Tanaka84

12 minutes ago, Tindalos said:

Just wanting to check something.

The Jonstown Compendium Content Guidelines say that you can use Questworlds when making material for the compendium. The Questworlds OGL says  you cannot make Gloranthan using it.

I'm hoping that means if you make Gloranthan scenarios/content using the questworld rules you have to publish it via the Compendium and not independently, rather than changing the Jonstown Compendium so that Questworlds isn't allowed at all?

If it works like the BRP license, then, if you want to publish anything Glorantha related you have to do it through the Jonstown Compendium, likewise if you want to do anything with the Mythos you use the Miskantonic license. What seems to be absolutely off-limits without any kind of permission is anything related to Arthurian legend. 

So, picture it like this, you have three licenses from Chaosium

Jonston <- Glorantha related stuff
Miskatonic <- Mythos related stuff
Anything else sans Arthurian legend <- Questworlds OGL

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

So why is this different from the WotC OGL? Well largely because we have a different business model than WotC. Our settings are what are valuable to us - the cosmology, entities, storylines, etc. of RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, etc. Some rules tie directly into the setting - like the Runes of RuneQuest, or the Sanity mechanic of Call of Cthulhu. We’ve removed those mechanics that we think are uniquely tied to a given setting (or with a specific edition of a game) but let you do whatever you want with the rest. Without paying us royalties.

If somehow it offends you that we aren’t letting you make your own retroclone of Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest, well that was never our intention. And if it offends you that this is a different OGL than WotC or is somehow not worth being called an Open License because it is different from how that term is used elsewhere, you can go pound sand. I really don’t care.

Well, WoTC didn't make everything OGL either . For example, certain monsters like the beholders are protected by IP, and in the 5e SRD feats are missing, (well, there is just one + the rules so people can legally make their own), racial subtypes, magic items, and all names and story elements of their settings (That's what the DM's vault is for). And let's not forget that back in the day the 3E SRD didn't include XP tables (tehee).  So in the end, the licenses are similar in that regard.

How they handled feats this time around (which I thought was brilliant) is one route you could explore if you feel inclined to add something to the SRD. Put in the stripped version of each (or some) magic system(s)  and a sample spell so that developers may use them as a starting point. I think that could go a long way in clarifying what you mean by substantially different.

If I understood your examples, it's pretty safe to make a magic system with magic points equal to POW and roll POWx5 to cast spells (the fundamentals of battle magic) but with a different feel, and spell list than the one found in a Runequest product. If that is the case, adding something as basic as that should put people at ease.

OTOH, I really don't think that it's fair to presume that the people showing concern in this forum are offended because they can't "make their own retroclone". Wanting to use a mechanic or testing the limits of the limitations imposed != making a retroclone. Like I said a thousand times before, the Push mechanic isn't neither original nor specific to the CoC setting, and allowing it's use doesn't automatically allow people to make X of Cthulhu. I can see it working in a hundred different settings. So there is room there for people going "hey, why can't I use this" without them wanting to steal your toys. 

As for the last part, let me get this off my chest, don't bother reading it since you don't really care about it, but still have the need to say it:

It's not about "worth", Open isn't a title or a rank. But it is a concept. It's a community accord that goes all the way back to 1983 with the free software movement. There is an underlying moral and ethical argument behind the concept. Hell, some argue there is an ontological argument. So yeah, when people use the Open License concept without understanding (or choosing to ignore)  the notion of freedom behind it and the ethical implications, those within the movement get pissed because you are appropriating and misusing a concept that has over 40 years of history behind it. And hundreds of hours of thought and debate put into it. The Open License community is protecting their ideas just like you are protecting yours.
 

52 minutes ago, soltakss said:

I think that might be missing the point.

People who want to use the Legend OGL to create a system that uses Prohibited Content, for example to retrofit Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest, can.

What they can't do is to use the BRP OGL to do that.

If people don't want to use the BRP OGL but want to use a Legend OGL to make something similar then fine. They can't put the BRP OGL Logo on it or call it BRP.

