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? :D
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? :D
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. :D 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.
Quote from: Paolo_Guccione;858938Yes. 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.
Like I said earlier, that is my experience with BRP Mecha. No-one was using fate, I didn't even have them generate motivations, or address any of that subset of rules. The game worked fine, with the possible side-effect of much more mecha-limb-removal than might be expected if fate were being used.
I don't really like ulule, but this game sounds interesting. The narrative bits I might take or leave, depending on whether my home group likes them, since they like some metamechanics and despise others:).
But we all like d100, and I like your games, so I'm going to look into it;).
Quote from: Simlasa;858892But if you're trying to sell the thing to the bicycle fans AND the motorcycle fans... a stroke of genius, right?
Not really. If someone wants a pedal bicycle the motorisation completely defeats the purpose and you'll lose them, and a motorcyclist is better served by something designed as a motorcycle from the ground up.
Ready to set up a Q&A? :)
I have a question, will Revolution d100 be available (POD perhaps) for those people like me, who didn't take part in the Ulule crowdfunding?
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.
So why this is a big deal as a defining mechanic of an RPG?
It sounds like what are you doing.
Traditional
Player:
GM: OK you slashed him across the upper arm.
RD100
Player:
Group: Uses the novel mechanic of RD100 and it is determined it is the player that narrates the result:
Player: The hit slashed him across the upper arm.
If got this right that is all fine and dandy. But it seems to me that
a) there is additional complexity introduce just allow other players to narrate other dice rolls.
b) whatever the merchanics, it has to take into account that players are biased towards creating the best result for themselves and their group. Thus introducing additional complexity over a d100 that is traditionally run.
If b is not taken into account then the game is being rather naive about how campaigns play out.
And with this I resume my secret Internet identity as RosenMcStern. Whoever witnessed my real name in the previous posts, please proceed to the nearest termination point for molecular disintegration. Thank you for your cooperation.
@Claudius: the game will be available in Spring through as many channels as possible. We make full print runs of new titles, POD is an option we use only for really, really old products. And we do ship to Spain :)
Quote from: estar;865679So why this is a big deal as a defining mechanic of an RPG?
Uhm, this is not the best way of tackling this subject matter, as you are replying to some statements of mine that are - necessarily - rather generic and theoretical. I will try to bring the discussion back to a more concrete level.
QuoteTraditional
Player:
GM: OK you slashed him across the upper arm.
RD100
Player:
Group: Uses the novel mechanic of RD100 and it is determined it is the player that narrates the result:
Player: The hit slashed him across the upper arm.
First of all, if you are using a RD100 rule subsystem that nails a successful roll as a "hit with a sword that does X damage", the rules themselves will tell you what happens. No need to determine who narrates what, as any description is purely
cosmetic at this level. Please refer to the AH RQ3 Gamemaster Book, page 3, the "hit the troll in the leg" description example. The rules here dictate what happens, to the level of detail of where the troll is hurt. Narration is just to add color, and the fact that the GM does it in traditional RuneQuest is just a matter of... well, tradition :) The description is pure atmosphere, no in-game mechanical influence.
The point about "who narrates what" is important only for generic in-game events that do not have such a detailed rules subsystem that regulates the exchanges of information between GM and player. Here, the outcome of a successful roll is not so clearly defined, and "who has narrative authority" becomes paramount to determine what actual changes a success or a failure determine in the game world.
A variant of the rules exists where even combat is run at a low-detail level, thus leaving the definition of in-game effects of blows to the narration, and not to rules mechanics. In this case even the above "hit with the sword" example changes greatly, as it is up to the narration to determine whether the sword slash beheaded the target or induced him to plead for his life.
But this approach is optional: if you want to run combat the classic way, you certainly can. And with no less details and fun than in a traditional D100 game.
Quotea) there is additional complexity introduce just allow other players to narrate other dice rolls.
I mentioned "rules", not "complexity". In my personal book, "rules" equates with "something that is not left to the GM alone to arbitrate", not to "charts, tables & mathematics".
In the specific case, the rule is as simple as "The loser of a conflict narrates the outcome, but he or she is not allowed to negate the other side's victory". The actual rule is half a page long, but it boils down to exactly this level of complexity.
Quoteb) whatever the merchanics, it has to take into account that players are biased towards creating the best result for themselves and their group. Thus introducing additional complexity over a d100 that is traditionally run.
If b is not taken into account then the game is being rather naive about how campaigns play out.
