People in the Chaosium thread have asked for information about Revolution D100, Alephtar Games' new title now being crowdfunded on ulule.com. Since I really do not want to threadjack a discussion about Chaosium, I am opening a new thread.

First of all, I have to clarify that in the lengthy debate about "rules vs. rulings" I am firmly in the RULES camps. The driving principle proposed to Alephtar Games writers is quite simple: an experienced GM does not need to be informed that he or she can change an explicit rule that does not please him or her, but a fresh GM might be in trouble if the rules do not contemplate a case similar to the one he or she is about to adjudicate. So the bottom line is: better write it explicitly in the rules.

Another important point about which questions were raised is who decides what the outcome of an action is. In Revolution, it is not always the GM who has this responsibility. The rules say who describes the result of a single die roll, or of an extended interaction (conflict), and it is often a player who is in charge of this. The details of the mechanism which determine who describes what will be discussed in one future update on ulule.

This does NOT mean that the players can steal control of the story, or the world, away from the GM. Although Revolution recommends accepting as much player input as possible during play, it is a game where the GM is supposed to build the setting and the plot beforehand. There is no "collaborative world building", and the players interact with the plot only through their characters. In short words, what happens in the world at macroscopic level is firmly in the hands of the GM, and it is still perfectly possible to play a pre-defined plot if the group prefers this approach. In fact, those who are familiar with my previous works should know that they are usually constituted of a pre-defined campaign for roughly a half of the contents. I think this says it all.

The last point I have to address for now is whether such a game was necessary in the D100 landscape. Someone objected that since the characteristics of D100 classic rulesets are different, a game like Revolution D100 is somehow a perversion of the original spirit of the rules.

To which I reply citing the many examples of D&D emulators that do facilitate an "indie" style of play. To quote the ones I know the best, 13th Age and Mindjammer's Monsters & Magic. Both these games are D&D clones, and you are always aware that you are playing D&D when you play them. Yet while maintaining a classic approach, they facilitate (but never compel) a playstyle that leverages player description of events and integration of player input into the story. All of which firmly integrated in a classic RPG framework.
If such games exist – and have their fanbase – in the D20 ecosystem, why not for D100?

That said, if anyone wishes to ask more questions or request examples, here I am.

Thanks for starting this thread.

What d100 ruleset did you use as a base, and how did you deviate from it?

If I pick up a Revolution-statted setting book and want to run it with (say) RQ6, how much work will be necessary?

Are you related to the Penthouse guy?

Quote from: The Butcher;858708If I pick up a Revolution-statted setting book and want to run it with (say) RQ6, how much work will be necessary?

That's my question too. Based on your (still vague) description I do not think I'm interested in the core rulebook... but your BRP sourcebooks have been excellent and if I can continue to use new content for RD100 in the same manner (and don't have to ignore/convert huge chunks of it) then I'll be happy-ish camper.

Quote from: Simlasa;858620Well, here is one tidbit he's dropped over on BRPCentral. I'm not quite sure what to make of it but it appears to be one of their 'innovations' for the game:

"Revolution has a clear procedure for determining the result of any interaction with the world (with interactions not being limited to one single die roll in most cases). There is no "the GM is the final arbiter of what a die roll means": The rules say who describes the outcome of an action, and how nasty the Narrator may be when it is his or her turn to adjudicate consequences. And yes, the Narrator still has the power to be nasty."

Quote from: Paolo_Guccione;858700Another important point about which questions were raised is who decides what the outcome of an action is. In Revolution, it is not always the GM who has this responsibility. The rules say who describes the result of a single die roll, or of an extended interaction (conflict), and it is often a player who is in charge of this. The details of the mechanism which determine who describes what will be discussed in one future update on ulule.

I realize that you haven't described the system fully here (or, I presume, in any public location), but that's still sounding an awful lot like RD100 uses rolls to determine who has narrative authority rather than to directly determine the outcome of an action.  Is that accurate?  If not, then is there anything else you're ready to share which might clarify in what way it's not a "roll for narrative authority" mechanic?

Quote from: The Butcher;858708What d100 ruleset did you use as a base, and how did you deviate from it?

MRQ1, and some bits of the D20 SRD, plus some elements of OpenQuest and Legend.

But Revolution is its own beast, you will see.

QuoteIf I pick up a Revolution-statted setting book and want to run it with (say) RQ6, how much work will be necessary?

