Quote from: chaosvoyager;281875If that's the case, then why is he even bothering with OpenD6 at all?

Because he knows that D6 is popular and there's some value (the amount is debatable) to the property.  This thread and the umpteen others discussing the stillborn OpenD6 is testament to that.

KoOS

Quote from: chaosvoyager;2818750_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.

I don't dislike D6. It's one of my favorite systems, to be certain, but I just like the Torg a tad bit more. And, for all it's quirky goodness, Torg's system doesn't have anywhere near the application that D6 does. It's clunkier, harder to understand and learn, and has too great a reliance on tables and charts. Still there are many nice applications to Torg's system and many of them have been mined from Torg for D6.

Even though Torg is my favorite game, I must acknowledge that there is very little it is better at than D6 and probably the only thing is its scaling. Because it is neither linear, nor bell curve and uses a pseudo-logarithmic probability curve, Torg handles scaling directly and without modifiers. I'm not even sure if you can honestly say it handles scaling better, but I like it better. It's totally subjective.

Hopefully that answers your question. I don't think Torg is a better system. I think D6 is a significantly better system. I just happen to like Torg more.

Quote from: King of Old School;281891Because he knows that D6 is popular and there's some value (the amount is debatable) to the property.  This thread and the umpteen others discussing the stillborn OpenD6 is testament to that.

You misunderstand.

OpenD6 is an expenditure of resources without any net gain. Time is being invested in the SRD, license, database, and website, and no income is being generated. Even if WEG intends to wait out the economic storm for a bit, putting this much effort into something like this is a waste, especially if it will ultimately be a community driven effort. All that's really needed is an SRD and a driven community.

The thing is, I don't believe D6 will benefit from having a resource for rules. Background and setting bits yes, but not rules. I'm actually hard pressed to think of any rules I'd want to add, and when I do, I usually end up with a completely different system anyway.

Quote from: hellsreach;281947Torg's system doesn't have anywhere near the application that D6 does. It's clunkier, harder to understand and learn, and has too great a reliance on tables and charts. Still there are many nice applications to Torg's system and many of them have been mined from Torg for D6.

0_o

Really? I found completely the opposite.

The only real problem I had with TORG was that the mechanics were not as clean as they could be. The Bonus Chart should be unnecessary, because a die result can be used directly. And you shouldn't need to differentiate between action and effect totals, because you can always rephrase a question of 'if' as a question of 'how' (how much, how many, how far, how soon, how long, etc).

These (and a few other quirks) are all issues that could be addressed in a new edition, which is why I think TORG desperately needs one. And while the core ideas in TORG have been refined in Shatterzone and Masterbook, it needs to go much further.

Quote from: hellsreach;281947Even though Torg is my favorite game, I must acknowledge that there is very little it is better at than D6 and probably the only thing is its scaling.

Perhaps, but it does scaling better than any other RPG out there.

The problem, which it shares with Mayfair's DC Heroes, is that ranges can be too big. For example, wasn't Batman able to lift a car over his head in DCH? You don't want someone who is generally able to lift 100 lbs to be able to lift a ton on a lucky roll.

I currently use a scaling chart based on the decibel system for my FATE games, and the range is such that I can use the die results directly most of the time. I think that's how TORG should work.

Quote from: hellsreach;281947I don't think Torg is a better system. I think D6 is a significantly better system. I just happen to like Torg more.

Huh, interesting.

I do have a followup then: Are you intending to revise the D6 system in some manner before it hits the SRD, and how does D6 Legend fit into it, if at all?

Quote from: chaosvoyager;282249I do have a followup then: Are you intending to revise the D6 system in some manner before it hits the SRD, and how does D6 Legend fit into it, if at all?

Yes, but don't think of it as a revision. I do intend to include variant mechanics right from the start. It's not fair to call it an actual revision, because that would suggest that I would be overruling or disqualifying previous versions and that is not the case. The OpenD6 SRD is to be a living and growing document. It will include information for virtually every previous iteration of D6 and more that haven't even been thought of yet.

This applies to Legend as well. Legend will will included in the OpenD6 SRD as an OpenD6 Core variant. Even a reasonable facsimile of GBI will be included as a Core variant.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;282249You misunderstand.

I understand that if WEG has any intention of selling commercial D6 products (be they settings, splatbooks, whatever) in the future, they need to do something to reinvigorate the fanbase.  The release of the generic D6 corebooks (D6 Fantasy, D6 Adventure, D6 Space) clearly didn't do that, and relying on grognards with mouldering copies of D6 Star Wars (or, gods forbid, Metabarons) is not really a sustainable long-term plan.

Will the existence of OpenD6 make the system commercially viable in the long term?  If Eric believes the answer is "yes" then the expenditure of effort is not a waste (esp. if much of the up-front effort derives from unpaid volunteers).  It doesn't matter if you or I personally agree with him or not.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;282334I understand that if WEG has any intention of selling commercial D6 products (be they settings, splatbooks, whatever) in the future, they need to do something to reinvigorate the fanbase.  The release of the generic D6 corebooks (D6 Fantasy, D6 Adventure, D6 Space) clearly didn't do that, and relying on grognards with mouldering copies of D6 Star Wars (or, gods forbid, Metabarons) is not really a sustainable long-term plan.

