Jakob

Great - than I'll finally get my hands on a print copy of the rulebook, also!

On 17.1.2017 at 0:37 PM, RosenMcStern said:

 

Keep an eye on RPG Meeting for the cards, I will probably add the bundle within the week if not within the day - with a big caveat: "1 month delay if you order also the cards". But believe me, they are worth waiting, they are even more beautiful than Mirko and I expected.

By the way, did this happen? I still can't find the cards on rpg meeting.

1 hour ago, colinabrett said:

Are any parts of Mythras optional? Hit locations and combat special effects spring to mind as something I can live without: they add a level of crunch I'm not comfortable with. Would dropping either of these have a wide-ranging impact on a campaign?

At the moment, I don't have the full-blown Mythras, just the Mythras Imperative download. Does the full version handle selectively ignoring some sections of the rules?

Regards,

Colin

With regards to Hit Locations, it's actually not that easy dropping them just using the Mythras rules, since they don't provide any alternative; the same goes for combat effects (you could limit them however to the most essential ones). Easiest way to go would be to downlad the (free) OpenQuest basic and drop its combat system wholesale into Mythras, that should be no trouble at all.

1 minute ago, Mankcam said:

Well that's a shame. The Future Earth book was a great setting for BRP, and deserved to be expanded in a fully realised setting. I would really have preferred that it used a BRP system as a core system (regardless of whether it's BGB, CoC 7E, RQ, Mythras, OQ, Renaissance, Revolution D100, etc). I don't think I'll follow it over to something like FATE or it's own system. As much as I like the setting, my 'GM hat' thinks mainly in BRP Family game mechanics these days, so I'm not that big on learning completely new systems anymore.

Well, I kind of suspect that it will still be BRP-based ... I seem to remember Sarah stating somewhere that it would definitely not be Fate, but something more crunchy. But I must also stress that I have no special knowledge about the whole thing.

BTW, "After the Vampire Wars" sounds interesting. Hadn't heard anything about this setting before.

I'm pretty sure they do if you can present some proof of purchase of a hardcopy. However, they are not part of the bits&mortar program, so you might need to get in touch with them directly to get a pdf.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Hmmmm.  Well, Sarah (or someone from Mindjammer Press) should revise their website.

https://mindjammerpress.com/chronicles/   still says that they are planning to use RQ6 from DesignMechanism, expected in the 2014/2015 timeframe ...  

 

Yeah, that's still the initial text from 2013 up there ... I've been asking about Future Earth in mindjammer presses own forums, and the only thing that seems for sure at the moment is that it is not going to be for Mythras. Sarah stated somewhere that she first needs to figure out a deal for the publication of her Future Earth novels ... I'm guessing she's probably planning for a stand-alone game by now. However, Mindjammer press has a lot on their plate with fullfilling their extremely succesful Mindjammer kickstarter (and as a "everything in print" backer I can say that they're doing a great job). I suspect it will be a while before there's any substantial news about Future Earth.

4 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

 

The only problem I see is that this would require lots of number/letter tokens to put on the track, as each token should identify a single combatant. This approach is absolutely perfect online, but on tabletop the dice solution is still more manageable, believe me.

I'm not so sure about that ... I've been playing a German rpg that has a similar initiative system (albeit one without rounds - you just count initiative up, and whoever has the lowest current initiative gets his turn to act), and it works pretty well with the counters ... seems way easier to me than having D20s that easil get knocked over and where you also have to keep track of which die represents which NPC. It's probably a matter of taste.

Just an idea to make Strike Rank management in advanced combat easier: How about using a map with 40-50 numbered squares? At the beginning of each combat round, each participant puts a marker on the number corresponding to her or his SR; from there, you can then move the markers with each loss of SR. I you want to know whose turn it is to act, just look who's standing on the square with the highest number.

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

 

Localised damage is not used in this example. The reference to "the weakest spot" means that the roll of 0 for the unit die intercepts the weakest part of armour, if any. Unfortunately, the droid armour in this example is a flat 16/0+, which means there is no "armour gap" that can be hit by chance. The only way of hitting through the exoskeleton is through the Stun and Coup de Grace effects, as explained in the example.

That's interesting - hadn't read that part of the rules yet, sounds like an elegant way to allow for bypassing armour, especially if you play without hit locations. I'm always a friend of getting as much information as possible out of a die roll, so determining something like this based on the attack roll sounds like a good idea.

Thanks, definitely looks fast and intense!

Two Questions: Life Points don't seem to figure into the example - is that intended? Are they just unlikely to come up? It seems that one of the androids just goes down as soon as his toughness is surpassed (instead of just dropping to 0 LP), is that RAW for adversaries or something that the GM in this example would have decided on the fly?

Are Hit Locations used in the example? It seems not, but then there's this:

Quote

Unfortunately, the 10 points of damage so scored simply bounce off the creature’s armour, even after hitting the weakest part of it with a unit die roll of 0

Does the index die provide the hit location in close combat? I haven't read all through advanced combat yet (still don't have a printed book), but I'd still like to get a better grip at the basic concepts ...

