Quote from: jeff37923;690357Well, mea culpa. I haven't seen the conversion chart and thus assumed otherwise.

EDIT: But why not just use numbers? Why have task resolution be tied in to a specialized language of funky symbols? It still comes back to being exclusionary rather than inclusionary.

I like the Star Wars dice personally. They combine everything into the die roll in an interesting way. The only real "downside" to the system other than the strong incentive to buy specialty dice (yes you can use the chart, or a chit system, but it would be nowhere near as easy), is that its a bit hard to hide the difficulty of the roll. Though you could, if you wanted to roll the difficulty part behind a screen so they couldn't see what dice you rolled.

You roll by doing the following. A character picks up a number of green dice equal to the higher of the skill and characteristic he is using, then replaces a green die with a yellow die equal to the lower of the skill or characteristic he is using. (So skill 3, characteristic 2 = 1 green, 2 yellow, Characterestic 3, skill 2 = 1 green, 2 yellow).

Then the DM determines the difficulty. This is a number of purple dice that are added into the pool. In really bad situations, he might exchange one purple die for a red die.

At this point, based on the circumstances, blue dice (good) or black dice (bad) might be added for anything that might affect the roll. (The sun was in your eyes, the wind is at your back)

Then you roll and read the dice.

The reason I like it is that it has a nonbinary resolution. It doesn't just track 1 variable. It really creates 4 variables:

Success/Failure: Number of Success symbols minus number of Failure symbols, determines if you succeed in the task you were attempting

Advantage/Threat: Number of Advantage symbols minus number of Threat symbols, you can spend this on good or bad things happening that are related to the action, but not based on the success or failure of the action. Maybe you missed the enemy, but he kept your head down letting you move in closer, maybe you hit the enemy, but he fell backwards behind some cover.

Triumph: The number of Triumph symbols showing. These are basically Advantage on steroids.

Despair: The number of Despair symbols showing. Threat on steroids.

(Note: Triumph and despair DO NOT cancel each other out).

I like it. You don't have to like it. But saying that because it uses specialty dice its not an RPG is a little weird. (This sentence isn't a reply to Jeff, just a reply to something said in the thread in general)

Quote from: Haffrung;690351I understand your point alright. All the items beyond plain text in books that were around in 1983 - glossy maps, DM screens, polyhedral dice, hex paper, miniatures, dungeon geomorphs, illustration books in modules, these - are perfectly acceptable. Anything beyond plain text in books in the last 15 years - full-colour books, cards, dice with anything other than numbers on them, flip-maps, pogs - is gimmicky, non-RPG material that only those who lack imagination would want.

Nope. You just proved your reading comprehension is abysmal AND project all sorts of shit on posts that trigger knee-jerk reactions on your part.

Thank you.

Quote from: jeff37923;690272I get what you are saying here, but the dice in FFG's Star Wars RPG are normal polyhedrons without numbers but symbols. There is no conversion chart telling you what number means which symbol. So without a conversion chart, you need the dice.

Yes, you could reverse engineer this to create your own conversion chart, but then someone has to buy the gimmick dice to do the reverse engineering.

That alone is enough extra work to prevent most people from spending money on a game that they do not know if they will like or not. It is exclusionary and not inclusionary.

My friend did that. He's an engineer so you'd think it would be a fun challenge and everything for him. He said it was far more troublesome than at first glance and ended up being a pain in the ass.

He had to rearrange tables for conversion charts because the dice are like Descent's dice, they aren't an even distribution along the die's faces. So the d8s and d12s are not really d8s and d12s in distribution -- AND they come with attached Degree of Success values that have to be charted onto another table. He did it, but the resultant page of conversion tables was worse than just sharing dice across the table.

In other words, it sucked. Hard.

Quote from: Endless Flight;690275There actually is a conversion chart in Star Wars: Edge of the Empire telling you what number on a "normal" die means what symbol. They kind of went out of their way having a section telling players they didn't need to buy the dice to play the game.

That must have been post-Beta. But then, lowered expectations from Fantasy Flight "paytest" products and all that. Still annoying as fuck to read conversion charts atop conversion charts (you still gotta look up the two types of DoS checks as well, the adv/disadv and ultra adv/disadv ones. no clue how they did that).

edit: just saw the pic of it. still sucks hard. pain in the ass to read. roll a d6 with blanks here, but contains some DoS there, with differing distribution between bonus and malus die... ooh, and the d12s explode with another DoS type -- that stacks!

Just shoot me already if I had to GM that and figure % distribution on the fly. It's about as ugly as Roll & Keep system for % calc during improv. I have a better idea, let's play WEG Star Wars d6 already!

I've spent some time looking at the Star Wars Dice, and I think that they've got a good idea.  When you're rolling for 'successes' and 'failures', symbols is easier than setting a range.  Symbols are easier to 'cancel' than numbers.  

If this were a matter of generating numbers against a TN or DC, numerical dice would be more appropriate.  

If my combat involved a number of attacker dice versus defender dice and I need to compare 'successful attacks' against 'successful blocks', the symbols would be more intuitive than numbers - as long as I know what the symbols mean.  

I don't see 'specialty dice' as any more damning to the game than 'specialty character sheets'.  

Personally, if I liked the game, I'd probably buy the dice.  Apparently, if I don't want to buy the dice I can get specialty dice rolling apps, or stickers that I can attach to my existing dice.  

