D6- Would you use it

[The Game Guy]

If D6 open happened (and it was reasonable to use it) would you utilize it and what would you use it for?

[hellsreach]

Maybe, but if I ever get back into game publishing, it'll probably be a while.

[Lee Torres]

To the question of whether I would use D6, if it was available - absolutely.

As to what I would use it for, I'm not at liberty to say without the permission of my two partners on "the project," but I can reveal that it's a concept that has not been tackled in an RPG - it has been featured in literature, and some films and television, but not in role-playing. "Birthright" and "Reign" are fantasy rpgs that have some elements of this idea, but not all.

So, it's pretty ambitious, and if D6 survives, I'll probably break the news on a D6-friendly site before hitting rpg.net or any other gaming venue.

So, if there's still a D6 a year or so from now, watch this space!

[kellhound]

Yes, I'll use it.
I'm working on a sci-fi setting, and a modern conspiracies setting.

But first I'll have to translate D6 to Spanish...

[skeloric]

I have had a "Fantasy West" setting that originated back in 1st edition D&D.
Elfen Gunslingers and Dwarven prospectors alongside "Eastern Kingdom" immigrants.
It was based upon mixing Boot Hill and 1st edition AD&D, as far as I know no RPG has ever come close to my image of the setting and I might actually have something not offered by anyone else.
But, I keep waiting to see what happens and may opt to put it out as a free GURPS concept instead.

[Roger Calver]

Wizards & Gunslingers by Comstar Games, http://www.comstar-games.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=53&Itemid=62

[skeloric]

Wizards & Gunslingers by Comstar Games, http://www.comstar-games.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=53&Itemid=62

Blah.
Might as well not bother then.
Its been done.
;)

Well, since I'll probably never have access to that copy, I think I'll be safe in presenting mine and not worry about looking like that.

[nerdron]

I would use it only if I did not have to submit my ideas and rules to a board or individual before I publish.

I am a big fan of free being free, not beholden to someone else''s opinion. If you are going to make D6 free, make it totally free, open source. It cannot hurt it at this point, and will only encourage folks to make products for D6.

Will some of these products suck? Yes.

Will some of these products rock? Yes also.

[Kalzazz]

Eh, I might try dusting off my old Muskets and Magic setting, but it may have been done to death already

Im far more interested in designing rulesets than settings though

Id be happy to play and run OpenD6 stuff though

[Grimace]

I would certianly use it! I've got a lot of D6 material just sitting around. Some of it is of a quality that I feel would be of interest to people. Settings and sourcebooks both.

As nerdron mentioned, though, no "board" or some such. Let "free" be free.

[skeloric]

I -- on the other hand -- would welcome such a board.
The board only attaches a "Board approved" sticker to the book, they have no other function.
One could let "free" be free by ignoring the board completely and not submit their product to it at all and instead simply publish without the "Board Approved" sticker.
If the sticker isn't important to you, no one will force you to seek its addition to the product.

[Roger Calver]

It makes sense that a board would be involved were to verify new system concept that then become part of the opend6 core mechanics, this allows the system to grow and expand while keeping confliction and confusion away.

If its just setting products your working on then the approval from a board is not of importance to you.

[skeloric]

If you felt that you needed a version of D6 that diverged from the norm, you could still do so -- without seeking some sort of approval.

[hellsreach]

It is similar to open source movements for centralized program utilities. Take something like... MySQL. It is fully open source and that would allow a developer to do pretty much whatever they wanted with it, but if the developer wanted to submit those changes to become a part of MySQL, Sun Micro would need to determine if those changes were to be adopted as "official" in future releases, using whatever approval process they have going. This approvals process does not regulate the use of the system, only what would be consider "core" and be fully supported.

This allows both free and open access to the system, while also providing users with the piece of mind that certain parts of the have been rigorously reviewed and can be played as is, with little probabilty of it breaking under use.

