D6- How would you revise it

[The Game Guy]

I am curious to hear from the D6 fans what needs to be revised in the system.

What do you think needs to be done to get an "official" version of D6 together and make it "right".

[Stormchild]

Fuse it back into one system. The three different systems was just making things complicated. Maybe it could be done in a simplified version that is then expanded into different setting rules.

[Lee Torres]

I agree with Stormchild. If the idea of an Open D6 with downloadable modular construction falls through, then I think that everything should be in one book - as straightforward as D6 is, I don't think this book would be too huge to be marketable - just start simple, then throw in all of the options we've got to date (and as an avid player/ref since 1987, I can tell you there's a lot of options out there!). The challenge as I see it would be in organizing all of that information into something easy to use.

After discussions on this site and over at WEG, I'm not even sure there'd need to be a separate book for Classic and Legend - if the organization issues could be elegantly solved, they could probably all be in the same book.

I've got the old D6 "toolkit" softcover, and if someone put out an organized and comprehensive D6 Core, to be followed by setting books (like GURPS, Savage Worlds, etc.), I'd be prepared to pony up a hefty chunk of change for it if that was required.

[Crusis]

Fuse it back into one system. The three different systems was just making things complicated. Maybe it could be done in a simplified version that is then expanded into different setting rules.

nail on the head. The best game system is one that is simple yet allows you to tell an expansive story with a broad use of content.

[Lee Torres]

It occurs to me that with D6 being affiliated in many peoples minds with templates (for building characters) that a template system for the system itself might be of value in a Core D6 book - so the template would indicate that the setting uses D6 Classic character creation and task resolution, wound levels for combat, psionics, no magic, and so on. When Roger Calver and I were discussing this, I suggested something like Traveller's UPP for the job, but I think a one-page template could cover all of that.

Floyd Wesel, many years ago, had a similar concept for his on-line write-ups of settings like Conan and Babylon 5 - B5 went like this:


System Type: D6 Base
Game Designer: Floyd Wesel
Genre: Sci-Fi
World Overview: As per the vision of J. M. Straczynski.
Technology Level: Sci-Fi.
Powers/Supernatural: PSI powers.
Combat Section:
Damage System: Body points
Round Structure: Initiative rounds
Options: Called shots
Attributes and Skills:
Boldface skills cannot be used untrained.
(*) Skills must have a macro/focus selected.

Something built from that might be useful in conjunction with a Core D6 set... If memory serves, the D6 "Toolkit" edition had something like this...

[Grimace]

Yes, it did have something like that, but I never found anyone that really made use of something like that. Basically, that particular layout was too simplistic and didn't encompass all of what was needed.

I know where you're trying to go with this, and I think it could work, but it would take a fair bit of work to make it work fluidly like people would prefer.

As for what I feel needs to be in a revision:
-Uniformity (this goes across a lot of areas, not just skills and attributes, but stats and rules as well)
-Modularity (so that people can pick and choose what they want to use)
-Creativity (ideas on how to run and what is needed to run various types of games using D6...along with a fair amount of workable things for each type of game suggested)

That's the basics. There's, of course, a lot of specifics, but I won't get into that.

[Lee Torres]

I was envisioning a basic template designed for the Core D6 book, but the primary utility of it would be in the supplements and settings, recommending placement right after the table of contents, and giving buyers a quick overview of what they were about to purchase.

That said, it may not be worth the effort - designers might not want to use it, and if the core rulebook has all of the options included it's easy enough to jump from wound points to wound levels, or from one magic system to another, so it may be totally unnecessary.

Anyway, to loop back to the OPs question, it should all be in one book, if possible, or if it's more than one, it should be along major divisions, like Classic and Legend, and not by genre.

[The Game Guy]

Well I thought that the 3 different books were basically the same base rules with just a few add-ons for the genre it was covering.

I will admit that making it one book would have been a better idea. WEG could have probably done licenses that were more useful (like genre books that required the core book in order to create characters and for the rules).

That way WEG would have only needed to do the core books as an evergreen product, and people could have been created books which may have opened up the system to more people.

