, 12 May 2005 03:49:02 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557620,from=rss#post557620https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557620,from=rss#post557620Hehe, Dwarf on tightrope Er, I've just spent a bit of time making some rolls and playtesting these rules . My original idea, basing the opponent's skill, or difficulty of the game, off the warrior's statistic is not so viable. This table: 1 - Opponent's attribute is 2 greater than the warrior's. 2 - Opponent's attribute is 1 greater than the warrior's 3 - 4 Opponent's attribute is equal to the warrior's 5 - Opponent's attribute is 1 less than the warrior's 6 - Opponent's attribute is 2 less than the warrior's needs to be replaced with something like this: 1 - Opponent's attribute is 8 2 - Opponent's attribute is 7 3 - Opponent's attribute is 6 4 - Opponent's attribute is 5 5 - Opponent's attribute is 4 6 - Opponent's attribute is 3 Otherwise, you aren't really taking into accout the relative skill of each warrior, and a Wizard could partake in a strength contest with an equal chance of succeeding as the Barbarian. Having only a couple of different games at each settlement would be more sensible, too then. Thanks Custodian, for pointing that out. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Boyinleaves)Wed, 11 May 2005 14:55:09 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557619,from=rss#post557619https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557619,from=rss#post557619Looks good, Boyinleaves.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Tue, 10 May 2005 06:52:52 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557618,from=rss#post557618https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557618,from=rss#post557618Nice rules... beyond and above anything else that gets decided; these are going into my settlements. I might suggest that there is only one or two types of game available at each place. Laugh as the Wizard is beaten to a pulp in the arena! Chortle as the Dwarf plunges to his death from the tightrope! Taunt the Barbarian's attempts to solve the Gordian Knot! Mock the Elf as he collapses with his pint, his brains slowly oozing out of his ears! You could have an Endurance game with Toughness... Just some thoughts and opinions.nondisclosed_email@example.com (thecustodian)Mon, 09 May 2005 22:11:37 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557617,from=rss#post557617https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557617,from=rss#post557617Okay, here's what I'm thinking for the Gambling House. When the warriors go to the gambling house, one of the warriors may attempt to win at a competitive game of strength, speed, skill, intellect or accuracy. The games use the following characteristics: Strength - Strength Speed - Initiative Skill - Weapon skill Intellect - Intellect, or Intellectual Initiative Accuracy - Ballistic Skill Once the participating warrior has chosen his game, he rolls on the following table to determine the skill of his opponent: Roll a d6 1 - Opponent's attribute is 2 greater than the warrior's. 2 - Opponent's attribute is 1 greater than the warrior's 3 - 4 Opponent's attribute is equal to the warrior's 5 - Opponent's attribute is 1 less than the warrior's 6 - Opponent's attribute is 2 less than the warrior's Each warrior may choose to place a bet on the outcome: whether the warrior wins, loses, or the match is a draw. The warrior who takes the challenge may only bet on himself to win, but the other warriors may bet on whatever they like. Each warrior may bet up to say 500g per round. Warriors place bets after the skill of the opponent has been determined, so that they can pick the short or long odds. Then, both the warrior and his opponent roll a d6 and add their respective statistic values. The person with the highest score is the winner. If the warrior wins, he gets a payout appropriate to the skill of his opponent, if he loses he gets nothing. If the scores are equal, then the match is a draw. Only warriors who bet specifically for a draw win money on one. Depending upon the relative skills of the participants, each bet pays out more or less winnings. If the winning warrior's skill was less, then the payout is more, reflecting the worse odds. For a skill deficit of 1, the payout is 2.5 x the original bet For a skill deficit of 2, the payout is 3 x the original bet If the winning warrior's skill was more, then the payout is less, reflecting the better odds. For a skill advantage of 1, the payout is 1.75 times the original bet For a skill advantage of 2, the payout is 1.5 times the original bet. If the match was a draw, any warrior betting for that outcome gains 4x his original bet. If the winning warrior's skill was equal, then the payout is simply double. Alternatively, the table for an opponent's skill could be made so that each result gave a specific value, rather than a comparative bonus, so that participating warriors had more of a chance to win. This would offset the fact that they really gain no advantage out of the current proposed rules. I know, I have too much time on my hands. That's it... I'm going to bed... nondisclosed_email@example.com (Boyinleaves)Mon, 09 May 2005 21:53:16 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557616,from=rss#post557616https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557616,from=rss#post557616That sounds interesting, Boyinleaves.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Sun, 08 May 2005 15:14:28 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557615,from=rss#post557615https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557615,from=rss#post557615Maybe the warriors could all go to an arena or a fighting pit, and bet on the outcome of an actual fight between one of the warriors and a gladiator, or something similar. If you want a fun sideline for warriors to pursue in a town, give them something that they can all be involved in at once, but keep it simple. Warriors could have a wrestling fight, where they can't use any items, armour or weapons, and the only factors are the warrior's and his opponent's weapon skills and strengths. Maybe they could have a contest of agility, like walking a tightrope, or a game of strength. There could be multiple games, using the different characteristics, and each of the other warriors could bet for either the success OR the failure of their comrade if they wanted to. The games would still be simple and based almost entirely on chance, but the players could all be involved.