| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cool McCool
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 60
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: Opening up the rules |
 |
|
Opening up the D6 System
It's my intention to show how the d6 system, with some minor changes, can do things differently. This might make for different gameplay, or it might not.
1. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WOUNDS, BABY
Look at that wound chart. It doesn't say what you think it says.
[In fact, look at the whole "combat" section. There's more to it than blasting your opponent in the face.]
The first thing you have to do is wrap your head around the entire conflict. What is going on here, what do you want to get? Answer that question, for everyone who's involved, and all the rest will make more sense.
["Conflict" is whenever, in the game, you want to do something and someone else opposes you. So you roll dice. You know it when you see it, eh guys?]
The wound table is nothing more than a codified "this is what happens as the result of a conflict" table. There's no reason, no reason at all to just apply it to combat, damage, and wounds. You can stretch it out and make it work for anything you want: Gambling, Cons, Piloting your Starfighter through an asteroid field, whatever.
The first two categories are easy:
| Code: | | 0-3 Stunned -1D to all actions this round and the next. |
Pretty simple, no? Okay, how does this relate to, let's say, Gambling? Easy. Just bend your mind a little bit, and think about, "What does that -1D penalty mean?" It's a temporary setback in whatever you're trying to do, that's all. So you got a bad sabacc hand and you lost a little money. No problem; you'll be back on your feet soon enough, if they don't exploit your weakness now.
| Code: | | 4-8 Wounded -1D lasting penalty to all actions. |
This is simple as well. In combat, yeah, you're hurt and fried a little bit. This makes it hard to do other things. But what happens when you're using Gambling? Well, you're panicked and can't get calmed down. Someone else might have picked up your tells. You're deep in the hole and it'll be hard to get out. Any of these would make sense.
But McCool, you ask, why am I suddenly a worse shot because I lost a hand of Lucky Mluck?
Okay, remember when I told you to think about what you wanted to get out of this conflict? When you went into the game of lucky mluck, it was probably to win. The -1D represents your inability to get what you wanted, by any method. So your chances of winning are less. That's all it really means.
But McCool, you ask, when the game's over, why do I have to heal with a medkit?
Yeah, that's going to have to change. I'll get to that later on.
But McCool, you ask, what if I don't care about winning the game? What if I've changed my mind and I want to shoot the guy in the face?
That's a good question. Much better than those last two!  Here's the thing: if you change your mind, you lose what you wanted to get. You give up, the other side wins, all that jazz. When you pull your blaster and shove it in the other guy's face at the sabacc table, you've pretty much given up any thought to winning the game.
What happens in this case is that you lose the conflict you're in - which is fine, and you should do this whenever you're in a conflict and you don't care about the outcome (and that goes to both GMs and Players - GMs even moreso!) - and you start an entirely new conflict. In this case, when you pull out the blaster, it's probably something like, "I want to kill this dude" or "I want to intimidate him, take the money, and run".
Now comes the tricky part. You'll have to work to wrap your head around these ones!
| Code: | | 9-12 Incapaciatated Out of the conflict. |
This is easier than it looks. Think about what you're trying to get in this conflict. What you want. Well, you just lost that. See all that talk above just about losing a conflict? That's basically an Incapacitated result. It's not so bad, as you can see, except in combat (when you really are knocked out).
The only tricky thing is that you can't get the same thing - what you said you wanted - for the rest of the scene. You can't win that game any more; the best you can do is shoot the other guy and make off with the cash, or intimidate him, or perhaps Con him into giving you the cash. All that is starting a new conflict - but remember, you can't win the game any more.
Let me say again that this is just for the scene. After the scene is over, you can try to beat the guy again.
So, McCool, let's say the player loses the gambling conflict, but wants to try again. Who gets to say that he can't?
The GM does. The GM has to decide when a new conflict wouldn't make any sense, too. See that example about Conning the guy into giving you the cash? The GM might just call you out on that, and say, "Damn, but that is one stupid idea. I can't see how that would work." I don't recommend doing that very often, because it's awesome (and very cool) to see how the dice can play out. But hey, if it doesn't work for you, and it ruins your sense of disbelief, don't allow it.
| Code: | | 13-15 Mortally Wounded Out of the conflict for the whole adventure. |
This one isn't hard to rule - it's similar to Incapacitated results, just with a longer time frame on when you can re-challenge - but it can be hard to wrap your head around.
