TheRPGSite

Guess I'll start.

The best thing about D6 was the startup time. For Star Wars, you just picked an archetype and after a little tweaking you were off. Every game should have archetypes as easy to use and modify as these, and some of the best have. Come to think of it, the board game Talisman feels very similar in this respect.

The worst thing was how pacing suffered from all the adding once die pools reached a certain size. And while D6 had rules to address this issue (each die could be considered a default fixed value instead of rolled), it resulted in certain tasks being impossible to fail (well, in theory there's the Wild Die, but it just wasn't wild enough :)).

On a personal note, I don't like the +1 and +2 ability pips that exist between die levels. It just feels like a clumsy fix, like a stray thread in an otherwise nice looking sweater.

Beyond that, D6 strikes me as rather similar to every other traditional RPG out there, but I have to admit that the residual nostalgia from Star Wars and Ghostbusters is pretty hard to shake.

I'd ditch the wild die. It doesn't serve a useful purpose in my games and just complicates thing. Isn't success and failure (and by how much) already measured by the normal d6 rolls?

I'd like to have a consistent "power" design system as well. Probably using D6 powers as a base.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;281324The best thing about D6 was the startup time. For Star Wars, you just picked an archetype and after a little tweaking you were off. Every game should have archetypes as easy to use and modify as these, and some of the best have.

Preach it! Nowadays we (that means my group) haven't got much time to game, so we can't afford the luxury of wasting time on a long character sheet. Star Wars d6 did it right, creating a character was a breeze.

On the other hand, I don't like archetypes very much, I want my characters to be mine, not someone else's that I just modified. I admit that Star Wars is one of the few games that gets my forgivement.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;281324The worst thing was how pacing suffered from all the adding once die pools reached a certain size. And while D6 had rules to address this issue (each die could be considered a default fixed value instead of rolled), it resulted in certain tasks being impossible to fail (well, in theory there's the Wild Die, but it just wasn't wild enough :)).

On a personal note, I don't like the +1 and +2 ability pips that exist between die levels. It just feels like a clumsy fix, like a stray thread in an otherwise nice looking sweater.

D6 Legend (an alternate system to regular D6) addresses both of these issues.  You count successes rather than adding the dice up.  And it uses whole dice only (eliminates the pips).  A few WEG games used this system (Hercules & Xena and I think DC Universe, possibly some others).

As applied to Star Wars and Ghostbusters, the D6 system was near perfect.  Well okay, there were a few flaws, but it was a marvel of elegant design. With Star Wars in particular the system really seemed to capture the spirit of the movies.

There is so much that was right in the D6 Star Wars
 it i s hard to cover it all, but here are a few:
 
While it was a really simple system, it was actually remarkably complete, with a full skill system and it catered for things like multiple actions per turn.

Between the easy system the well known setting and plenty of tips in the rulebook, it made the ideal beginner game.

A wound system that was simple made a little more sense than hit points.

With Force and later Skill points it was one of the first games to meta-game mechanic to improve dice rolls when it really mattered to the player.

I loved the fact that Star Wars was not an equipment focused game. You could get through a whole campaign using the same blaster you started with.

It was character focused, encouraging players to think about a quote and connection to other character. Simple stuff, but effective.

It was also the game that introduced to me "cinematic" gameplay as in the emulation how things work in the movies rather than how things work in reality.

Latter incarnations of D6 as a generic system I think suffered from being too much of a toolkit with too many options to choose from. The strength of D6 is that it's fast and simple, it should play to it's strengths rather than try to compete with GURPS. If it were to me and I wanted to revamp D6 I'd choose a setting suited for a low crunch,  cinematic play, ideally a setting that isn't in a already saturated market like fantasy. Then I'd create a custom version of D6 for that specific game (possibly using the Legend variant) and maybe try to plug it as the entry level roleplaying game.  Of course I'm just making this up as I go along, I know nothing about the actual industry.

I've never gotten into d6, in spite of great stuff I've heard about it. The reason is touched on with the archetype issue: the non-SW games seem too generic and wide-open to really draw me in. Meanwhile I've just never been keen on playing SW as an RPG. (Generally I don't care for licensed settings, especially if there's already canonical saga associated such as LotR.)

