RosenMcStern

9 hours ago, Averion said:

I suppose fine-tuning the D100 Games is an endless journey. 😛 

But the journey itself is its own reward 🙂

Virus.That's what you get for not being vaccinated. Will fix it now.

The Italian edition of Dynamic D100 will be released on September 3rd, 2021. On that same date we will be at the Modena Play game festival to present the game and run demos. If you are in Modena at that time we will meet you there, otherwise you will be able to order the game online.

The French edition of Dynamic D100 will be released on October 1st 2021. On that same date we will be at the Octogones game festival in Lyon to present the game and (hopefully) run demos. If you are in Lyon at that time we will meet you there, otherwise you will be able to order the game online.

We decided to postpone the release of the French edition, which is 80% ready, to avoid rushing its production because of the impending arrival of the Italian edition. Once conventions are returning and we decide to use them to launch games, it is better to focus on convention dates, and the date for the Italian convention happens to come first.

16 hours ago, AndreJarosch said:

Any chance to you might have a spare copy of the old edition of "Wind on the Steppes"? 🤔

All copies were destroyed as they bore a Chaosium logo we could no longer use.

Sorry for the late reply, I was quite busy. The news are:

• Dynamic D100 is available inEnglish, but we expect the French and Italian editions to be more relevant in terms of diffusion; they will arrive in September-October.
• We will make an official announcement about Red Moon Rising in a few days.
• As announced, the text of these two titles will make up the core of the new International Edition; in fact, some of this text has already been released to Red Moon Rising subscribers as early access.
• The full version of the International Edition is unlikely to appear before 2022, but a new SRD could arrive in 2021; as stated, part of the text is already available.

36 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Much better protection. 

I would say no. Not at all. Mail is very effective at stopping slashes, but performs poorly against piercing and crushing weapons. It will still save your life but will not prevent incapacitation. Even when plate was not very common, everyone wore a helmet over the mail coif. Not doing so would be suicidal.

The real big advantage of mail is that you can make a "no gap" suit of it. Doing the same with plate or lamellar is incredibly expensive, and you would still have mail protecting some areas.

Have a look at some HEMA master videos. They all tell that mail is useful and convenient, and you would really wish to have it available in battle, but certainly not the best armour you can find.

10 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

I wasn't aware of the HEMA connection to Mythras, that's a fun fact. Thanks.

Pete is quite a competent swordsman (and weaponsmith). You can bet that his experience has transpired into the rules.

45 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But is that a bad thing? 

 

 

Yes, it is. If "longer combat" does not mean that more events happen, but just that there are more turns spent in "I miss" or "he parried, no effect" events, then you are not using the time you spend at the table in an effective or entertaining way.

As Loz explained above, you may appreciate combat mechanics that leverage attrition, it is a matter of taste. But this combat model is not exactly... exciting. Nor does it leverage tactical thinking that much.

7 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Cool! What system did you use? Can you share character sheets?

Revolution D100, not surprisingly. The superhero package is in the download section.

I have character sheets, yes, but there are potential copyright issues here. I will only share if a moderator says it is ok.

So, we played this game yesterday. No video recorded,although Régis has posted a detailed list of what black metal songs he, or at least his character, was listening to during the adventure. I am not 100% happy with the result but the game went on relatively smoothly. And all human-sized opponents provided a comparable level of challenge to Iron Man, Thor and the Black Widow. The biggest issue is that you need a good degree of system mastery to use most powers.

10 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Thanks, I'll take a look! One thought I toyed with is to only allow one attack per round regardless of action points, while any extra action points can be used to parry against several opponents, or possibly do other non offensive things as well. How do you think that might work? Should extra parries be penalised in this case, in your opinion?

Well, Loz is certainly more qualified to answer for Mythras, but there is one thing I can certainly add, after spending hundreds if not thousands of hours playing almost all variations of BRP (RQ3, BGB, Legend, Mythras, Revolution, probably others): the closer you go to a "one attack per round" combat model, the longer your combats will take in terms of both game and real-world time.

So the point is: can you houserule Legend or Mythras so that it resembles RQ3/G a little bit more? I would say yes, you can. And it will not break the game: your players will still beat the bad guys if their characters are competent and they make wise tactical decisions. But it will take a significantly higher number of combat rounds (and combat rolls) to do so. And not because more "exciting events" will take place. It will just be a higher number of misses or parries.

So in the end it is entirely up to you and the features you want in your game: fewer "events" per round, and more rounds per combat, or more "events" per round with the associate necessity of some "during-the-round" bookkeeping? The answer is, of course, subjective.

On 5/20/2021 at 12:05 AM, Barak Shathur said:

In RQ3, blunt weapons halve the AP of flexible armour (like chainmail), so they can be quite effective.