Well, some. The stat blocks will be similar, but not identical. And the magic systems will not be the same.

All in all, though, you will not make a bigger effort than that of converting our previous books (made for the BGB) to RQ6.

QuoteAre you related to the Penthouse guy?

No. So the book will not contain "more explicit" pictures of the cute thief on the front page of the campaign. If this is what you were hoping

Quote from: nDervish;858775I realize that you haven't described the system fully here (or, I presume, in any public location), but that's still sounding an awful lot like RD100 uses rolls to determine who has narrative authority rather than to directly determine the outcome of an action.  Is that accurate?  If not, then is there anything else you're ready to share which might clarify in what way it's not a "roll for narrative authority" mechanic?

You hit the spot, congratulations. It is a bit more complicate than that, but the outcome of a roll or a conflict also assigns limited narrative auhority, according to some simple principles (to be detailed on ulule next week). I realize that this approach is not particularly popular on this forum, but this is how the rules recommend to run the game.

This is entirely new for D100, if you do not count my own BRP Mecha where players have some narrative authority, and which incidentally is the basis for many of the rules in Revolution. Like I said, you should see it as an equivalent of 13th Age or Monsters&Magic for D100. It still "feels" like a D100, but you can use it more or less like you would use Fate or HeroQuest if you like that playstyle. Which does not mean that you cannot run it "classic style" if you wish. The "you do not need to tell the GM that he can change tha parts of the rules he dislikes" principle is still in effect.

Another important point is that the "roll and check who gets to describe" works for conflicts run at the basic level. When you decide to use and advanced subsystem (I will explain this concept in today's update on Ulule), the rules become more crunchy and detaield, and each die roll determines a precise effect in the game world. It is up to the group's taste to determine which conflicts to run "narratively" with simplified rules and which ones to run using a detailed subsystem. For instance, in the upcoming Mecha supplement we will recommend to run combat "narratively" at man vs. man level (not the main focus of the game, so no need to get lost in the crunchy detail that could lead to out-of-genre amputations or other undesired details) and with an advanced subsystem at mecha vs. mecha level (the real focus of the game, where you will want to keep track of each bullet fired).

Paolo, thanks for coming in and addressing our questions, especially given the non-narrative slants here. Although from my limited experience here, the few times it has come up people tended to be "not to my taste" rather than "burn the heretic".

While not to my taste, your RD100 version does sound like it will be popular with a lot of folks and I wish you well with it.

I'll add that the "narrative" rules, fate and motivations, are easily discarded from BRP Mecha, so presumably the similar rules in Revolution D100 would be just as easily discarded. Of course the last time I used Mecha was with Pendragon, so ymmv.

Quote from: Paolo_Guccione;858700People in the Chaosium thread have asked for information about Revolution D100, Alephtar Games' new title now being crowdfunded on ulule.com. Since I really do not want to threadjack a discussion about Chaosium, I am opening a new thread.

First of all, I have to clarify that in the lengthy debate about "rules vs. rulings" I am firmly in the RULES camps. The driving principle proposed to Alephtar Games writers is quite simple: an experienced GM does not need to be informed that he or she can change an explicit rule that does not please him or her, but a fresh GM might be in trouble if the rules do not contemplate a case similar to the one he or she is about to adjudicate. So the bottom line is: better write it explicitly in the rules.

Another important point about which questions were raised is who decides what the outcome of an action is. In Revolution, it is not always the GM who has this responsibility. The rules say who describes the result of a single die roll, or of an extended interaction (conflict), and it is often a player who is in charge of this. The details of the mechanism which determine who describes what will be discussed in one future update on ulule.

This does NOT mean that the players can steal control of the story, or the world, away from the GM. Although Revolution recommends accepting as much player input as possible during play, it is a game where the GM is supposed to build the setting and the plot beforehand. There is no "collaborative world building", and the players interact with the plot only through their characters. In short words, what happens in the world at macroscopic level is firmly in the hands of the GM, and it is still perfectly possible to play a pre-defined plot if the group prefers this approach. In fact, those who are familiar with my previous works should know that they are usually constituted of a pre-defined campaign for roughly a half of the contents. I think this says it all.

The last point I have to address for now is whether such a game was necessary in the D100 landscape. Someone objected that since the characteristics of D100 classic rulesets are different, a game like Revolution D100 is somehow a perversion of the original spirit of the rules.

