With a name like this I really think it should have poisonous eels coming out of the tree as you reach to grab a fruit. Roll to save; if you fail you get pulled into the trunk where you take 1d6 damage each round until you are saved or… If you succeed, you stagger away poisoned; take -2 to STR (if you are a dick GM make that a 1d4 or higher) until poison is gone and roll damage of 1d4-1 each round for 1d6 rounds.
The John Carter of Mars Core Rulebook is a tabletop role-playing game based on Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter of Mars series of novels. The game is published by Modiphius Entertainment.
The game uses a pulp-action inspired variant of the 2d20 System. Players can take on the role of heroes such as John Carter, Princess Dejah Thoris, or the Thark warrior Tars Tarkas, or create their own heroes from a variety of options. The game includes detailed chapters on Barsoomian technology, creatures, and cultures, as well as a step-by-step character generation system.
The 2d20 System is a dynamic, narrative system designed to produce varied and interesting results from dramatic and action-packed situations. It is used in several role-playing games published by Modiphius Entertainment, including John Carter of Mars, Mutant Chronicles, Conan Adventures in an Age Undreamed of, and Star Trek Adventures.
In the 2d20 System, characters roll two d20s, attempting to roll as low as possible on each one. The more dice that roll low, the more successes the character scores. The system is designed to emulate and celebrate action-packed, story-driven fiction. It thrives when paired with a setting or theme where competent, determined, often larger-than-life protagonists face tense and perilous situations, and where collaboration and teamwork are vital to success.
John Carter of Mars Core Rulebook does a great job of taking players through the different novels and discussing how the concepts in the books can be turned into gaming content while providing an over-the-top pulpy feel where the characters can confidently take on all challenges.
John Carter of Mars Core Rulebook can be found at:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/260847/John-Carter-of-Mars-Core-Rulebook?affiliate_id=474082.
I recently ‘updated’ my home rules KOOKS system by changing the d20 system to a 2d10 system; along with other small changes. Tonight we did a one shot where the players were given very powerful 5th level Characters with very high level armor. They were to fight against a lot of lower level NPCs and a few higher level NPCs, but none that could be considered equals or superior.
The game was a route. The two high level Player Characters just waded through the masses of low level opposition and demolished them.
Why?
Because the 2d10 system creates a Bell Curve. It is very unlikely that anyone will roll a very high roll or a very low roll within their range of possibilities. With PCs that each had Defense Modifiers of 18+ it was just about impossible for a lower level NPC to hit them.
The first time I experimented with this idea was in a wargame I made called ‘C’est la Guerre‘ where instead of using a 1d6 I used 2d6 creating a bell curve of options. Two infantry units blasting away at each other with musketry were very unlikely to do anything more than cause low level incremental damage. Throw in some artillery and that damage gets higher but not overwhelming. It is at that point that you send in your cavalry to charge or some fresh infantry to do a bayonet attack. That was the only way of breaking those stubborn infantry units.
The two dice versus one changed the dynamic of the game tonight. The two powerful PCs dominated a group of 8 lower level guards and a higher level captain. Then when they confronted three enemies who were close to parity, but not equal, they had a bit of a fight on their hands. But again it was very difficult even for the bosses to hit the two PCs.
If I had wanted to create a real challenge, then I would have needed to add something much more powerful to the mix. Perhaps a ‘boss’ possessed by a high level demonic force? Or perhaps a magic user with access to very high level spells? Or an NPC with a very high level protector?
Something to think about.
There is a lot of confusion about Wizards of the Coast, Inc. (WotC) and the Open Game License (OGL). Some people seem to think that if you make a game that is in any way similar to products made by WotC, or some other game, you have to have permission, or a license to do so. Unlike the complex task of cutting hair, doing nails, fixing plumbing, etc., you do not need a license or permission to write games. I think that for most projects based upon the OSR or any project with game mechanics similar to other games, there is no need to use any OGL, license, or obtain any permission other than that required by the ‘fair use’ doctrine and common courtesy.
As I suggested in Is it OK to “steal” game rules or mechanics?, game rules generally cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items. So, unless you are just copying another source word-for-word, which is what the WotC OGL 1.0a allows you to do, you do not need to worry about copyright or getting permission or a license to use copyright protected content.