Exactly, but I´m not talking about them, I´m talking about the potential developer who wants to do something new, looks over the license, sees vagueness (plus the lack of mechanics in the SRD) and goes "nope, I´m going to use something simpler and with more things I can take". Consumers still get the product, but BRP looses a developer... this what I´ve been trying to say since the start. 

20 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

I'm very sure I am not validating your point. This BRP license isn't meant to crack down on pre-existing types of IP violations. It is our way of giving people more publishing options without making the situation worse. We're not expecting the BRP license to slow down or stop somebody who wants to publish a CoC supplement without a license. We also don't want to allow anyone to use the BRP license to retro-clone our CoC game.

Look I´m not having this discussion to be right. I´m having it because I have a long line of research on the psychology of piracy. And one of the biggest predictors of illegal behavior is how mentally taxing the legal route is. My perception is that your license as it is needs rewording because  people will prefer to use the least cognitive taxing alternative (a legend derived OGL) instead of going through the hoops to use your logo. 

It´s very clear to me that your license is flexible, but not because I read it, but because Jeff has given examples in this thread that imply that,  just copy their posts and paste it on the F.A.Q and call it a day.

If you need a more detailed opinion on why I think that, and link to the science behind it,  my inbox is open, I love Chaosium and I want to see you do great. I really wish you all the best with this license (and the QW license) and stay healthy

Have a wonderful day.

6 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

I never mentioned plagiarism, or referred to it. I suggest you read my post, specifically the one directly above yours, for the main thrust of my approach to this discussion. As for IP like Dresden files, Princess Bride, Ravenloft, and similar, I don't see why that applies to the license options we offer. You are welcome to belittle Glorantha, but I don't see how that relates to the discussion either. I don't remember ever saying anything about anyone violating our Gloranthan IP, or wanting to. If you read my previous post you will see I mention how we have a wide variety of community content programs available. 

As for my statements about "a number of people want to...", as the person who has had to send out DMCA letters, C&D letters, and contact numerous websites to take down things that violate our IP, I have more than just an assumption about people's intentions. I can't point to websites showing such unauthorized content because we have had the content taken down. I know that other companies do likewise, including WotC, but I am not going to speak for them with specifics about what they did. I've sat in seminars about this specific problem at the GAMA Trade show. I've talked with other companies about it as well. As for "not charging a dime", that is not a factor at all.  

Sorry, it's true you didn't mention plagiarism, and I didn't want to imply that, my slip up since English is not my first language, apologies.

When I mentioned those IPs I was pointing to the fact that all those games are published with rules based on OGL rulesets and you don't see people making "their own variant of X or Y setting" (To quote Jeff) with the intent to sell them or pass them as their own original creation.

I'm not belittling Glorantha in any way, I would ask you to please refrain from making assumptions about me. My only point is that Glorantha is a less popular setting than those mentioned and as such, draws a smaller audience (A really amazing audience mind you). Since the pool of people who consume those IPs is larger and there are no overt or massive efforts to produce/develop products for them without seeking a license, it follows that for a setting like Glorantha the pool of possible people who want to produce content without a license is minimal.

I'm assuming that you are talking about webpages that make content for your products like zines, adventures, characters, and even illegal PDFs/scans, and you know what? although I like the idea of community driven content, I perfectly understand why they have to be shut down. You have to protect your IP. But you are kind of validating my point here. They exist regardless of the fact that you allow or don't allow Sanity, Spirit Magic, Sorcery in your license. Which has been my main point all along, restricting your license isn't going to stop them because they are already doing it.

14 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

 

I'd very much like to know why all of the above options, plus the new option of the BRP license just doesn't work for you, or for that matter, anyone else. All I ask is please be specific, and also mostly speak for yourself. A vague example of "I want to write X, but your license options don't allow it" is far better than saying our license options are (insert vague negative word or phrase). 

