| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
enderandrew
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Omaha, NE
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: WEG SW Revised (3E?) - Core Mechanics |
 |
|
Here are some ideas I'll toss out there. BTW, I am of the opinion that pretty much all rules are optional other than the primary rule "the point of a game is to have fun." If the fan community put together an unofficial expansion/revision/new edition of the fantastic Star Wars D6 rules, I think the biggest mistake would be a series of changes so drastic that existing splat books and stats wouldn't be valid anymore. Thusly we can't change rules so drastically we would have to change ship ratings, NPC stats, etc.
I have no qualms with others taking these ideas and using them however they want. Some of these ideas aren't even really mine own, but rather concepts inspired by, or directly lifted from other game systems.
- Difficulty numbers aren't so fuzzy. The standard difficulties are now: Very Easy 5, Easy 10, Moderate 15, Difficult 20, Very Difficult 30, Heroic 35, Legendary 45. Rolling a set number of dice to determine a random difficulty slows down the game, and it is frankly entirely too random. It isn't fair to say the a medium range shot is a 13 difficulty one day, and 15 the next, unless circumstances change. So standard difficulties should be a set base number. These numbers can still be modified by other factors.
- Implement a "Gambit" system, akin to the bidding system in L5R. This makes gameplay far more interesting than always declaring the same boring combat actions over and over again. This system would also help facilitate and cover many other areas I've seen fan rules address. When declaring actions, players may take gambits. A gambit is a more specific action that increases the difficulty. A standard gambit raises the difficulty one level. However, really specific actions may raise the difficulty multiple levels at the GM's discretion. A standard combat gambit may be a called shot which raises the difficulty one level, but also does an additional dice of damage. However gambits can be used for anything you can imagine and the GM will allow. A standard medium range blaster shot is a 15 difficulty. A head shot might be a 20. Trying to shoot the blaster out of a stromtrooper's hands might be a 25. Trying to shoot a comlink out of someone's hands might be a 35.
- To keep the game cinematic, dynamic and entertaining, a GM may award "stunt" dice. When a player declares an action, the GM may give the player bonus dice for a particularly daring stunt. If the stunt is particularly clever and original, the GM may award 1D. If the stunt is particularly bold and selfless, the GM may award 1D. If the stunt is particularly well timed in a climactic scene, the GM may award 1D. These bonuses do not double with force points. These bonuses are awarded solely at the discretion of a GM, after a player commits to their action. Players can not assume that stunt dice will be awarded. This may seem excessive, but understand that it is difficult to come up with original ideas consistently. This rewards clever and entertaining roleplay. Players should never be awarded stunt dice for actions or maneuvers they have pulled before. There is also a very fine line between bravery and stupidity. Attacking Lord Vader with a stick of tofu is not particularly clever or dramatic. Trying to draw the fire (and hopefully dodge the fire) of an E-Web turret so others can safely escape might be seen as a bold and selfless move that grants the player a stunt die. Again, this is completely at the discretion of a GM who may never award any stunt dice. This idea is inspired by White Wolf's fantastic Exalted game.
- Dice rolled from spending character points can not trigger complications from rolling a 1, however if you roll a 1 on a character point die, then you may not spend further character points. If you still have not hit the difficulty number, then you have failed in that roll. This rule will have players screaming "No Whammys!" before each character point roll.
- Lightsaber dueling is now an advanced skill with a prerequisite of 5D in Lightsaber. Martial Arts is now an advanced skill with a prerequisite of 5D in Brawling. Specific forms of dueling (lightsaber forms) or martial arts may be taken as separate advanced skills. Thusly you could have an advanced skill in Lightsaber Form V, and a different skill in Form VI. You can also have a skill in Martial Arts - Echani and Martial Arts - Teras Kasi. Each die in of these advanced skills provides the player with a specific gambit or maneuver that they can use without raising their difficulty. Thusly, if they learn "Trip" via Teras Kasi, they may use that move with a standard Brawl attack without raising the difficulty via gambits. Someone untrained in martial arts may attempt a trip manuever, but they must utilize gambits and raise their difficulty.
- Rolling a 1 on the wild die always incurs the standard penalty listed in the core rules (drop the 1, and the highest die). Complications are optional and at GM discretion. But if a GM determines there is a complication, it occurs as well as the penalty. This keeps dice rolls fair. A GM can't replace a penalty with a complication to alter the dice result.
Thoughts? Suggestions?
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ankhanu
Vice Admiral
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 3089
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:07 pm Post subject: Re: WEG SW Revised (3E?) - Core Mechanics |
|
|
| enderandrew wrote: | | [*]Difficulty numbers aren't so fuzzy. The standard difficulties are now: Very Easy 5, Easy 10, Moderate 15, Difficult 20, Very Difficult 30, Heroic 35, Legendary 45. Rolling a set number of dice to determine a random difficulty slows down the game, and it is frankly entirely too random. It isn't fair to say the a medium range shot is a 13 difficulty one day, and 15 the next, unless circumstances change. So standard difficulties should be a set base number. These numbers can still be modified by other factors. |
I like the difficulty ranges. That said, I DO tend to use a standard 5, 10, 15, 20 sort of difficulty for Easy, Moderate, etc. difficulties, I don't tend to roll to figure out my difficulties. I DO like the freedom as a GM to use a randomly determined difficulty within a particular range, or to decide that the difficulty should be 12 rather than 15 to represent an intermediate level of difficulty.
