RosenMcStern

It is a very neat game, and the license part is very well worded. A good example of how to do a D100 game under the ORC. Congratulations to TDM and Rodney for a job well done, which will undoubtedly inspire thousands of hours of retro-gaming fun.

10 minutes ago, Zit said:

is that more or less what the character sheet of the core rules is going to be ?

Yes. There will be minor differences (species and size class, character picture with optional hit locations, Operations replaced by another skill for low tech environments;, etc.), but the new generic character sheet will look very much like this, just with a different style.

Red Moon Rising character sheet prototypeI am glad to present to you the first prototype of the Red Moon Rising RPG Character Sheet. We may do some graphic improvements at a later time, but the concept of the sheet is stable now.

Link to PDF version below:

Red Moon Rising character sheet prototype

8 hours ago, LivingTriskele said:

Maybe it can be a prototype for a public open-source SRD. If not, I'm okay with it just being a collection of obsessively curated house rules 🤪

You still have a couple of questions to answer:

• What license are you gonna use to make it publicly available?
• What other SRDs are you going to reference, and who are you going to credit?

Depending on these points, you might or might not be in violation of someone else's IP or license.

On 7/27/2023 at 7:30 PM, LivingTriskele said:

So, I reached out to Azora Law, and got a response almost immediately (posting it below for posterity's sake). 

I hear you looking for a safe harbor in which to operate your business, and while I can give you my belief, if WotC takes a contrary position, you could still get sued. And you could still lose. I absolutely can’t offer an opinion on what WotC can or can’t do under the OGL (particularly to someone that isn’t my client.)

...

If License A and License B relate to your entire product, then you have a conflict and you are probably violating one or both licenses.

Quite useful. So the bottom line is "there is a non-trivial risk in mixing" and the advice is "publish everything under the ORC, even if it was previously under the OGL".  Souds like sound advice. Thank you for asking these questions Triskele.

Caution: RQ3 sorcery as written is very fun, but it has a lot of drawbacks. It was an incomplete system, as eventually admitted by the authors themselves. And it certainly does not allow city-spanning spells.

Sandy's Sorcery is a much better revision of the sorcery concept. It is the recommended version.

The physical book is out of stock, and we did not think it was a good idea to reprint it with an important rewrite of the core rules coming.

In some months you will be able to order Red Moon Rising, which includes a good 80% of the rules in a revised, more understandable format.

APP and CHA often end up being dump stats. Having both will make things worse.

Furthermore, APP is relative to your species. In a game with so many different species that look unattractive to one another, it will end up being irrelevant more often than not.

And... shouldn't EDU be there in a high tech game, instead?

For the rest, it looks gorgeous.

1 hour ago, LivingTriskele said:

Soliciting and/or offering medical, legal, or other professional advice. 

See? The customer relationship guys are prohibited from giving you any answers. It does not matter that what you intend to do is no-profit. If it is about IP, what you are requesting is a legally binding answer that only wotC attorneys can give you.

Your chances of getting an answer are very low. And in any case, any answer you get from customer support will in no way be legally binding. No executive manager or attorney at WotC will ever feel obliged to abide with an opinion the support gave to a customer.

The only remote hope you have to get a significant answer is to write in official form (on paper, or via legally binding email channels) to someone at WotC in charge of licensing, introducing yourself as a potential licensee. In that case their answer would have a chance of being legally binding.

Guys, the point is extremely simple. Here is what Article 2 of the WotC OGL says: "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using
this License."

Now, if you want to find yourself arguing in a court of justice that including said open game content in a product released under the ORC license does not imply "applying other terms and conditions", go ahead. But don't say you were  not warned.

Of course this does not mean that Hasbro will sue you. But putting yourselves in a position in which Hasbro could sue you... well, is it really necessary to comment further?

CAUTION: you cannot mix different licenses. You can merge multiple SRDs that use the WotC OGL, and multiple ORC SRDs, but you cannot merge them together.

Looks juicy.

On 6/10/2023 at 10:11 PM, g33k said:

Sometimes, particularly for "soft skills" / "social skills," there can be many many different ending conditions; an analogue to "zero hit points" isn't really adequate.

On 6/11/2023 at 12:08 AM, Atgxtg said:

One of the things I don't like about the extended conflicts is that the damage is 1d6 with no adjustment due to the difference in skill. This makes it impossible for someone who is markedly better than an opponent to defeat someone quickly. Someone with a stat of 11 is going to take on average 3 losses to defeat, no matter how skilled their opponent, or the actual skill rolls. Personally I think it would be better if the damage take was tied more closely to the outcome of the opposing skill rolls. Opposed rolls is s something that games not based on D100 do better. Games like Pendragon, FUDGE, Prince Valiant, D20 3.0+ all do opposed contests better.

