RosenMcStern

I am not sure a non-impallng sword would be unable to use the Stunt. I was primarily worried about avoiding its use with very unbalanced weapons (ball&chain, poleaxe).

Yes, definitely. I would rather phrase it as "Wenever you go for the Choose Location Combat Effect, you get a -2 to the Coverage Roll on top of any other effects", in order to highlight the fact that you must be actively going for a precision strike to gain this benefit. But it sounds like a good example of a Stunt to me.

I would also add that it should apply only to swords and spears, but then Soltakss would accuse me of promoting "sword porn"  

4 hours ago, theodis171 said:

This bugged me since I bought it. If this would be corrected, I'd probably buy two of the international edition. 😉

 

Do not worry, we will cross check the headers of all opposed matrices at least twice this time. 

Alchemy is a subsection of Weird Science. It made absolutely no sense to have one set of rules for pseudo-medieval concoctions and one for steampunk drugs and gadgetry. They work in the same way, it is just a matter of what kind of gadgetry is available.

Ask Loz & Clarence, they usually reply rather promptly. I do not know whether Clarence has foreseen licensing M-Space, but you can always ask. 

On the other hand, this is one of those points (chained IPs) where the OGL has definitely fewer impediments than other licenses.

A bag of holding in a system which does not count the encumbrance of items... is it useful?

5d4 is an average of 12,5 damage. An average arrow from a self bow does 9,5 damage, up to 11 for a long bow. A greatsword does 12 on average if your Might is just +1, and you get to double the damage that gets through. It is certainly not a game breaker. 

As for magic items, there is an example in the book. A +2 sword requires a decent magician to craft, but it should not be that difficult to create. It is a dangerous item, but it will not kill a dragon on its own.

An "always on" Protection amulet could in this case provide +2 to armour. This would be rather D&Dish and not a game breaker, either. However, if you can make a reliable prediction about what sort of elemental attack you will face, then you can imbue the amulet with Absorb [Energy], and that will subtract dice, not points, of damage. Definitely more effective. And yes, this is something you will encounter quite often, as most elemental attacks are either fire or electricity, like in D&D, so you have a 50% chance of rendering them less effective.

As an example, the sample Martian character Prof. Rathas, which you find in the rules, had an Absorb Kinetic 4 / Absorb Radiation 4 protective item in the original campaign. The dwarf alchemist I am currently playing has Absorb Kinetic 4 / Absorb Fire 4 and once took a 7d6 fireball and remained standing. All this alchemical stuff is cheaper to make as it is one-use.

The SRD is not formatted for publishing. The final edition will have "bullet" sidebars instead of grey background insertions, and all highlights that the current edition has, plus some more. But the SRD will remain a LibreOffice document to help those brave self-publishers who wish to extend it. 

Perhaps this is because there is the changelog visible in the PDF. 🙄

Re-uploaded. I ❤️ MS Word

The Basic Combat chapter is stable enough for release. Comments (particularly on clarity) are welcome.

The campaign is now on DriveThruRPG.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/288761/Rise-of-the-Yokai-Koku

Apart from those who have already requested it, anyone else who has purchased it and wants it on DTRPG too ?

3 hours ago, Questbird said:

This is not really about publishing any more so you might want to start a new thread. There are many about magic systems here.

Indeed. This subject is very interesting, but we are cluttering the thread with off-topic. The original subject may be of interest to many would-be contributors of contents, so it would be a shame to make the thread less accessible.

This is not "fan wisdom", g33k. There is a precedent now:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=05891d4f-1658-4f00-884f-8310cfeb4b0f

Now, a Court of Appeal or Supreme Court could still overturn this ruling, but the fact stays that a US Court of Justice has confirmed that the interpretation of the law saying that rules cannot be copyrighted is correct. As of today, this is the most authoritative opinion in the debate, as it comes from a sitting court.

Note also that this does not mean that everything in a game is free game (pun not intended) for plagiarism. As the recent Open Cthulhu incident showed, there are usually plenty of elements in a game that are copyrightable and protectable and this stands in the way of would-be plagiarists. But none of this is relevant to the OP's case, as he has clearly stated that his intention is to publish his original work, just with some d100 stats attached.

Speaking of what... @dieselpunk, you should probably have a look at M-Space as a ruleset. It sounds like the best fit for your ideas.

20 hours ago, dieselpunk said:

I've been thinking about publishing a setting with stats for things using an established system because I don't have the interest in creating a whole separate game. BRP would be a good fit, but apparently there's no real way of using it. I've read the "Just a reminder there is no OGL for BRP..." thread. I suppose this question isn't specific to BRP, but what would go into licensing a system? Is it just a matter of paying enough money and not colliding with existing or planned product lines? Or would the licenser also own part/all of my property?

I think everyone here pointed at their favourite iteration of the rules, but forgot to reply to the specific questions here.

