RosenMcStern

Suggest a change or correction

14 posts in this topic

As the time for a new print run approaches, I am collecting a list of small changes that might amend/enhance the new version without being different enough to constitute a new edition. Anyone who has an idea compact enough to fit in a space in the sidebars can suggest it here, if it is in line with the rest of the book we will consider it at least as a variant rule.

The list of changes will be made available universally for the convenience of those who have a copy from the first print run. All changes noted in the errata that comes with the current edition will be included, too.

Things that I have already included in the list:

  • Restoring the missing "transfer one die instead of inflicting two dice" option on an advantage roll in a conflict exchange (spotted by Pansophy)
  • Alternate optional limit for "Bypass Defence" based on the unit die instead of the ten die

    (to tone down the lethality of the effect)

 

  • Changes in the Penalties for defending againt a Projection power (the current version is extremely lethal);
  • Inclusion of the Cybernetic power for sci-fi settings
  • Increase the number of ammunition created/enhanced in a single Craftng Conflict to 10.

Brainstorm at will!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double Advantage as a new level of success. If an Adventurer has a skill over 100 and rolls below the excess skill they get an Advantage accoding to the RD100 rules, but what if the roll is also an Advantage? The adventurer should get a Double Advantage that beats a single Advantage. So, someone with 120% bow and rolls 10, this is below 20% so gets an advantage but the tens dice (2) is higher than the units (0) so he gets a double advantage.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/07/2017 at 9:12 AM, soltakss said:

so he gets a double advantage.

What would a Double Advantage be like in a Normal Conflict? Doing 2d6 damage against the opposing RPP and getting 1d6 back to your own RPP's? Or inflicting 3d6? Could be a total 'Game Changer', but depending on the setting it might fit the mood well. As this would be an Optional Rule, I could see its use. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think changing the name of Basic Combat to Narrative Combat as another poster suggested is pretty cool.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- 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). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 5/7/2017 at 7:01 PM, Archivist said:

I think changing the name of Basic Combat to Narrative Combat as another poster suggested is pretty cool.

It is indeed a neat idea. However, the word "narrative", albeit entirely appropriate, is loaded with a lot of toxic meanings for those who think the Old School is the Only True Way, so I am a bit reluctant to make it official. Perhaps we might add a side note that says "You can call it Narrative Combat", too, so that people can use the term on official forums without causing confusion.

13 hours ago, Tanaka84 said:

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

Nothing bigger than a short sidebar can be included in this list. Either it works by changing or adding a couple of sentences, or it must wait until we wish to make a new edition.

Quote

- 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).

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.

Quote

- 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). 

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.

Edited by RosenMcStern
Added consideration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2017 at 11:14 PM, pansophy said:

What would a Double Advantage be like in a Normal Conflict? Doing 2d6 damage against the opposing RPP and getting 1d6 back to your own RPP's? Or inflicting 3d6? Could be a total 'Game Changer', but depending on the setting it might fit the mood well. As this would be an Optional Rule, I could see its use. :)

In an opposed roll, it would just be a better level of success, so a double advantage beats an advantage.

In a contest, a double advantage would do 3d6. Using the "Getting back RPs" rule, which didn;t make it into the Rd100 rules, it could do 2d6 damage and get back 1d6, or even do 1d6 damage and get back 2d6, depending on the player's wishes.

In combat, a double advantage simply acts as a better level of success, so allows more combat effects to be gained.

 

 

Table1.JPG

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree re Narrative Combat, since that implies extreme narration, but I do think Basic combat deserves a special name.

I think we do need an expansion book or extended thread for the GM about "how do I do X". In particular, some extended discussion about converting common things from BRP or other systems and changing the assumptions.

e.g., magic points in most BRP games -> skill checks w/ conditions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :o 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!    

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Tanaka84 said:

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 

I vote for 'Visualised Combat', 'Abstract Combat' or 'Creative Combat'. Tending to 'Abstract Combat' at the moment. Either way, it is just a technical term, no game changer.

@Rosen: I assume the error in the Conflict table (p.48) will be addressed in the reprint? Also, will the PDF file be updated? :) 

And here a few ideas for the reprint:

- change the Chapter marking at the bottom of each even page to either 'Basic Combat', 'Advanced Combat', 'Vehicular Combat' or 'Mass Combat'. Same for The Powers: would be nice to know if I am in the Alchemy or Divine Powers part of the book.

- p.86 a box for 'Meaning of Damage': "If stuck for ideas, have a look at the 'Combat Effects' (p.115) in the 'Advanced Combat' chapter for inspiration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Quick replies:

4 hours ago, Tanaka84 said:

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 :o 

This and other ideas might find their way in the Companion.

3 hours ago, pansophy said:

I vote for 'Visualised Combat', 'Abstract Combat' or 'Creative Combat'. Tending to 'Abstract Combat' at the moment. Either way, it is just a technical term, no game changer.

Agreed. Abstract Combat and Detailed Combat are probably the best definitions.

However, major name changes might create incompatibilities with the first print run, and might need to wait for a second edition, which will not happen soon.

We can, however, start introducing official synonyms for things and promote a gradual transition towards the new names. I will open a specific thread for name changes.

Quote

@Rosen: I assume the error in the Conflict table (p.48) will be addressed in the reprint? Also, will the PDF file be updated? :)

Errors will be corrected of course. Apart from what is already in the errata sheet, there are many other typos which we have already spotted. The PDF will be updated, expect it to be re-downloadable within Summer. Probably some days after the release of the PDF for the French version of Catthulhu.

Quote

- change the Chapter marking at the bottom of each even page to either 'Basic Combat', 'Advanced Combat', 'Vehicular Combat' or 'Mass Combat'. Same for The Powers: would be nice to know if I am in the Alchemy or Divine Powers part of the book.

Good catch. We had thought of it and did not implement it because of time and technical constraints.

Quote

- p.86 a box for 'Meaning of Damage': "If stuck for ideas, have a look at the 'Combat Effects' (p.115) in the 'Advanced Combat' chapter for inspiration.

I am a bit unsure. This might incentivize hybridation between Basic and Advanced Combat, which I do not recommend.

Re: adding a new level of success, it can be done, and I bet Mankcam will be in favour of it, too :) But it would be too messy to make it an official alternate rule. Whoever wants to use it is invited to print out Simon's table and use it in play.

Edited by RosenMcStern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hey, Rosen, good and valid points. Maybe you can add 'Abstract and Detailed Combat' just as a sidenote? That way you would already start a transition to a later v2.0 for RD100 and people of the newer print run might already start using these terms.

'Meaning of Damage': hm, no, my intention was not to mix both systems - just mine the Combat Effects to describe the loss of RPPs.

 

Edited by pansophy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now