Think about it this way: you were beaten so badly that the people watching the movie would think it's stupid if you could just try again, 5 minutes later. We'll look at the Gambling example. I lose sooo bad, totally trounced, that the other guy makes fun of me and calls me a loser. Cut to commercial. Then, the next thing I do is come back to the table and beat him? No, that's not the way stories work.
Remember that Mortally Wounded results are really soul-crushing defeats. It takes a long time to get over it - and that's what the rest of the adventure is for. "You may have beaten me before, but I've been through a lot since then. I'm ready for you now." That sort of thing.
The GM might allow you to do the conflict again, challenging that person for what you want once again, but he will give you some very specific conflict that you have to win in order to do so - or maybe even a series of conflicts! It's really up to him, how he wants to allow you to challenge the same person again for the same thing.
| Code: | | 16+ Dead Can't ever win the conflict. |
This one is a little odd, too: you can't ever win that conflict again. Not ever. You were beaten so badly that it's just impossible.
Hmm... this sounds like a good time for an example from the movies:
Luke and Vader are fighting on Cloud City. Luke wants to kill Vader. Vader smacks him down so hard, he chops his hand off and leaves him maimed and totally helpless. He scores a dead result. Luke can never again kill Vader. Sure, he might attempt to, but it'll fail. (Or, more to the point, he'll become Vader - he'll fall to the Dark Side.) So, in Return of the Jedi, Luke doesn't try to kill him. He tries to bring Vader to the Light Side. He succeeds, and Vader becomes Anakin once again.
See how that works? It's pretty much the same for anything. The victory is so sound that there's no way you can negate it.
Now, once again, your GM might allow you to do something - some conflicts that you must go through - so that you can attempt the conflict again. This should be a long and drawn out process. (Hey, it's possible to start a campaign off with a Dead result, and have the following campaign be all about restoring the ability to attempt the conflict again!) And it's all up to the GM. He might say, "No, you can't do anything to attempt the conflict again." Or he might say, "No, you can't do anything right now to attempt the conflict again." Or he might just say, "Sure, you can try the conflict again after this scene is finished."
It's up to the GM; but I would strongly recommend that you treat this with all the severity that the dramatic tension leading up to this moment calls for. A dramatic death, a long, hard, recovery process; if the death ain't so dramatic, or important to the story, you might just handwave it. But! It's hard to tell what will be important to the story now, as opposed to later. Just wait and see how things play out.
And that's it for combat/wounds/conflicts.
_________________
Still funky after all these years |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cool McCool
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. a) I WANNA CLIMB THAT WALL
But, McCool, you talk about "the other person" a lot. What if I want to plot an astrogation course or climb a wall or fix my starship?
Good question. Here's my answer: if there isn't another person involved, don't even roll. There's no conflict. The GM decides what happens and what doesn't. You know why? Because it's not important to the story.
Now this doesn't mean that you'll never be able to climb the walls of Imperial Base T3-Alpha. What you gotta do, GM, is figure out if this would be interesting to watch on the silver screen. A couple of minutes of tense rope-climbing in the middle of night, while the spotlights try to find out band of heroic rebels? Sure. A simple climb? Don't even roll - either they succeed or they don't. Go with success almost all the time, unless they try something so stupid that it would ruin your sense of disbelief. Jumping over the 100' wall, for example. Just don't get into fights - if they start to argue like crazy, let 'em roll. Another way to put this is "Say yes or roll the dice."
Next, if you think it's interesting, figure out what they are rolling against. Is it the guards with the spotlights? Roll the guard's "spotlight" skill (Search). Is it the Imperial Commander who they're sent to assasinate? Roll the Imperial Commander's Command skill (his orders "Wrap this place up tight! I don't want any rebels getting in!") Is the base a character in its own right? (If so, stat it up! And make sure you treat it with all the respect a character deserves.) Is one of the PCs worried about his own competance? Make him roll against himself! (Have him roll Willpower vs. Con or Persuasion - depending on the method his "inner voice" is taking.)
Now you can roll. Most of the time, you're not going to want to go into "combat". Just one simple roll will work, winner take all. Consider the other guy to be Incapacitated - he loses what he wants.
However, if you want to really win the conflict - get a mortally wounded or dead result - go into "combat". If it's that important to you, you'll probably want to deal with it close-up and in-depth.