The ‘fair use’ doctrine does allow for the use of copyright protected material under limited circumstances:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
17 U.S.C. § 107
In effect the ‘fair use’ doctrine allows for the word-for-word use of copyright protected material in limited circumstances and properly cited. Including brief properly cited quotes of someone else’s work is fine, including vast amounts of that work without the author’s permission may not be wise.
But remember, only the words are protected by copyright, not the mechanics, formulas, systems, processes, etc. If you take a set of rules and use the exact same mechanics, but you do not copy the text, images, trade name, or trademark then there is no violation of copyright, and you do not need any permission. Nor do you have to provide any attribution at all, but courtesy would suggest you do so.
It is possible that certain unique process ‘tech’ used in a game might be protected under patent law for some ‘process patents’, whether those ‘processes’ are filed or not. However, such ‘process patents’ have a very limited time period for protection (20 years at most) after which they become part of the public domain. Such ‘process patents’ can also be abandoned by the maker if others use the process and the maker does not legally defend it within the statutory period of limitations to bring suit.
The OGL 1.0a created by WotC allowed the user to copy specific protected content word-for-word as long as you followed the terms of the license, which is more strict in some ways than traditional copyright law, trademark and tradename law, patent law, etc.
If you are not copying word-for-word from protected content, using the tradename or trademark of another author, or using mechanics, formulas, or other game systems that are currently protected under patent law (very unlikely), there is no reason to use ANY licensing system.
I recently downloaded this free game at: https://noxicus.itch.io/operation-rpg
This is a very interesting concept for a game. For all the noise and fury over the WotC OGL, this little game has scooted right past since it is not in any way related to WotC et al. How refreshing!
‘OPERATION: R.P.G.’ is a clever little game that relies upon a dice pool of four sided dice (d4s). There are nine (9) attributes:
strong, stuff, sneak, speak, smash, smart, stab, stunt, and sense
You assign the following dice for your character:
The rest get zero. You then create a ‘unique item’. Voila, you are done.
The play mechanic seems very similar to Dungeon World. It would seem that the Game Master never does any rolling, but instead presents situations and asks, “What are you going to do?” Perhaps the GM also presents some options. “Olaf tries to punch you; do you dodge trying to avoid the punch, or do you block and then counter punch?” Caveat — I think that is how it is supposed to go, and that is how I would proceed as GM; but as you can see from the use of ‘seems’ ‘seem’ and ‘perhaps’ — it is not that clear to me.
The situation is resolved by selecting an appropriate attribute for the action, the GM picks another attribute (I must admit I don’t exactly understand this part), and then roll all the dice and pick the highest one. If the attribute in question is 0 then you roll 2 dice and take the lowest. 4 is an Absolute Success, 3 is a Partial Success, 2 is a Partial Failure, and 1 is an Absolute Failure. Good things happen when you roll a 4, and bad things happen when you roll a 1.
There is also an issue of Stress. You can use Stress to push your Character — you get an extra die, or you can use Stress to perform other tricks.
I like this game and I want to try it out!
I only have one complaint, and it involves one of my pet peeves: I like ‘Lite’ RPGs, but not so ‘lite’ that I don’t understand what is going on. Sometimes a creator is so set on making the game sleek and streamlined that it ends up a little confusing, at least to me.
For instance, in this game there are a few things I found a bit confusing:
Those are some pretty serious questions, and I think the rules should explain them in some detail. I will send a message to the creator and ask for clarification.
All in all I like the game. If I get the answers great, if I don’t I will improvise.
Enjoy!
RESPONSES TO MY QUESTIONS (27 JAN 2023):
“What exactly is a ‘unique item’, and how do I create one?”
In this case, a ‘unique item’ is a piece of equipment that you think your character would own, use, and have customized. For example, a getaway driver might have a fast car with nos capabilities, and a safe cracker might have an automatic lock picking device of some sort. In essence, a unique item is a piece of gear that reinforces the sort of character that you want to play. As for making one, it’s simply a matter of thinking up an item that you think your character would have, and proposing it to your GM. If they approve, it’s an item that you can always call on in the fiction to do things that you might not be able to do otherwise, as long as you would be able to reasonably do so (I.E. you have the item with you in the fiction). If they don’t approve of the item, you’ll have to think up a new item for your character and propose that one instead.