On 10.1.2017 at 10:52 AM, RosenMcStern said:

In any other D100 ruleset, you would need to keep track of at least Strike Rank and Hit Points for every enemy figure, as cumulative hit points require you to mark minor wounds off Hit Points. In Revolution, you mark these bruises off Strike Rank, actually reducing the number of variables to count until a real wound kicks in. This may not sound the case when reading  the SRD, but you actually have fewer variables to book-keep.

 

Hm, the thing that I might be getting wrong but that kind of bugs me is the idea that Strike Rank does not only change when someone gets wounded, but also when someone takes an action. So while in any other d100 system, the bookkeeping only starts when someone is hit, in Rd100 advanced combat it starts as soon as someone takes an action - so as GM, I would expect that Strike Rank changes at least every round for every single opponent I control - that just sounds like a lot.

I keep asking about this point because I'm notoriously bad at keeping track of this stuff, at least until someone points out a good way to organize it. Using a d20 sounds like a good idea, but I'm sure that at my gaming table, they would get knocked over, mixed up with other dice or disappear between the snacks ...

Will the cards be available through RPG meeting? I'm still thinking about ordering a copy of the core rules from there, since this seems to be the only place where print copies are available for now (I wanted to wait until the RuneQuest Gesellschaft in Germany gets a few copies, but now I'm hearing they'll only get the second printing which is due some time in the spring or early summer, which would be a long wait). I could probably save on shipping if I could order both together (ordering cards from DTRPG to Germany is pretty much impossible anyway due to shipping).

Okay, I'm back to the SRD once more and have another general question about advanced combat: Is it absolutely necessary to keep track of SR for every single opponent? Or is there a way around it?

On 14.12.2016 at 1:56 PM, Simlasa said:

At least until Disney takes an interest in it...

Disney might just have access to the necessary technology to ressurect him ... but of course, his genes would have been accidentally mixed with the Genes of C.A. Smith, resulting in lots of screams and hilarity.

Interesting - sounds a little light the Midnight setting by Fantasy Flight Games... not sure yet if I need to get this, Dark Elves and Orcs sounding a little bit same-old-samey. On the other hand, there seem to be some weird/linteresting elements (riding birds, common origin of humaoid races ...).

40 pages seem a little bit slim for a setting book, however - do you plan to expand on this?

Thanks for the very interesting review, pansophy!

Still waiting for an opportunity to get my hands on a print copy ...

I really like these little glimmers of mythology ...

Did you already post an overview of the most important playable species of the setting somewhere? I've only seen humans, some kind of dwarves and the Rakshasar mentioned (and the latter ones are, if I get it right, not intended as a PC species ...).

A little late for the reply, but as I'm currently reading through this sub-forum, I might as well comment that I like the concept. Checking boxes in failed fatigue tests is nothing new, of course, but this seems to be a simple and elegant way to implement the concept.

I'm not quite sure if rolling again until succesful may not be a little harsh (and a little too much die-rolling), though ... that would basically mean that it is relatively likely to fall unconscious from taking strain just one time; lets say you have a SN of 11, you end up with 44-33-22-11. Rolling above all of these in a row seems not that unlikely.

Also, if you roll just once for each instance of SN, marking or not marking a box depending on success, you could better differentiate one-off situations that cause SN from ongoing SN. Let's say you cast a spell that requires active upkeep by the sorcerer - that would be where "roll strain each round" (regardless of success or failure) could come into play.

On 4.11.2016 at 2:13 PM, ReignDragonSMH said:

In general since I am a one man team: new jobs, some career changes, and a 2.75 year old who is going through changes   I had to put a lot of my creative projects on hold for a while, but it seemed old to keep coming back and saying "Uh... next week I swear!"

Sounds exactly like my life ... only that I obviously haven't gotten as far with my rpg projects. Still looking forward to Skaerune, anyway!

11 hours ago, jux said:

OQ horror - interesting! Sanity rules from Renaissance pls

No, I don't think cohesive horror cosmology would be needed. There are many CoC scenarios that have done away with Cthulhu mythos. I would be very happy with a game like Fear Itself with OQ system. Regular folk encountering ghosts and other supernatural. It should be mostly about survival and perhaps defeating the horror - like in "Cabin in the Woods".

Well, Fear Itself actually has a horror cosmology in the background, and also a certain aesthetic to what kind of horrors can be encountered (no run-of-the-mill vampires or werewolves, for example ...). If I'm playing a horror campaign, it is actually pretty important to me that these things don't feel too random - mystery is usually a big part of horror, and when I feel that there is no actual mystery, just a random bunch of scary creatures, I tend to loose interest. That's one reason while I'm totally not amused when, in a CoC adventure with Cthulhu Mythos background, suddenly a werewolf appears, which is simply a creature that doesn't make any sense in the Lovecraft cosmology ...