Will the existence of OpenD6 make the system commercially viable in the long term?  If Eric believes the answer is "yes" then the expenditure of effort is not a waste (esp. if much of the up-front effort derives from unpaid volunteers).  It doesn't matter if you or I personally agree with him or not.

KoOS

Thank you. I was avoiding saying the same thing over and over again. OpenD6 is a calculated decision to try and increase the player base, and thus market pool, for commercial D6 games from WEG. Though the method behind this move is not wholly commercial, I'm never denied that my primary motivation behind OpenD6 is for WEG (and other D6 publishers) to sell more games, which could, in turn, increase the player base even more.

I get it, CV, you think I'm wrong and stupid and wasting my time and money. Congratulations.

Okay, going back then to the original post, given the future of D6 seems likely to be as a generic tool kit system with  x number of variants, what aspects of the game can use a bit of attention or a rethink?

My candidate is the Strength roll to resist damage.

D6, in whatever flavour, is meant for fast play.  

Players roll a bucket of dice and adds up the total to see if he hits. Legend makes it easier, but it's no big deal either way.

What happens then however is that the player has to roll another bucket of dice while GM rolls a bunch of dice himself and rather than just comparing the totals, the GM has to divide one by the other to find the wound level.

Okay, so it's not rocket science, but is perhaps a little clunky for what it achieves, especially as the GM may have to do this several times per combat round, and it does slow down what otherwise is a fast-paced game.

The system as also kind of broken when it came to very strong character *cough*wookies*cough* but I think newer editions addressed that.

So, keeping the Wound level concept and the notion that stronger character can take *a bit* more punishment than weaker ones, how would you simplify D6 damage rolls?

Quote from: hellsreach;282313It's not fair to call it an actual revision, because that would suggest that I would be overruling or disqualifying previous versions and that is not the case.

But why not?

D6 is not perfect, and there are issues that could be addressed in a revision. Why not take the chance to do so?

Quote from: hellsreach;282313The OpenD6 SRD is to be a living and growing document. It will include information for virtually every previous iteration of D6 and more that haven't even been thought of yet.

SRD stands for Standard Reference Document. It can't be a standard reference if it's always changing.

Quote from: hellsreach;282313This applies to Legend as well. Legend will will included in the OpenD6 SRD as an OpenD6 Core variant. Even a reasonable facsimile of GBI will be included as a Core variant.

Legend is almost a completely different game than D6 standard, and why are you including variants in the SRD?

Quote from: King of Old School;282334I understand that if WEG has any intention of selling commercial D6 products (be they settings, splatbooks, whatever) in the future, they need to do something to reinvigorate the fanbase.

***

If Eric believes the answer is "yes" then the expenditure of effort is not a waste (esp. if much of the up-front effort derives from unpaid volunteers).  It doesn't matter if you or I personally agree with him or not.

I agree, but it does matter if it pays off.

Community building is difficult, especially if it's being done on the ashes of a disillusioned fanbase. At this point, WEG would be better off trying to reinvent D6 as opposed to maintaining its current state.

Quote from: hellsreach;282350OpenD6 is a calculated decision to try and increase the player base, and thus market pool, for commercial D6 games from WEG.

But calculated on what?

In the case of D&D and FATE, the SRD came out AFTER the game. You need a product.

Quote from: Soylent Green;282356What happens then however is that the player has to roll another bucket of dice while GM rolls a bunch of dice himself and rather than just comparing the totals, the GM has to divide one by the other to find the wound level.

Respin this as a game that teaches math skills, and you have another market

Quote from: Soylent Green;282356So, keeping the Wound level concept and the notion that stronger character can take *a bit* more punishment than weaker ones, how would you simplify D6 damage rolls?

It's been a while, but...

Two skill pools are rolled against each other. The highest total decided who hit, and the number of 1's rolled decided how successful they were at causing damage.

Strength, along with every damage source, was not used as a pool, but as a multiplier to the result. So a hit with 2 successes and a Strength of 3 would result in 6 damage (2 success * 3 strength = 6 damage).

Armor was subtracted from a damage source before being applied. So that same Strength 3 attack against an Armor 2 opponent would result in 2 damage ( (3 strength - 2 armor = 1 modifier) * 2 success = 2 damage).

This meant that certain kinds of armor made targets invulnerable to certain levels of damage. So a Strength 3 attack could not damage an Armor 6 opponent at all (3 strength - 6 armor = -3 modifier), but it could ricochet to hit something else, and often did

Every character had 10 wound boxes, and each box had a value equal to 1/10 a character's total damage capacity (though I forget how I calculated that). The first 4 boxes were light, the next 3 moderate, the next 2 heavy, and the last dead.