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Boyinleaves)Sat, 07 May 2005 18:21:34 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557614,from=rss#post557614https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557614,from=rss#post557614What is this I find? Blasphemy against the Holy 1-and-6? Perhaps a more advanced table as Boyinleaves suggests might be of use. I'm not much up on gambling, but I'm pretty sure there's more than one way to deal a pack.nondisclosed_email@example.com (thecustodian)Sat, 07 May 2005 17:53:18 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557613,from=rss#post557613https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557613,from=rss#post557613Yeah, I did think about it, but there are several times when its application is dubious. In this example, I think that invoking a warrior's luck to make him likely to win at cards or dice or whatever the gambling house involves excluding the chance at failure. Fair enough, in my opinion, as you would have to use a valuable point of luck for only a chance at winning. If people are serious about altering the Gambling house, maybe there could be games in which the stakes could be increased, but so could the risk, ie a 2d6 roll where 2-3 loses your money, and 11-12 wins or something. Maybe this would make a luck bonus more appropriate, as the 1 and 6 rule wouldn't obviously apply to a 2d6 roll?nondisclosed_email@example.com (Boyinleaves)Sat, 07 May 2005 13:37:18 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557612,from=rss#post557612https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557612,from=rss#post557612Once again, I'm not sure the Rule of 1 and 6 applies here. I think we should revoke an earlier policy and fix the rule so we know just when it applies, instead of leaving it up to the player (for example, we decided it applies to To Hit, but not Wounding).nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Sat, 07 May 2005 13:22:23 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557611,from=rss#post557611https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557611,from=rss#post557611But you do seem to forget the Rule of 1 and 6, which can not be tampered with. A 1 always fails, a 6 always succeeds, even how modified the roll is. So the warrior would still have a chance of losing in the Gambling house, even though his chances of winning have increased.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Sudden Real)Sat, 07 May 2005 10:29:45 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557610,from=rss#post557610https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557610,from=rss#post557610Yeah, pretty sure that the chances of a 6 on either of 2 rolls is the same as a 5 or a 6 on one roll, but the advantage would be that if you decide you are going to be lucky this time around, then you wouldn't have a chance of losing.   Using 1 luck to give you +1 would equate to a 1/3 chance of winning, whereas if you just used luck to reroll, there is absolutely no advantage to the player, you still, on a second reroll, have exactly the same chances of winning and losing as you did on your first roll. As to eventless settlements... In the basic rules, absolutely. All you want to do with them is make sure the standard gameplay, dungeon bashing, is smooth and uninterrupted, so the quicker settlements are dealt with, the better.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Boyinleaves)Sat, 07 May 2005 09:26:34 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557609,from=rss#post557609https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557609,from=rss#post557609Maybe Boyinleaves, but I would prefere we still with th eventless settlements in the main rules as they waste less time. We'll discuss the tabled versions later. Hmm, you're suggesting luck, instead of re-rolling, would give +1? From my calculations... okay, I suck at math. Which one is better odds? I think they're the same, but forget how to prove it.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Sat, 07 May 2005 08:30:01 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557608,from=rss#post557608https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557608,from=rss#post557608Warriors get luck don't they? Well, to give the warriors the slightest advantage at a gambling house, allow them to use their Luck to add +1 to a roll in the Gambling House. A warrior could use this only once per roll, and would have to declare it beforehand. A 1 would no longer be a loss, and a 5 or 6 would be a win. Just seems to be one instance where Luck would be a particularly prevalent statistic. Perhaps they could also cheat a little bit, by making an initiative test to see if they're found out, and if they are, then they lose their bet and get beaten up etc. If their test passes, they get +1 to the roll as with luck. I'm wondering what people think about the idea of each settlement possibly being under the influence of a particular event or series of events when the warriors reach it, that effects all warriors equally, rather than individual settlement events, which I feel are more a roleplay game's domain than anything. For example, when the warriors arrive, they roll on a table, and have results such as: 2 - The settlement is being affected by plague and it is dangerous to stay there. Warriors might get infected, -1 T. 3 - There is a trade embargo happening, all stock ratings are +1 4 - There is a hostile army approaching, the warriors can only stay a day or two unless they want to get trapped under siege. 5 - 10 Nothing particular happening 11 - Visiting Nobility. All stock ratings are at -1 as traders attempt to supply as much merchandise as possible during the visit, but living expenses are increased. 12 - Booming Economy. The economy of the town is thriving, and all items cost 10% less. These global events could be made suitably generic in order to make such a smaller table more generalisable. