Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0

Wester

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Wester

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 01/17/1977
  1. Oh, he no longer plans on having that site? Last time I checked in, over a year ago, he seemed angry at OpenD6 resurrection and was still insisting that his site was almost ready to roll. I was actually a bit surprised to see this site a few months ago, and all the OpenD6 releases that have come down the pipe recently. So that's a no go, then? Who runs the wikidot site?
  2. When you leave out the IP, fluff, and roleplaying tips, and just copy the barebones rules, you're looking at less than 20% of the book. Leave out lengthy descriptions of skills and how-tos for actions that can be found in other OpenD6 books, and pare down the stuff you do transcribe, and you're not looking at much more than 10% even if you include "scrubbed" rules for droids, the force, and vehicles. Speaking of the Force rules, there's really not much there beyond "the force" name itself that is strictly IP. In some cases the names of particular force skills have made it into canon or been retained by d20 editions, but even in those instances it's not usually a blatant case of lifting licensed content. I'm open to the idea of using a wiki format, provided each of us notifies the others as to what section they intend to tackle first so we're not duplicating one another. The Resurrection wiki is a great tool but I'm sure how Eric Gibson would feel about that based on his comments in the past. There's still supposed to be an opend6 site afaik that has built in functionality for that, last I checked, but I'm not sure how long anyone wants to wait for that to materialize.
  3. I'm willing to have a go at it. It'll be tedious, but I don't think it's necessary to transcribe the entire manual. Looking at the book now, there's a lot of art and caption boxes that don't need to be in there, large sections and entire chapters that don't really need to be there, and a lot of IP that can't be there. I doubt I'll find time for it in a weekend, but I can't see it taking forever. It'll just be text, but if somebody wants to take it and dress it up later they'll be welcome to it.
  4. I'll have a short PDF supplement available by next week that explains my rules variant, and hopefully you guys can read it over and point out any obvious errors or omissions. It's not a full-on rulebook -- it assumes you're already familiar with OpenD6. The argument for the 1d=4 rules is basically that which I have already said in this thread: - the actual average for 1d is 3.5, and 4 is slightly closer to that value than 3 is. On a graph it looks much closer than 3 does -- since of course you can't roll a 0.5 -- and this becomes especially apparent at higher die codes. - it makes skill improvement take longer and cost more. This made sense even in 2nd Edition, when I first started using it, but in this rules variant skills earn their own experience directly. - it adds a bit more nuance to a developing character. - it makes the pips value of a given die code be higher than standard, and these values are sometimes used directly in the game system rather than rolls. I know that it's probably regarded by most as the major change in this rules variant, but I've been using it since the early 90s and it really does work out well, both in play and in character development. Finally, what this variant needs is a name. I had been calling it heXad in its fantasy incarnation, but I see that the naming convention most have used is "something"-6 so I might as well stick with that. I've been calling it Snap6 in the supplement, but that's just a placeholder. I'm open to suggestions. Main differences from stock OpenD6: - 1d=4 - Only 2 action segments per round, but with Abilities that can give players snap-dodges, counter-attacks, or combination attacks - Grittier, bloodier, and less forgiving health and damage -- even Conan the Cimmerian goes down if you nail him with a broadsword - Skill-based XP. Skills can improve simply by using them well, based on the average roll for a given die code
  5. I'd sure like to hear how it turns out. My players and I lean more toward a simulationist/tactical combat style, so I wouldn't use it for any of my existing campaigns. Of course my players have always rolled for their own actions, but I enjoy running NPCs and sometimes you don't want the players to know exactly what the NPCs have rolled. -- like copeab said. Sometimes I don't want players to know the result, and sometimes I may need to fudge results. But it sounds like it could be a lot of fun in a more streamlined, pure-story situation, and MiniSix is the perfect D6 variant to try it with. So let us know how it worked out.
  6. How about D6 Zero for Ghostbusters? That keeps with the numbering convention starting from 1st. Ed. and so forth. I've seen numerous threads about "SW with the serial numbers filed off" but has anyone released a generic rulebook that is just that? WRT to IP issues, couldn't one simply . . . plagiarize verbatim? Minus the IP? If in theory anything non-IP is OpenD6, it would be a lot quicker to release a generic OpenD6 document. You'd still have to credit the original authors. What I'm suggesting is that instead of just agreeing that it's "2nd. Ed." we should have an actual OpenD6 Second Edition manual that can be referenced. If you can just lift and scrub material from the published book it's a matter of days at slacker speed to produce a generic 2nd. Ed. manual.
  7. I have to agree, it's one of the great strengths of OpenD6 that it has such tremendous flexibility to adapt to a given play style or setting without losing any of what makes it D6. Preaching to the choir here obviously -- we've all loved D6 for years. My gripe about "too much flexibility" refers to a tendency, even in strictly defined rulesets, to try to appeal to all flavors of D6 gamer and be inclusive of all the major variations (wound levels/body points being one such example that seems to have multiple options in most releases). I just think that developers should pick one; if GMs want to substitute their own methods they already know how or can find out how from the core books. As for variations themselves, though -- bring it on! I was blown away to see how many projects have been coming down the pipe lately and like any D6 fan I think it's awesome that the system is "back on track" as it were.