As for the random generation aspect and say, making a shot with a blaster pistol at 20m having different difficulties with each shot, I don't think that's unreasonable. The variation is easily explained by all the various uncontrollable factors influencing each individual shot. A gust of wind, a distracting sound, pulling the trigger just as your heart beats rather than just after, momentum of the blaster after the prior shot's recoil of shifting to keep up with a moving target, etc... these all influence the likelihood of a shot hitting, and are constantly in flux. Set difficulties ARE convenient, but fluctuating difficulties aren't always unreasonable.
| Quote: |
[*]Implement a "Gambit" system, akin to the bidding system in L5R. This makes gameplay far more interesting than always declaring the same boring combat actions over and over again. This system would also help facilitate and cover many other areas I've seen fan rules address. When declaring actions, players may take gambits. A gambit is a more specific action that increases the difficulty. A standard gambit raises the difficulty one level. However, really specific actions may raise the difficulty multiple levels at the GM's discretion. A standard combat gambit may be a called shot which raises the difficulty one level, but also does an additional dice of damage. However gambits can be used for anything you can imagine and the GM will allow. A standard medium range blaster shot is a 15 difficulty. A head shot might be a 20. Trying to shoot the blaster out of a stromtrooper's hands might be a 25. Trying to shoot a comlink out of someone's hands might be a 35. |
Isn't this already kind of covered in the rules (particularly the called shot thing)?
| Quote: |
[*]To keep the game cinematic, dynamic and entertaining, a GM may award "stunt" dice. When a player declares an action, the GM may give the player bonus dice for a particularly daring stunt. If the stunt is particularly clever and original, the GM may award 1D. If the stunt is particularly bold and selfless, the GM may award 1D. If the stunt is particularly well timed in a climactic scene, the GM may award 1D. These bonuses do not double with force points. These bonuses are awarded solely at the discretion of a GM, after a player commits to their action. Players can not assume that stunt dice will be awarded. This may seem excessive, but understand that it is difficult to come up with original ideas consistently. This rewards clever and entertaining roleplay. Players should never be awarded stunt dice for actions or maneuvers they have pulled before. There is also a very fine line between bravery and stupidity. Attacking Lord Vader with a stick of tofu is not particularly clever or dramatic. Trying to draw the fire (and hopefully dodge the fire) of an E-Web turret so others can safely escape might be seen as a bold and selfless move that grants the player a stunt die. Again, this is completely at the discretion of a GM who may never award any stunt dice. This idea is inspired by White Wolf's fantastic Exalted game. |
Isn't this just difficulty modifiers in different clothing?
| Quote: |
[*]Dice rolled from spending character points can not trigger complications from rolling a 1, however if you roll a 1 on a character point die, then you may not spend further character points. If you still have not hit the difficulty number, then you have failed in that roll. This rule will have players screaming "No Whammys!" before each character point roll. |
You can't complicate on CP dice anyway. This isn't a change.
As for the no more CPs after a 1 thing... that could spice things up; though CP expenditure, from my experience (table top, not PbP, where people seem very willing to toss around CPs) is usually out of desperation, and capping off their use on a 1 roll will probably lead to player death.
| Quote: |
[*]Lightsaber dueling is now an advanced skill with a prerequisite of 5D in Lightsaber. Martial Arts is now an advanced skill with a prerequisite of 5D in Brawling. Specific forms of dueling (lightsaber forms) or martial arts may be taken as separate advanced skills. Thusly you could have an advanced skill in Lightsaber Form V, and a different skill in Form VI. You can also have a skill in Martial Arts - Echani and Martial Arts - Teras Kasi. Each die in of these advanced skills provides the player with a specific gambit or maneuver that they can use without raising their difficulty. Thusly, if they learn "Trip" via Teras Kasi, they may use that move with a standard Brawl attack without raising the difficulty via gambits. Someone untrained in martial arts may attempt a trip manuever, but they must utilize gambits and raise their difficulty. |
I'm not sure that lightsaber dueling as an advanced skill makes sense, but I certainly agree with the Forms and martial arts being advanced skills.
| Quote: |
[*]Rolling a 1 on the wild die always incurs the standard penalty listed in the core rules (drop the 1, and the highest die). Complications are optional and at GM discretion. But if a GM determines there is a complication, it occurs as well as the penalty. This keeps dice rolls fair. A GM can't replace a penalty with a complication to alter the dice result.
|
Complications are always at GM discretion, states as much in the current core rules. As for the standard penalty for a 1... I also like that being GM discretion. Generally it should apply, but there are situations where it doesn't make much sense, or may interrupt the cinematic game play or story.
__________________________________________________________
I'm kind of a fan of soft rules and GM discretion, both as a GM and as a player. They keep things flowing. WEG Star Wars has its weaknesses, but I don't think most of these changes address those weaknesses (except as noted). I'll give some suggestions later on when I have a bit more time to properly explain my ideas 
_________________
Hotaru no Hishou; a messageboard about games, friends and nothing at all.