“What does “Your game master will pick another…” mean in regards to the outcome rolls?”
So, this is my favorite part of my rendition of the Caltrop Core system. The idea is that when you go to roll the dice, the player starts by saying what they want to roll with, a la Blades in the Dark. Then, the GM picks an additional attribute. Then, you combine the pools of the two attributes chosen, and roll that many dice.
For example: say I’m trying to hack a computer without setting off any alarms. I have a Smart of 2, so naturally, I want to use Smart for the roll. My GM sees that I’m trying to something without being noticed (in this case, by the alarm system of the computer), and picks Sneak, which I have a 1 in. Then, I combine the two attributes that were picked, bringing me to a total pool of 3 dice, which I now roll.
“Is the Task Resolution really like Dungeon World or was I just filling in the gaps incorrectly?”
Yeah. It’s built on the Caltrop Core engine, which has a system for different levels of success built in, similarly to PBTA games like Dungeon World.
“How do the Characters advance?”
Well, the only built in method of advancement in Operation R.P.G. is the increase in maximum stress that happens as you complete missions/adventures. I plan to make a second edition sometime, and expand on the rules, maybe even add a violence engine built on Caltrop Core EX. My current idea for an official advancement system has to do with coming up with an experience system based on having your character do cool stuff, then spending experience to get mostly narrative advancements (such as additional pieces of unique gear, gaining contacts, and the like), with the possibility of occasionally increasing your character’s attributes.
With all the kerfuffle going on about the new WotC OGL 1.1 and the possibility that the old OGL 1.0a will be revoked, rescinded, unauthorized, whatever by WotC, I have been thinking about how to proceed in the future without the OGL 1.0a or anything whatsoever from WotC.
I do not make game modules, adventure settings, or anything else intended to be used with any WotC products. My games are all free standing and already ‘mostly’ non-derivative of anything associated with the OGL 1.*, the SRDs, or anything from WotC… except for the monsters. In all my role playing games (RPGs) I use the Hit Dice Formula from the SRD 3.5.
But let’s backtrack a bit. You may be asking, “What the heck are all these acronyms about; OGL, SRD, WotC, etc.”
Let’s start with OGL. OGL stands for the Open Game License which was introduced in 2000 by Wizards of the Coast, Inc. (WotC — I killed two birds with one stone there!). So far there have been two authorized versions of the OGL; 1.0 and 1.0a. Both give the licensee the ability to use designated Open Game Content free of any royalty to WotC into perpetuity (Section 4 of the OGL 1.0a) in consideration for extending certain rights to WotC described in the OGL beyond that normally given by copyright laws and other intellectual property laws. The various versions of the OGL were clearly intended to be irrevocable as described in the document itself and in FAQs issued by WotC:
Q: Can’t Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn’t like?
A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there’s no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.
Archived FAQ from WotC
The Open Game Content that is referenced in the OGL are the SRDs (man there are a lot acronyms here; SRD refers to System Reference Document). WotC have created three primary SRDs covered by one or more of the OGLs:
Anything from these sources are available under and subject to the OGL 1.0 or OGL 1.0a.
Ok, I think that brings us to the current problem. WotC is supposedly issuing yet another OGL to cover its newest version of D&D; OGL 1.1. From what I have heard this OGL is the very opposite of an ‘open’ license and as such is a gross misnomer. In supposed leaks of OGL 1.1 WotC describes the old OGL as ‘unauthorized’. It is not clear what that means. Is it ‘unauthorized’ for those who accept and use the new OGL 1.1? Or is WotC trying to ‘revoke’ the old OGLs, and if so is this revocation only as to the future or retroactive? I do not know, and if WotC follows through with this I suspect the only way it will be solved is in the courts.
As such, I no longer feel very comfortable using the OGLs, SRDs, or anything else from WotC in the future. I believe my past works are protected by the clear language of the OGL, the written and published interpretation of that language by WotC, and the legal concept of ‘reliance’ which protects those who reasonably rely upon the words, actions, etc. of another.