As you can see, the rule does take this factor into account. The players can narrate only when they lose, when they win it is the GM that decides
how they win. I see no complexity in this, and no possibility to abuse the rules. The GM still has a tremendous veto power, in this case and in many others, and is encouraged to use it. It is just that he is
not the only one who can make decisions.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;865695But this approach is optional: if you want to run combat the classic way, you certainly can. And with no less details and fun than in a traditional D100 game.
Thanks for replying to my question and criticism. I did some reading on Revolution d100 over the weekend and I can see the basic motivation for the project is the same as mine for creating the Majestic Wilderland RPG. You need a ruleset you can sell to do the things want to do for your current and future project. Of course you have a particular take on using the d100 rules for campaign. Which is good in my book and I hope works out for you.
I will say that you are are emphasizing what new and revolutionary about the new ruleset. I am skeptical about that approach as your audience is built around the family of Basic Roleplaying Games. My approach will be emphasizing that the Majestic Wilderlands RPG is Swords & Wizardry with additions. I do have a few surprises in store for the presentation that hopefully will give my take an appeal over and above other retro-clones. But the core of the rules is Swords & Wizardry and by extension OD&D.
So again best of luck and hope is works well for you and your team.
As a kickstarter backer for R D100, I have been reading the play test files. Seems like a BRP clone to me (which is good, because that is what I wanted).
I have to say that Advantage (the game's lingo for a special success) involves a way of looking at the dice to see if you scored advantage without using the main BRP system of figuring out what 10% of your score is.
Don't know if it is always 10% for every case, but it is close enough for government work.
Quote from: LouGoncey;865767I have to say that Advantage (the game's lingo for a special success) involves a way of looking at the dice to see if you scored advantage without using the main BRP system of figuring out what 10% of your score is.
Don't know if it is always 10% for every case, but it is close enough for government work.
It is not 10% and rises to near enough 50% at higher skills, with more at skills over 100%. It means that people with higher skills get more advantages than people with lower skills. Compared to other D100 games, a lot more advantages.
For me, the Advantage is roughly comparable to the Critical in RQ6/Legend and the Critical/Special combined in earlier versions of RQ/BRP.
Quote from: LouGoncey;865767I have to say that Advantage (the game's lingo for a special success) involves a way of looking at the dice to see if you scored advantage without using the main BRP system of figuring out what 10% of your score is.
In Harnmaster if the last number ends in a 0 or 5 (55, 90, 05, etc) the result is a critical. Whether it is a critical success or critical failure depends on whether you made the skill roll or not.
I found the basic description here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?767707-Crowd-Funding-Revolution-d100-Very-impressive-so-far&p=19483131#post19483131).
So if you roll a success if the tens digit is higher than the unit digit you score a advantage. There are a possible 45 advantage numbers in the 1 to 100 range and it climbs as your skill grows higher.
Some rough numbers of the odds
1% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 10
2% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 20
4% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 30
7% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 40
11% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 50
16% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 60
22% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 70
29% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 80
37% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 90
45% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 100
Nifty mechanic should work well.
My friends and I are super excited about this game! Please finish it so we can buy it!
Quote from: estar;865844In Harnmaster if the last number ends in a 0 or 5 (55, 90, 05, etc) the result is a critical. Whether it is a critical success or critical failure depends on whether you made the skill roll or not.
I found the basic description here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?767707-Crowd-Funding-Revolution-d100-Very-impressive-so-far&p=19483131#post19483131).
So if you roll a success if the tens digit is higher than the unit digit you score a advantage. There are a possible 45 advantage numbers in the 1 to 100 range and it climbs as your skill grows higher.
Some rough numbers of the odds
1% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 10
2% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 20
4% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 30
7% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 40
11% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 50
16% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 60
22% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 70
29% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 80
37% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 90
45% of rolls will be advantages for skill = 100
Nifty mechanic should work well.
It would be clearer if you'd say if those numbers are % of total rolls or % of successes. For example in HM, very close to 10% of all successes are criticals; same for failures. In Revolution, let's look at three cases: 10% skill, 50% skill, and 100% skill.
With 10% you get Advantage on a 10 only. So this is 1/10 or 10% of your chance of success.
With 50%, you get Advantage on 10,20,21,30,31,32,40,41,42,43, and 50. 11 out of 50 is 22%.
Finally with 100% as you say there are 45 Advantage rolls, or 45% of your chance of success.
So this is pretty different from RQ/BRP/HM--not that this is good or bad in itself.
I'll also note that the narration mechanic Rosen outlined appeared earlier in Trollbabe.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;865695@Claudius: the game will be available in Spring through as many channels as possible. We make full print runs of new titles, POD is an option we use only for really, really old products. And we do ship to Spain :)
Molte grazie! Muchas gracias! :)
When it's available, I will get it.