In my experience, that's exactly what the vast majority of story-focused referees need. What passes for story in most RPGs is, to be exceedingly kind, lacking. Just like everything else, consuming the thing in no way prepares you to make the thing. Reading books is necessary, but not sufficient, to being a writer. Watching movies is necessary, but not sufficient, to being a filmmaker. Eating food is necessary, but not sufficient, to being a chef. Etc.
"Alliance" from Rogue Comet already reintroduced the pass/fail option. Similarly, Humakt e.V.'s adventures reintroduce Fumble mechanics, though in a novel fashion, fumble on your rating +1. That harmonizes better with high-rolls-winning-ties and big-success on-your-rating than fumble-on-20 did, and avoids the weirdness with 20-rated abilites too.
Sure. Or I can just pull my HQ2 off the shelf and pull from those.
About that...
Funny you mention this. I just had a conversation with some folks in regards to QuestWorlds and I may get to add some GM toolkit stuff to QuestWorlds to help with creating stories and plots.
I always loved the pass/fail resistance idea. I still use a refined version of that in a lot of games. Good luck.Funny you mention this. I just had a conversation with some folks in regards to QuestWorlds and I may get to add some GM toolkit stuff to QuestWorlds to help with creating stories and plots.
The general idea would be to create a simple three-question prompt for the GM to answer which gives motivation, assets, and goals to the story/plot/mystery. This could be used for BBEG , or it could be for investigation, or even dungeon crawling with purpose (whatever kind of story the players and GM want)
I hope to submit my design to Chaosium here in a few weeks if not sooner.
That’s going to be a weird one to reference. It pulls from three different licenses: ORC, CC-BY, and 24xx. Strange times.
Ugh, looks like someone did a not-even-half-assed edit on that page when they changed licenses. That language is almost entirely from their crappy in-house licenses that preceded their ORC adoption, and they didn't even change all the OGL to ORC references on the page. Regardless, the license says what it says, and the reserved material declarations in the actual books and SRDs are what actually govern. They still have some silly bits like declaring TMs as reserved when they don't actually appear anywhere in the document, but that doesn't actually hurt anything.
I started a thread in the Publishing forum on the topic. The ORC is clear, that's a no no. And yeah, that language looks an awful lot like their earlier license. Hopefully an honest mistake / oversight.