I know this wasn't intended at me, and I feel like I may be bothering you Rick, so I'll shut up after this post

- As it is now, the BRP license does not allow the creators to use mechanics from Chaosium games in other setting of their own creation. Specifically, the Push rules are neither CoC specific nor original. And like I stated before, since it not clearly layered out what "substantially" means, a creator has to either make a wild guess, or is going to constantly have to get back to you guys to see what's fair game.

- The magic system you are prohibiting are extremely generic, "spent point do stuff" and "read and memorize spell" are well trodden mechanics in RPGs, so once again, without a clarification of what substantially means a developer is walking on thin ice.

- A creator has no guarantee that once their development cycle begins the license won't be updated changing stuff that might render their work illegal.

- The license as written is infectious, the wording on clause 10 needs revision to indicate that WORK does not need to abide to the BRP license if it doesn't use what you designate as open content.

- Remixing current content is also hard to pull off, for example, superhero + Cthulhu is right out of the picture, since it wouldn't neither fit CoC for community content program (or maybe it could, now that I think about it) nor the License since it's working with the Mythos.

Getting those things sorted out would work a long way towards a more welcoming license.
 

1 minute ago, Rick Meints said:

Setting aside what WotC and Mongoose may have done, a lot of clones exist for one other simple set of related reasons, a number of people want to write their own version of a game or game supplements for it without bothering with an IP license of any sort, including paying any royalties.

That may be the cases, but what percentage of people are we talking about here? Aren't you just assuming people's motivations?

Keep in mind that there are no "compatible content" (IP infringing products for sale) for licensed games like Dresden Files, Atomic Robo, The Princess Bride (FUDGE based with OGL rules) or popular D&D settings like Eberron/Ravenloft (I'm leaving FR out of this because it's so generic and broad that it's almost impossible to avoid IP with any epic fantasy adventure). I don't want to come off as rude but each one of those IPs (except for Atomic Robo) is hundreds of times more popular than Glorantha will ever be.
 

Look at Free League Publishing, they released their own community content program as well as their OGL, and people have published more in the program than outside of it, even if the program takes 50% of the price. Same deal with 5th OGL, people are happily using WoTC program instead of exploiting the OGL to publish without IP licensing. And considering that D&D is as huge as it is, it's kind of amazing that there hasn't been a single product violating their IP.

I can think of a one game based on OGL that is infringing IP like there is no tomorrow, and still ,the team behind it never charged a dime for it. Because they just wanted to revive a cool game, not leech of someone else's creation. But it was a defunct game, even if the brand is alive and well.

How can you explain this phenomena if, as you said: " a number of people want to write their own version of a game or game supplements for it without bothering with an IP license of any sort, including paying any royalties."?

I cannot stress this enough, plagiarism has nothing to with an OGL license.

 

 

2 hours ago, MOB said:

Yes. Sorry to have to belabour the point, but if you want to make your game using BRP, you now can - there's nothing stopping you publishing your own original creations, settings, games, and unique ideas using the BRP system. But if you want to make a thinly veiled retroclone of Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Pendragon, etc., we didn't open that door.

No need to apologize :). I understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree..

A. Legend, OpenQuest, Renaissance D100, Revolution D100, DG and other OGL products already let you make games like BRP. So in truth what this license allows is for people to say that their products are BRP compatible. But you could always make a game inspired by the system just not attach it to the brand.

      A.1. Even if i agreed that BRP and other OGL products are substantially different. BRP is a very big family of games. In truth, this very short SRD only lets you use a very specific subset of that ecosystem. To put it in perspective, GUMSHOE has way fewer games than BRP and yet the SRD is a whooping 170 pages. We can agree that it's overly generous, and probably a pain for potential developers since it's too much info to go through. But they have access to the full system. At this point we can't say the same thing for BRP's license

B. There is a lot stopping you... for example, look at the way you defined  prohibited content... "X is substantially similar to Y" Y being in all cases a product in your line. So let's say I want to make my own game using BRP because I loved RuneQuest, cool, I know what augments are. But I never touched CoC 7th edition. If I come up with the idea of making a reroll mechanic where the player gets a worse outcome if they fail a second time (free league's year zero engine has this very rule, so it's not original to CoC) I just breached the OGC license as per your definition. 

