SRD online

[Zit]

Paolo, may be you could at some point write a report (here or where you want) of an actual complex long-lasting social conflict (may be including sub-conflicts) which you ran during a test game, explaining every stage step by step, how you brought ideas to counter the PCs and how they managed to get bonus beads or roll the proper Traits. I think it would not only be helpful, but also arouse even more interest for the game. I see it like writing in normal police what the players and narrator said, and in italic (or boxed) the detailed rule explanations.

 

Just a suggestion.

[RosenMcStern]

Revolution D100 is now entering the last production phase! The editor is now preparing to receive the final manuscript of the game (well, the first chapters in fact) and the artist team has been selected. We are about five months late according to the timetable, but we are there, at last.

I have just added some more detsails about advanced conflicts to the online version of the SRD. Some details about the most advanced conflict features are not present yet, but it is really very advanced rules that you might find unnecessary on your first runs.

There is still approximately one week during which I can incorporate feedback before "freezing" the SRD. I urge anyone who has perplexities to make them public, as this is the last opportunity to do so.

As usual, the SRD is online at http://www.rpgmeeting.org/en/rd100-intro . Comment freely.

 

[clarence]

Very well done Paolo. 

[Prime Evil]

Now that I've had a chance to review everything, I really like the rules for Traits and Conflicts.

[Mugen]

I have to say, I view your SRD as the most exciting recent evolution of BRP.

It seems to me the Revolution D100 team and I have very similar tastes when it comes to rules design.

[RosenMcStern]

Thank you all!

For everyone, backer or non-backer: I remind you once again (yes, I know, I am boring) that your feedback is important, apart from being appreciated. Telling us whether what you have seen so far is ok for you is the best way to help us and to have a game that pleases you. The three posters above sound happy of what they have seen, do all others agree? Anyone has doubts, perplexities? Please do tell us.

[RosenMcStern]

Thank you all!

For everyone, backer or non-backer: I remind you once again (yes, I know, I am boring) that your feedback is important, apart from being appreciated. Telling us whether what you have seen so far is ok for you is the best way to help us and to have a game that pleases you. The three posters above sound happy of what they have seen, do all others agree? Anyone has doubts, perplexities? Please do tell us.

[Mugen]

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

Thank you all!

For everyone, backer or non-backer: I remind you once again (yes, I know, I am boring) that your feedback is important, apart from being appreciated. Telling us whether what you have seen so far is ok for you is the best way to help us and to have a game that pleases you. The three posters above sound happy of what they have seen, do all others agree? Anyone has doubts, perplexities? Please do tell us.

As you like

Fact is, I am currently making a game that was originally a simplified RuneQuest 6, and, besides the fact I dropped the d100 roll under for a d10+skill system, our sytems are very similar. Hence my comment.

I have 2 small concerns :

-I'm also not a huge fan of the fact you always lose 1d6 or 2d6 RP when you fail in a conflict. I would have prefered a value based on a characteristic, the character's skill, or both rolls. For instance, it could be the difference between the 10s of the roll - with a special case for Advantage - or 1d2 for skill < 20, 1d4 for skills up to 40, 1d6 for skills up to 60, and so on.

-I'm not that fond of fixed bonus for Traits. I would not be against the idea to give them a variable value (such as : Sword (+15)).

[Zit]

Well, characteristics are already used for defining the resolution points, so using them again for the "damage" may exaggerate their weight. I thought however about adding a kind of Might to the rolled damage, based on the Might from STR but with otjer characteristics, but it would be for spirit combat.

One of my players found 2d6 too high, but since this is for advantages only, I think it is ok. There is however quite a lot of luck involved, even with 1d6. Some players may not like it. Others may enjoy this uncertainty which avoids min maxing  during thee play. Your suggestion of using the difference between 10's is not bad. This is simple math with one die roll less. It could be an alternate way, but it increases the force of the opponent with the better skill, since he can achieve bigger differences. It makes bonuses and traits even stronger for the same reason.

 

For the bonus, I understand this as applying one of the Perrin's rules of good gaming: a bonus must be significant. 5% or 10% don't really matter, so forget them.

