The Six-Letter System (that's a wiki) is a roleplaying game harking back to the simple days of gaming. All you need is a pencil, some paper, and five six-sided dice per player.

GAMERS [600k pdf, 8 pages] is the generic version of the Six-Letter System, a series of games with the same mechanics, only the names of the basic six attributes changed, and all given six-letter titles which are mnemonics for those attributes.

Basically it's the approach old Classic Traveller took: tasks are 2d6 + skill vs some target number, and in combat there are no hit points, you just take damage directly to your attributes. You can have physical conflicts and lose from the physical stats, or mental conflicts and lose from the mental stats.

There are six attributes, optionally six "features" (to cover the Dis/Advantages of many systems), and thirty-six skills. You can have specialties in each, you just get +1 to that specialised area.

At the moment, the only character generation options are random, and I may keep it that way.

I've not yet playtested it, but I've playtested Risk Dice which has the same 42 attributes/features/skills, so I think that number works, your character can fit on an index card and it's quick to roll them up; Risk Dice also has the same "lose attributes, not hit points" thing, and that works though can be a bit abstract.

The playtesting would then be of the character generation, and parts of the combat system.

Any thoughts? Anything you think is missing from the basic GAMERS rules? Any obvious problems?

I like it. It's hitting my current wavelength, which is "no more than 10 pages of rules." The writing is clear and concise.

Question: I don't understand how (or if) attributes relate to a test.

You can use attributes to complement other tests. Roll under your attribute, and get a +1 on your next skill roll.

For example,
"I want to bullshit my way past the guard. Speech, I suppose?"
"Yes, Speech skill."
"Hmmm, I have +1 in that... can't I complement it with my Grit 8? That's confidence and chutzpah and stuff."
"Yep, roll 8 or under and you get another +1."
*rolls dice* "3, 4, that's 7 - okay so now I have +2."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;227931You can use attributes to complement other tests. Roll under your attribute, and get a +1 on your next skill roll."

It's the italicized part that I didn't get. I'd reccomend adding it in where the (*) is, below:

QuoteComplementary Traits

Sometimes a player may argue that some attribute or skill not directly related to the task at hand may help, or some other player may say, "my character helps". If the GM agrees that this is reasonable, then this is a complementary trait. (*) Usually bringing in a complementary trait takes extra time.

1. Is there any limit to the amount of times a player(s) can complement?  For example, I'm using Persuade to convince Herr Weiss to join the Resistance. I want to complement this with my Grit, then complement it with my Contact (his best friend), then Joe's PC want to help, then Bill's PC wants to help...  

2. Can Status, Wealth, License, or Psyche complement? I could see that, actually.

3. It looks like the only difference between Unc and Sev Wounded is the length of time you are out, and a penalty to the healing test? No wound penalties?

4. Mental damage, what causes it? Psionics? Mundane social skills?

4. Love the art. Did you do it?

1. You keep going until you fail a roll. As the rules say, As soon as one complementary attribute or skill roll is failed, or the group runs out of things to help with, the player must roll the primary skill.

2. Yep, sure.

3. The "wound penalties" are the reduced Attributes. You're KOed when one of three Attributes is zeroed out, and you're severely wounded when two are. Your Attributes are reduced. Instead of having hit points or wound levels which then give you attribute penalties, we just go straight to the attributes.

4. Mental damage comes from mental conflicts, such as long negotiations, arguments with your spouse, trainwreck threads on roleplaying discussion forums, and so on. You know how if you post 20 times in an hour to an argument your posts become more stupid? That's because you've taken damage to your mental stats. Do any of the following sound familiar?

• "screw you! I don't care anyway!" - Grit knocked down
  
• "There must be a flaw in your argument, but I'm too angry to see it... fuck you!" - Awareness knocked down.
  
• "but...! but...! that's wrong because... um....! Fuck, I can't remember!" - Mind knocked down
  

Whereas if you post once a day, even if you're arguing with someone you have time to recover from the mental injury and you remain rational - well, as rational as you started, anyway. If you began unconfident, unperceptive and uneducated, then... Just as injured physically capable people are as good as uninjured physically incapable people, so too with the mental side.

5. Nope. It's public domain photographs which I turned greyscale, then processed with increased contrast, edge enhance (these two to make it more like a drawing), and finally with surface smoothing.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;229113The "wound penalties" are the reduced Attributes.]Wounds = reduced atts = reduced chance of getting the +1. Elegant.

QuoteMental damage comes from mental conflicts...

What do I roll for mental damage? In a physical conflict, I roll weapon value (xd6) + att mod (1-3). Are there corresponding "mental weapons" or is mental damage = att mod ?

QuoteAfter any conflict, a character takes a single level of injury to an attribute (physical or mental as for the conflict); they're fatigued by it.

Both characters, or just the loser?

Apart from drugs and alcohol, I find it difficult to think of many "mental weapons". Of course for things like Intimidation you could just substitute the physical weapon's skill, since how competent you look with a weapon helps in intimidating someone with it.