Does that Imply that I need to buy and read every BRP book to know what I should avoid?. OTOH, Substantially is an extremely vague term, so I could ask you if something is ok and you can say yes, while Jeff further down the line could say "nope, that looks too much like y".

Justin Alexander's point is another aspect to consider. Your license unintentionally infects future works derivative of the original OGC, since any WORK that is a revision (such as the same book with a different system) has to be published with the most up to date license. I know that's not your intent, but the poor wording is there.

Once again, I'm painting you like bad guys when I know you are nothing of the sort. But that's what happens when a license is based on mistrust. Now the potential developer has to carefully consider if their setting/mechanic is different enough as to not displease the owner of the license, they are constrained from using certain rules, settings, ideas, names, and so on, that's a lot of hurdles to jump... or they could use any of the aforementioned OGLs and avoid the hassle.

That's what I meant when I said that it's easier to make an OGL compatible Pendragon clone than to make a new game with new rules using the license as it currently stands. You are inadvertently making life harder for developers who want to publish original BRP material without affecting or disuading the ill-intended crowd. 

C. The sad truth is that Chaosium can't open the door (nor close it) because you don't have the keys. Thinly veiled clones of RuneQuest and CoC are available today, without the license. I would never touch them since I find it in bad taste. But they exist, and we all know it. That ship has sailed.

Please, please, don't take this post in bad faith. I want you to succeed, I want BRP and QW to be big brands in the hobby (hell, I'm still waiting QW's to publish my own game). But out of all the OGL games out there, no company had problems with "thinly veiled clones" except WoTC and Mongoose. In the first case, the OSR was born out of people's frustration with WoTCs lack of support for previous editions of D&D, and the later because mongoose backtracked their open content in favor of TAS so the community just made their own thing (cepheus engine) and called it a day.
 

The moral of the story is that clones aren't due to OGL's but rather due to a disconnect between the license owner and potential licensees.

Edit to add: Also, what really kicked off the competition between PF and D&D was WoTC walking back on their OGL license for 4E.

 

5 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

I guess this ultimately comes down to how you view the licence holders. Are they reasonable people willing to work with fans on some edge cases or hard asses unwilling to look at fringe cases. It strikes me that there are some who seem to view this offer as an insincere gotcha rather than a legitimate offer to open BRP up for use by others. Not saying you are one of these, just seems like a lot of glass is half empty here, although that has been my experience in general with these kinds of arrangements. They tend to bring out the complaints from fans that they don't go far enough with some apparently wanting unfettered access to everything.

 

 

I see it the other way around, it comes down to how the license holders see potential licensees.

Where I live, when you enter a store you are either forced to leave your bags at the entrance or you can't go in. Also, you have to show your bag/backpack/whatever when you are leaving...

This license feels a lot like that. I understand why they ask people to show their bags, I know they are protecting their store (IP). But still, it sucks being treated like a criminal, specially when  in the long run it´s not effective. Those who will actually steal (make retroclones or copy a product) will do it regardless of your security/license. And you are just making life harder for people who actually want to make something with the BRP ruleset.

In fact, with this license, it´s easier to use another OGL game and make your P3nDr4G0n "totally not a clone" game then to build something with OpenBRP.

And yes, that´s probably not their intention. But that´s how it comes across.

If this is the route they are taking, I wish them the best, and I hope a lot of great products come out of this license. But I personally think that they should change the name. "Open" has a very strong and well defined meaning amongts creators

20 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

Thank you. Don't know what Chaosium would call "solid" though. And I need more of a track record, I believe. That's one reason I'm tearing my hair out over the Kickstarter.

Same here, I have this idea burning in my mind and I'm waiting for the SRD to work on it :). I could cook a system for the game, but there is already wayyyyyy to much out there, and I want to help promote QW.

14 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

It looks like most of the genres that require specialized rules (supers, mecha, etc.) seem to be taken. So if I were to go in cold and write something for QuestWorlds, would I have to wait to do some things until I know what I would have to become compatible with? Or would I be able to go in on my own, knowing rules will contradict someone else's more popular rules set?