If someone just out and made a neat game with d6 as the engine, but it's own cool flavor, I'd be more inclined to give it a look.

Heh!  I'd get to play it more often.

That's PLAY, not RUN.

I would create a d6 cheesy 80s cop show game, like Magnum PI d6, or Riptide d6, or A-Team d6.

I have no need for generic systems.   Give me a great setting using D6 and you have my attention.    The World of Aden D6 was a great example of a D6 game done almost great.   Very cool steampunk fantasy.

I agree on the Archetypes.   They were good solid skeletons and you had enough extra D6s to spread about quickly to personalize your character.

They certainly made starting up games and one-shots very easy and that is an important factor for new RPGs.

I prefer to count successes than tally up totals so the D6 Legend method would be my preferred option.  

And I would nuke the Wild Die.

Aden was a Masterbook game. It did have D6 conversion at the back, but that is never quite the same. It had some good ideas but in the end I think the only reaso I still have it is becasue I like the art work.

Bloodshadows was re-issued as a D6 book, but you need the core D6 Adventure to run it which again is a bit of a barrier if your target audience is the pick up and run game. It's a cool but confusing setting.

Quote from: Sigmund;281357I would create a d6 cheesy 80s cop show game, like Magnum PI d6, or Riptide d6, or A-Team d6.

I'd give this a look, for sure. Just don't link it to a particular show. Instead make templates for each of the general types of tv cop hero.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;281414I'd give this a look, for sure. Just don't link it to a particular show. Instead make templates for each of the general types of tv cop hero.

I agree. Maybe even some sample stat blocks of tv characters, but no tie to a specific show.

D6 is well suited for a A-Team kind of game. Considering that the A-Team itself being made in a movie due in 2011 the timing could be just right. Of course actual licenses are expensive.

I feel ill just saying  it, but perhaps the sort of thing D6 could do that might actually sell is a sort Harry Potter knock-off introductory rpg. I personally don't get the whole Potter thing, but it has hugely successfull and I don't think it is really represented in the rpg market.

I much prefer the Legend version of D6 because it's easier to add the dice up and it doesn't have the clunky +1 and +2 pips which I've always hated.

  The Herc/Xena game is actually pretty good.  I would love to see a simple generic Swords & Sorcery version of that game.

I'd like to see it revamped into a single core rulebook with supplemental setting books similar to how Savage Worlds does it.

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.

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.

Quote from: hellsreach;282377*snip*

Quote from: King of Old School;282437*snip*

These were not rules related so I responded to them here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=283517#post283517). While I may or may not be responsible for the tangent, I'm sure as hell going to be the one responsible for rectifying it.

Quote from: Blue Seraph;283145But what happens if I don't roll any ones?

We can assume a successful hit does one level of damage + the number of 1's rolled. So if (6, 6, 5, 2) was a successful hit, then the multiplier would be x1, and (6, 6, 1, 1) would be x3 (2 + default).

Quote from: Blue Seraph;283145And 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.

If multipliers are based on 6s instead of 1s, it becomes more likely that maximum damage will be done on a successful hit. For example, lets assume a target rolls a dodge result of 18:

   (1, 1, 1, 1, 1) : (1s = 5 / 6s = 0) : miss
(6, 1, 1, 1, 1) : (1s = 4 / 6s = 1) : miss
(6, 6, 1, 1, 1) : (1s = 3 / 6s = 2) : miss
(6, 6, 6, 1, 1) : (1s = 2 / 6s = 3) : hit
(6, 6, 6, 6, 1) : (1s = 1 / 6s = 4) : hit
(6, 6, 6, 6, 6) : (1s = 0 / 6s = 5) : hit

Of course there's nothing inherently wrong with your way either.

Ultimately though this dichotomy between 'if' and 'how much' shouldn't even exist in the first place, and if you transport this system to D6 Legend, it won't.

Quote from: Soylent Green;283255One 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.

It does sound familiar.