Donate to Ankhanu Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enderandrew
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Omaha, NE
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: WEG SW Revised (3E?) - Core Mechanics |
|
|
| Ankhanu wrote: | I like the difficulty ranges. That said, I DO tend to use a standard 5, 10, 15, 20 sort of difficulty for Easy, Moderate, etc. difficulties, I don't tend to roll to figure out my difficulties. I DO like the freedom as a GM to use a randomly determined difficulty within a particular range, or to decide that the difficulty should be 12 rather than 15 to represent an intermediate level of difficulty.
As for the random generation aspect and say, making a shot with a blaster pistol at 20m having different difficulties with each shot, I don't think that's unreasonable. The variation is easily explained by all the various uncontrollable factors influencing each individual shot. A gust of wind, a distracting sound, pulling the trigger just as your heart beats rather than just after, momentum of the blaster after the prior shot's recoil of shifting to keep up with a moving target, etc... these all influence the likelihood of a shot hitting, and are constantly in flux. Set difficulties ARE convenient, but fluctuating difficulties aren't always unreasonable. |
Again, I said GM's can still apply modifiers. If you say it is raining and visibility is low, then so be it. Both modifiers and base difficulties however should be consistent. Having the base difficulty be a variable, and having a mechanic to roll a random difficulty doesn't seem fair or consistent. The purpose of having rules is to fairly adjudicate. Otherwise we could just play let's pretend totally free-form.
| Quote: | | Isn't this already kind of covered in the rules (particularly the called shot thing)? |
There are specific rules for called shots. However, instead of a specific rule for tripping, and a specific rule for called shots, and a specific rule for carving your name in a stormtrooper's back with a vibroblade with your left hand, it is better to have a generic core mechanic that covers all these scenarios. Gambits can be used for any scenario your mind can imagine, not just called shots, and not just combat either. Gambits allow players to do things in style, or do very specific actions. Having run L5R campaigns for years, this adds a lot of variety to gameplay.
| Quote: | | Isn't this just difficulty modifiers in different clothing? |
It is the opposite of difficulty modifiers actually. Often players get in ruts of only declaring the same boring actions over and over again. Gambits are a system of bidding against yourself. How high of a difficulty can you hit? You intentionally challenge yourself to get a better outcome.
Stunts conversely, and when the GM actually REWARDS the player for being especially creative, daring and dramatic. The player controls gambits to an extent by deciding what they want to do, and when they want to do it. If a GM says that gambit will cost X in difficulty, the player can opt not to do it. Stunts are when a player locks in an action, and the GM decides to give bonus dice to the player to reward them.
http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Exalted_Stunts
The PCs are Jedi's being hunted down as part of Order 66. They are in a speeder with no real weaponry, when a LAAT pulls alongside them. One of the turrets blasts one of the PCs, seriously injuring them. One PC is attending to the wounded PC, another is driving, and the fourth PC decides to take action.
They leap from the speeder and grab hold of one of the round turrets a clone trooper is sitting in, swinging it around so the turret blasts the LAAT itself. This is a creative, daring and dramatic move.
The difficulty should be high. But the player has come up with a creative solution to the predicament, and the GM decides to reward the player. So the GM awards say 2 bonus stunt dice to roll.
This encourages the players to try and be creative. Try playing with this rule for a while and you'll find the game is more entertaining all around.
| Quote: | You can't complicate on CP dice anyway. This isn't a change.
As for the no more CPs after a 1 thing... that could spice things up; though CP expenditure, from my experience (table top, not PbP, where people seem very willing to toss around CPs) is usually out of desperation, and capping off their use on a 1 roll will probably lead to player death. |
I've been running with this house rule for a long time. The no complication on a 1 is a core rule, I was just explaining that despite that, I do add the limitation that a 1 means you can't add more CPs. In theory, if you keep a small supply of CPs at all times, and you can use as many as you want whenever you want, then a PC is never in great danger. While I've yet to see this kill a PC, it does add some tension to the use of CPs. Let's say that this causes a PC to miss a soak roll. Well, in that scenario, they managed to get shot in the first place, they failed the initial soak roll, and then they got a 1 on their CP roll. It takes a lot of bad luck or bad decisions to end up there to begin with. And even in that scenario, another PC can likely find a way to heal them.
However, like I said, it adds some tension to CP die rolls. It removes that safety-blanket that PCs are invulnerable so long as they have CPs. I've enjoyed the tension the rule brings to the game.
| Quote: | | I'm not sure that lightsaber dueling as an advanced skill makes sense, but I certainly agree with the Forms and martial arts being advanced skills. |
Actually I am pretty sleep deprived today sadly. I haven't been sleeping well. I meant to type lightsaber forms are advanced skills. Dueling should be a specialization. I know many people already play this way, but this makes a popular house rule into an actual core rule. The core rules don't have enough advanced skills, and frankly having martial arts as a specialization of brawling is somewhat broken.
| Quote: | | Complications are always at GM discretion, states as much in the current core rules. As for the standard penalty for a 1... I also like that being GM discretion. Generally it should apply, but there are situations where it doesn't make much sense, or may interrupt the cinematic game play or story. |
While I believe in soft rules to an extent, I think it is important to be consistent and fair. If your players don't trust you, then the game isn't fair. The GM shouldn't just make random rulings because it suits the GM's plot. The core rules state that a complication can occur in the PLACE OF a penalty. Thusly if you roll a 1 on the wild die, but your total is enough to succeed, I effectively now have the power to decide arbitrarily if you should succeed or not. If I apply the penalty, I subtract from your roll, and you likely don't succeed now. Or I can give a complication in place of the penalty.