[Crusis]

I'd give me a free license and allow me to beta test it with my new game.... :p

[Havard]

I dont neccessarily think the system needs to be revised. For a new run of D6, I agree that one unified stat block might be a good idea, preferably the one from D6 Adventure, although the Fantasy and Space ones could be included as an appendix.

I would still like to see books like D6 Space/Fantasy/Adventure for the new run, but since these would be supplements to the Core book (They could still be labelled core books I suppose), in place of the reprinted information, you could include a suggested setting outline for each of the three. These settings would then be expanded upon in their own respective books.

And this is the continued flaw of WEG. The lack of properly presenting interesting settings. I think many of WEG's settings have potential, but they need to be revised and properly marketed. A Generic system isnt enough to attract more than a handful of fans unless it is associated with exciting worlds.

I would like to see 3 supported settings for D6; one for each genre. IMO it would be cool to see some of the TORG worlds presented as D6 settings, although I would also like to see ShatterZone return. I think it fits better as a D6 setting than part of the TORG cosmology, though dual statted would be perfect. Nile Empire stands out as a cool setting for D6 Adventure. If Aysle is to be used for D6 Fantasy, I think it should be reworked quite a bit.

Havard

[The Game Guy]

Havard,

It may not need to be revised as much is that it could use some expansion on what is there. I know the system is supposed to be light but the books are a bit too light and could really use some more.

I would love to be able to get my hands on the license to be honest

[Stormchild]

In the world of Aden sourcebook WEG had D6 and Masterbook stats for all NPCs and creatures. I think a unified system should be convertible to all WEG products instead of printing dual (or more) stats.

[Lee Torres]

Havard,

It may not need to be revised as much is that it could use some expansion on what is there. I know the system is supposed to be light but the books are a bit too light and could really use some more.

I would love to be able to get my hands on the license to be honest

Mike,

I'm curious as to your meaning when you say the books are a bit too light and could use some more. More what?

[The Game Guy]

Mike,

I'm curious as to your meaning when you say the books are a bit too light and could use some more. More what?

I think they are light on skills, descriptions, etc. I would need to skim over the book again and then tell you what I really think needs to be revised.

[Lee Torres]

Ah, I understand - and completely agree - it could use more detail there.

[The Game Guy]

Ah, I understand - and completely agree - it could use more detail there.

Yep. I just don't know if the person who revised it knew enough about the system to write the books. And the books almost seemed rushed a bit.

[Whill]

First thing I'd do is make a single rule book...

Ditch the Ad/Disad system for something more like d20's Feats and M&M's complication system?

More like d20? Oh my, how horrid! But I am one of those that despise the idea of hit points in D6. Thank the Maker that is only presented as an alternative to the wound system. And I am actually inspired by the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic to include a simplified version of it in my Star Wars game.


I have to say I can't remember anyone saying that having d6 in 3 seperate books wasn't a mistake.

I think it is also sad, because WEG could have put it in one book, it could have had the D6 license where the license owner would put out the book with genre, vehicles, etc and in order to have the rules they would have to buy the core book (ala what D20 did at the begining).

That would have gotten D6 out to a wider audience and made WEG money by selling core books.

I?m not going to disagree with the marketability of an all-in-one system book, and I think it is likely that all of you are right on that point. But as far as my preferences, I will voice the minority point of view.

I personally liked the fact that D6 Space was separate from the Adventure and Fantasy, because I really only got all the D6 Space books for the purpose of my Star Wars D6 game. I don?t want to read about Intelligence and Wisdom and Charisma (or whatever they are). I like my Mechanical and Technical and Perception. D6 Space really is pretty much the present version of the Star Wars D6 system, stripped of all the setting info (and I have plenty of that already). Without D6 Star Wars/Space, there wouldn?t be a D6 Adventure or Fantasy (and the other intermediate versions of D6).

I totally agree on D6 needing to be supported by good settings. Overall, I loved the Fires of Amatsumara and the Aliens book. I did however buy the Adventure and Fantasy creatures and locations books not only for additional inspiration and adaptation, but also to support WEG and D6 a little bit more. But I doubt I will ever buy Adventure or Fantasy core books because I just don?t see the need to for my own purposes ? at least I can?t justify the expense like I did for the locations and creatures books.