1) So publisher makes game for Open D6
2) Publisher creates a new FX to perform something.
3) Game gets published (no reviews needed)
4) New material get reviewed seperately, from the publishers commercial release.
5) If it is determined that the new FX playes well with the rest of the system, it may be adopted into the core.
6) If not, no biggy. It is still available, but perhaps listing only reviews notes. (e.g., Warning: This Mecha Combat System Cannot be used the with OpenD6 Integer or Die Code Scaling systems.)

No one is looking to be a gatekeeper in my version of OpenD6. I just want to have a mechanism to keep a strong, stable and evolving official "core," while also giving publishers and developers that chance to be as creative and unconstrained as possible.

[slink]

Methinks, that's exactly what roleplaying needs today!

Look at GURPS. (Nearly) everybody hails the quality of the gazillions of sourcebooks. I own at least 4 myself, though I loathe the system. There's tons of people like me out there, not playing GURPS at all, but buying sourcebooks for various settings and modify them for their personally favored system. Try to get into GURPS and you'll find there's a simple, basic rule system, an inspiring and very flexible character creation system and, again, gazillions of optional, additional and advanced rules distributed among, you guess it, gazillions of books.
Because of that fantastic, flexible character creation system, for me, it's completely impossible to come up with an NPC in a few minutes (something I needed to do in nearly every adventure I ever gamemastered).

Now imagine a rules system (let's call it OpenD6 ;)) where all these gazillions of optional add-ons (advantages, skills, fx systems, combat rules, vehicle creation systems etc.) are reviewed and, if found fitting, added to an electronic construction kit which let's you choose the components you want to have in your tailor-made d6 system. That'd be soooo wonderful.

CC seems to be a good way of licencing, to me. Share-alike, preferrably. But that depends completely on The New Owner of D6...

[asmkm22]

I'm not really sure what the point of having a board of council members is, if getting their seal of approval has no real benefit. Not unless there's some built-in respect in the members from previous rpg smash hits...

Now if they had the ability to give business grants to well-reviewed D6 applicants, that would be different.

[nerdron]

It is similar to open source movements for centralized program utilities. Take something like... MySQL. It is fully open source and that would allow a developer to do pretty much whatever they wanted with it, but if the developer wanted to submit those changes to become a part of MySQL, Sun Micro would need to determine if those changes were to be adopted as "official" in future releases, using whatever approval process they have going. This approvals process does not regulate the use of the system, only what would be consider "core" and be fully supported.

This allows both free and open access to the system, while also providing users with the piece of mind that certain parts of the have been rigorously reviewed and can be played as is, with little probabilty of it breaking under use.

1) So publisher makes game for Open D6
2) Publisher creates a new FX to perform something.
3) Game gets published (no reviews needed)
4) New material get reviewed seperately, from the publishers commercial release.
5) If it is determined that the new FX playes well with the rest of the system, it may be adopted into the core.
6) If not, no biggy. It is still available, but perhaps listing only reviews notes. (e.g., Warning: This Mecha Combat System Cannot be used the with OpenD6 Integer or Die Code Scaling systems.)

No one is looking to be a gatekeeper in my version of OpenD6. I just want to have a mechanism to keep a strong, stable and evolving official "core," while also giving publishers and developers that chance to be as creative and unconstrained as possible.
this sounds like a good idea until someone comes up with what they think is a really good idea, but the voting block for OpenD6 does not.

I hate to be cynical, but knowing human nature an argument about this sort of thing could rapidly develop into trolling, flame-baiting madness, and cause the whole shebang to topple.

to me, free is free. the market of folks who read and buy D6 will sort out what is good or bad by downloading and sampling the good stuff, and ignoring the bad. I don't think there needs to be a board to say yay or nay, just the general public of D6 consumers.

[Lee Torres]

What about a slight brake on this idea? What if an online vote was taken six months or one year after each game (adding new content, anyway) hit market - giving it a chance to be reviewed, played, dissected, trashed, revered, and so on?

Then instead of a small group doing the review (since a small group doesn't do as good a job of expressing the desires of the population as the population itself does, in a "wired" society), the players and the buying public votes on the website as to whether or not something becomes "Core" or not.