So I am trying to figure out how to remove any content from future games that could be in any way interpreted as coming from WotC so that I can proceed without the OGL. Since most of my games are not set in the sword and sorcery genre I thought this would be easy. In the past WotC has declared that the Character Creation process, which is excluded from all the SRDs, is proprietary and protected property of WotC. Regardless of whether this claim is legitimate, accepting the OGL 1.* puts the user into the situation that this interpretation should be respected. Another area that WotC has suggested as ‘proprietary’ protected process is the use of the d20 (20 sided dice); which I believe is a ridiculous claim. None of my games use the Character Creation process since I do not particularly like it, so I seem to be good on that one. As for the d20s, just to be ultra cautious, I think I will convert any 1d20 rolls to 2d10 rolls (d10; ten sided die) which has the added benefit of creating a statistical ‘curve’ for results.
Easy Peasy — No more OGL!
Then I realized I have a much bigger problem; the Hit Dice Formula used to create, define, modify monsters in the D&D system. If there is something proprietary, unique, and potentially protected as a unique ‘process’ as intellectual property it is the Hit Dice Formula. How to do without it?
And again, what the heck is the Hit Dice Formula?
Here is the Hit Dice Formula as used in the SRD 3.*:
| (X)d(Y)+(Z) X = Number of HD Y = Size of Dice (4, 6, 8, 10, 12 or 20) Z = HD Bonus |
From this formula the monster’s level (X), attack bonus (X), and hit points (X * Mean Value of Die + Z) are derived. Replacing it would be a monumental task. Or at least that is what I am thinking right now.
What to do? I think I have a lot more research on this matter.
UPDATE 09 JAN 2023: I think I have sorted out the issue of the Hit Dice Formula to my satisfaction. A mathematical formula cannot get copyright protection. It ‘might’ by covered as a ‘process patent’ but if so the time period has expired. So I don’t think I have anything to worry about there.
Dust Devils are nasty critters for sure. They are small, fast, and mean and generally travel in packs 4 to 8 in order to attack the unsuspecting traveler.
One on one they are not much to fear but in a pack they can be very dangerous. Dust Devils fly through the arid lands of the Wild West, and from a distance appear to be nothing more than a dirty cloud. But it is cloud that comes at you with evil intent.
The basic claw attack of a Dust Devil is more of an annoyance than anything else, but when combined with their special attacks and used in a coordinated pack they become very dangerous.
Dust Devil Stats:
The primary goal of a set collection mechanic is to encourage a player to collect a set of items. For example, players collect and harvest different types of beans in Bohnanza, and they collect Monuments in Ra.
boardgamegeek.com
Set Collecting is one of the oldest game mechanics out there. It may very well be older than the idea of card games since ancient games may very well employ it. Rummy is the first game that comes to mind that uses Set Collecting. ‘Rummy’ “is a group of matching card games notable for similar gameplay based on matching cards of the same rank or sequence and same suit. The basic goal in any form of rummy is to build melds which consists of sets, three or four of a kind of the same rank; or runs, three or more cards in sequence, of the same suit.” Wikipedia. ‘Go Fish’ is another old game that employs the Set Collecting mechanic.
Some newer games that use the Set Collecting mechanic: Ticket to Ride, Settlers of Catan, Alhambra, Zooloretto.
Although there are many games that incorporate Set Collecting as the primary theme of the game, this is more often used as a non-thematic way to resolve play. For many games it just does not make sense to play Rummy to resolve the conflict within the game unless that fits into the game scenario.
How we classify game mechanics is an often-discussed part of boardgame design. We all know the classic mechanics – worker placement, deck building, trick taking, area control, etc.
But when does a specific mechanic grow into something different? The examples that prompted this question are the games Pi Mal Pflaumen (or “Plums” in the US) and Honshu. They are both categorized as Trick-taking games (Honshu in fact calls itself a trick-taking game in its rules): Players each play a card to the “trick” each round, for sure, and there is a ‘winner’ for the round, but they don’t actually TAKE that trick. They just get first dibs on selecting one of the played cards, and all other players get to then select a card from those played, in ‘winning’ order.
