Damage in Basic Combat / general concept

[pansophy]

Well, just one question really: how does a character die in Basic Combat? As I read it, the character simply loses the Challenge, but nothing states how wounded the character is at the end.

Also, the whole rule system seems to be very similar to 'Heroquest 2', at least if you only use the Basic Combat. Most concepts seem to be re-interpreted from HQ2, converted to the use of a d100, all with a more conventional approach towards Attributes and Skills.

Not that I do not like it, it just feels ... already known, and not BRP-like at all. I realize it is easy to use/convert BRP characters and supplements to play Revolution d100. This is a strong bonus to me.

I must admit I sometimes have difficulties to follow the rules or the writing. Might be me at the moment, but I often find myself to re-read a paragraph twice or three times to understand it. Might be the grammar in places, too. Sometimes a few more examples (or at least a complete example of play, including all calculations and die rolls) would have been nice.

 

But back to topic:

1) how does a character die in Basic Combat

2) the Narrator does not need to 'Roll for Effect'? But s/he might, if needed or desired?

3) A character in One-on-One Conflicts using a support action automatically triggers a 'Roll-For-Effect' from the Narrator?

Question 2 & 3 arise from reading paragraph 2, p.48

 

[RosenMcStern]

Question 0: yes, it is intended as "a d100 game that you can run as you would run Fate or HeroQuest". But not necessarily, you can run it like a classic D100 if you prefer. The point is that it enables you to run it narratively, if you wish. We have been told that mixing the two was impossible, but I never believed it.

1) In Basic Combat you can only die if you - as the loser of a battle - find it appropriate. Otherwise you have the option of finding an alternate ending, within the limits of plausibility. The example about the dragon being defeated and robbed but not killed applies in the same way to player characters if they lose.

2) Yes. In some cases (e.g. poison) it is not plausible, in other cases it is up to the Narrator.

3) Yes. This is to avoid "powering up" a low skill with tons of bonuses before rolling. And to encourage group conflicts, which are way more fun than one-on-one. Some rules are there for plausibility, others for game balance. This one is for game balance.

 

[pansophy]

Just to rectify my former points: it was me, overthinking the rules and my mood (being tired and exhausted from reading three different rule systems in a row), that left me with the initial impression the writing of Revolution is odd.

Reading the rules now for the second time and some chapters even for the fourth or fifth time (you know, there are a lot of hidden details), I cannot see why I had trouble before.

I like what I read, I like how the game feels, I love how it all comes together - and most of all, it is as much as narrative as it is simulative. Some actions are simple opposed rolls, some call for Conflicts, some battles are handled well enough by Basic Combat and for more important fights one has the option to use Advanced Combat (feel free to mix and match).

This way we were able to play three one-shots in different genres and the players still can remember some scenes that would otherwise fade into oblivion with other rule systems. Sneaking up a cabin in the woods handled as a Conflict was very entertaining (and let to a very unexpected Effect), as was surprising and overcoming some bandits (without killing them, using the normal Conflict rules). Players naturally describe actions without thinking in game terms. The Character creation process is fast, guides the player by having fixed Characteristics, Skills and Traits, and is flexible to enough to include individualism (allowing Motivations as a game resource).

16AUD well spent! Thanks for bringing these rules alive, and enabling me to use all of the great BRP settings & adventures I already collected.

Next logical step for me seems to create a Character Tool to create, record, print and modify the stars and villains of my stories.

Again, well done Alephtar.

[RosenMcStern]

Thanks, Robert. And thanks for the positive review on DriveThru, too. Your comments coincide with the intentions we had while developing the game, so it is great to know that you were able to use the game exactly as we intended, without author guidance, and enjoyed it, despite an initial difficulty in understanding and digesting the whole tome that is - I am afraid - almost inevitable with 256 pages of tightly written rules. On the other hand, I really did not want to settle with "just a morsel of the experience" or to cut out some important but verbose passages of the rules such as the conflict guidelines and examples on pp. 62-27, or the guidelines for deciding when to use an extended conflict on page 44, so the text needed to be... meaty.

Revolution tries to give you the best of two worlds, being playable "narratively" as a HeroQuest or Fate game, or in "crunchy" mode like BRP or Mythras. How you play it depends on the type of scene in progress, and on the group mood of the moment, letting you use "as much detail as you are comfortable with", moment by moment. Many voices (some of them quite authoritative) said this was not possible, so the challenge was great. Your words let me hope to have made the most significant step towards this ambitious result, by producing a playable, flexible core ruleset.

Now, the settings

As for the tool, we do have a spreadsheet for designing characters, but I do not see it as a great priority, as chargen is on average easier than other D100s. I will prioritize a working Fantasy Grounds ruleset, as this is both a tool for chargen and for actually playing online!

[Jakob]

Thanks for the very interesting review, pansophy!

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