  8. I was throwing together a quick guide to my in-house rules variant over the weekend when I stopped to consider, might it not be a good idea to have some sort of versioning system to refer to various incarnations of the core rules? For example, SW 2nd Edition R&E seems to be covered under OpenD6, but it's quite a mouthful to refer to it as "the version of the core rules used in The Star Wars Roleplaying Game: Second Edition Revised & Expanded" whenever you want to mention it. So I wondered if anyone had given thought to some sort of versioning convention, such that those game rules could be referred to more conveniently and without reference to the Star Wars property?
  9. I think that having too much variation in rules has hurt D6 in the past. When newcomers look at a ruleset they want to see a ruleset, not multiple options to choose from. This is not to say that variety is a bad thing, but a given setting should have a hardcore ruleset and stick to it. Deciding among rules variations is something that developers should do before putting pen to paper. When a newcomer cracks open a book and sees a bewildering array of optional rules, it's a turnoff -- this is the big flaw in the "generic" rulesets. As for the topic of the thread itself: I've been toying with this idea for quite some time, of somehow removing the GM entirely -- make every player a player. I haven't come up with a way to pull this off, but it seems to me that it would appeal to the younger generation. After all, video games don't have GMs. Neither do some of the classic games that have made huge comebacks in the new generation, such as Warhammer. In play it could be as simple as having the last player who acted be the "temporary GM" for the player who acts after him. Obviously somebody still has to come up with plot elements, npcs, etc, but many of these could be stand-alone elements that are implemented or not implemented at will. Does anyone know of an RPG that tries to eliminate or minimize the role of GM, so that everyone is a player?
  10. The value in parenthesis is the pips value at 1d=4 for the given die code. It's there in those instances because in some cases it gets used outright or is more convenient than a die code. At 1d=4, 1d+3 = 7 in pips value. 4 for 1d plus 3. Abilities are like Feats in d20. The Armor ability just reduces Agility penalties for wearing armor, and gives bonuses to maintaining it. All armor has an armor rating which is subtracted from the pips value in parenthesis for determining Agility penalties. In brief you'd use the die code to roll with and the pips value for a modifier in the instances where either came into play. You probably noticed that the Strength code is somewhat lower than usual, and this is a combat-oriented character. When you see the full ruleset it will make sense - just imagine this guy wielding a longsword that does +3d slashing damage. Strength is half of fitness plus 1d. Psyche is derived from Awareness and is the basis of the magic system, also used in lieu of Willpower for non-magic characters. Of the two movement values one is the basic movement and the other is max speed. As for the HP I devised this before I knew about D6 but I imagine it is quite similar, as it almost has to be. It basically follows the same wound effects as SW 2nd ed. but it's on a sliding scale depending on max HP. These rules developed over many years and accompany a fully fleshed out fantasy world, and I do intend to make both available under OpenD6. As of now it's all in wiki format, but it's more GM notations than something publishable. I'd like to port it to a more convenient pdf before releasing it, and it could be awhile. There are also distinctively different melee rules which I feel are particularily suited for fantasy. I can answer specific questions but until I release the full ruleset I think I will avoid using it for OpenD6 submissions. When I initially implemented the scales system in SW characters were 2, but they're 4 in the fantasy system for various reasons.
  11. You probably weren't wondering how the scales system works, that I devised way back in 92 or early 93 -- but I'll tell you anyway. The way that SW 2nd Edition crammed all ships larger than small freighters into one all-encompasing Capital scale led to some wonky outcomes and ridiculous die codes. After one of my players took out three Corellian Gunships with a slightly modified Z-95, without taking a single hit, I knew it had to change. Each scale is a number. Characters were scale 2, starfighters were scale 4, an Imperial Star Destroyer was like scale 12 or something. What you did was subtract the difference between the two scales from 6, to obtain a die cap. So if a starfighter was shooting at a character, 4 -2 is 2, the die cap would be 4. I immediately noticed that with that system a large capital ship would be unable to hit a starfighter at all, so I gave weapons their own scale ratings, and usually they had a range of settings they could be set to. So an antistarfighter capital ship would be able to dial its cannons down to scale 5, for example, even if the ship itself was scale 9. I notice WEG did the same thing when they revamped the scale rules in D6. The last step was to ditch all the ridiculously high or low die codes that came about from the scale system, and replace them with standardized die codes. I still have a printout in a box somewhere that has the amended stats for every extant ship as of the Zahn era, if anyone has any interest.
  12. Oh, cool. I was never really into the miniatures, but I did try Miniatures Battles on several occasions with cutout tokens, and had a blast. Because it's D6 compatible it's very easy to plug in units from your campaign and get a battle going. I'm glad to hear it's under OpenD6.
  13. Oh, cool. Looks like a fast and easy way to avoid the hassle of large scale tactical simulation. I was trying a squad-based approach that still wound up being time and paper consuming.
  14. Full-on simulating something you don't normally want to be doing in a game, but the framework still has to be there for when you need it. Obviously rolling for each individual unit is out of the question, so you have to use some form of combined actions -- such as rolling for each squad. How do you do it? The combined actions rules for SW weren't really designed for large scale battle simulation -- it was more for splitting fire with capital ships, coordinating repair efforts, and things of that nature. I've been playing with various tactical simulations and trying to hammer out a streamlined way to pull this off, and I'm curious to know what you have done in your own games to handle that. It's just not something you would want to do in a game, but if you did . . .
  15. Star Warriors does not utilize the D6 System so would obviously not be covered. Miniatures Battles is somewhat borderline, as it is D6 compatible. However, it is a tabletop wargame, not an RPG, and regardless of compatibility it is quite distinct from the D6 system. I would suspect that it is not covered.
×
×
  • Create New...