When I was reading the concept initially, it struck me as an evolutionary process - but if it goes too fast, as Ron said, or is governed by a small cadre, with that small cadre's inherent biases, we run the risk of having a hodge-podge that most people don't like. But a period of time to "digest" might make a world of difference. It also provides a "cooling off" period, so that people that hate an idea might have a change of heart, or someone that loves an idea might not be so enamored of it a year down the road...

[Roger Calver]

Sounds a viable idea, you could also change it to when the product is released the suggested content is examined by the group and posted straight away for peer review and consultation, this peroid lasts for 3 months and then a poll of created to find the result.
Having this done at the same time as the product release and over a shorter time allows for the group to keep a rolling core update program ongoing.

The community is the final voters and the group then can intergrate the content, at most all in all a start to finish peroid of 5 months.

Shows for an ongoing evolution of the Open system.

Rog.

[nerdron]

What about a slight brake on this idea? What if an online vote was taken six months or one year after each game (adding new content, anyway) hit market - giving it a chance to be reviewed, played, dissected, trashed, revered, and so on?

Then instead of a small group doing the review (since a small group doesn't do as good a job of expressing the desires of the population as the population itself does, in a "wired" society), the players and the buying public votes on the website as to whether or not something becomes "Core" or not.

When I was reading the concept initially, it struck me as an evolutionary process - but if it goes too fast, as Ron said, or is governed by a small cadre, with that small cadre's inherent biases, we run the risk of having a hodge-podge that most people don't like. But a period of time to "digest" might make a world of difference. It also provides a "cooling off" period, so that people that hate an idea might have a change of heart, or someone that loves an idea might not be so enamored of it a year down the road...


I think that most games do the majority of their sales in the first 6 months after release (I have no proof, just an observation), so a waiting period would just middle things even more. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

IMO, any setup that requires someone to approve your ideas will not work.
We can still be friends, though! :)

[Roger Calver]

Its not to approve you product just any add on rule/idea to the Opend6 core mechanic, you sell you product either way and straight away.

[slink]

Its not to approve you product just any add on rule/idea to the Opend6 core mechanic, you sell you product either way and straight away.
That's my understanding, as well.
There would be no "Approved products", since the review process would only start after a product was published.
Although I think the board could actually be a d6 forum/social network/suchlike. From my point of view, there's no need for a closed board to do this.

[Lee Torres]

I think that most games do the majority of their sales in the first 6 months after release (I have no proof, just an observation), so a waiting period would just middle things even more. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

IMO, any setup that requires someone to approve your ideas will not work.
We can still be friends, though! :)

LOL

I think you may have misunderstood me, though - I don't approve of a board reviewing anything before it comes out - just a sort of iterative process driven by the fans and players after things do - but you're correct - the early life of the game is when the "iron is hot" - I just share your concern that D6 would be a "flavor of the month" game, essentially an amorphous blob being pulled like taffy by the fad of the moment, which is why I proposed a longer period. I think Roger might have the timing down, though - about three months from release to review & "vote."

For the record - I'm totally opposed to the "Review" before games are released, and the "D6 Board Approved" stamp - smacks of the old Comics Code to me - I'm pushing for an evolutionary process for the system "in the wild" as it were.

Glad we can still be friends! I just met ya - would have been sad to mess it up that fast! :D

[nerdron]

LOL

I think you may have misunderstood me, though - I don't approve of a board reviewing anything before it comes out - just a sort of iterative process driven by the fans and players after things do - but you're correct - the early life of the game is when the "iron is hot" - I just share your concern that D6 would be a "flavor of the month" game, essentially an amorphous blob being pulled like taffy by the fad of the moment, which is why I proposed a longer period. I think Roger might have the timing down, though - about three months from release to review & "vote."

For the record - I'm totally opposed to the "Review" before games are released, and the "D6 Board Approved" stamp - smacks of the old Comics Code to me - I'm pushing for an evolutionary process for the system "in the wild" as it were.

Glad we can still be friends! I just met ya - would have been sad to mess it up that fast! :D

I never get mad at anyone or argue with anyone on the internet. There is no way to prove who is right or wrong and it just leads to hurt feelings and trolling :)

I like the idea of a D6 community peer reviewing the products, but not a formal process, which I think is what Eric wants. Part of me wonder why we need a semi-formal peer review process, when we have the internet and sites like this one and rpg.net, which do the same thing.