Again, this is a house rule I've played with for years. The penalty is always in play, so no one can accuse me of being arbitrary with it. Complications come in play when they make sense as a ramification of the action.
My change is simply that the penalty always occurs.
| Quote: | | I'm kind of a fan of soft rules and GM discretion, both as a GM and as a player. They keep things flowing. WEG Star Wars has its weaknesses, but I don't think most of these changes address those weaknesses (except as noted). I'll give some suggestions later on when I have a bit more time to properly explain my ideas |
Some of the suggestions I've made here are soft rules that give the GM more power to make case-by-case rulings, as opposed to hard rules for every circumstance. Instead of having to have tables upon tables, and tons of books with specific modifiers for every circumstance and/or action, the soft rule of gambits give the GM more control over difficulty numbers. At the same time, it provides the players with an opportunity to provide even more challenge for themselves.
Some complain that as characters progress in Star Wars, they aren't challenged enough. Enticing players to raise their difficulty numbers provides that added challenge.
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
obidancer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 230
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think what Ankhanu is trying to say is that all of most of those change are aspects that the rules take care of in an already efficient manner.
I feel all you're doing is giving them a different name. I like the Gambit idea, eventhough like I said, the D6 system already handle those player decisions with ease and smoothness, without the need of any new rules.
The change that bothers me the most is your first rule:
You have a set difficulty and add a bonus or malus according to some consistent modifier/conditions. I just set that same difficulty slightly higher or lower. We both end up with the same difficulty.
If you want to keep consistency you'll have to create a chart with every single modifier you come up with, for the sake of consistency. Not very speed efficient, and prone to arguments for rule loving players.
Also my players have blasters with the following range 3-10/50/120. PC1's target is at 12m, medium range. PC2's target is at 45m, medium range. The rules allow me to be flexible. I'd certainly set the difficulty to player one to 11 or 12, and player 2 to 14 or 15. With your example both have a difficulty of 15... not quite flexible.
Overall where you give your players boni, one would lower the difficulty, your way DO have the encourage more player's idea, but just in the way you present it to them. I a rule perspective, it's nothing that the D6 sn't covering already.
My only problem with what you're trying to attempt is that you're basing your changes on the imperfection of House Rules! For your new edition to have any sort of credibility it has to bring things the 2.5 edition is lacking in, or fully deficient.
The Advance Skills system for instance IS something to develop, and you ideas are pretty nice. Difficulty setting is probably among the greatest aspect of the D6 system for it's fluidity, speed and efficiency. Set a number, roll, done. Just no need to touch it, really.
_________________
www.obidancer.com - RPG Character Portraits and Art.
Malicia "Rogue" Darkholmes - Character in Alcon's Thractin Campaign |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your ideas are interesting, but ultimately you'll have the same problem that every other house system has....people will not use it if they don't feel the same way as you. Just because you put out a 3e D6 Star Wars rules set doesn't mean people are going to use it. You will. Others might. Most will more likely either use one or two things of it and discard the rest. Still others have their own set of house rules that work very nicely for their group.
So if you want to make up new "core" rules, then great. Just realize that you're never likely going to get everyone to agree with you as to what needs to be changed and why. If you create them, and they work for your group, great! If you share them with us and some use it or use an idea from it, great! Just realize some won't use your ideas or won't agree with them.
To give you an example, based on your points above. My personal preferences for each:
1. Difficulty number: Not a bad idea. Not really necessary in my opinion, though. I might use the reworked difficult chart, I might not.
2. Gambit system: I've played L5R. While similar to D6, it's different enough that implementing something like that into D6 isn't something I would want to do. So I'll pass on this.
3. Stunt dice: I don't feel that the GM awarding dice to be used right away is conducive to the game. The players will come to expect help every time they try something daring. Not something I want in my games.
4. CP dice ending on a 1: As was mentioned, most times I see CPs used, it's to try to save their characters. I don't want to have it so they can't use all that they're allowed in order to save the character. So I'd pass on this one too.
5. Lightsaber/Martial Arts as advanced skills: I've already got something like this in my games. I'll use my rules.
6. 1 on Wild Die always penalty: I already do this. Always have. Never used the 1 as a complication. Always used it as penalty, regardless of what the roll was for. So no change for me... I'd use this rule mainly because I already do.
As you can see, even with your suggested new "core" rules, I wouldn't use 4 of them, I might use 1 of them, and I already use 1 of them. So your rules look to me as a set of house rules that I mostly wouldn't use. I'm not saying your rules are bad, I'm just saying that they're not for me.
Now, on the note of these variant rules, there's something you should keep in mind (in case you haven't heard). There's the hope that D6 will be going "Open" and that all sorts of variant D6 rules can be submitted for the Open D6. Then people can pick and choose which rules they want to use in their D6 games. So take these ideas you've got, and any other D6 rules ideas and save them for when D6 goes Open. Then, put those ideas out there for others to use, and maybe you'll end up seeing some of your ideas actually used in a published game.