Either way is fine, the great thing of a OGL game is that you can have multiple approaches to emulating a genre, just look at Fate and the dozens of iterations of the superhero genre. Having said that, I do beleive the size of the community is something to keep in mind, the smaller the community the smaller the market for alternatives. 

I have this wish/expectation that the SRD gets released to the wild during Gencon 2019

On 6/15/2018 at 1:09 PM, RosenMcStern said:

Tanaka has posted some relevant observations on rpg.net. However, the thread there is a sell me / tell me and I do not want to clutter it with details which are relevant only to whoever has some play experience. Better go on with the discussion here.

Partially true. First of all, Fire Blade is not variable, and Absorb Fire would completely negate the Might of the Fire damage: the effect is the same in Both Advanced and Basic Combat. Should the Fireblade take effect, the rules do not specifically tackle this case, but I would say that since Fire Blade adds 1 might of fire, then it provides only 1 Might to damage in Basic Combat. Still relevant, but not a showstopper.

Damage Enhancement is more powerful than Protection. True. However, this was thought of, and intentional. Do not forget that damage in BC is not "wounds", but also tactical advantage. In AC, there are several ways to bypass armour, and the person with Damage Enh. has a higher chance of winning over the one who is only using Protection: the Protected warrior can still score a hit and not do enough damage to win, the damage enhanced one will certainly end the fight with the first use of Choose Location, Maximum Damage or Coup de Grace. This is reflected in Basic Combat by the fact that Protection is only worth 1 or 2 points.

This is more relevant. Haste is very powerful in AC, and hardly effective in BC. For groups which use mostly a narrative approach, Haste is recommended as a tool for chases, not for battles. Consider that a Haste 2 automatically ends the Chase with the spell user winning.

The rule is misinterpretable, it seems. What I intended is that you need to have Heal available to regain RP on an advantage defense, not that you must roll Heal. Like many other spells, Heal is useful in BC to justify a narrative, rather than for rolling. In BC, you are supposed to roll only for spells which have the Overcome Trait, (or for a buff if it is useful to add damage to your weapon roll). Not for Heal: the healing roll is subsumed in the roll for defense.

Unlike BRP/RQ/Mythras magic points, Rd100 exertion points are meant to let you cast at least a dozen spell in combat before being forced to stop. The case when you cast 20 spells in Basic Combat, outdoing what your character would be able to do in AC, is extremely rare. Believe me, in all spellslinging battles I have run, magicians ran out of Channelling long before they could drop to zero Exertion Points.

This is legit, as I suppose players expect their magic to be effective when their characters take the time to learn it

However, I have a feeling that they have still to depart a little bit more from the usual BRP paradigm of HP attrition. Basic combat is based on attrition (advanced combat is not), but not attrition of wounds. Once you think in these terms, things make more sense. Provided that powers cannot be 100% equivalent between basic and advanced combat, in any case.

Oh DUDE, so not fair, I didn´t realize you had replied over here :), all right,, let´s see:

- Shoot I forgot Element Blade was static (really need to have the PDF in front of me when I reply), still, what worries me about the way DE works in basic combat is that you get a very different experience from Advanced to Basic because of the power, once again, in Basic one shotting a dragon is a very real posibility, and very improbable in advanced.

- For haste I use the following rule Add Might to Strike Rank in basic combat for the purpose of calculating your rank order, seems to work fine

- On the Heal, If there is anything I would add to RD100 is an action that allows to recover RPs in combat or in conflicts, something like 1D2 on a success 1d4 on advantage, so dealing damage is still the optimal choice, but you have something to rely on as a last ditch effort. That would make Heal a lot more interesting in basic combat

Ill post the rest, this has been one hell of a week grrrr damn work.

 

As the title says, i want to know what people are doing with the system (and try to liven up thus place  )

as for me, I'm stuck with some dungeon world for now, but I'm working on a Star wars campaign in the old  republic, modeling the dark side with motivations is so simple, and yet it feels truee to star wars than any other system. Im also working on an urban fantasy game / PIs who invade peoples dreams. 