[Roger Calver]

Under one sites roof for the simple reason of organisation.

Review of an new ideas or rules would be as simple as a yes/no question that everyone votes on - in its most simple form, this would be at the end of the reveiw peroid.

The community makes the calls between itself, the board (for want of a better name) is there to make the revelvant changes and additions of any new materials and update the Opend6 SRD.

The members of this board dont make the decisions, the people voting do - hell to make that part fair and above board the should not even vote.

Rog.

[Lee Torres]

Part of me wonder why we need a semi-formal peer review process, when we have the internet and sites like this one and rpg.net, which do the same thing.

I just look at this as giving kids a piece of paper to doodle on so they don't scribble on the walls - the voting site would also be where the core documents are "filed" online, so it would be a nice centralized site for folks to stop in, see what's new for D6, maybe get some previews of new stuff if publishers want a sort of "Ads/Open Promo" area, and so on. Mike S. might be able to so some of that with this site, actually - although it being the internet, I'm sure that discussions will be happening at rpg.net, the rpgsite, and anywhere else that gamers "gather round the watering hole" as it were. So it'd be only formal in the sense that it would be "the" place set up for D6 people to gather - no formal "authority" beyond what we've got here would be needed - a webmaster or admin team, but not anyone "official" saying "this is in and this isn't" - it could almost be handled with the polling function on boards like these - for example:

It's been three months since Example Publishing released the "MindForce" RPG. Should their modified psionics rules for D6 be adopted into the D6 Core?

0 Yes
0 No
0 Undecided

Probably other options/choices as well...

I just quoted from your post and went from there, but now that it's posted I could just point to Roger Calver's post and say "What he said" - so... yeah.

[Lee Torres]

I figured this called for a new post, because, to paraphrase Han Solo, sometimes I amaze myself. Over the past hour, while getting ready for work, I have successfully argued myself out of my own position. Based on my previous post, it struck me that, to have a poll to review newly released D6 Rules would be a lot of polls going on, and in many cases, we might have a system that not many people are passionate about, and what do we do if we get 2 "No" votes, and 6 "Yes" votes? Do we change the Core because of 6 votes?

Instead, I think, to be truly "evolving in the wild" the systems should go out - get played, get bashed around, and when enough people think "you know what? The psionics system in D6 MindForce is better than the D6 Core psionics rules!" - then they put their opinion out on the net, and if enough people are saying "I think that guy's right - D6 MindForce rocks!" then the polls will start popping up - doesn't matter where, so long as we know where they all are - and when the polls close, we gather the aggregate numbers - if the majority is for the change, then it happens. If it's a new rule that not many people notice, then obviously it's not "hot" enough to warrant a change to the Core - the creator can argue his case wherever he wants, and if someone then says "I agree" then the ball starts rolling. But it's not an artificial process - the cream rises to the top.

Anyway, since I've done a 180, I figured I'd post my new thoughts...

[nerdron]

Lee you just did a great job of explaining what I was trying to say. thanks for putting words in my mouth!
:)

[Roger Calver]

Yep Lee sounds a better way of getting a higher pool of votes but there is a possible problem.

As with the Traveller polls going around on the forums ATM, the results are slanted - this is because the same person can vote on multiple forums but if a link is posted from a central poll then that allows for more voters but controls the slant as 1 vote 1 person.

Rog.

[Lee Torres]

Hmmm. Good point, Rog.

I'll be over here putting on my cogitating hat... There must be a solution!

[Roger Calver]

OK, Ive been chatting with Lee about this problem.

What if there was no approvals process ?
Time to explain, if the basic core of the opend6 system - things like dice system, basic chargen, damage etc was unchangable and fixed.
Any other rules or ideas are added to a database and coded, all someone needs to do is take the core and then bolt the modules on, you can even show in your product by a string of numbers what your game is using - as Lee said like a Traveller UWP stat line.


Very Rough idea at the moment.

Rog & Lee.

