Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RosenMcStern last won the day on May 12 2018

RosenMcStern had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,124 Excellent


About RosenMcStern

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 08/25/1964

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Somewhere in the EU


  • RPG Biography
    BRP, RQ, HQ, what else?
  • Current games
    BRP, RQ, HQ, what else?
  • Location
    Somewhere in the EU
  • Blurb
    Now roll for 1d6 SAN loss for seeing my actual picture....

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's one good reason to add a Background trait to characters.
  2. And I am making it even better, with a serious streamlining. Another thing that Revolution D100 handles is that you can use the background itself as a Trait. You usually have your Language or Homeland as a Trait, so if the narrator agrees that simply being - say - a Viking can help in the task you can use it to complement a base skill which lacks a necessary trait. Very simple, and does not need a special rule, just the same kind of player/GM agreement that you would use in an Old School game: "Oh you want to know something about this masonry? Well, you have the Dwarf trait and this will certainly matter".
  3. Honestly, I think that an "entry level" BRP should have the very basic approach to magic of the BGB, with a single magic skill or spell school depending on whether combat skills are grouped in styles or in melee/ranged. Mages can add levels, non-mages cast at level 1 (cantrip). 1 MP per level. Non-mages learn 1/4 INT, mages memorize 1/2 INT and can swap with spells in the book. An entry level game is not the best place to experiment with exciting new magic systems.
  4. We hoped no one would notice but yes, it was accidentally left out.
  5. OpenQuest survives with just Close Combat and Ranged Combat. Simpler. If you have specialisation built in the system, then you can add spec in different weapons in that way, instead of using two different approaches for combat and non-combat. Higher roll wins. Without levels of success, the paradigm is "you want to roll as high as possible within your skill", and high numbers are always better, except when you exceed your skill. Pure Blackjack mechanics. Much simpler to explain than "levels of success".
  6. At least you gave me the opportunity to acknowledge that you had a point before it happened, and not only after. We are doing our best not to disappoint you when it comes out!
  7. Here I am puzzled. This is already present in the latest supplements of the game line: This is a ready-to-use opponent, which I have used at least twice. It does not get simpler than that, and the system already supports it without any special rules for mooks. A goon is simply someone for whom you have decided to not write down skills, or at least all of them, because he is just cannon fodder. Here is a "social interaction only" NPC from the same source: As you can see, skills are already in "groups" of Agility, Communication etc. because the rules already dictate so. It cannot get simpler than that, and these are NPCS built using the full rules. It is just a matter of writing down only the parts you expect you will need during the game. The core rules already support that, it is just that probably we did not make a big effort of reducing the statblock size in the core book. We will not make the same mistake in the International Edition. Okay, this does make sense. But this is not "instructions for creating NPCs", but rather "guidellines for creating your own packages". In other words, how to decide what items to take out of the cafeteria list, and what to add (powers, traits, stunts etc.). In my opinion, the OGL sample packages that we have produced, plus the one or two fan-made ones, are already a good guideline, but perhaps a guided example could be interesting. For instance, we could take a public domain IP (not Lovecraft, needless to say ) and show the reasoning we follow in building a package out of it. Noted as possible content.
  8. Let us start with the bad news. As I said, there are variant rules that it may be reasonable to use at the table, but we will not include. A "simplified" version of armour and weapons would be more or less what you have in OpenQuest, and I see no reason to insert pieces of OpenQuest in the Revolution D100 companion. Our message has always been clear: if you want less crunch, use the equivalent subsystem from OpenQuest - it will work. We will not, however, do the hybridization ourselves. We know that many people have a "sweet spot" which is less crunchy than RD100 Advanced Combat, but we will not start a race for the middle ground. Revolution D100 has its own identity and level of detail, different but compatible with that of Legend, Mythras, OpenQuest and Renaissance. If each of these games tried to offer the full spectrum of variations, trying to identify the "comfort zone" of the largest number of players, then they would end up being all the same! Revolution D100 offers two combat models, narrative and crunchy. Our job as authors is to keep these two models coherent, not to make them transformable into other combat models that are already present in other percentile games. That one is the readers' job, called houseruling. More to come...
  9. This is goal #1 of all of our current work. Would you please tell us what steps you use for creating NPCs? Of the kind? And please consider that in some cases, the absence of a simplification is intentional, to encourage users to try some specific rules. More specific please. Examples? So far I have had good results with the creation of weird characters, but it is also true that there are no specific instructions for creating them. The issue is that this is context/setting dependent, so it is difficult to insert in a generic book.
  10. Not much new stuff, it would increase the page count. I wanted to remove things, in fact, but it will not be necessary. Would you please open a topic about the Companion, or bump up the topic we created some time ago? It would be interesting to summarize what can, could and should go into a companion according to today's requests and availabilities.
  11. Thanks for all the support. As someone suspected, it did not work out. Given the data I have about reactions and involvement, the main suspect is the pandemic. The game is still scheduled to appear around June, but at this point only in English for now. Feel free to ask questions, but the next announcements will be in June.
  12. Grendizer GO! The French and Arabic versions are nice to hear, too. The Italian version has another tune. For the online games the rally point is on the ENGLISH AND ITALIAN FACEBOOK PAGES. I already have an announcement up for ENGLISH and two subscribers. Game starts in one day or two, I have some work to do on the platform that will take some hours.
  13. Must have been my other split personality Anyway, none of the product lines I mentioned rejects the idea of merging setting and rules. It is just that the selling point is the rules, not the setting. But some individual settings may still sell better than the generic rulebook. Edit: Cross-posted again! Maybe we open a new thread about generic vs. setting-specific? Not that it has never been discussed here, but at least we avoid the off topic.
  14. I was just trying to emphasize what Jeff meant (or what I think he meant). Whether this is an advantage or not depends on your opinion. I do not want to argue on that point. Edit: cross-posted with Jeff. It seems he actually meant this. If you exclude GURPS, Savage Worlds, Fate Core and some editions of D&D, among others, then yes.
  15. This is exactly Jeff's point. The D20 SRD allows you to tailor the rules to your setting. The BRP OGL mandates this by not providing some important contents (for example, magic).
  • Create New...