I already mentioned it in another thread, but newcomers might miss it, we now have a RD100 character sheet up and running at Roll20, its a bit rudimentary, but so are my HTML/CSS skills

If you use it and spot anything spotty dont hesitate to contact me

Hey peeps, just a heads up, my roll20 character sheet is up in, you can find it under campaign settings  it even does most of the calculations for you.

fair warning, this is my first html/css in like forever, so expect a few quirks.

if you spot something weird let me know

15 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

There is only one now, and it is with cover.

BTW, Kudos on the new PDF, it´s very light and very gently on my mobile devices! 

On 10/11/2017 at 7:42 AM, RosenMcStern said:

If this hits the sweet spot of crunch for your group, you can certainly benefit from it.

 

As i have already said (to Tanaka, IIRC), if you really wish to try a third combat model "in-between" Basic and Advanced, just use OpenQuest combat "as is", with hit points equal to double Rd100 Toughness. However, I stress once more that this will not make combat faster than Advanced Combat, just less crunchy.

Yes you did, and it worked like a charm! once I got used to it I started introducing aspects from Advanced Combat and I'm slowly building up to migrate to it  

22 hours ago, pansophy said:

Personally I find editable PDF files good enough for my purposes. RD100 is not particularly maths-heavy, so I do not need anything more sophisticated than a printed char sheet. But that's just me and somebody else might love this  

I agree, RD100 is less math heavy than a lot of other games I player (13th Age for example, nothing too complex, but there is a lot of addition). I made the sheet because: a) I was out of practice with Excel, so I wanted a small side project to practice B. I do most of my gaming online nowadays, so I'm losing the face 2 face perk I might as well take full advantage of the benefits of online gaming and C. I can whip up a "legal" NPC in a few seconds (Most of the time I just wing it ) 

15 hours ago, Zit said:

I made a much less sophisticated one for testing purposes (I wanted to create different characters). If I had knew there already was one available...

CHeck out the conflict sheets, they might be useful  

Here is the link to the document:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t_SEdR8WpuSc81nVnZZ753vhB7X9sMwy40NXclRojJc/edit?usp=sharing

Let me know if you have any ideas  

12 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

I am sorry to tell you this, but... you did not hack anything

This is exactly how you are supposed to use Traits and Stunts.

This is a perfectly valid rephrasing of the definition of "Stunt"

Hahahhaha, i was under the impression that stunts only work under certain subsystems, for example in advsnced combat, good to know I was wrong

Actually I have done something of the sort for my game

Since my group is lazy and I will never get them to read the main book I wrote a "redux" version (in spanish) for them; as I was organizing the information I had a flash of insight: Stunts and powers are also traits. (Duh I know)
 

Once I started thinking like that, I realized that I could hack stunts into my game (I don’t use advanced combat), in essence a stunt is a trait that a. doesn’t provide a bonus b. changes at least one mechanical variable c. may provide narrative permission (for example Acrobatics and Read intentions both provide narrative permission, they justify why you can use acrobatics to make a Wuxia like jump, or use dodge to avoid bullets)

So basically I defined a trait as “a word that specifies something about your character” and it can be an Enhancer, a Stunt, or a Power

Enhancer traits are what we know in RD100 as a “trait”; if you can justify how the trait aids you, you get a bonus to your check, or it can be used for support actions (Denoted on the character sheet with an E after the trait)

Stunt traits on the other hand, do not provide bonuses; instead they may introduce a new mechanic into the game, change the way a mechanic works, and provide narrative justification. (Denoted on the character sheet with an S after the trait) In order to buy a Stunt trait you need to have a pre-requisite Enhancer trait

Power traits are a mix of enhancer traits and stunt traits, that is, it’s a trait that can be used to get a bonus, but which also introduces new mechanics.   (Denoted on the character sheet with an P after the trait)

So a character may have for example

Spellcasting (E), Range (S), Demoralize (P)

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Up till now, it’s just semantics (I’m just teaching the same game with different words), but here is where it gets interesting, let’s say I want to run a game about supernatural creatures, so I come up with two enhancer traits, Werewolf and Vampire

 Now, each enhancer trait can have a family of stunts and powers associated, for example:

Werewolf (E):

Regeneration (S): Once per physical conflict, you may choose to regain 1D6 resolution points. You may do so a second time if you take an “enraged” consequence.