[hellsreach]

There is something to be said for a waiting period after publication for the community to decide if it works for the core, if for no other reason than playtesting. As much playtesting that a publishing can do, does come close to the shake-down fans can give. Ideally, you want to see if a new FX system breaks under pressure, or whether it break other FX systems, which ones, and why.

Still, I wouldn't want it to be a flat time period. A New psionics system, or a method and netrunning subroutine construction system (similar to a spell construction system for virtual environs, I'd assume) would take more time to shake it briskly than perhaps a damage mode to simulate mental fatigue or some such.

[hellsreach]

A reminder, as envisioned, there is no approvals for published works. The only approval is a community approval for adoption into the OpenD6 core.

[slink]

I'll be over here putting on my cogitating hat... There must be a solution!
I think the obvious solution is that there's a minimum number of votes required. This could be a fixed number or something dependend on "registered voters". Anybody who has registered for the voting board and posted in the last x months or something similar.
I'm just thinking loud here, though...

[Lee Torres]

I think the obvious solution is that there's a minimum number of votes required. This could be a fixed number or something dependend on "registered voters". Anybody who has registered for the voting board and posted in the last x months or something similar.
I'm just thinking loud here, though...

I'd considered that, but it would be incredibly difficult to pick a number - we might, in 2009, have a series of fantastic products with enthusiastic market response and easily get, say, 1000 votes, and in 2011, if there's not much D6 Open product hitting the market, be strapped to get 300 - so what would the number be?

I'm trying to find a solution that would "flex" with the market conditions. A percentage of registered voters may work, but at times take us to the previously mentioned point where a tiny number of users are deciding the overall utility of Open D6 - and if we do not look at Roger's "Keep the Core Intact" notion, above, then new players getting into D6 for the first time may be getting an inferior product during downturns in player interest in the gaming market.

That's what I'm working on a solution to at the moment.

[Lee Torres]

Yep Lee sounds a better way of getting a higher pool of votes but there is a possible problem.

As with the Traveller polls going around on the forums ATM, the results are slanted - this is because the same person can vote on multiple forums but if a link is posted from a central poll then that allows for more voters but controls the slant as 1 vote 1 person.

Rog.

Over the past 24 hours I've been thinking about this - and I admit I've been thinking of it as a disadvantage. One Man/One Vote was driving me in circles, until I had a moment of inspiration.

TV show competitions like American Idol or Last Comic Standing have voting where a viewer can vote any number of times for the contestant they favor. Assuming that there will be, at most, ten polls asking this question (assuming that we allow polls only on existing gaming sites, no blogs), then if someone wants to hit ten different internet sites to vote for a modification, let them. Obviously they're really pushing hard to have this mod made part of the Open D6 package.

Another idea is to find out how the networks do it, and have a "one vote costs fifty cents" (or somewhere in there) so that perhaps a vote is text messaged or phoned in - so that to "stuff the ballot box" can happen, but you'll be paying for it... and the money raised will go into an Open D6 fund to keep the system going... website costs, possibly advertising, etc.

Just tossing out concepts at this point, but I think that even the first one might be viable. There won't be that many polls around the web, and the D6 sites can post lists of where the "voting locations" are around the web...

[slink]

I'm not completely opposed against multiple voting sites (and as a result, multiple votes per person), but I don't actually see the advantage of this method. If you want to spread the word, you can always post a link to the "OpenD6" site anywhere and everywhere.

And, from my point of view, there could (or even should) be a multi-tier process: first, a new FX or addition can be added to the available options for the OpenD6 toolbox. In a second step (after some time has passed and people played with it for some time) it could replace the original ruling (which would then become an optional one). This way, an addition will not "ruin" the core, but add to the system. On the other hand, this could lead to confusion.

As we all do at the moment, just playing around with ideas...

[Lee Torres]

I'm not completely opposed against multiple voting sites (and as a result, multiple votes per person), but I don't actually see the advantage of this method. If you want to spread the word, you can always post a link to the "OpenD6" site anywhere and everywhere.