So don't stop coming up with rules that work for your group and you. Just realize that not everyone's going to necessarily agree with what you intend to use as "core" rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:17 pm Post subject: Re: WEG SW Revised (3E?) - Core Mechanics |
|
|
| enderandrew wrote: | | There are specific rules for called shots. However, instead of a specific rule for tripping, and a specific rule for called shots, and a specific rule for carving your name in a stormtrooper's back with a vibroblade with your left hand, it is better to have a generic core mechanic that covers all these scenarios. Gambits can be used for any scenario your mind can imagine, not just called shots, and not just combat either. Gambits allow players to do things in style, or do very specific actions. Having run L5R campaigns for years, this adds a lot of variety to gameplay. |
Called shots is a specific rule because it comes up often in combat. The other things are already covered. Tripping, thats a sneak roll, Stormie can roll dex to avoid falling over. Carve your name in a stormtroopers back, melee-combat roll with an extremely high difficulty. Its covered.
Just because you want to do something cool, it doesn't become easier. Luke wanted to drop a single torpedo down a vent shaft to save a planet. It was extremely difficult and he spent a force point to accomplish it. As a GM, If a player wants to do something creative they are free to try, and will be rewarded.
L5R is not D6 SW. D&D is not D6 SW. D20 SW is not D6 SW |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enderandrew
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Omaha, NE
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| obidancer wrote: | | I think what Ankhanu is trying to say is that all of most of those change are aspects that the rules take care of in an already efficient manner. |
I disagree. Having run D6 Star Wars since Second Edition was first released (my first Star Wars GM was a West End guy, James Ward, though everyone called him Jimmy), I've found that most players declare the same actions over and over again. One player I referred to as the walking blaster skill. Small side-story, but someone claiming to be one of the last remaining Corellian Jedi approached him and suggested they could improve his blaster (which he was showing off with great pride in a cantina) via the Force. He handed it over, and they crushed it. They said it was "improved" via the Jedi code, "there is no motion, there are only pieces". Moments later, a fight broke out in the cantina, and he was without his blaster.
However, having played other systems that have EXPLICIT systems to reward player creativity, I see more player creativity. When I implemented those rules in my Star Wars games, even with players who weren't creative before, I found those specific rules and systems fostered creativity.
You say Star Wars already does this, except it has no system to reward or foster creativity specifically. I've said for years of any rules system, the rules in many ways the rules can foster certain styles of play. That is why certain styles of players gravitate to certain rules more than others.
| Quote: | | I feel all you're doing is giving them a different name. I like the Gambit idea, eventhough like I said, the D6 system already handle those player decisions with ease and smoothness, without the need of any new rules. |
The new rules I suggested aren't lengthy, complicated or cumbersome. However, by making the rule explicit, you tell the player that there is a system in place to handle these kinds of things.
As I'm reading some of these fan-books, I see specific rules to roll one skill to determine if you can even attempt a specific manuever, and then roll the other skill to perform that maneuver. You need a lengthy set of rules to govern each specific maneuver. Instead of memorizing all these charts, it is actually more efficient to have an open system of gambits where the GM on the fly can say, that raises one difficulty level, or two, or three.
The players feel they have more control over their actions as well, and they don't declare the same boring actions over and over again.
Having played with and without such systems (again with the same players) I have noted a huge difference.
Have you played L5R or any system that has such rules?
| Quote: | The change that bothers me the most is your first rule:
You have a set difficulty and add a bonus or malus according to some consistent modifier/conditions. I just set that same difficulty slightly higher or lower. We both end up with the same difficulty. |
Do we? Moderate is 11-15. Some GMs say that hitting a target from medium range is 13, the middle. Some say 11 to be friendly to players. Some like me, often say it is 15. So we haven't come to the same number. WEG rules even explicitly state you can use a random die roll to determine the difficulty. Adding needless die rolls to change the difficulty don't help the situation. I suggest eliminating that.
Also, I've found that if you pick arbitrary numbers that are subject to change, then players will call that into question. So much of the D6 rules are very loose, and up to GM interpretation. And I suggested putting even more in the GM's hands, taking away hard and fast rules. However, players should feel comfortable that the system is equitable and fair.
Perhaps you're saying that if visibility were low, we'd both modify a Moderate difficulty the same way. Again, I disagree. First off, some feel that everything should start in the middle and then modify up or down. I start at 15 for Moderate. Next, let's say we do both start at 15. You suggest that low visibility should be a modifier of 3 or 5, or whatever. So you just say the difficulty is 18 or 20. I try to make it a point to say, "the base is 15, but with visibility the difficulty is 18."
Players know I have a consistent base difficulty. I'm being fair with them. If you just state a random number, how do they know you're being fair or consistent?
You can't be fair to players if your BASE difficulty (not final and modified) changes without reason.
| Quote: | | If you want to keep consistency you'll have to create a chart with every single modifier you come up with, for the sake of consistency. Not very speed efficient, and prone to arguments for rule loving players. |
I've argued against charts, and argued for allowing the GM to adjudicate, so perhaps you don't understand what I'm advocating here.