But not well implemented with the extended conflicts. There no example of modifiers for such things, or what aspect of the contest to apply them to. Do they add to your skill, take away from the opponent's or do they modifier one of your die pools? There is no sort of standardized suggestions. Now I could see some nice options, like maybe armor adds to the die pool, prolonging the conflict, damage die based on skill, but there isn't much there. 

Would the noise boost the sneak skill, reduce the spot/listen skill of the opponent, or the relevant die pools. Speaking on which should the player get a die pool? I mean once the guard hears something, the contest is sort of over, or at least changes to a different type of contest where the player has to convince the guard that it was a normal noise or just part of the guard's imagination ("Meow?")

Would you apply the adjustment to the gambling skill or the conflict/hit point pool?

But at what point do you get a bonus or a penalty. And is it automatic (Battleships can capsize and sink). And what about bailing water, or the actions of the other people aboard? 

All of the above points are valid. And i do not see them implemented in detail in M-Space.

However, all of these points are addressed in Revolution D100's implementation of conflicts. And you can apply these solutions to M-Space, too, or even to core Mythras task rounds with a minimum of creativity. You don't need  much tweaking of the rules, given that the context is really generic and does not use complex variables.

As you said, Atg, the idea is certainly correct, but the implementation (or its description) may not be of everyone's liking.

On 6/16/2023 at 5:36 PM, g33k said:

No, you have missed my point.

In many conflicts -- particularly fluid, social situations -- the end-goal isn't clear going in; and there may be any of several "satisfactory" goals.

Returning to the Social Scene... maybe you want to impress people; maybe you don't care about "people" but want to impress one person particularly; maybe you don't really care what impression you make (you just want another person discredited); maybe you're not there to cause (social) damage:  you want to make sure the event is a "social success."

Maybe several of these are desirable outcomes... this begins to look (to me) like a "Social Special Effects" system:

 

I would say "definitely not". Most special effects (bar Compel Surrender) are about a temporary advantage, not the end goal of the contest. You can add effects to contests, but you need different sets of effects for different types of contests. A monumental work.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh, I understand the concept, but it's basically the same as old D&D. Player imagine that their characters are leaping lunging, riposting, and sidestepping but in merchanical terms it comes down to rolling to hit and taking hit point damage. 

But note of that matters in game terms. It's like how APP tends to be a dump stat. In theory APP matters but there is usually no actual benefits to it as far as the game rules go.

To me it doesn't add any layers, in fact it removed them, since everything just gets reduced to a dice poll vs a target number and hit points, and all the rest is just trappings. 

No it isn't Your still doing fighting, just another way. Conflict is conflict. It's also vitial to story telling and gaming. If your character don't have any sort of conflict the story is boring and people lose interest. 

For example you could have a situation where someone is trying to win over a person they love, and it still boils down to the same combat model of attack roll, damage roll and hit points. Only in this case it simply reflect the significant other's reluctance. 

Same with someone trying to find something good to watch on TV, find a service station that is open at 2 AM. It still comes down to the attack roll, damage roll and hit point loss. 

 

Yes, which exactly why I'm not fond of dice pools. You lose the coolness of different flavors and options. Now there are ways to add flavors and options but that usually means more variance, especially in the effects, beyond that of simple hit points. The points are abstract and meaningless until they are all gone. 

Atg, you are misrepresenting how extended contests work in a well designed implementation. Have you actually played M-Space, Comae or Revolution D100 conflicts?

And please don't mention playing Hero Wars or HeroQuest. They have a questionable implementation of extended conflicts (almost as bad as D&D4). It is for this reason that many people used Mark Galeotti's chained simple conflicts instead when playing HQ.

2 hours ago, Alliante said:

As a Mod, would you mind creating a new topic for me and moving those messages into the new topic?

I have moderator rights only on a sub-folder, not on this forum. 

I suggest you open another thread yourself with the title "RPG Worlds - world creator for BRP games and VTTs" in Big Red Boldface. This will increase interest. You can then repost the same screenshots there, or provide others. The original posts can stay here.

There is a lot of discussion related to your project that can go on. Better have it in a thread that is not connected to one specific VTT implementation. Particularly because Foundry has only a rudimentary implementation of BRP for now, while other VTTs are currently more advanced.