And, from my point of view, there could (or even should) be a multi-tier process: first, a new FX or addition can be added to the available options for the OpenD6 toolbox. In a second step (after some time has passed and people played with it for some time) it could replace the original ruling (which would then become an optional one). This way, an addition will not "ruin" the core, but add to the system. On the other hand, this could lead to confusion.

As we all do at the moment, just playing around with ideas...

The multiple voting at multiple sites would be just to have the widest possible voter-base - it could link back to a main site, but would people click to another site to vote? Especially if they were not already registered at the D6 Site? Maybe it would work better if only registered Open D6 site members could vote, but then there's the risk of "low voter turnout" again.

While I by-and-large agree with the second part of your post (what I refer to as "evolution in the wild" in an earlier post), I can also see a value to keeping some basic core material intact - what attribute numbers represent, as a baseline, and the target numbers/difficulty levels - while they may evolve, the fundamentals of the system should evolve more slowly - if we get Open D6 content where attributes of 4 are the human average, instead of two, that creates a pretty large shift in the way the system works (I'm just putting out an example). So I agree with Roger that the "Basics" should be harder to change. What magic system, psionics system, vehicle combat rules, and so on work best with the system is a less significant impact on the overall utility of the D6 rules.

From your post, I don't think we're in disagreement about that - I'm just writing it down for others following the conversation to clarify my thoughts that the "voting" should only be able to change certain parts of the core without some huge referendum...

[slink]

From your post, I don't think we're in disagreement about that - I'm just writing it down for others following the conversation to clarify my thoughts that the "voting" should only be able to change certain parts of the core without some huge referendum...
Agreed to agree :)

[Roger Calver]

In essense I was trying to say that the Opend6 core is like an operating systems kernel and as such is protected and not changed much, other parts can be bolted on and taken away at will of the user.

[Lee Torres]

if the basic core of the opend6 system - things like dice system, basic chargen, damage etc was unchangable and fixed.
Any other rules or ideas are added to a database and coded, all someone needs to do is take the core and then bolt the modules on, you can even show in your product by a string of numbers what your game is using - as Lee said like a Traveller UWP stat line.

The only part of this I'm thinking to clarify further is that in some cases we might need almost a flowchart of options that exist even within the Core rules - for instance, there are rules out there for using pips with the D6 Legend "counting successes" rules - so from the ground up, one might have the choice of starting with standardized characters - dice pool with pips, then still opt to use a modified D6 Legend resolution instead of D6 Classic - likewise with wounds - we might have the "hit points" used in DC Universe, or the Wound Levels from Star Wars, or both, or something else entirely (like the old TSR Buck Rogers - High Adventure Cliffhangers had "Mortality Rolls" - an attribute-based task roll against a difficulty determined by the weapon - so you either failed the roll and died right then, or you passed and kept on going - and it was a system very very similar to D6* - in fact, were I running something like a World War One trench warfare rpg using the D6 Rules, I might mod it in - it's fast and lethal, and encourages you to not get shot).

So I think that even the D6 Core is going to have a lot of variety in it, and all of that should be protected at a higher level than something "universe-specific" like magic, or psionics.

As an afterthought, creating that flow-chart would give the Developers that were hired to create the Open D6 website a massive leg-up on the design process... A lot of their work would already be done for them, with regards to the "modules" and how they interact (or don't).

* The attribute rankings in BR -HAC are "Okay" giving 2D6, "Good" giving 3D6, "Better" giving 4D6, and "Best" giving 5D6 - skills add only a few more dice - if memory serves, I think their dice pools top out at either 8D or 10D. Target numbers are very much like D6 Classic.

[Roger Calver]

It could be done with having a protected core and then a extended database for the genre's used like sci-fi, fantasy etc.

The kernel core NEVER changes as its the minimum that is need for the d6 system as is work, pips etc - in essence just the stat and skill coding for chargen and the basic skill use system.

Any thing else like alternative skills system or combat go into the comminity database.

Rog.

[Lee Torres]

In the opinions of those following this thread:

Should the protected kernel cover only D6 Classic, or let users toggle between Classic, Legend, "D6 Only" (like the Star Wars Live Action Adventures rules, with 1D6+Attribute+Skill versus a lower target number; up to 15 IIRC) and possibly hybrids thereof, like what Mike Lynes has done with his rules for The Matrix and Appleseed, where the lines between Classic and Legend get a little indistinct?