To which I reply citing the many examples of D&D emulators that do facilitate an "indie" style of play. To quote the ones I know the best, 13th Age and Mindjammer's Monsters & Magic. Both these games are D&D clones, and you are always aware that you are playing D&D when you play them. Yet while maintaining a classic approach, they facilitate (but never compel) a playstyle that leverages player description of events and integration of player input into the story. All of which firmly integrated in a classic RPG framework.
If such games exist – and have their fanbase – in the D20 ecosystem, why not for D100?

That said, if anyone wishes to ask more questions or request examples, here I am.

So BRP/RQ for the new school narrative crowd.  Got it. No thanks.  
Too bad, I  bought all of Alephtar's previous offerings, too.

Quote from: Paolo_Guccione;858784Which does not mean that you cannot run it "classic style" if you wish. The "you do not need to tell the GM that he can change tha parts of the rules he dislikes" principle is still in effect.

Ok, I'll bite.  How removable are these narrative rules?  Can they be removed 100% without mechanically affecting the rest of the game?

Quote from: Paolo_Guccione;858700First of all, I have to clarify that in the lengthy debate about "rules vs. rulings" I am firmly in the RULES camps. The driving principle proposed to Alephtar Games writers is quite simple: an experienced GM does not need to be informed that he or she can change an explicit rule that does not please him or her, but a fresh GM might be in trouble if the rules do not contemplate a case similar to the one he or she is about to adjudicate. So the bottom line is: better write it explicitly in the rules.

OK, well that's one bit where we just differ philosophically; I think being able to think on your feet in such situation is a key, non-negotiable GMing skill, and trying to protect fresh GMs from having to make such rulings a) is almost certainly doomed because you can't cover everything and b) even if it could succeed, would only stunt their development as GMs by providing too much in the way of "training wheels".

QuoteThe last point I have to address for now is whether such a game was necessary in the D100 landscape. Someone objected that since the characteristics of D100 classic rulesets are different, a game like Revolution D100 is somehow a perversion of the original spirit of the rules.

I think this might be directed at me and that really wasn't my point - my concern isn't so much it's a "perversion of the spirit" of the rules so much as the rules you're starting with weren't built with the goal you have in mind as a priority, and when I do fancy getting into some shared-narrative play I much prefer to go with a rules system which has been designed with those considerations from the beginning rather than a rules system that has been hacked about to incorporate a style of play it didn't previously accommodate.

To make an analogy, you could probably build something vaguely resembling a motorcycle by starting with a good-quality pedal bicycle and adapting it. But it won't be as good of a motorcycle as you'd get if you built a motorcycle from scratch from motorcycle parts.

QuoteTo which I reply citing the many examples of D&D emulators that do facilitate an "indie" style of play. To quote the ones I know the best, 13th Age and Mindjammer's Monsters & Magic. Both these games are D&D clones, and you are always aware that you are playing D&D when you play them. Yet while maintaining a classic approach, they facilitate (but never compel) a playstyle that leverages player description of events and integration of player input into the story. All of which firmly integrated in a classic RPG framework.
If such games exist – and have their fanbase – in the D20 ecosystem, why not for D100?

Well, for starters the D20 ecosystem is orders of magnitude than the D100 one...

Quote from: Warthur;858886To make an analogy, you could probably build something vaguely resembling a motorcycle by starting with a good-quality pedal bicycle and adapting it. But it won't be as good of a motorcycle as you'd get if you built a motorcycle from scratch from motorcycle parts.

But if you're trying to sell the thing to the bicycle fans AND the motorcycle fans... a stroke of genius, right?

Can't tell if serious, Simlasa.

Anyway, this doesn't seem up my alley, either.

But more to the point, I'm sort of confused by the emphasis on d100 per se as if the dice you are rolling really defines the game or game family. There are a number of games that use d100 prominently besides the RQ/BRP family. Some, like Harnmaster or (IIRC) Lands of Adventure and maybe Swordbearer really are pretty close. Dragonquest and RoleMaster are pretty different. High Fantasy isn't even close IMO.

OTOH as has been noted Pendragon is similar even though it uses a d20 for task resolution.

So this confusion lessens my confidence in the entire description.