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Boyinleaves)Fri, 06 May 2005 20:31:40 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557607,from=rss#post557607https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557607,from=rss#post557607quote:golembane wrote: Heres a simple idea. Lets keep all the places in the book. BUT(Always a but isn't there) you have to roll on a city chart and denote which villiages, cities, etc has what. So per se a villiage only get 1 roll. So they'd have whatever establishment they roll plus the general shops. Where as a city would get 2-3 places in addition to the normal shop. This way the rules are still in there and should players just want to make a fast trip to town without dealing with the gambling house then it might not even exsist anyways. Kind of a rough idea I know. I think this is a good idea. Easy, fast tablerollingnondisclosed_email@example.com (Blackheart Ranger)Mon, 02 May 2005 05:56:18 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557606,from=rss#post557606https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557606,from=rss#post557606I like that idea, and I especially like The Custodian's method to it. It would add some spice to our "tres Mordheim" system. I would say every town has the basics and the rest are divided into districts... but only if we can make that work. If we find that too many districts have too few things in them, Golembane's solution would be best. Can anyone think of how to fix the Gambling Den?nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Mon, 02 May 2005 04:51:26 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557605,from=rss#post557605https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557605,from=rss#post557605Interesting... I had considered generating a city (or smaller) that had a certain number of districts or quarters. Poor Area, Temple District, Dwarf Quarter, Quality Apartments, etc. Once you figure out which are there, you will find certain places in each. Similar idea, really.nondisclosed_email@example.com (thecustodian)Mon, 02 May 2005 02:43:20 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557604,from=rss#post557604https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557604,from=rss#post557604Heres a simple idea. Lets keep all the places in the book. BUT(Always a but isn't there) you have to roll on a city chart and denote which villiages, cities, etc has what. So per se a villiage only get 1 roll. So they'd have whatever establishment they roll plus the general shops. Where as a city would get 2-3 places in addition to the normal shop. This way the rules are still in there and should players just want to make a fast trip to town without dealing with the gambling house then it might not even exsist anyways. Kind of a rough idea I know.nondisclosed_email@example.com (golembane)Mon, 02 May 2005 02:29:55 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557603,from=rss#post557603https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557603,from=rss#post557603I dont think I agree with the removing of the the gambling den. If its needs fixing, lets fix it. Remember that we are representing a lot of players that have all different styles of playing, and the example of this is all the homemade rules of stores like Araby shop, Dwarf guildmaster,Jewelers, Fastfood, Haunted mansion, aso aso I think I rather like to take in a fiew new ones instead.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Blackheart Ranger)Sun, 01 May 2005 07:33:45 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557602,from=rss#post557602https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557602,from=rss#post557602Good idea, never saw much use to that Trance stone... why waste a turn to heal one wound when the wizard can do it for free? Now 1D6 wounds, that's a whole other story...nondisclosed_email@example.com (Sudden Real)Sun, 01 May 2005 06:28:47 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557601,from=rss#post557601https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557601,from=rss#post557601Okay, no more Gambling Hall seems to be the consensus. And golembane is right, we don't need 10 more Temples... but I guess we should keep the one. As for the Trance stone, we should upgrade it to like D6 wounds or something, maybe the cost should go with it.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Black Drazon)Sun, 01 May 2005 06:15:56 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557600,from=rss#post557600https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557600,from=rss#post557600Theres around 10 different MAIN gods in the Empire. Would there be a reason to come up with that many special locations? I mean I can get in my WFRP materials and dig out a few names but the ones I remember off the top of my heads are Sigmar, Taal, Morr, Manaan, and Ulric. Theres also a couple female goddesses as well that I know I'm missing. Just seems that it's more working then needed for the game. I think we all want a game thats 'Easy to learn, but hard to master'.nondisclosed_email@example.com (golembane)Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:33:23 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557599,from=rss#post557599https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557599,from=rss#post557599Balanced? Pshaw! You sound like a member of the Old Faith! Witch! Burn the Witch! Sorry about that... never bothered much with the old balance malarky. Anyway, I didn't say I was going to write them. I've got my hands full with Starting Equipment at the moment. Actually, I don't know. How hard would it be? You just pick a load of benefits like in the generic temple, the Wizards' Guild and the like, figure out appropriate sounding names, and there's your core. Still, the current trend is to reducing settlement locations. Perhaps introducing further temples is asking a bit much. I guess it might be due to the fact that I've just finished reading 'Witch Finder'... Black Guard templar of Morr, anyone? Necromancers, beware... :S nondisclosed_email@example.com (thecustodian)Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:07:07 +0000 Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Travelling and Settlementshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557598,from=rss#post557598https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p557598,from=rss#post557598I agree on the Gambling house, never really saw the point of that. As for temples of different Gods... Are you up to the task of writing several different BALANCED tables for this? It sounds hard and I bet it's even harder to do. Maybe it's possible if the tables crossed over, but first we need to get a list of all the (major) Gods and what they represent. I would keep the Alchemist though, it's a good place to get rid of things that are either too cheap to sell or can not so easily be discarted.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Sudden Real)Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:58:33 +0000