9 minutes ago, Alliante said:

Sure thing (except this has nothing to do with Savaged.us)! However, If you'd read the whole thread I started this in response to that I'm completely open for exporting characters and items straight to a VTT module and would be glad to help in any way facilitating that functionality.

I read it, and the topic here is Foundry VTT. RPG Worlds is a character/campaign creator that should be able to export data to Foundry and other VTTs. It is related, but it is indeed another topic. It is in no way a solution for the current problem of lacking support for BRP in Foundry.

This is all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with Foundry or other VTT. Shouldn't you open another thread with Savage.us in the title?

1 hour ago, Jason D said:

Right now we don't have any plans to implement BRP into Roll20.

This isn't because it's not on our wish-list, but because it's something we - independently - just can't throw effort at and get done. 

If we could get a toe in the door of Roll20 implementation, BRP would probably be low on our list of games to implement, just because there's much less, content-wise, than for our other lines. 

 

What's the status of the Fantasy Grounds version? I have not checked it for maybe 10 years, but it should be working fine. I have played several games and campaigns with it. Is anyone, apart from Smiteworks, working on it? The effort to convert it to the UGE version should be trivial, but there might be other issues.

43 minutes ago, MOB said:

Please contact me via email or via BRP messaging and I can assist.

Kudos.

22 minutes ago, deleriad said:

For me, I like the notion that a "special" success is almost non-existent for a novice but quite common (or maybe even more common than a normal success) for a master; that means the chance for a special success needs to be non-linear in some fashion. Probably then we should use log tables. It was good enough for DC Heroes. 2D10, exploding doubles with a log base e lookup table is where it's at.

As you know, Revolution D100 does it without disturbing Neper, and keeping mathematics to an absolute minimum: no computations, just comparison.

The problem is that this method requires a total paradigm shift from "I want to roll as low as possible" to "I want to roll as high as possible within my skill". The game feels different. Some people will object that it is a different game.

Just to avoid sending broadcast emails: to whom does one address non-public questions about using the ORC license for BRP-related products and derivatives? Jason? Jeff? Scotty? MOB? Chaosium's pet dragon?

I stress that this is about subjects that I would prefer to keep undisclosed for now, as public questions clearly belong here.

4 hours ago, deleriad said:

I thought the cleverest system I have seen is that if your units die is lower than your 10s and you succeed then you "special succeed" (likewise failure).

E.g. skill 41% then your possible range of special successes are 10, 20, 21, 30, 31, 32, 40, 41.

As the inventor of this method, I thank you for your appreciation 🙂

You can have it scale over 100 by adding extra conditions (ex. add double 1 for 110%, double 2 for 120%, etc.), but it becomes a bit clunky.

As for avoiding to roll a third die, it is very easy:

• Easy roll (Advantage in D&D): you succeed if either your roll or your flipped roll is under your skill;
• Hard roll (Disadvantage in D&D): you succeed if both your roll and your flipped roll are under your skill.

Easy peasy.

On 4/18/2023 at 3:48 PM, Stan Shinn said:

Then, a group of enemy archers in the woods shoots a volley of arrows and one of these flies towards Sir Celderic.  Missiles work a bit differently ("while used in hand-to-hand combat a half or small shield has a base 15% chance to block a missile, a full shield has a 30% chance to block a missile, and a large shield has a 60% chance. If your character kneels behind it, a full shield has a 60% chance to block a missile, and a large shield has a 90% chance."). The Kite Shield is a large shield so it has a 60% chance, but Sir Celderic has already attempted two parries, making the parry penalty -60%. Due to the parry penalty of -60%, Sir Celderic cannot roll his 60% large shield defense. If Sir Celderic had earlier declared he was going to kneel behind his shield, then his shield would have had a 90% chance, and be rolled with a -60% parry penalty.

Honestly, I would not apply the cumulative -30% to the fixed shiled defence against arrow fire. Regardless of the wording, these percentiles represent a general chance of the projectile hitting the shield rather than some active defence on the part of the target. You mighty object that this makes someone kneeling behind a large shield almost invulnerable to missile fire, but this is exactly what happened with legions or phalanxes: even when showered with arrows, they took very few casualties.

You have imagined it. It is included in no version of the rules I am aware of, and believe me I have read most of them carefully.

However, what a character can do in case of lacking a CA for a defense is exchanging a Hero Point for an extra Combat action. However, in the case of a NPC it must be a bad guy who is important enough to have Hero Points.