Plus, it's in the Kickstarter blurb that RD100 will give you "*A new way of using percentile dice, with levels of success and opposed rolls but with minimal calculations."
Seems to me BRP already had levels of success and opposed rolls with minimal calculations... but this will be different.

Lots of interesting points to address, and thjngs to discuss. Thank you for taking the time to stop by, ladies and gentlemen.

Quote from: CRKrueger;858842Ok, I'll bite.  How removable are these narrative rules?  Can they be removed 100% without mechanically affecting the rest of the game?

Yes. I am firmly in the camp of  keeping "rules that dictate how the elements of the game world interact with one another" and "rules that dictate who has narrative authority" separate. If you do not use the latter, the former will still function.

A typical example of the above concept is the difference between my BRP Mecha book and Chris Perrin's Mecha. BRP Mecha has Fate, Mecha has "Overdrive". Both are gained - among other ways - by cutscenes in which you roleplay moments appropriate to your character's feelings, in pure anime-romance style.

The key difference between the two is that in BRP Mecha you can do everything even when you have no Fate. Fate points only guarantee that you succeed at critical moments if you roll bad dice, or do some similar "probability alteration" tricks. On the contrary, Overdrive in "Mecha" is a key component of how a Mecha functions. There are some mecha powers that do not activate if you have not generated enough Overdrive: that weapon will not work properly if the meta-gamey variable is not high enough. It's a big difference: my rules keep the game world and the meta gamey "currency" on two different levels, letting you remove one level without breaking the other; Chris Perrin's rules don't.

Quote from: Warthur;858886I think this might be directed at me and that really wasn't my point - my concern isn't so much it's a "perversion of the spirit" of the rules so much as the rules you're starting with weren't built with the goal you have in mind as a priority, and when I do fancy getting into some shared-narrative play I much prefer to go with a rules system which has been designed with those considerations from the beginning rather than a rules system that has been hacked about to incorporate a style of play it didn't previously accommodate.

Yes, I meant you but it was meant as a reply, not a criticism. FWIW, I too prefer  to run Story Games with rulesets designed for story gaming from the beginning [I dislike the term story game, but I will use it on these boards as it does have some sort of generally accepted meaning here]. Yet there are plenty of people who are not comfortable with leaving the safety of the system they know the best when it is time to experiment new ways, or who want simply "a moderate scent" of storygaming in their campaign. Revolution addresses that kind of exigencies. I understand this is nothing that you might be asking from a game.

QuoteWell, for starters the D20 ecosystem is orders of magnitude than the D100 one...

I do not see how this should discourage our attempt. Revolution will have a smaller audience than 13th Age or Monsters&Magic. So what?

Quote from: Arminius;858894But more to the point, I'm sort of confused by the emphasis on d100 per se as if the dice you are rolling really defines the game or game family. There are a number of games that use d100 prominently besides the RQ/BRP family.

For reasons that I do not wish to explain further, but you may easily guess, I do not want to use any term that is someone else's trademark for a (non-OGL) game. Thus I have used the word D100 as it is more "neutral". Sorry RoleMaster fans, I did not mean that RM is "non-D100".

Quote from: Simlasa;858912Seems to me BRP already had levels of success and opposed rolls with minimal calculations... but this will different.

Yes, Revolution will have levels of success and opposed rolls with even fewer calculations. No "divide by" or "multiply by" when calculating chances or level of success, at any moment. And I do not mean "you do the maths before and then write it down on your character sheet", I mean "you do not need to do anything more complicate than one-digit additions and subtractions".

Quote from: Simlasa;858912Plus, it's in the Kickstarter blurb that RD100 will give you "*A new way of using percentile dice, with levels of success and opposed rolls but with minimal calculations."
Seems to me BRP already had levels of success and opposed rolls with minimal calculations... but this will different.

"Roll under 1/5 of your skill to get a special success" technically requires a calculation (dividing by 5).  "Roll under your skill to succeed; get a special success if the ones digit is 0 or 5" gives you (basically) the same result without requiring any calculations.  I assume that the text you quoted alludes to something similar.

Quote from: nDervish;858940"Roll under 1/5 of your skill to get a special success" technically requires a calculation (dividing by 5).  "Roll under your skill to succeed; get a special success if the ones digit is 0 or 5" gives you (basically) the same result without requiring any calculations.  I assume that the text you quoted alludes to something similar.

This. But the actual solution is even easier, and more effective.