Or, more succinctly - What is D6, exactly?

I ask because Mike Lynes freeware variants use both dice and pips, but count successes - I believe that Jerry Grayson's original rules for Hellas (before switching to OMNI) were Legend with pips, as was (or is) Ad Astra Games "Worlds of Honor" Honor Harrington rpg...

It's rather confusing.

[Roger Calver]

For me the dice + pips system is the very core of d6 and its this that should be the core and so for protected.

[nerdron]

I know everyone already knows my opinion on this, but I am still going to stick my beak in. I think that the details of what gets bolted on to the core system will be handled by individual publishers, and even GMs. What Gm do you know that runs a system totally vanilla with no personalization and changes?

I think the idea of voting and maintaining a core set of rules would quickly grow big and cumbersome and unwieldy. If there were a site that hosted the D6 core rules, probably a standard and a legends version, then also stored all the plugins for you to pick and choose, that would be great. no voting required, no long list of changelogs, just d6 core, plus any options you want to grab.

for some reason it seems everyone things opend6 will get flooded with bad ideas or rules. If you make all the plugins (magic, psionics, super-powers, vehicle construction, etc) optional, you can pick the bad and throw out the good.

I think Bad and good are too subjective. Just because 75% or D6 fans thought plugin x was good does not mean i will.

Keep the core super simple, and offer as many options as you can, and the folks will build their own d6 all day long.

Sorry for the rant :)

[Lee Torres]

Not at all, sir! Good rants are always welcome!

I like the simplicity of your idea. Solves all of the issues we've been running into by ignoring them in favor of total freedom.

[Roger Calver]

A good rant is always healthy, and in this ones case explained what I was trying to say better than I did ;)

[Grimace]

I, in essence, agree with Nerdron. The D6 core is, in my opinion, something that entails something like the following: "Attribute dice plus skill dice get rolled and compared against the difficulty of the task as established by the person running the game. Roll greater than the difficulty and succeed; roll less than and fail."

Pretty much everything else is "optional". Some people will have different attribute names, some have different skill names, some have different amounts of attributes or skills, some have different combat options. Some will use different magic systems, some different wound systems, some different scale modifiers. Some will use simplified dice mechanics, some will use advantages and disadvantages, some will use chess piece goons and others will want enough detail in their games to use miniatures. Basically, anything beyond the "core" is something that will be optional depending on the way the GM wants to run a game and how detailed or open they want that game to be.

If you make things too complicated, as he said, you might have 75% of the people use X rule from the "core" but you'll have others that will never use that particular aspect of the "core" because their style of gameplay never uses it. For example, I never use advantages or disadvantages. If they were included in the core rules, something that couldn't be changed, then every single thing I created for D6 would alter the established core. So if you keep the "core" rules very, VERY basic, it allows for more optional things to be put on top and the game tweaked to the flavor desired.

[skeloric]

My intention in finding and using a system is:
WILL IT HIDE IN THE BACKGROUND?
Can I simply say roll "that" (whatever needs rolling) and then move on to the important stuff -- using the numbers to tell the story.
I like the New World of Darkness Storytelling system and the Unisystem because they both move into the background easily enough without becoming so surreal as to not be a recognizable simplification of reality.
If there are rules to be added to the core, I want them simple concise and most of all -- able to move into the background.
Five minutes prep time in character creation in both of those other systems and the old Star Wars templates could get a group going in seconds.
Jedi? Check.
Smuggler? Check.
Wookie? Check.
Farm Kid? Check.
Rebellious Senator? Check.
NPC Droids? Check.
30 seconds later we are playing Star Wars.
Whatever gets discussed and however whatever might happen, let's not lose sight of the simplicity.
That is what makes D6 good and that is what is its selling point if any.

[Lee Torres]

I, in essence, agree with Nerdron. The D6 core is, in my opinion, something that entails something like the following: "Attribute dice plus skill dice get rolled and compared against the difficulty of the task as established by the person running the game. Roll greater than the difficulty and succeed; roll less than and fail."