War claws (S): Your natural weapon damage is D6

Protection (P): As per the protection power

Vampire (E)

Invisibility (P): As per the invisibility power

Blood sight (S): You never take penalties from environmental sources that would impair your vision

Haste (P): As per the haste power

If you are lazy like me, you can get rid of Powers (powers as freeform traits) and just use Enhancers + Stunts, that pretty much hits my crunchiness sweet spot.

So I guess my hack is that I opened up stunts to be like edges/feats from other systems 

On 7/7/2017 at 3:38 AM, RosenMcStern said:

 

Like weapons In any case, duplicate overcome spells are a waste even in Advanced Combat. Having both Demoralize and Confusion is not convenient because they occupy two slots for essentially the same purpose: keeping your opponent out of the fight until someone can kick his *** in physical combat. The rules already incentivize having a single attack spell.

This would require pages and pages of careful explanation in Chapter 3, which has already been accused of being "verbose and baroque". I am in favour of giving narrative (oops, I wrote the N-word) control to players, but when a rule does so it must explain very well what the player can impose on the environment. Think of all that revolves around the concept of creating "Scene Aspects" in Fate, which are essentially what you are suggesting here.

Actually, the fact that you can describe the outcome of an exchange is already enough to implement this at "fictional positioning" level (sorry for the technicality). The opposition should react consistently with what you described, out of mere common sense. For instance, one should describe the next roll for effect as an attempt to shake off the spell instead of an attack when hit with a Dominate power, which would trigger a Willpower versus Spell roll instead of a combat roll. The rules already specify that you cannot describe an intermediate success as the equivalent of winning the conflict, so this kind of action is already covered with sufficient detail.

Mmmh. perhaps we could add this explanation to the "How do I do X" section.

I'm not going to write a long reply, because that's not the purpose of this thread; but you really opened my eyes, thanks for the insight mate. I'm going to look at Basic Combat with a fresh set of eyes.

Ok, so, let's avoid the N-work (not that N word!).... hmmm how about M-space's name AKA Quick Combat, I like the sound of that, and it doesn't feel like it;s a little brother to advanced combat

Thanks again mate!    

On 7/7/2017 at 7:47 AM, pansophy said:

hmmm, no, I do not want 'Aspects' during a Conflict. The beauty of RD100 is the narrative that evolves during a Conflict by describing how the loss of RPP points take place. And this actually separates RD100 from FATE. 

If somebody narrates something during a Conflict, that is how everybody should react to it. I'm totally with Rosen on this one.   Not everything needs a rule, especially not in a narrative RPG.

But Rosen: maybe, as a suggestion, it is possible to produce some kind of GM Advice document, that actually collects some additional rules, concepts or ideas for RD100. Maybe this is a product for the future.  

So, here is a neat Idea, let's work on the How to do X in Revolution thread, and then it can be published as a PDF collection as an OGL thingie... or better yet, maybe a zine  

- A short one/two page table for adjudicating spells in Narrative Combat -and remove the Narrative combat explanations from the spell list-

- Related to the first point, perhaps an optional rule on using overcome powers in narrative combat; the way it is right now, it´s a waste for a character to have several overcome spells, as mechanically they all do the same thing (Loss of RP).

- An optional rule for "creating obstacles"  as a support action in conflicts, that is, situations that prevent a character from taking a certain action until they are overcome. For example, "I use my elemental wall talent to create a water wall, preventing them from running", this forces the opponents to change their tactics. This could be used in conjunction with the second point above, so a mind control spell could be used to prevent a creature from attacking (until they win a roll for effect against the caster in a battle of wills).