• None of the systems mentioned here require third parties to pay for the right to use the system.
• There may be instead other requirements for publishing, mostly depending on whether the system uses the OGL (Legend, OpenQuest, Renaissance or Revolution) or a Gateway License (Mythras).
• In general, the OGL allows you more freedom, but this mostly when you want to build a new ruleset on top of an existing one. Since what you stated is that you wanted a ruleset for your setting, then the OGL probably has few (or no) advantages over a Gateway License.
• Obtaining a license for one of the aforementioned systems does not transfer the ownership of IPs between parties. At least in the OGL or Gateway licenses used by the aforementioned publishers.

You can read other considerations about third party publishing with the OGL here. 

I have uploaded a new version of the editable sheet. Now recalculation of skills works again, and the picture silhouette changes according to what you write in the Gender field.

4 minutes ago, Zit said:

BTW, according to the rules, one can imprive skills above 100 only by 1% each tiem, since you always roll under the current skill with a d100. Wouldn't it be fair to consider the imrovement roll as a success for rolls from 96 to 100 ?

Nope! If you roll under your base skill, you get 1d4. If your characteristics make you gifted for that skill, you improve fast even after reaching 100%.

Alas, I would say "Many months" rather than many trials. I suspect there are few trials you (and some others) would not face to get hold of it.

I think this got lost at some point, but the general idea is that "real" Martial Arts do not allow more than one Might of each Stunt. Variable Might focus should be only for those settings with "magical" martial arts, like Dragon Lines or the Shade Land. 

The standard rule in the International Edition will be that multiple levels of Focus are allowed in certain contexts, but require the acquisition of multiple Stunts. The cost in slots should be enough to provide a reasonable cap.

The International Edition will be in English, too. The new SRD is not complete yet. At this stage we know 90% of the rule changes we wish to introduce, but clarity is the main goal to achieve for the English text, so there might several more iterations to pass.

You are absolutely correct that clarified and improved rules are important. However, a lot of players (maybe not the majority here, but most likely the majority of those who actually play games) attribute less importance to the rules and more to the availability of interesting settings. It is thus important to roll out new supplements, too. We will try to proceed in parallel as much as possible (and this statements includes Red Moon Rising, too), but resources are scarce.

We had the same feedback from many people

Yes. Please note that the revisions are not a revolution of the rules (pun not intended), just a simplification of some points where the crunchiness was unnecessary or applied in the wrong way. Things may look different because we renamed several variables and moved away from the classic "hit location table" approach, but the core rules are always the same.

Have a look at what is new for Revolution D100 in this revised, full-colour edition of the quickstart:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/287848/Revolution-D100-Quickstart-The-Conspiracy-Theory

As promised...

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/287848/Revolution-D100-Quickstart-The-Conspiracy-Theory

Yes. It is ready, I will upload it within the day (my timezone). After which I will post the link here and on FB groups.

A more articulated reply:

8 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

- first I had magical sword with too many bonus. Increase damage +4, Fire 1, "Life" 1 (an undead killing energy) and I added all damage sources. It occur to me that I should not... although.. arguably these are all different kind of bonus. But it seems to me one can kind of game the system by using many weak powers instead of one expensive one. Did I miss something?

And what prevents the opposition from stacking 1-point Absorb enchantments on their armour? Note also that the rules suggest that simple organic armour can have an intrinsic 1-point absorb heat/cold. Not really a big issue.

Quote

- They fought some Wraith. I was a bit unsure how damage would work against wraith. Would they take only the Fire1, "life1"+4 damage an ignore the kinetic damage? Shouldn't they take less against fire? What if they had armour? I felt unsure here.. I made them immune to kinetic damage, but also give them no amour (despite being ghost of soldier) to make them more killable.. but felt not quite right about it... Somehow I also think immaterial creature should take less from fire too.. shouldn't they?

The advice is to trait a battle against the Wraith as a psychic one, using Conflict or Basic Combat rules. See the El Dorado example adventure. If you prefer, you can solve it with the classic BRP "has hit points and immunity to mundane attacks approach", too. But be careful, in this case the Wraith has Toughness, not hit points, and since it takes damage only from the magic bonus of a weapon it may become impossible to take it down. It might be necessary to give a magic "quality" to the extra damage dealt by enchanted weapons (the doubling for Slash and the +1d8 for Impale) to keep the creature defeatable.

Quote

Short Story
I came up with an idea!
I am thinking to simply keep most things as they are, except change the SR cost.
Maybe a flat 5SR per channeling point.

This way the wizard can spam moderately powerful spells. But big one would take some effort (i.e. rounds) to cast...

If I do that... and the Wizard take some damage... and lose some SR, that should cancel the spell right? Since he is already big in negative SR, right?

That would make playing a magician very boring: while fighters roll the dice and try to use effects to land a blow through parries, the wizard marks off SR from the tally, hoping no one attacks him. This for several rounds.

After intensive firebolt-testing for Red Moon Rising, we found a solution that keeps the game interesting for high level magicians, too, and makes high Might spells a gamble, incentivizing a reduction in Might when you are not facing dinosaurs. Stay tuned, it is almost ready for downlooad.