Pretty much everything else is "optional". Some people will have different attribute names, some have different skill names, some have different amounts of attributes or skills, some have different combat options. Some will use different magic systems, some different wound systems, some different scale modifiers. Some will use simplified dice mechanics, some will use advantages and disadvantages, some will use chess piece goons and others will want enough detail in their games to use miniatures. Basically, anything beyond the "core" is something that will be optional depending on the way the GM wants to run a game and how detailed or open they want that game to be.

If you make things too complicated, as he said, you might have 75% of the people use X rule from the "core" but you'll have others that will never use that particular aspect of the "core" because their style of gameplay never uses it. For example, I never use advantages or disadvantages. If they were included in the core rules, something that couldn't be changed, then every single thing I created for D6 would alter the established core. So if you keep the "core" rules very, VERY basic, it allows for more optional things to be put on top and the game tweaked to the flavor desired.


Works for me - excellent summary of a perfectly viable take on the D6 "Core" as well! Thanks, Grimace!

Also, based on a recent post by Eric over on the WEG forums, we might see progress on this sometime soon, whether in the direction of Open D6 or not...

[pathfinderap]

1) So publisher makes game for Open D6
2) Publisher creates a new FX to perform something.
3) Game gets published (no reviews needed)
4) New material get reviewed seperately, from the publishers commercial release.
5) If it is determined that the new FX playes well with the rest of the system, it may be adopted into the core.
6) If not, no biggy. It is still available, but perhaps listing only reviews notes. (e.g., Warning: This Mecha Combat System Cannot be used the with OpenD6 Integer or Die Code Scaling systems.)


I think the best way could be to make part of the basic aggreement to use
the D6 Open system come with the proviso that the D6 Open
can cherry pick whatever subsystem developments that are given,
give and take, share and share alike,
you can use this, but if you push its development we all can use it,

Not to have a body of critical judges,
(after all, one mans meat..respect that tastes differ)

but to have the right to support or withhold the "D6" badge from the project,
They would need to clear their finished project through this D6 Open body before publishing, if they wish to use the badge, the D6 Open body can then decide to award the badge or not

and that would be enough in many cases,

(But also hold the right to completely revoke the Open Agreement from projects at any time, in case of morals and ethics, ie sick or racists use, etc, God forbid, I mean can you imagine F.A.T.A.L wanting to use this in their 2nd edition?)


Also have a catalog of all Subsystems given and let the public choose for themselves which they prefer, (let the feedback from these subsystems dictate its rise or fall for further use) Think of it like Unearthed Arcana (D&D)

You could also have a probationary period for some of these subsystems,
before being acknowledged as being part of the standard package,
(through an advisory body, or voting as Lee suggested)

I really like the voting idea, but I wonder if it could be abused, or could suffer through neglect, (a small group of people multi voting for a crap system, and others not voting for a system because they don't feel they need too)

But if this probationary period was long enough it should balance it out
(ie, causing people to react to the vote already given)

[Crusis]

I think the best way could be to make part of the basic aggreement to use
the D6 Open system come with the proviso that the D6 Open
can cherry pick whatever subsystem developments that are given,
give and take, share and share alike,
you can use this, but if you push its development we all can use it,

Not to have a body of critical judges,
(after all, one mans meat..respect that tastes differ)

100% a good idea. If you use D6, your modifications should be open to anyone who wants to borrow them for their system. Then it is truly an open system, and one that will allow creativity. The various developments could work sort of like natural selection. Gee, what Bob made doesn't really work for me, but what Tom made is great! I'll use that. In time, if most people feel that way, the Tom method may become quite common.

[skeloric]

(But also hold the right to completely revoke the Open Agreement from projects at any time, in case of morals and ethics, ie sick or racists use, etc, God forbid, I mean can you imagine F.A.T.A.L wanting to use this in their 2nd edition?)

While I like all that was written, I like this part best as the idea of a game like F.A.T.A.L. getting made in D6 gives me nightmares strong enough to wake me up in the middle of the night.