Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

Solomoriah wrote: In the last version of my Project 74 rules, I often use a 1-n on 1dx rule. It works like this: A normal roll is 1 on 1d6, plus your character's ability score bonus; so a 16 score gives 1-3 on 1d6. If you have a penalty of any sort, I raise the die size (so an 8 score gets you 1 on 1d8, a 5 gets you 1 on 1d10, etc.). Likewise, if the difficulty goes up materially, I raise the die size (so you try something kind of hard, I make you roll 1-n on 1d8 or 1d10 instead of on 1d6).

This mechanic works amazingly well for things that are heavily controlled by ability scores, such as opening doors. Experience has little to do with it... it's all about being strong enough.

Solomoriah,
I like this a lot more than the current ability check rules, it's more old schoolish than the d20 based resolution and it's very intuitive.
If the the fabled 3rd edition of BFRPG is ever happening you have my vote for making the swap or at least adding this rule as an optional alternative for task resolution.

Best regards
artikid

One of the things I tend to avoid is codification. I've ranted on this elsewhere... in general, I like to show a mechanic and then allow the GM to decide whether to abstract it to other purposes or not. The 1-n on d6 mechanic appears in the core rules in specific contexts... using it for other things is left to the GM to figure out.

Once you codify it, you become stuck with it.

Also, this mechanic doesn't handle modifiers very well. A good reason to limit its usage.

Solomoriah wrote:Yeah, possibly. My plan, as it stands now, is to apply the existing errata (at least, whatever gets posted in this thread), and to add a few monsters and magic items. The monsters added will be, for the most part, monsters in the Field Guide which are truly old-school but did not appear in previous BFRPG editions. The magic items I'm planning to add will be similar, along with one or two items which have not, as far as I remember, appeared in any old-school game as yet. But still, following my standing rule, the new edition will not make the old one obsolete.

Sounds absolutely excellent. I'll be looking forward to the new revision.

At risk of sounding pushy... do you have any idea of a general schedule? Are we talking about a few weeks, or a few months? or maybe longer?

Egad, no. End of this year at the very earliest.

How about releasing an Errata Document?

The errata doesn't really trouble me (as I know how I think it all should work anyway); as a free, community-supported project, an errata document would only get done if someone really cared about it.

Now, if you're volunteering to put one together, rest assured I'll post it on the site. More help is always welcome.

... not speaking to anyone present in this thread, but I've encountered a large group of people who send me "suggestions" in the form of "you SHOULD do this," i.e. as commands, without concern for the fact that I'm not actually paid to do this in the first place. I'm constantly amazed at the cojones of these people. In the Open Source world, you don't get stuff done by asking for it, you get stuff done by doing it. Sometimes, just starting on a project can prime others to join in.

If anyone does take on an errata document project, I've submitted some corrections to monsters that I would be happy to send that hardy soul.

Would it be better to have some one take all the various errata and place it into the odf file for Solo to look over and set the format properly. I would be willing to do that if you all wanted me to try?

Metroknight, are you still interested in doing this?

Things in real life has changed my commitments to various things. At this moment, I don't the time to commit to that project. Very sorry.