[RosenMcStern]

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

-I'm also not a huge fan of the fact you always lose 1d6 or 2d6 RP when you fail in a conflict. I would have prefered a value based on a characteristic, the character's skill, or both rolls. For instance, it could be the difference between the 10s of the roll - with a special case for Advantage - or 1d2 for skill < 20, 1d4 for skills up to 40, 1d6 for skills up to 60, and so on.

 

Basic combat and one other specific type of conflict already have rules for variant "damage". I would really like to add other cases where the plain d6 is replaced by something more customised, but do we have the time to change this? However, I think these should be tied to the specific sub-system used: vehicles, social, etc. Characteristics and skill already play an important role.

A fraction of skill or the difference between the 10s of the rolls would be "too much math" for a relevant fraction of players. The ten die (straight) is an option, and it favours skill: if you win with a 30% skill and a lucky roll, you cannot be lucky again and roll a 6. However, it would need some testing: too easy to win in one blow, I am afraid. But someone might find it desirable.

Quote

-I'm not that fond of fixed bonus for Traits. I would not be against the idea to give them a variable value (such as : Sword (+15)).

Too many numbers to be a core option. Nothing prevents you to do it in your game, though. And Zit has already mentioned the Petersen rules  of good gaming

[RosenMcStern]

On 12/8/2016 at 6:21 PM, Zit said:

One of my players found 2d6 too high, but since this is for advantages only, I think it is ok. There is however quite a lot of luck involved, even with 1d6. Some players may not like it. Others may enjoy this uncertainty which avoids min maxing  during thee play.

One very important thing I forgot to mention is that playtesting showed that the 2d6 are not so unbalancing, in practice. With one playtest group we played with RQ6-style criticals (1/10th) and the occurrence of the 2d6 was consequently much rarer. This meant that conflicts lasted on average one more round, probably more. This extended duration often dragged the conflict to the point where it becomes a description-less sequence of rolls. A good, interesting conflict should last 3-4 rounds (Zit's example lasts 4 rounds, and it is a very successful conflict IMO), but if all exchanges result in 1d6 point loss, it ends up lasting 5 or even 6 rounds on average.

[Mugen]

On 12/08/2016 at 8:43 PM, RosenMcStern said:

A fraction of skill or the difference between the 10s of the rolls would be "too much math" for a relevant fraction of players. The ten die (straight) is an option, and it favours skill: if you win with a 30% skill and a lucky roll, you cannot be lucky again and roll a 6. However, it would need some testing: too easy to win in one blow, I am afraid. But someone might find it desirable.

I didn't propose to use fraction of skill, but rather use a "damage die" which depends on its value. It requires no maths, just a table on the character sheet (and a simple one). Not very different from using the tens die +1.

To avoid too much "deadliness", perhaps it should use the maximum value instead of doubling the die in case of an advantage.

Edit: nevertheless, this option "squares" conflicts duration's dependency on skill...

Edited August 15, 2016 by Mugen

[RosenMcStern]

8 hours ago, Mugen said:

I didn't propose to use fraction of skill, but rather use a "damage die" which depends on its value. It requires no maths, just a table on the character sheet (and a simple one). Not very different from using the tens die +1.

To avoid too much "deadliness", perhaps it should use the maximum value instead of doubling the die in case of an advantage.

Many people would consider this "clunky" or "too much maths" in any case. I am absolutely not discouraging you from trying it, I am confident it would not break your game. But I am doubtful about considering it as an official option.

In any case, if you trust me and the playtest we ran, the excessive deadliness is more perceived than real.

Quote

Edit: nevertheless, this option "squares" conflicts duration's dependency on skill...

This is an important point, I am glad you got it. Chance of succeeding and "damage done/absorbable" are two important elements of conflict mechanics. The actual configuration in RD100 makes them independent, as one depends on skill, and the other on characteristics (all successes do 1d6, but the number of d6 you can take depends exclusively on your characteristics). Both elements are important, and characteristics become important as they never were in other D100 rulesets. If you integrate skill into damage calculation, then you have what you called a "squaring" effect that makes skill more important than characteristics. A situation about which many people complained in other games.

This is why, ammong the many proposed variations you find in the rules, we have not included one that bases "damage" on skill. Even using the tens die would shift the balance towards skill as more important than characteristics.