One thing I did differently than every other game was to give bonuses for wounds (light +2, moderate +4, heavy +8, dead +16, but it's your last action) instead of penalties, which did a better job of simulating that action movie experience I was aiming for.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;282374D6 is not perfect, and there are issues that could be addressed in a revision. Why not take the chance to do so?

I will. I already explained that. But in doing so, I don't have to tell you that anything previous to my modifications don't count. I'll give you old ways, newer ways, and leave option for still other to give newer way than that and have it all in one convenient location so that YOU decide which is the right ruleset for you.

Perhaps if you stopped looking for ways to criticize me, you could take a step back and try to understand the intent. Of course, that is not going to happen. you have been quite close minded every step of the way.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;282374SRD stands for Standard Reference Document. It can't be a standard reference if it's always changing.

SRD stand for SYSTEM reference document not standard. The advantage of a open system is to be allowed to change and mold it to your needs, this not being standard in any way.

Also, it not going to be changing, but growing.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;282374Legend is almost a completely different game than D6 standard, and why are you including variants in the SRD?

I think one of our problems is, you still don't know what OpenD6 is meant to be. I'll accept the blame for not being able to make it more clear despite explaining it repeatedly. I guess you'll just have to wait a see.

Legend, while significantly different, is still based on D6. The fact that it is different, means that it must be called a variant core. It will be included for those that prefer Legend, but must also be away that, because it is a separate and different system core, most of the other material included and downloadable will not be compatible.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;282374I agree, but it does matter if it pays off.

Community building is difficult, especially if it's being done on the ashes of a disillusioned fanbase. At this point, WEG would be better off trying to reinvent D6 as opposed to maintaining its current state.

What current state is that? Very robust and modifiable with a ton of resource material for it? D6 the SYSTEM is not in a bad position. It's stronger than it ever has been. The marketing machine behind D6 is rough, but that is the POINT of OpenD6.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;282374But calculated on what?

In the case of D&D and FATE, the SRD came out AFTER the game. You need a product.

There has been several D6 games over time and certainly more than Fate. And, you have taken it on yourself to assume that no games are coming out for WEG, for OpenD6. This is an error. No news doesn't mean NOTHING is being worked on.



[/QUOTE]

Quote from: chaosvoyager;282374I agree, but it does matter if it pays off.

Obviously.

Given that you aren't being asked to stake anything on the attempt, what's your interest in arguing against it?  Other than the opportunity to play armchair quarterback, of course.

KoOS

Quote from: chaosvoyager;282374In the case of D&D and FATE, the SRD came out AFTER the game. You need a product.

Wrong on both counts.  The release of the d20 SRD was as close to simultaneous with the release of D&D 3e as makes no difference, and FATE was freely available long before Spirit of the Century was published.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;282437Obviously.

Given that you aren't being asked to stake anything on the attempt, what's your interest in arguing against it?  Other than the opportunity to play armchair quarterback, of course.

Dude, this is a public forum on the internet. Playing armchair quarterback is half the point.

Quote from: Warthur;282500Dude, this is a public forum on the internet. Playing armchair quarterback is half the point.

Touche!

KoOS

Quote from: chaosvoyager;282374Two skill pools are rolled against each other. The highest total decided who hit, and the number of 1's rolled decided how successful they were at causing damage.

Interesting. Getting rid of the damage/strength rolls is a definite step in the right direction.

But what happens if I don't roll any ones? Whiff? That seems too high.

And why use 1's? It creates a strange paradox where rolling high is better to hit, but rolling low is better for damage: A roll of 24 (6,6,6,6) does less damage than a 14 (6,6,1,1). I'd expect the higher roll to do more damage, since it was a better roll. Making 6's count for damage instead of 1's makes more sense.

Okay how is this.

One way to simply D6 damage could be to use static values for Strength rolls, this may well have appeared as an optional rule in one of the D6 books I am not quite sure.

Basically what you could do instead of making a Strength roll each time a character or NPC takes damage, the you use an average value based on their Strength. The mathematical average for a d6 is 3.5 but that is awkward so I'd choose either 3 or 4.

If we were to use 3 in this example, then a character in the old Star Wars game (which may not be the best variant for Wound levels) with 2D+1 Strength his static Strength roll would be 7 (2x3+1).

Any damage roll of 6 of less is a Stun.
Any damage roll of 7 is at least a Wound.
Any damage roll of 14 is at least Incapacitating
Any damage roll of 21 or more is a Mortal Wound.

If the character had 4D Strength, the range would be 11, 12, 24, 36. Obviously much harder to take down in one go, but don't forget a Wounded character who is wounded again is Incapacitated.

That alone would speed up combat significantly without fundamentally altering the games balance.

What is nice is that one were to calculate these totals at character generation time and write them on the character sheet they would effectively become another variation of the Difficulty Number mechanic which runs all the other aspects of D6. The Wound Levels are then just the Difficulty Numbers required to hurt someone.

Even nicer, you don't then need to specify the rule that states Strength rolls to resist damage are not subject to the standard multiple action/damage sustained penalties, which always seemed a little inelegant.

The same can could be done for armour.