On the other hand, you're certainly right that it is maybe not so important that a horror game actually provides a cosmology - it can also present scenarios that hint at different creatures, mysteries and cosmologies and leave it to the GM to combine things that work together and leave the stuff out that would seem out of place. But still on the other hand, there's so much more horror BRP material out there that I feel I don't need more of it. So what would make it interesting for me would be an original and new horror cosmology.

Wow, a horror game that is not related to the Cthulhu Mythos! That would be truly awesome - I mean, I love the Lovecraftian stuff, and I just ordered a copy of "Lovecraftesque" on drivethru, but it feels that four in five horror (and indeed, science fiction) rpg settings feature elements from the Cthulhu Mythos... with a few exceptions, this has really gotten stale. Notably, the excellent looking "Lovecraftesque" explicitly does not use anything from the Cthulhu Mythos, but instead strives for a Lovecraftian atmosphere. And another of the few positive examples: I really like Pelgrane Press' Esoterrorists for going not only for a different aesthetics, but also a concept of horror that is diametrically opposite from Lovecraft's cosmic horror.

Hope OQ Horror materializes at some point, and I hope it comes with an interesting and not-too-generic setting. You wouldn't maybe think about licensing Laird Barrons fiction ...? That's an awesome horror mythology right there.

2 hours ago, Zit said:

What about having Special effect Categories, each category being related to a Combat Goal. For example, "neutralize without killing" wouldn't allow deadly Effects. The player choses at the begining of the round (or of the Combat, and anyway only when changing his mind) what is the goal of his combat actions and therefore refrains from using any not suitable Special Effects, which limits their number and thereofre speeds up the choice. So there is a beforehand decision about the general tactics and an afterward decision driven by opportunities.

Just a schnapps idea, as the Germans say.

Hm, to be honest, I don't see this working ... If the PC's goal is to "neutralize without killing", he would just choose the appropriate effects anyway - except if he wants to change his goal. So why turn this into a limiting rule, where you have to announce the general category of you effects and then choose a specific effect afterwards? This seems like more rigid and more complicated at the same time.

You could just make a helpful handout that lists all maneuvers useful for "neutralizing without killing", all maneuvers useful for "keeping your enemy as far away from you as possible", all maneuvers useful for "keeping your enemy from getting past you". That would make the choice for the player just as easy if he has a goal in mind, without forcing him to state a general goal in advance and then limiting his decision.

1 minute ago, RosenMcStern said:

There is ONE big difference Jakob: if a player is indecisive, then if the choice is made after the roll he will stop to think about the best possible tactics ony IF and WHEN he wins the roll. If the decision is pre-roll ("fortune at the end") then you will see the enormously frustrating effect of painstakingly calculating the best chances of success... and then rolling 99

This is why I disagree about the combat effects "slowing down" combat. They only slow down when the players do not think tactically (which seems to be Jux's case). If the players like to plan specific actions when their character fight, then the combat effects actually SPEED UP play, reducing "tactical thinking" to only the moments when you actually know that you have won the exchange!

I understand the difference in gameplay (I personally prefer "first roll, then pick your effect" because I hate the frustrated faces when some really cool stunt didn't work out ...). What I meant - in response to Jux - is that I feel that both are about the same thing basically (how an attack goes) and not about different things (the decision how to attack/the result).

What I'm trying to say is probably that it makes most sense to decide about this beforehand/afterward thing by deciding what works best for you in terms of gameplay, and not to overthink what they might imply about whether the PC plans a certain course of action or just takes an opportunity.

2 hours ago, jux said:

About OQ, I like the attacking options provided there. New Delta Green also has nice combat rules, but I think they are not so much related to combat effects, which are more results of an attack, rather than decision how to attack.

To be honest, I never quite understood that disctinction … what is the difference between „I want to disarm my opponent, so I roll at -30 and hope I come up with a success“ and „I want to disarm my opponent, so I roll my attack and hope I come up with a sufficient level of success“?
I mean, obviously, in terms of the rules, in one case, the player decides before she or he rolls the dice, and in the other, the decision is made afterwards. But both are abstractions from what the PC would actually do in combat. I mean, a halfway decent fighter probably wouldn‘t try, by all means, to disarm his opponent with his next attack, no matter if a good opportunity arose or not (as choosing beforehand might imply); on the other hand, no decent fighter would just strike „blindly“, without any plan, and see what happens (as choosing effects afterward might imply). So choosing beforehand and choosing afterward are both abstractions from a real fight, where opponents make plans that get thwarted or are succesful and take unexpected opportunities as they arise. To me, they both represant exactly the same thing in the game world.

How about just using Battle Magic? I you play a modern super-powered campaign, it could be exclusive to super-heroes. Maybe you could give out a few extra points of Magnitude to starting characters to make their abilities more impressive.