_________________
Still funky after all these years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cool McCool
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. b) HEALING - YOU TOLD ME YOU WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HEALING
Oh yeah, I forgot.
Healing's pretty simple. You either do it the way you do it now, for physical wounds, or you take a scene out to heal up. The amount of time that you need to heal is up to the GM, but typically it shouldn't be too long. One scene per Wound is okay.
Now if you were Wounded twice, or something, you gotta take at least two whole scenes to heal. Yeah it sucks, but the alternative...
...well, it's not so bad. Not for you, that is. You gotta do something mean, hurtful, painful, to someone else [edit: to heal more than one wound in a scene]. Yes, you can get a Dark Side Point for this. Oh well. There's a benefit to that, but I'll get to that even later.
_________________
Still funky after all these years
Last edited by Cool McCool on Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cool McCool
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2. THE FORCE
Actually, the Force is cool. I'd suggest dropping all the powers and just going with the Big 3 - Control, Sense, and Alter, but that's me.
What I'd do here is using the Force for doing things you can't with other skills, and adding to other rolls via the "Bonus" mechanic.
Naw, what I really want to talk about is the Dark Side. Here's the simple change:
Any time any character gets a Dark Side Point, they get a Force Point as well.
The only limitation to this is that if you've already Fallen to the Dark Side, you don't get the Force Point.
You don't need to spend the Force Point right away.
Oh yeah, and you don't need to roll to call on the Dark Side. You just do it, no roll needed.
Players (and the GM!) must describe how the Dark Side gives them strength - calling on anger, rage, vengance, whatever. This is a necessary pre-requisite.
_________________
Still funky after all these years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pel
Line Captain
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice treatise. I especially liked the analogies in the first post and the frequent advice to GMs. Nice work! 
_________________
Aha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cool McCool
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cool, thanks!
I was about to say, "GM advice? Where?" but I guess I see that stuff as actual rules. That's cool, I didn't even look at it that way.
All this stuff is like an extrapolation of how I used to play, and some rules I wrote up that included the damage table as a gradient of success. (Drinking rules, for example, and wealth rules.)
If you have any questions about why I did things a certain way - like the little Dark Side change - ask! Maybe I'm being stupid here.
[I changed the Dark Side because I wanted it to be a good thing for PCs to get DSPs. When DSPs aren't just bad, but instead they give you a kick-butt! bonus, then you, as a player, have to think: am I really willing to do some evil in order to get what I want? Is this thing that I want that important to me?
Also, you get to tell the other people at the table, yeah, this thing is that important to me. I'm willing to do evil to get this thing I want. Or the opposite: I am going to stick to what I believe in, what is right, even if I don't get this other thing, even if I die.
Now I know you can "game" it, but that's okay with me. I'm not really too interested in that - if people want to min/max it, more power to them. It might unbalance things, and if you find that it does, and that is keeping you from having fun, don't use it.]
Oh yeah, I forgot to write about the bonus mechanic. I'll get to that pretty soon. It's a simple little thing - you just roll one skill, divide by three, that's how many pips you can add to another roll. I came up with that when one player was writing a computer program to help with Forgery rolls (making fake Imperial IDs, to be specific). Anyway.
_________________
Still funky after all these years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Effex Seven
Ensign
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 33
Location: Dantooine
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:39 am Post subject: Re: Opening up the rules |
|
|
| Cool McCool wrote: |
The wound table is nothing more than a codified "this is what happens as the result of a conflict" table. There's no reason, no reason at all to just apply it to combat, damage, and wounds. You can stretch it out and make it work for anything you want: Gambling, Cons, Piloting your Starfighter through an asteroid field, whatever. |
Very cool, McCool. For the purposes of Dramatic Conflicts, are you using "Wounded Twice, -2d penalty?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cool McCool
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject: Re: Opening up the rules |
|
|
| Effex Seven wrote: | | Very cool, McCool. For the purposes of Dramatic Conflicts, are you using "Wounded Twice, -2d penalty?" |
Oh, yeah, in a way. I let the wounds stack until they cancel out your STR. So a Wookie with 5D STR could take 4 Wounds, and be at -4D to everything. The next wound he takes would knock him out.
