Quote from: Sigmund;281417I agree. Maybe even some sample stat blocks of tv characters, but no tie to a specific show.

I would tie it to all the specific shows. I know it'd be an IP nightmare, but I'd love to see some kind of Wold Newton-style concordance of every old action show from the 50s to the present, with characters statted and all the old scams, gags, clues, misdirections, and whatnot all organized and presented in an encyclopedic format. I know a TV Guide history and Murderer's Ink would does the trick, but it would be fun to see a really huge PI game like that.

I'd rather see it in MSPE than D6, but that's OK.

It works well for creating late 70's early 80's sci-fi settings. I have played around with Blakes 7, Space 1999, Buck Rogers, and Battlestar Galactia and I was pretty happy with the results.

70's/80's Action TV?

D6 Legend?

Ditch the Wild Die?

...

Wow, that's... really interesting. Surprising even.

On the other hand I do agree that the closest game to the spirit of D6 is probably Savage Worlds.

Sadly, I once again fell into the trap of trying to fix a game and ending up with a completely different system, but that was before people mentioned Legend. But really, is that the best iteration of D6 so far? Is that what OpenD6 should be based on?

Chaosengine,

Design by committee is not usually the best way to go so you should take all the suggestions on this thread with a pinch of salt. That said there is method in the madness.

The choice of Legend or Classic, wild die or no wild die should not really made in isolation of the specific setting of the game.
What made D6 Star Wars and Ghostbusters great games is the system reflected the spirit and style of the subject matter.

In general terms, adding dice together as in the Classic version of D6 is more natural than counting successes. However if you have a lot of dice, the maths up will slow things down. Rolling a lot of dice also has a very strong averaging effect to the point that the results become very predictable, which is of course the reason for the Wild Die.

So in a sense, the choice comes down to power levels. If you expect most dice rolls will be in 2d6 to 4d6 dice, than you can probably get away with adding totals as in Classic D6 and the Wild Die isn't really required. If you expect dice rolls in the 7d6 to 9d6 to be quite common, then I'd consider the Legend system with a Wild Die. But of may be other things to consider. In Ghostbusters the chaos and randomness of the Wild day was also part of the tone.

As for the 70s and 80s action TV shows as a setting, there are pros and cons. The main thing to bear in mind is that there are very few successful rpgs out there that do not have a large magical or super-science component. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just ignore at your peril.

The main strength of D6 (beyond brand loyalty and nostalgia - which are important and should not be discounted) is accessibility. It is really easy to learn, easy to create characters, easy to play. Even that fact that it uses ordinary d6s makes the system more accessible.

To put it another way, I can easily imagine a complete novice who has never roleplayed before reading a copy of the original Star Wars game and thinking, "I can do this!", calling over some friends and giving it a try. It's much harder a complete novice picking up a copy of D&D and making any sense of it. We are almost entirely reliant in this hobby on players learning how roleplaying games work form other players.

A game set in the present day is also very accessible in that it does not require players to learn all the lore, history and general baggage associated with an imaginary setting. One the other hand, the complexity of modern life and strict enforcement of the law might make it harder to play in.

D6 is a "low definition" system. It's good for fast play, not so good for fine detail or realism. In that sense it does lend itself  towards settings that are a little cheesy (like the 70s & 80s action TV suggestion).

Because D6 suffers at higher levels due to the dice averaging effect, it is better suited to low power settings  (like TV action shows) than epic "zero to hero" games.

D6 is a skilled based system. It is well suited for games in which  combat, technical and interpersonal skills are all genuinely, equally important. For a game which is mostly combat orientated (or otherwise focused) it does not provide any great benefit. Worse still it will in fact break sooner as players will end up only spending skill points on useful skills. This suits the style of 80 action show style such as the A-team bluffing in which bluffing and mechanical skills were as critical to the mission as brute force.

Which is a long way of saying D6 and 80's action show is a natural fit. However that doesn't mean it would be a successful game. I would personally be very tempted to find some way to give it a bit of a fantastical slant, maybe on "Man from Uncle" or "Mission Impossible" lines than "Magnum PI" or "Charlie's Angels".

I do think that an integrated game and setting would be better for D6 than a generic system with world books and that it should really focus on accessibility and ease of play rather than try to imitate other games.

Quote from: Soylent Green;281577Design by committee is not usually the best way to go so you should take all the suggestions on this thread with a pinch of salt.

It all depends on the guidelines, goals, and people involved. Most committees fail to achieve the objective they were created to address due to a fault in one of those areas.

I think it's also worth pointing out that a game session itself is design by committee, only the objective is achieved/enjoyed/utilized throughout the process.

The reason this discussion was started in the first place is that I had a limit break regarding how WEG was approaching OpenD6, among other things. Hence the 'open source' aspect is important, even if all the work is ultimately approved by a single individual.

Quote from: Soylent Green;281577The main strength of D6 (beyond brand loyalty and nostalgia - which are important and should not be discounted) is accessibility.

But is it more accessible than Savage Worlds, FATE, or Cinematic Unisystem?

More importantly, is a revised D6 System WORTH pursuing?

Quote from: Soylent Green;281577D6 is a "low definition" system. It's good for fast play, not so good for fine detail or realism.

The problem "low definition" causes is not a lack of realism, but a lack of character differentiation. This is why games like FATE and ORE have other systems present to make up for it.

Quote from: Soylent Green;281577D6 is a skilled based system. It is well suited for games in which  combat, technical and interpersonal skills are all genuinely, equally important. For a game which is mostly combat orientated (or otherwise focused) it does not provide any great benefit.

