This is a thing of beauty

Okay, I like that one.

Technically, that d20 is a die.  But you probably know that already...

Quote from: RedFoxTechnically, that d20 is a die.  But you probably know that already...

Yep, but nobody except pedants, grammar nazis and forum posters ever bothers saying 'die' instead of 'dice'. Plus 'die' just didn't work right and didn't feel 'punk'.

Quote from: GRIMYep, but nobody except pedants, grammar nazis and forum posters ever bothers saying 'die' instead of 'dice'. Plus 'die' just didn't work right and didn't feel 'punk'.

Last time I went to the bother of checking I found that die and dice are both acceptable now.

For those of you born after the original of this was produced, it's a riff off a legendary punk poster

Google image search is failing me - this is the best version of it I can find

(With thanks to Nighttime Animals Save the World and Unistat, both of which I egregiously rip off)

   Everyone starts with a d20, a d10 and a d6.

People start narrating what the hell happens.

When two people disagree on what might happen, they each secretly choose a die.  They then openly roll.  Whoever rolls higher gets their way.  Then the players swap the dice they rolled (so if I roll my d20 then you get it after the conflict, and if you roll your d6 then that's what I get in return).

That's the game.

Why wouldn't everyone always roll the d20?

'cuz you don't want to lose it in trade.  Like, say we both start out the game, with d20 d10 d6.  Now we get into a conflict, and you really want to win so you roll your d20. I'm okay with losing, but I'd like a shot at victory, so I roll my d10.  You win, we trade dice.  Now you've got 2d10 and a d6.  I've got 2d20 and a d6.  Suddenly I've got a lot more sway in our next conflict than you do.

Does that make clear why you wouldn't always roll your d20?

Ok, but if everyone rolls the d20, we just all trade D20s.


...


Indie gaming is confusing.

Everyone rolls the d20 only in those conflicts which everyone is desperate to win. In reality, this is only rarely going to be the case - some people will be totally committed to getting their way, while others will be happy to let things slide.

I am more concerned with how the system manages conflicts with more than 2 participants. Highest roller trades with lowest roller? Highest roller trades with 2nd-highest?

Guys, y'know, it'd be much more in the spirit of the thread if instead of trying to pick the first off-handed contribution to pieces, somebody made a second off-handed contribution.  Don't you think?

Yeah, but how much fun would that be.

Ok, here's my thing with this:

Why do people have to be constantly designing new games? I don't see the point. All that time designing these little pointless games is time you could be spending actually being part of the hobby.

There's a misconception that designers are "artists" (in the way that musicians are artists). Theyre not. Theyre just doing the intermediary step on their way to becoming salesmen. If they play at all they are probably playtesting. Or demo-ing. Or trying out a system by one of their fellow designers. The purpose being "here's what it would be like if anyone were to actually really pick this up". They are concerned with system, not content.

I have no idea why anyone would willingly choose the designer/salesman path over being simply a hobbyist. So this poster is confusing to me. Designers aren't like musicians at all, theyre like guys who create kazoos.

People who run games, who create adventures, manage campaign groups, write scenarios, and do it all week to week-- and are involved in the playing side of the hobby -- are the ones doing the real creative work.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhy do people have to be constantly designing new games?

1. Because it's fun.
2. To find new, better or more interesting ways of doing things.
3. To fulfil that creative urge to the best extent.