Similar to how Stunned results stack. (Or was that a house rule too? It's hard to keep track of where our house rules ended and the real rules began. )
_________________
Still funky after all these years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cool McCool
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AH, McCOOL, YOU FORGETFUL, SEXY BEAST
Yeah, I forgot something important.
You know the part where I'm talking about "what you want?"
It's vitally important that, when you win the conflict, you do get what you want.
None of this:
"Okay, I'm sneaking past the guards because I want to get into the detention centre unseen."
"Okay, roll."
<rolls success>
"Okay, you get past the guards, but the cameras see you! The alarm goes off, and the guards come rushing after you."
No way, man. That's lame. What was the point of the roll? That's dirty pool, that's railroading, that's cheating. (Yeah, I feel that strongly about it.)
What you gotta do instead, GMs, is tell the player: "Well, you can sneak by the guards, but the cameras will see you." Decide if there is any way possible for the PC to get into the detention centre unseen.
If there is, he can roll for it; and if he makes it, he's in there, sight unseen.
If there isn't, just tell him, "No, there's no way that can work." I really don't recommend blocking players like this - what, are you trying to railroad? Let them do things, it's fun for them, and you react. That's fun for you.
All I'm really saying is respect the player. Don't make him roll when you are just going to screw him anyway; and make sure all rolls he makes matter.
To restate: when the player makes the successful roll, he's in the detention center without being seen. He doesn't have to make a roll to sneak past another guard, or another camera, or some janitor.
GMs: if you want to make it more difficult, or more dramatic, or more tense, or whatever, use the "combat" rules.
Basically, the rule of thumb is: if a player wants to do something, and it doesn't ruin your sense of disbelief, have him make one single roll; or, in very tense, dramatic situations, go into "combat". If he succeeds, then he gets what he wants.
And that's conflict resolution.
_________________
Still funky after all these years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pel
Line Captain
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree. Save the security cameras and tripwires for the Wild Die. It's the ultimate equalizer. 8)
_________________
Aha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14215
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I disagree. Just cause the guard he snuck past did not notice, does not meen those manning the cameras 'won't..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Allst Beamem
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 131
Location: Memphis, TN USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I disagree. Just cause the guard he snuck past did not notice, does not meen those manning the cameras 'won't.. |
Indeed a per roll should be made to detect the camras before the sneek roll is made. if the player does not know that thay are there then he is seen by them.
_________________
We're all gona die!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cool McCool
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Have a look at this:
Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution
He explains it better than I could.
The issue isn't so much what should happen, but how do the people playing resolve what does?
I'm not trying to convert anyone; it's just that I don't know if these rule tweaks would work with task resolution.
_________________
Still funky after all these years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Effex Seven
Ensign
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 33
Location: Dantooine
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's some heavy stuff, and a very inetersting read. But I don't think it solves this problem:
| Quote: | | That's, if you ask me, the big problem with task resolution: whether you succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict. The dice don't, the rules don't; you're depending on the GM's mood and your relationship and all those unreliable social things the rules are supposed to even out. |
The example he uses is the player opens the safe to get the dirt on the villain. Ok, but consider this example:
| Quote: | Player: I use Droid Repair to open the droid.
Gm: Why?
Player: To get the lightsaber inside.
GM: Dude, there's no lightsaber inside the R2 unit you just bought.
Player: Well there was in Return of the Jedi. Maybe a Jedi hid one in there.
GM: Whatever. Roll Droid Repair.
Player: Success! What color is my lightsaber?
GM: Sigh. |
Sure, it's a silly example. But let's go back to "cracking the safe." Basically it's saying if the player makes the roll, the documents are in there, regardless if the GM wants them to be or not. Maybe the GM planned that Bothan spy has the docs, and the players must persuade him to help the Alliance.
So you're back to the GM actually resolving the conflict. No docs, no lightsaber -- unless the GM wants it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cool McCool
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I've noticed that as well.
I think the big difference is that it's in the open with conflict resolution. The GM has to say "No!" out loud instead of "Okay..." when he's really saying no.
I think you need what I'm calling the "That's Stupid" rule. If anyone at the table thinks what you're trying to do, they say, "That's Stupid" or whatever. Then you just can't do it.
In practice, [edit: conflict resolution] works pretty well. It just takes a little time - if people aren't on the same page, and they're crying out "that's stupid" - to negotiate what you can roll for and what you can't.
_________________
Still funky after all these years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