I would personally define that as “turn order bidding” and then “drafting”, NOT trick-taking. Can it still be defined as trick-taking if no one takes the trick? Is this therefore an evolution of trick-taking which could now be called “trick playing” instead, of which trick-taking is a sub-category?
The same query applies to games in which you have “contracts” or “orders” to fulfill. A lot of these are pick-up-and-deliver games, but the definition of “Pick up and deliver” implies a map element for moving the goods around. There are games that have no map but still have contracts/orders to fulfill (The Builders: Middle Ages & Antiquity, Grand Austria Hotel, Voyages of Marco Polo – where the map doesn’t play a direct part in the contract fulfillment process). So is pick-up-and-delivery actually a sub-type of a larger category of “contract fulfillment”?
An example of how this has happened in the past is deck builders. BoardGameGeek.com now defines the mechanic “deck/pool building games” instead of “deck building games” after games like Orléans introduced the notion of “bag building”, and games with “dice building” (not just adding dice to your pool, like Roll for the Galaxy, but also physically swapping die-sides out, as in Dice Forge). So deck building is really a sub-set of pool building. And what of card crafting games like Mystic Vale? Are they deck builders, or deck “crafters”?
So mechanics, and their descriptions/definitions, evolve over time and eventually become something new. Or are mechanics definitions reworded and reworded over time until someone finds a common link between two or more mechanics, which are then combined into a “super-group”?
Obviously this is all subjective – classifications like this aren’t intended to force games into certain ‘boxes’ (no pun intended), but rather to help potential buyers/players get an idea of what kind of game play experience they’ll get from a specific game (theme/setting/story notwithstanding). And I have no real answers to any of these questions (except that I don’ think Pi Mal Pflaumen or Honshu are actually Trick Taking games – that’s my personal opinion though!). I’d love to hear if anyone has similar thoughts about game mechanics, and how they decide to classify the mechanics they use in their own game designs.
This leads me on to another question: How do you know if you’ve invented a new game mechanic? But that’s a question for another day…
No, not that Trump!
In bridge and similar card games the “trump card” means a playing card or suit chosen to rank above others, which can win a trick where a card of a different suit has been played. In general usage the term means “a valuable resource that may be used, especially as a surprise, in order to gain an advantage.”
Interestingly the origin of the term comes from the 15th century game ‘Trionfi’ in which the 5th suit from the tarot deck acts as a permanent trump. During the same time there was a French game called ‘triomphe’ using a 4 suit deck in which one of the suits was randomly selected to be the trump suit. In 16th century England the word ‘triumph’ was altered into “trump” to describe its use in similar card games of the day.
The ‘trump card’ can be used in many ways in gaming. In some games, specific cards, like the ace, can be used in this same way. In other games the trump card can change depending upon the position of the card on the table or other circumstances.
In most games, the relative rank of cards within a suit is the same in trump and plain suits, but they may sometimes differ, for example in Klabberjass, Euchre, or Eighty Points.
The trump suit may be fixed as in Spades, rotate on a fixed schedule or depend on the outcome of the previous hand as in Ninety-nine, be determined by drawing a card at random as in Bezique, by the last card dealt to a designated player as in Whist, by the first card played as in Nine Card Don, be chosen by a designated player as in Barbu, or players may bid for the right to select the trump suit as in Contract Bridge or Skat.
In most games, trump cards cannot be played if the player has any cards of the suit led to the trick; the requirement to “follow suit” is of higher priority. In a few games, trumps can be played at any time. Playing the first trump to an already-started trick is known as trumping or ruffing; if another player were to play a higher trump, that would be an overruff or overtrump.
The tarot deck contains a fifth suit, known in gaming as the atouts or honours and in occult circles as the Major Arcana, which serves as a permanent trump suit in games played with the tarot deck. The suit consists of twenty-two cards, including a Fool which serves as a highest trump (in Central Europe) or excuses the players from following suit elsewhere.
Due primarily to the prevalence of the trump in card games, the term used in Japan for the standard 52-card deck of playing cards is toranpu (トランプ), derived from the English word “trump”.
Wikipedia