So I guess another possible alterative would be to have an all-in-one D6 system book (or PDF), and then settings core books that may also include the genre-specific subsystem. (Wasn?t Septimus going to be an all inclusive book like that?) That may not be the best way to market the D6 system as a whole, but it would give gamers like me (mainly interested in one genre) the option to not have to get the all-in-one rule book. Of course, then we would still have the same rules overlap that we now have with the 3 genre system books.

Anyway, as a fan of D6 like many of you, this is also just my two cents worth.

[The Game Guy]

More like d20? Oh my, how horrid! But I am one of those that despise the idea of hit points in D6. Thank the Maker that is only presented as an alternative to the wound system. And I am actually inspired by the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic to include a simplified version of it in my Star Wars game.

I have to agree. I hate D20. D20 is only popular because it is attached to D&D.

Had it not been attached to D&D it would be another mediocore system. And I do not want D6 to be anything like D20.

[ngarrang]

Fuse it back into one system. The three different systems was just making things complicated. Maybe it could be done in a simplified version that is then expanded into different setting rules.

Agreed. Along with a fix for Dodging that is already discussed.

[skeloric]

I have to agree. I hate D20. D20 is only popular because it is attached to D&D.

Had it not been attached to D&D it would be another mediocore system. And I do not want D6 to be anything like D20.
Let's not forget that D&D gained a LOT of free publicity by having a lot of hate groups formed to oppose it.

"D&D: the favorite system among hate groups"

[ngarrang]

D20 is merely a different system. My dislike of D20 has more to do with inconsistency of the design when I first tried it (as part of D&D 3e).

First off, if you are going to have attribute mods, why have the attribute itself? In 3e, nothing used the raw state. So, if you had a STR 18, you had a +4 mod. That +4 is what was used to calculate everything else. Ooookay, so just get ride of the STR 18 and call it STR +4.

Next was the wacky skill system. Okay, you gain a new level, put the skill points where ya want them. My problem came in that every level was an increasing number of experience points away as with 1e and 2e. So, to raise a skill from 1 to 2 when you were level 3 took longer than when you were level 2. Huh? So, to learn the same amount of mod, it took me twice as long now? That made zero sense to me. Thus, the new system was telling us that as we get more experience and do more, we actually get dumber, taking us longer to advance a skill ahead one level, with no regard to what level the skill was at.

On its most basic level, I thought D20 was okay, as long as you stopped at the use of attributes and skills. In theory, use any attribute with any skill. It is everything else that bugged me so much that I refuse to use D20 as it is presented in D&D. Tried D20 SW once. The whole group, and the GM, hated it so much, we tossed the books. Literally, zero redeeming value.

From what I've read, the newest D&D is far different than 3/3.5e, simplifying itself down for combat-oriented games...and only combat-oriented games.

[Crusis]

I've never played 3rd Ed, but I see your point. It should take longer to go from 2 to 3 in a skill than it does to go from 1 to 2, but 1 to 2 should be the same regardless of your level. D6 is superior in this aspect by far.

[Whill]

...so just get rid of the STR 18 and call it STR +4... Next was the wacky skill system...

I completely agree with all of you about d20. I have long stated that it is not only too complicated to be cinematic, it is uneccessarily complicated for its own purposes as well.

When I found Star Wars 1E I knew I had discovered a game system far superior to D&D. I completely dropped my new fantasy campaign world I was developing and never DMed again.

But when Star Wars went d20, I felt a plethra of negative emotions. I was at the same time, disgusted, depressed and angry. I was really dissapointed that there wouldn't be any new Star Wars D6 products, but I eventually got over it (mostly) when I realized I still had my D6 game, and I could make new stuff for it myself. And it helps that there are still communities of D6 fans in the world, such as many of you.

I don't think I would ever even want to try Star Wars d20. D&D 3.5 was such an agonizing experience as it was. Maybe I would play Star Wars d20 only to infiltrate a group and slowly manipulate them into converting to the the D6 Side. :cool:


Tried D20 SW once. The whole group, and the GM, hated it so much, we tossed the books. Literally, zero redeeming value.