All I'm saying is the very base difficulties should be consistent.
| Quote: | | Also my players have blasters with the following range 3-10/50/120. PC1's target is at 12m, medium range. PC2's target is at 45m, medium range. The rules allow me to be flexible. I'd certainly set the difficulty to player one to 11 or 12, and player 2 to 14 or 15. With your example both have a difficulty of 15... not quite flexible. |
No, you are still entitled to make modifiers as you see fit. You keep insisting in my scenario that flexibility is gone, which isn't the case.
I'm assuming the two players have different weapons since off the top of my head I'm not familiar with any weapon that is medium at both 12m and 45m. So if Player 1 is using more of a short range weapon, and their weapon is rated medium range at 12m (like a standard blaster which 7-25 is considered medium) and the second player is using say a heavy blaster (which is something like 30-120 for medium) then your numbers are unfair. The 1st player is in the middle of their range for medium. The second player is actually on the low end of medium. Since you came up with arbitrary difficulties off the top of your head, you end up screwing the second player.
In my system, the base is the same for both players. So they're both at 15. If the GM doesn't want to memorize charts, ranges and the like, you can leave it at that. Everyone gets treated the same, and that is somewhat fair. Or you can memorize charts and say that player 2 is actually on the lower end of their scale, and give them a modifier if you see fit.
This is a small area of semantics. By DEFAULT, everyone is the same. However you have the freedom to alter it with justification. Where as the in the original system, players have this range. You would have to justify every difficulty you came up with no matter what since you're picking arbitrary numbers with no consistent basis.
Again, you can still have the same final difficulty number, but the appearance to the player is quite different.
| Quote: | Overall where you give your players boni, one would lower the difficulty, your way DO have the encourage more player's idea, but just in the way you present it to them. I a rule perspective, it's nothing that the D6 sn't covering already.
My only problem with what you're trying to attempt is that you're basing your changes on the imperfection of House Rules! For your new edition to have any sort of credibility it has to bring things the 2.5 edition is lacking in, or fully deficient. |
Except if you have to come up with hard specific rules for each circumstance, then the system is deficient. Tons of official WEG splat-books, and unofficial fan-books are full of these situational charts and rules. D6 is defined by a loose guideline that lets the GM run without a bevy of tables. What I'm suggesting is another loose guideline in that same spirit that allows the GM to avoid a bevy of tables.
Eventually players start asking about rules for specific circumstances. If you give them a random number off the top of your head, you haven't made them feel like you have a system to keep things fair and consistent.
If Player 1 says they want to pilot their ship flying right past an asteroid and use the asteroid for additional cover, you can tell the player that they can use a gambit. They are making the base difficulty higher, for a higher reward. Thusly, instead of saying if they need a 15 for a basic successful piloting roll, and if they get a 25 on their role, it is a 25 to hit them, you can now say that it is a 20 for the basic role, but if they roll a 25, you'll get them a 5 point bonus to their defense with partial cover from the asteroid.
In theory, you can do that now under the current rules, but you're encouraging the player to have a say in those decisions. Instead of just giving them a +5 for the asteroid near by, you give the player the decision to decide to fly close by it or not. They control how much risk they want to take. If the players know there is a specific system for this, they'll look for new opportunities to challenge themselves, even if it to perform the same task with style.
Again, try playing with gambits for a while. You won't want to go back.
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enderandrew
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Omaha, NE
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:11 am Post subject: Re: WEG SW Revised (3E?) - Core Mechanics |
|
|
| Delkarnu wrote: | Called shots is a specific rule because it comes up often in combat. The other things are already covered. Tripping, thats a sneak roll, Stormie can roll dex to avoid falling over. Carve your name in a stormtroopers back, melee-combat roll with an extremely high difficulty. Its covered.
Just because you want to do something cool, it doesn't become easier. Luke wanted to drop a single torpedo down a vent shaft to save a planet. It was extremely difficult and he spent a force point to accomplish it. As a GM, If a player wants to do something creative they are free to try, and will be rewarded.
L5R is not D6 SW. D&D is not D6 SW. D20 SW is not D6 SW |
Actually, it isn't easier to do something more difficult. The player opts to RAISE their difficulty in a bidding/gambit system. And looking through the book, there are not specific rules for tripping, nor carving your name in stromtrooper armor.
Yet, in the splat-books, and in the fan-books, you see people try to come up with specific situational rules. A gambit system eliminates the need for those.
L5R also has a magic system that is very befitting the "5 Ring" nature of Rokugan. I would never suggest using such a system for D&D or Star Wars, or Shadowrun, or what have you, because it doesn't fit.
I'm not saying Star Wars should run exactly like L5R. I'm saying L5R has one really good mechanic that does work well in Star Wars, because I've used it in Star Wars games.
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
In D6 SW, I've made a grenade explode on a Stormtrooper's belt, taking out the catwalk the squad was on, conned a group of criminals that there was a Star Destroyer in orbit waiting for them to force them to land so I could capture their ship and get the bounty on them, jumped from a landing ramp onto a swoop to stop the gang from raiding a town.
My players have hacked into a droid factory and sent squads of droids raiding the Imperial Governor's office, wired explosives to a vehicle and got it towed back to the authorities and set it off as they were taking off, and landed a ship onto the gun of another ship so it couldn't fire at them or take off. This was all in one short session.