This would be an area where the bonus players get for vivid description really comes into its own. So I'm happy to have a bit of a blank spot there, it can be filled with roleplaying.

Everyone involved in a conflict is tired afterwards. But it's only a few points, so usually easily recovered by a zero-level Physician/Psychology roll.

Looks like I forgot an end-quote tag in my previous post. Sorry 'bout that. Meant to say:

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe "wound penalties" are the reduced Attributes.

Wounds = reduced atts = reduced chance of getting the +1. Elegant.

Quote from: Blue Seraph;235746Wounds = reduced atts = reduced chance of getting the +1. Elegant.

That's my hope. It's not been well-playtested yet, in the current campaign there haven't been many injuries, or rather they've downed the PCs - knocked them to zero in one attribute, therefore unconscious, so that they didn't get to roll for anything anyway... so we'll see.

Ablative Stats
The ablative stats have worked alright. One aspect was the "effort" rule - that "spending" a level of a relevant stat gives you a +1 or turns a die to "6" (depending on how cinematic the campaign is which of those two happens, and also whether you have to expend effort before or after the die roll).

One player objected that anyone could, by accepting two levels of "injury", get a critical success and wipe out any foe. And of course that's true, and it works well... when the PC has only one foe, and nothing else to do that day. But if they have several foes and several things to do, they quickly run out, and all sorts of conflicts and actions become riskier.

Also, when PCs don't have any skill levels in something but try to get an attribute to grant them a bonus (roll under current attribute for +1), that becomes a lot harder to get if they've been expending effort.

So a character can get a whole string of great successes by expending effort, but then eventually they're stumbling very weak, clumsy, winded, as well as dazed, forgetful and a lot more timid than they were just a few hours ago. Which has been pretty funny


Skill List Extension
One thing I'm considering is extending the skill list. 36 skills - 33 in a realistic-themed campaign - but in practice we find that in any particular campaign, perhaps only half the skills, 15 or so, are regularly useful. Thus, it resembles less a skill system and more a character class system. Which is fine, but not what I was aiming for, I want a bit more individuality in PC abilities.

So first I thought to extend the skill lists, from 12 groups of 3 skills to 9 groups of 6 skills, or from 36 to 54. The list has what J_Arcane disparagingly refers to as "hydra" skills - "Craft: choose any craft" and so on. But here it is, with skills requiring specialisation having an *.

Athletics
Acrobatics
Climbing
Jumping
Running
Sports*
Swimming

Combat
Blunt
Bows & thrown
Brawling
Edged
Firearms
Wrestling

Communication
Artist*
Diplomacy
Intimidation
Languages*
Speech
Writing

Knowledge
Admin & law
Culture & history
Interview
Research
Science*
Search

Driving
Aircraft
Landcraft
Riding
Seacraft
Ski
Spacecraft

Gadgeteering
Armoury
Craft*
Electrics
Engineer*
Mechanic*
Scrounging

Intrusion
Deceit
Filch
Lockpicking
Observation
Stealth
Traps

Medical
Alt medicine
Pharmacy
Physician
Psychology
Surgery
Veterinary

Wilderness
Foraging
Hazmat
Hunting
Navigation
Survival
Tracking

Without quibbling over individual skills, what do you guys think of extending the skill list?


Niche Protection by Default Skill Levels
A second thing I thought of was niche protection by default levels. Currently, the default level for all skills is 0 - which means anyone can give anything a go, especially if they have decent relevant attribute or related skills. This is good if there are not many players, but when you have several players they can get annoyed at some skill 0 guy doing as well as the skill+2 specialist, stealing their thunder. This also discourages PCs from specialising, because what's the point? So I thought,

The default of skills depends on the size of the game group,

• 0 for 1 player
• -1 for 2-3 players
• -2 for 4 players
• -3 for 5+ players

This protects each character's niche, while ensuring a good balance of skills in the party. In every case, the first level bought brings the skill to +1.

Thoughts?

Incidentally, I did extend the skill list and it worked well.

Nobody liked the idea of default skill level being based on the number of players present, though. I thought it was cool, but they refused to even try it

'You mean other people make me less capable?'

I read the wiki; looks like it'll work. The GAMERS link is broken and I couldn't find a download, though.

Yes, other people make me less capable! Or rather, other PCs make me less capable. That's why Bond and Bourne like to work alone, and why Ethan Hawke became more awesome after the almost-TPK.

I dunno, it was just a thought - something to balance "niche protection" with "shit I'm on my own and can't do anything I need to."

Link doesn't work? Well, email me and I'll send you the current version. I'm always tinkering with it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;302485Incidentally, I did extend the skill list and it worked well.

Nobody liked the idea of default skill level being based on the number of players present, though. I thought it was cool, but they refused to even try it

Kind of the solution the Gumshoe system uses. (You get fewer points on the investigation skills, IIRC)

Giving a bonus for less players might be more palatable than giving a penalty for more players. It's pretty much the same thing, only presented different.

E-mail'd.