This is a nice rule if exploited well, and I used it a lot, especially in my all-troll games, but it was not in the core RQ3 books. It was in the errata (and in the gdw edition). As you can see from the reply below yours, most people still regard it as a sort of houserule.

The truth is that while RQ2 and RQG provide different mechanics for damage enhancement to slashing, piercing and crushing weapons, RQ3 and the BGB only have damage increases for impaling wepons. This sometimes leads to unrealistic combat techniques.

12 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

The point I was trying to make is that they innovated a little too well, what I want is more like a tweaked RQ3 or BRP. Some of the changes in Mythras break the game for me (as far as I can tell from just reading the rules). But I'll give Imperative another look, thanks for the tip.

Why don't you just try the game at the table instead of just reading it? A lot of people have tried that combat system, and now prefer it over the classic BRP implementation. Others do not, but most of them can now motivate their dislike with experience rather than feeling. As D. Vincent Baker said, "You cannot really know how a game plays out until you have tried it in practice".

The sad truth is that damage values in RQ3 are rather... wrong. Blunt weapons have the lowest possible minimum damage, and not just a lower average damage. This has two consequences:

• sharp weapons have a higher chance of penetrating armor, while blunt weapons are more likely to bounce off; it should be the opposite;
• a sharp weapon does more damage so it is more likely to overcome a parry; this is wrong, it should be the sheer impact of the blunt weapon to have higher chances

"Sharpness" is factored in the damage dice with a +1 or +2 for the sake of simplicity, but then this leads to the above inconsisencies. In general, sharp weapons are ineffective if they strike at the wrong angle, while this cannot happen to blunt weapons. The damage dice should reflect this, but in RQ3 they do not. The BGB is more consistent in this, as it is the blunt weapons that have the biggest minimum damage.

7 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

Seriously.  This reads like a coded personals advertisement.  "Sturdy, long-handled auteur seeks willing and capable escape artist for unusual plot twist with AC/DC connection.  Professionals only -- no amateurs or tourists.  Must know what U want."

Please, post video.

!i!

Well, we may be able to post video, but only after we have run the scenario. Assuming that it is accepted.

It would be fun to try this game at GenCon, which is public, but I am a bit scared of copyright issues. As a result, only Kraken attendees (see Joerg's comment for explanation about the Kraken) will be able to see the ad. Nevertheless, this includes the Chaosium staff and a lot of people from these boards.

For Krakeneers only: I have just submitted an "interesting" scenario to Fabian. if you want to see some "heavy hitters" in action with D100, on May 22nd you might have a chance.

On 4/22/2021 at 11:16 AM, Averion said:

@RosenMcStern makes some really valid points, and not only because he's the one who wrote Revolution D100, but also because he addressed some really deep, root issues within the Basic Role-Playing, and to further extent Mythras (both are really awesome!).

Even if we think that Revolution D100 improves them in some points, both classic BRP and Mythras are great systems that i would fully recommend playing without hesitation.

Quote

One thing I can agree is that the parallel conflict for magic could become a momentum-breaking moment and slow down the combat a lot. I'm quite happy to hear that Paolo is working on another, simpler solution.

Except that it is not gonna happen. As soon as I started a basic playtest of this alternate rule, it became evident that it did not work, and above all that it was not necessary.

The point is that all our playtest experience clearly shows that the Overcome conflict does not slow down gameplay. If you are familiar with Rise of the Yokai Koku campaign, you might have noticed that there is a scene in which the adventurers must fight unarmed. In all games I have run of RotYK, the party's magician has managed to dispatch two or three bad guys with Confusion or Disruption within two rounds, which is more or less the time he would have spent to do the same in RuneQuest or Mythras. Like many of the RD100 rules, parallel conflicts are complex to explain, but very quick to execute. In other cases I have seen magicians palsying multiple opponents with one single action, faster than it would take in RQ or Mythras. Of course it takes skill and a good roll to succeed instantly, but the plain fact is that it does not break tension, it actually builds it. It's the "oh damn I failed the resistance roll, I must restart casting" that breaks momentum.

Quote

As to Project [Energy], I'd recommend that you use the Disruption Cantrip instead. Heck, you may even go Mythras-style and separate Cantrips from Divine Magic as a standalone magic tradition from which you could remain a hedgewizard, run a spellblade of sorts, or develop further into Arcane Magic or Divine Magic as a wizard or a priest.

This is in fact done in Rise of the Yokai Koku, where Buddhism uses cantrips and Shintoism uses divine blessings. You usually end up having both, but this is because many Nihonese follow both religions.

Another important point: do not be afraid of Projection spells. We have been playtesting this stuff intensively for three years and the results have been extremely positive. They give rise to amazing wizard duels, with creative actions taking place all the time (do I take cover against the firebolt, try to counterspell it, try to teleport away from its path or try to absorb it with a freezebolt? All these actions are possible, and each has a different effectiveness and chance of success).