You don't need a gambit system to get creative actions. All of these actions were simple to figure out, usually only a roll or two to achieve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enderandrew
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Omaha, NE
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not saying those things aren't possible. What I'm saying is that having such a system encourages creativity from players. I've seen really good players make the best of all kinds of different systems. However, I've also seen many players who think the only things they can do are the skills listed on their character sheets. Having a gambit system helps encourage creative behavior, and creates a new challenge for players who aren't challenged.
It is completely voluntary on the players' parts. They don't have to ever use gambits if they don't want.
What I don't understand is why you'd object to the concept given that I don't see any negative side to it. It doesn't hurt or restrict anyone to have it there.
If a loose guideline that is effectively optional for players helps others have a good time, and never gets in the way for you, then why object so strongly to it?
Not only that, like I said before, a gambit system replaces the need for more specific scenario rules that I see crop up. That isn't the biggest deficiency of D6, however it is a deficiency. A gambit system does make the game better.
The bigger deficiencies would be scale systems, and how to handle damage. Some feel that a high strength is an unfair advantage. Some say it is too easy to die. Some say too hard. D6 Space apparently offers a hit point system (not that I've ever liked hit points).
My favorite wound/damage system is White Wolf's from their old World of Darkness series (I haven't touched their new WoD) except it really wouldn't fit for Star Wars.
If and when I come up with good suggestions for scale and damage/health rules, I'll post them.
I respect that not everyone is going to agree with me. That's fine. However, I don't see what's wrong with a gambit system. I don't see a single negative trade-off from adding one.
The only thing that anyone has argued is that it may not be needed entirely. Again, if it makes the game more enjoyable for others with no negative trade-off, then why argue against it?
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankhanu
Vice Admiral
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 3089
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps I'm daft, but I'm not seeing how the Gambit system is different from the current rules. Perhaps you could explain it in a different way? As explained above, you're simply adding conditional modifiers to specific actions and allowing the GM to decide on any bonuses the action generates; which is part of the current d6 rule set.
I haven't played 5 rings, so there may be some nuance that's failed to come through in the prior description that I'm missing.
_________________
Hotaru no Hishou; a messageboard about games, friends and nothing at all.
Donate to Ankhanu Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enderandrew
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Omaha, NE
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
The effects of the gambit system could be duplicated in the current rules.
I could go to you and say I want to fly closer to an asteroid to use it for cover and ask you to give me a bonus for doing so. However, while you can agree to do this at GM discretion, there is no system for this.
The purpose of the gambit system is three-fold. One, it encourages creative behavior by placing more power in the player's hands. Two, it challenges players who aren't challenged by stock difficulties. Three, it creates a framework to handle all of these situations consistently.
If I said I wanted a specific ruling on the asteroid scenario for cover, most people wouldn't immediately say "use the same mechanic we currently utilize for called shots!"
There is a flip side to raises/bidding in L5R I forgot about until just now that I really think about it. When a player opts to raise their difficulty (target number) in L5R, they do so willingly at 5 per raise. However, at the GM's discretion, if they beat a difficulty (target number) by 10 or more, the GM can give them a free raise. If I need a 15 to hit you with my Katana in L5R and I roll a 27, then I may get a free extra die of damage. However, if I decided to go for a tricky called shot and raised my difficulty to 25, I would have had two raises. But anything below a 25 means I now miss. The reason I suggested calling it a gambit, is that you're gambling.
L5R suggests players can use raises to do something more effectively (such as a called shot for more damage), do something quicker (reduce the time needed to calculate astrogation perhaps through cutting corners and thusly raising the difficulty), or just to do something with more style.
Again, you don't NEED gambits to do these things in D6. But having a framework to handle all these situations helps the GM, and encourages the player.
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ankhanu wrote: | Perhaps I'm daft, but I'm not seeing how the Gambit system is different from the current rules. Perhaps you could explain it in a different way? As explained above, you're simply adding conditional modifiers to specific actions and allowing the GM to decide on any bonuses the action generates; which is part of the current d6 rule set.
I haven't played 5 rings, so there may be some nuance that's failed to come through in the prior description that I'm missing. |
Ok, here is the wording for the rules to add it to the D6 ruleset
Optional Rule: Gambits
A player may do more creative things than point and shoot. Creative things are difficult but may have rewards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enderandrew wrote: | | There is a flip side to raises/bidding in L5R I forgot about until just now that I really think about it. When a player opts to raise their difficulty (target number) in L5R, they do so willingly at 5 per raise. However, at the GM's discretion, if they beat a difficulty (target number) by 10 or more, the GM can give them a free raise. If I need a 15 to hit you with my Katana in L5R and I roll a 27, then I may get a free extra die of damage. However, if I decided to go for a tricky called shot and raised my difficulty to 25, I would have had two raises. But anything below a 25 means I now miss. The reason I suggested calling it a gambit, is that you're gambling. |
Hmmmm. I'm going to do a called shot to the gap in his armor, its a small hole, so its +2D to the difficulty, If I hit, the shot ignores armor. OR I shoot at the guy, the roll is massively successful, the GM rules that my shot hit the gap and it ignores the armor.