But this is a problem that affects all skill based systems.

Quote from: Soylent Green;281577I do think that an integrated game and setting would be better for D6 than a generic system with world books and that it should really focus on accessibility and ease of play rather than try to imitate other games.

I agree.

Not only that, but TORG is already a better fit for D6 than even the system it came with. Hell, Core Earth IS an Action Movie reality. A D6 version of TORG would combine the strongest system and creative brands WEG has, and not only still allow for expanded rules and settings, but inspire them.

The fact that WEG seems so adverse to something like this confuses the hell out of me and many others.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;281654But is it more accessible than Savage Worlds, FATE, or Cinematic Unisystem?

More importantly, is a revised D6 System WORTH pursuing?

I think D6 is marginally more accessible than Savage Worlds and a lot more than FATE, which though a very cool system in its own right is hardly a beginners game (not to mention the Fudge dice). I don't know Unisystem.

Personally I have plenty of D6 books, I don't need a new version as such. However it is a strong system, with some unique features. Given the right treatment and setting it could still sell as well as any non-D&D game.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;281654The problem "low definition" causes is not a lack of realism, but a lack of character differentiation. This is why games like FATE and ORE have other systems present to make up for it.

I don't remember character differentiation being an issue in D6 in either Star Wars or Ghostbusters. Granted certain templates in Star Wars were not functionally all that different like say the Smuggler and the Pirate, but you had a lot of freedom in how you spent your skill points and even silly things like the quote did encourage unique characters. I think it is much worse in say D&D when you have two characters of the same class.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;281654But this is a problem that affects all skill based systems.

Perhaps "skill based" wasn't the right term. I guess my point is that combat in D6 is not treated any different from any other skill. Combat skills do not cost more skill points, work differently or have special sub-system. D6 is not entirely unique in that respect, all I am just saying this makes it a good for a game like the A-Team in which the problems are of a broad nature and rather mediocre for a dungeon crawl.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;281654Not only that, but TORG is already a better fit for D6 than even the system it came with. Hell, Core Earth IS an Action Movie reality. A D6 version of TORG would combine the strongest system and creative brands WEG has, and not only still allow for expanded rules and settings, but inspire them.

The fact that WEG seems so adverse to something like this confuses the hell out of me and many others.

I agree. I can see a Torg D6 making a lot of sense. It's a cinematic game and good match for D6. Short of a big licence deal, which is expensive, Torg would seem to me the best chance for a D6 relaunch. I am sure it would generate a lot of buzz, more than a reissue of Aden or another anonymous space opera setting.  I know I woulld buy it.

I suspect the worry at WEG might be that main group of people hoping for a Torg relaunch are those who liked the orignal system. The risk then is alienating more old fans than gaining new ones.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;281654The problem "low definition" causes is not a lack of realism, but a lack of character differentiation. This is why games like FATE and ORE have other systems present to make up for it.

This is a very good point. Unless the characters had cool (Jedi) powers, there weren't a lot of ways to differentiate one character from another.

Quote from: Claudius;281716This is a very good point. Unless the characters had cool (Jedi) powers, there weren't a lot of ways to differentiate one character from another.

Maybe by roleplaying?

Quote from: Technomancer;281726Maybe by roleplaying?

Funny, while I was writing my post I thought of that, but I forgot to include it . Yeah, roleplaying is another way to differentiate one character from another, one that applies to every game (except the most extreme of the forgieramas, which feel like they were boardgames).

Quote from: Claudius;281736Funny, while I was writing my post I thought of that, but I forgot to include it . Yeah, roleplaying is another way to differentiate one character from another, one that applies to every game (except the most extreme of the forgieramas, which feel like they were boardgames).

I even roleplay in boardgames.  I play Monopoly completely different as the shoe and as the car.

Seriously, I don't know what it was about D6, or WEGs Star Wars, to be precise, but even though character were fairly similar mechanically, they always felt unique.  Something to do with the presentation, I guess.  Things like the quotes and backgrounds, as mentioned earlier, and examples in the book.

To me they felt unique, as long as you (the players) choose different archetypes (we always used archetypes). And of course, if you roleplay them.

Quote from: Technomancer;281726Maybe by roleplaying?

While I agree, I still find many gamers who only seem able to differentiate characters based on mechanically differences. It's actually a rather big issue for some.

Quote from: Soylent Green;281658I suspect the worry at WEG might be that main group of people hoping for a Torg relaunch are those who liked the orignal system. The risk then is alienating more old fans than gaining new ones.

It's not so much a "worry" as the fact that the current owner of WEG bought the company specifically because he liked the original Torg, system and all.  In fact, he likes the original system better than he likes D6.  Expecting him to convert a game he loves using a system he loves to a system he doesn't love is probably not realistic, even if he knows that the latter is the more popular system overall.

It's really not that confusing.

KoOS

Im too lazy to check, but one thing I wouldnt change are the mini solo adventures at the beginning of the book to help new players, and especially new GMs to play and run the games.
 
I know Star Wars and D6 Space had it.

Quote from: King of Old School;281824It's not so much a "worry" as the fact that the current owner of WEG bought the company specifically because he liked the original Torg, system and all.  In fact, he likes the original system better than he likes D6.

0_0

Innnnnnnnteresting.

If that's the case, then why is he even bothering with OpenD6 at all? Popularity be damned, he bought the company for TORG! And it would be rather easy to put out a revised TORG/Masterbook/Shatterzone system, as it's basically just a series of metric systems attached to a logarithmic table.