All my hatred of d20 aside, I don't think the d20 books have absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. I have several of them for the purpose of setting info (updated to include the prequels) and a few various images. I dare say there are even a rare few good ideas scattered throughout them. But their value for me is solely for the purpose of my D6 game. So I feel they have very little redeeming value, and are defintely not really needed to play Star Wars D6 whatsoever.

[RocketDad]

My fave system was always the D6 Star Wars 2nd edition Rules set. I played Torg, Tank Girl, Paranoia, Ghostbusters...I never realy "clicked" with any other system in a way that I would feel confidant designing for. I plan to take that basic structure and adapt it to the needs of a Hard SF setting. And Improvising. :)
All jokes aside, The simpler the core, the easier it will be for other games to adapt to with add-ons.

[Rerun941]

I know a lot of folks have complained about the scaling systems used in D6 (including myself). I've tried to help some folks with their scaling revamps, but I always felt something was "not quite right" but I never knew what.

Then it came to me... elegance. The new F/A/S books lack elegance. I've always favored the SW 2nd Ed R&E scaling rules because they were simple, straightforward, and easy to remember... elegant. No chart needed. No fancy math conversions.

The F/A/S books were similar, simple, but lack elegance. You always had to consult the chart because the scales were not easy to remember.

So, at first I was thinking, "Ok, make the scales iconic, like with Star Wars... Character, Speeder, Walker, Starfighter, Capital" So, I figured, +5, +10, +15, +20, etc...

Except that still wasn't quite right...

The other problem with SWd6 (as highlighted in this thread: http://www.wegfansite.com/forum/showthread.php?2720-Melee-Weapons-in-Star-Wars)
is that there isn't enough "wiggle room" between different scales to account for Light, Medium and Heavy Speeders... or Light, Medium and Heavy Walkers. However, Starfighter vs. Capital scale seems to work very well. Because there is 6D worth of wiggle room to accomodate fast, light interceptors, Medium Transports, Heavy Transports, Heavy Bombers, etc. while still not coming close to the firepower of Capital ships.

So, here's my solution:
SWd6:
Character 0D
Speeder 4D
Walker 8D
Starfighter 12D
Capital 18D
Death Star 30D

If you like the static F/A/S scale, then go by tens:
Character +0
Speeder +10
Walker +20
Starfighter +30
(Transport) +40
Capital +50

Simple, easy to remember, elegant. Now, I still need to work out examples for various points along the scale, but the "iconic" spots are listed (at least for Star Wars). and I think we'd all agree that the examples given in the F/A/S books are off.

[Whill]

Having both die modifiers and static modifiers gives both more randomness and less randomness options. Check.

But I'm having a hard time trying to wrap my head around the equivalencies. It seems intuitive to me that the static modifiers should be the averages of the corresponding die values, which would be:

Character 0D = +0
Speeder 4D = +14
Walker 8D = +28
Starfighter 12D = +42
Capital 18D = +63
Death Star 30D = +105

Of course using those exact figures takes out the simplicity of the increments of 10. Perhaps you could round off?

Having the static modifiers be increments of 10 is simple, easy to remember and elegant. Check.

But I don't see how your die values (0D, 4D, 8D, 12D, 18D, 30D) are any more simple, easy to remember, and elegant as the ones provided in Star Wars R&E (0D, 2D, 4D, 6D, 12D, 24D). And yours increments don't follow any easily discernable pattern, whereas R&E kinda did (2+4=6, 2+4+6=12, 2+4+6+12=24).

But my brain is tired with all the over-time I've been working, so maybe I'm missing something. It seems simple but if you think I am missing something basic then please try to dumb it down for me! Thanks.

[Rerun941]

Yeah, sorry... I didn't mention that I was basically doing the scales independently without trying to make them "equivalent" to each other. (That's basically step two that I have yet to perform.)

My only real point to the adjustments was to spread out the scales and provide more wiggle room... and to use simple steps to highlight "iconic" scale points.

So, you are correct, the SW Speeder scale (4D, average +14) is not equal to the F/A/S Speeder Scale (+10).