It's in the game already, I don't see anything this adds or simplifies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
obidancer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 230
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enderandrew wrote: | | However, having played other systems that have EXPLICIT systems to reward player creativity, I see more player creativity. When I implemented those rules in my Star Wars games, even with players who weren't creative before, I found those specific rules and systems fostered creativity. |
The D6 system is quite Explicit as far as reward is concerned:Character Points. And my players love this reward! Of course it's up to the GM to make the player realize that if they get creative, they'll be rewarded. Player will soon realise that the more they do creative action as opposed to the same old actions like you mentionned, the more points they get, and the better their character gets.
| Quote: | | As I'm reading some of these fan-books... |
No need for more. Those are fan-books, i.e collections of house rules. Of course they are far from perfect. Some may like other, like you and me not that much, refer to Grimace post regarding this matter.
| Quote: | | Have you played L5R or any system that has such rules? |
My experience related to L5R is limited to creating a character, then that was the end of it. Life is tough sometimes. Again, out of everything you said I do appreciate the approch of the so-called Gambit.
| Quote: | | Do we? Moderate is 11-15. Some GMs say that hitting a target from medium range is 13, the middle. Some say 11 to be friendly to players. Some like me, often say it is 15. So we haven't come to the same number. |
Read my post again, I'm not refering to just picking random number, I'm saying, I may pick a diff. 12 to reflect the player is at medium range just barely past is short range. You will pick 15 and give a modifier of +3 for "It's a beautiful day, unobstructed vision". At the end of the day the player still have to roll a 12. Same numbers, different approach. Yes it's nice to make it clear that such number comes from this and such come from that, but again that's what D6 system is about, speed of play, and of ruling.
| Quote: | | WEG rules even explicitly state you can use a random die roll to determine the difficulty. Adding needless die rolls to change the difficulty don't help the situation. I suggest eliminating that. |
I totally agree with you on this. It's so simple to pick a difficulty, why bother rolling x amount of dice for it. But I must mention it's an optional alternative to select a difficulty number; I like the optional part of it. Not for me.
| Quote: | | Perhaps you're saying that if visibility were low, we'd both modify a Moderate difficulty the same way. Again, I disagree. First off, some feel that everything should start in the middle and then modify up or down. I start at 15 for Moderate. Next, let's say we do both start at 15. You suggest that low visibility should be a modifier of 3 or 5, or whatever. So you just say the difficulty is 18 or 20. I try to make it a point to say, "the base is 15, but with visibility the difficulty is 18." |
You're disagreeing with yourself here. You're saying I pick 15 and +3 for low visibility, telling my player please roll an 18, but you pick 15, add +3 and tell them "the base is 15, but with visibility the difficulty is 18". Isn't it the same?
| Quote: | | All I'm saying is the very base difficulties should be consistent. |
I do consider the base difficulties to be consistent. A moderate roll will always be between 11-15, a diffcult roll between 16-20. The range just gives more flexibility as to various factor that can come to mind, without having the need for a chart and a list of set modifier for each factor. See my previous examlpe of medium range distance variation.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Also my players have blasters with the following range 3-10/50/120. PC1's target is at 12m, medium range. PC2's target is at 45m, medium range. The rules allow me to be flexible. I'd certainly set the difficulty to player one to 11 or 12, and player 2 to 14 or 15. With your example both have a difficulty of 15... not quite flexible. |
I'm assuming the two players have different weapons since off the top of my head I'm not familiar with any weapon that is medium at both 12m and 45m. So if Player 1 is using more of a short range weapon, and their weapon is rated medium range at 12m (like a standard blaster which 7-25 is considered medium) and the second player is using say a heavy blaster (which is something like 30-120 for medium) then your numbers are unfair. The 1st player is in the middle of their range for medium. The second player is actually on the low end of medium. Since you came up with arbitrary difficulties off the top of your head, you end up screwing the second player. |
Don't assume this if I explicitly write down they have the same blaster...If not of course the example makes no sense!
I'll repeat the example: both players, standing next to one another, have the same weapon: a standard blaster rifle with the following range 3-30/100/300. Meaning between the 31m and 100m targets are at medium range, thus a medium difficulty to hit them. One target stands at 33m away from the PCs, another one at 99m. It's a beatiful day, perfect visibility, flat ground, no breeze. Would you rule the two shots have both the same difficulty of 15, when one target is three time further away then the other? Please let me know how you would rule that and say it's fair to both PC.
| Quote: | This is a small area of semantics.
Again, you can still have the same final difficulty number, but the appearance to the player is quite different. |
Again, I fully agree on that and therefore see no need to change rules about it. It's just how you present it to your players, how you keep them involved and creative, how you'll reward them for it. Basically how good of an GM you are. If this approach works with your groups then great, by all mean use it.
| Quote: | | I don't see what's wrong with a gambit system. I don't see a single negative trade-off from adding one. |
Nothing wrong but the need to set a fixed system on it with numbers and options. Yet another mechanic, when the same things are smoothly covered by D6 ease of ruling. The more mechanics the more arguments can arise. How simpler can this get: "I want to fly by the asteroid to get cover" "Roll your piloting skill... 25 (just made the difficulty) You managed to fly close enough to the asteroid that now gives you protection from sensor reading. All your companions agree on this though: you're pretty good and fearless pilot, and way too close to the asteroid for their liking".
Why create more mechanic for this?
_________________
www.obidancer.com - RPG Character Portraits and Art.
Malicia "Rogue" Darkholmes - Character in Alcon's Thractin Campaign
Last edited by obidancer on Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