But if a game is good, I don't begrudge spending a few extra dollars on an accessory.

Quote from: Haffrung;690351I understand your point alright. All the items beyond plain text in books that were around in 1983 - glossy maps, DM screens, polyhedral dice, hex paper, miniatures, dungeon geomorphs, illustration books in modules, these - are perfectly acceptable. Anything beyond plain text in books in the last 15 years - full-colour books, cards, dice with anything other than numbers on them, flip-maps, pogs - is gimmicky, non-RPG material that only those who lack imagination would want.

Real roleplayers use protractors. Also contact gleichman on lesson how to imagine incorrectly.

Wait, sorry, Really Real roleplayers only use sheets of paper, goose pens and self - made ink.

Games only suck as much as the players do.  That's how fanboys defend their sucky games.

That's all well and good, deadMwalking. Now go try and play it, let alone run it. Theory is all well and good until it has to face application. On paper, everything can look nice.

My friend is a huge Star Wars fan and said it takes time to get used to, but of his various groups trying it none liked the obscurity of the odds and decoding of symbols to values. Sure they liked the game, because plenty just like Star Wars. But a lot of comments were they liked the game -- and some even the Degree of Success factors -- but it was in spite of the dice.

I have no problem with specialty dice, though they are a barrier to entry and if a company is going to use them, making sure people can acquire replacement dice relatively easy is important (otherwise you stop playing the game or figure a workaround after you lose a couple). If the specialty dice make for fast and fun play, not a problem for me. However if the specialty dice are a game in themselves, that is not something I have much interest in.

Quote from: Bill;690214I have done quite a bit of game mechanic design, and I often catch myself overengineering things. When I don't realize I have screwed up, it can be very helpful to me anyway, for another person to say "Stop...you are doing it wrong"

You can't satisfy everyone though, in regards to desired level of detail.

I'm always showing people what my systems do.  If a light goes off in their head, and they want a copy, then I'm on to something.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;690489I'm always showing people what my systems do.  If a light goes off in their head, and they want a copy, then I'm on to something.

I have always believe that the best products are collaborative. Take the Star Wars films.  When Lucas was just some guy he got his friends involved and together they produced something that reflected each of their strengths and only a few weaknesses.  But once he was a big shot he decided he didn't need any friends and produced the prequels with as little help as possible.  I think the difference in quality is pretty well settled.

Jobs and Woz is another example.

Dave and Gary is a good one from RPGs.  I am sure there are others.

All this is to say - I hope the mechanically minded people are making the mechanics for my games.  I just hope they are working with other talented people who can prop up their shortcomings.

Quote from: Benoist;690379Nope. You just proved your reading comprehension is abysmal AND project all sorts of shit on posts that trigger knee-jerk reactions on your part.

Thank you.

I think you're both talking past each other in order to score passive aggressive points.  That is, you're saying that all those things like tokens are completely unnecessary and signs of some badwrong fun, and he's pointing out that they've existed since day one.  Neither one of you is wrong.  You don't need tokens and minis and whatnot to play AD&D.  But at the same time, they did exist, and lots of people did use them, and it wasn't a sign that they were playing the game wrong if they did.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690515I think you're both talking past each other in order to score passive aggressive points.  That is, you're saying that all those things like tokens are completely unnecessary and signs of some badwrong fun, and he's pointing out that they've existed since day one.  Neither one of you is wrong.  You don't need tokens and minis and whatnot to play AD&D.  But at the same time, they did exist, and lots of people did use them, and it wasn't a sign that they were playing the game wrong if they did.

Agree.

There is probably some discussion to be had around degrees, requirements, etc.  But the two positions aren't so far apart as you think.

It's the attestation that at some point something is 'no longer an RPG' that is see as the biggest hurdle.  If it is true, it needs clarity.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690515I think you're both talking past each other in order to score passive aggressive points.  That is, you're saying that all those things like tokens are completely unnecessary and signs of some badwrong fun, and he's pointing out that they've existed since day one.  Neither one of you is wrong.  You don't need tokens and minis and whatnot to play AD&D.  But at the same time, they did exist, and lots of people did use them, and it wasn't a sign that they were playing the game wrong if they did.

Pretty much. Some people like to wear funny hats and light candles when they play D&D. Some like to draw detailed character portraits. Is it necessary? Nope. But whatever floats your boat. Cards are just another way to present the same information found in books. It's only scary because it's not trad. And professional layout, artwork, and glossy paper? That's simply modern publishing. There's nothing meritorious about keeping the state of RPG book design in the 80s. It just makes RPGs look they're stuck in a amateurish backwater. And that's no way to grow the hobby.

Quote from: Haffrung;690550Pretty much. Some people like to wear funny hats and light candles when they play D&D. Some like to draw detailed character portraits. Is it necessary? Nope. But whatever floats your boat. Cards are just another way to present the same information found in books. It's only scary because it's not trad. And professional layout, artwork, and glossy paper? That's simply modern publishing. There's nothing meritorious about keeping the state of RPG book design in the 80s. It just makes RPGs look they're stuck in a amateurish backwater. And that's no way to grow the hobby.

I am firmly convinced that if POD printing and the internet (network with artists) existed in 1974 like they do today, OD&D would look much different from a presentation perspective.  So it's a bit silly to use technology advancements as a form of critique.