It is your game and you are the final arbiter of what rules to use, but believe me: if you start nerfing spells before trying them RAW, you do not know how much fun you are missing. And no, your magician will not become OP. 

Quote

Some of the things I'd recommend for any Game Master to drop is the Fly spell, as well as the Invisibility spell. These tend to go around many of the plot hooks and encounters which you might want your players to otherwise bump into, or at least take some consequences from. They're really powerful spells in their utility, that the wizard/priest can just scout ahead as much as they wish. Pretty much nobody flies or goes invisible on their own spell in the Middle-Earth lore, and you also don't see these in Harry Potter, or the Discworld, or Eragon, etc.
As such, they're a more-or-less Dungeons & Dragons approach to wizardly vast versatility to every situation, which is somehow manageable with spell slots and setting various invisibility-seeing sentries, which would just add a lot of additional bookkeeping to the GM in case they'd want to allow these spells.

Correct. Fly, Invisibility, Teleport and Project Senses are spells that you can use to bypass skill requirements or obstacles that would otherwise require some creative planning. They are showstoppers and should be the province of highly competent magicians, if allowed at all. They should never be cantrips, and if allowed as arcane magic their access should be restricted to selected magicians. However, if you want to play the fantasy equivalent of Dr. Strange... why not?

It might be 2022. Currently our focus is on releasing Red Moon Rising first, and RMR is about 50% written at the moment. Once this is out, we will build upon the released games 8RMR, DD100) to finalize the International Edition.

Sure! I have joined.

Hi Averion and welcome to the madhouse.

Your houserules sound a lot like "Mythras with fixed AP", which is a houserule that many adopt. You are integrating very few, if any, concepts from Revolution, the core is still Mythras. Perhaps you could collect more feedback on the Mythras section.

If you want general suggestions, instead, there are several threads you could browse here. The only piece of advice I wish to provide is "try the rules". Run the Conspiracy Theory or the Quest for Eldorado and tell us how it felt.

No, it is just a misspelling that the editor did not catch. It should be Romania.

Okay folks, you can now have a thorough look at the game in this unboxing video clip:

If you can understand Italian, you can guess how much Giaffy was excited about this game. And he is not even a roleplayer!

8 hours ago, SDLeary said:

A change I had not noticed. In RQ3, padding was 2 pt... so in my mind a Gambeson should be at least 3, and preferably 4 points.

SDLeary

Nope. 1 pt (soft leather). 2 pt was hard leather, which you cannot use as padding.

11 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

But we're talking about a fantasy world where ring mail does exist, not some given (presumably European) medieval period in our world.

BRP covers historical play, too. Real armour should be present in all its forms. Fantasy armour should be an addition, not a replacement for real amouur. The limited weight/cost, 5-point protection niche in real world was taken by mail shirts that provided partial cover but good protection from slashes. Their stats are probably similar to that of the non-historical ringmail.
 

Quote

If you're referring to rings being driven into the flesh, sure that's bad, but that kind of granularity is hard so simulate in a system that's supposed to have a kind of simplicity and elegance such as BRP. 

I was referring exactly to this. It's not that hard to simulate: you don't allow mail without padding, as it happens in 90% of RPGs with a minimum of historical verisimilitude. There is no need to punish players for choosing options that do not make sense: just remove the unrealistic options and you are fine.

2 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

I agree 100%. However, like I said I'm trying to keep it as close as possible to the rulebook. One solution might be to say that 7pt mail includes the 2pt heavy quilt. In order to not make mail redundant vs ring mail (5 pts) you could say that mail is the only armour that allows heavy quilt without additional armour penalties. Which I think makes sense since it's the most flexible of armours. 

The best representation of medieval armour I've come across is in Harnmaster.

Ring mail did not exist, this is the point. It is ring that should be made redundant and replace with th eubiquitous chain skirt.

And the values for mail must always include the padding. You cannot wear chain without padding. It would do more damage than it blocks. Realistic value is 5 INCLUDING the quilt.

I really cannot undestand why Steve Perrin, who has some experience with armour, chose this unrealistic value for chain.

Gambeson 5 and chain 6 is lightyears away from reality. Chain was ALWAYS worn on a gambeson/silk/linen, so having it increase protection by 20% only makes no sense, for the weight it adds. Gambeson/aketton is the equivalent of what we used to call "leather armour" (which probably did not exist in real history. it should be 

Chain should be around 4-5, and was standard issue for medieval professional militia or ancient soldiers, often worn only on the torso. Between this and the full protection of the gothic plate there should be 4 steps at least, with room for scale, lamellar and brigandine, all of which have different characteristics and protection values.

We are behind schedule with this because of various health issues, but all these things are in the pipeline.