Erm... Hello.

[Scratchware]

Okay, great, D6 has more attributes. Why is this good? Why is this arrangement inherently better than, say, the following system:

Cool: The ability for the character to remain calm, and to do suave social things.
Luck: The character's affinity for dumb luck.
Force: The character's affinity for nifty Force tricks.
Lore: Knowledge. Book learning. Technical know-how.

If I am not mistaken, in the D20 Star Wars, you are required to roll a Wisdom check for instances like when you are trying to hack/slice a console. Does how wise you are affect this? No, your technical skills determine how well you are able to perform your action in this case.

Is it "realism" that makes this better? Should Star Wars be realistic?

Yes, but to a certain extent. You realise in the movies that Jedi don't fly. I believe (correct me if I am wrong), that in and of itself is an aspect of realism. They can jump. Need I say more?

Um, okay. How are templates better than classes? What's wrong with classes? For that matter, aren't templates just classes under a different name?

No, they are extremely different. You see, in D&D, a lot of things are based on what class your character is (HP for example). Does a fighter have the ability to take more hits from a weapon than a mage? I think not! Your template type is what you are. It determines what your initial equipment is and what knowledge you have about the surrounding universe.

[Ian O'Rourke]

No, they are extremely different. You see, in D&D, a lot of things are based on what class your character is (HP for example). Does a fighter have the ability to take more hits from a weapon than a mage? I think not! Your template type is what you are. It determines what your initial equipment is and what knowledge you have about the surrounding universe.

Class and Classless games, as someone has already pointed out, seem to engender a 'for' and 'against' attitude. This is obviously wrong, like with most tools they have their benefits and their problems. You do realise that Star Wars D6 has numerous problems because it does not use classes? Such as all characters ending up being the same, and the GM having to control character power inflation himself? Not saying that is bad, but you have to recognise the permutations, and more importantly, the reasoning behind why a game is designed a certain way.

Your comment above may be indicates you are not doing this. As an example, before you can really constructively discuss classes, and say HP, you have to understand why they are in the game, what they are meant to achieve and then rate whether they succeed at those goals. Nothing else is important. If you were discussing a horror film, which was meant to be claustrophobic and scary – you'd be silly to rate it crap because it was not funny enough. It was not supposed to be funny.

As an example, D&D is very much about resource management, and really heroic characters. So your comment above about realism (the mage/fighter issue) is actually irrelevant in many ways. So, from one perspective HP is a resource that a character has to manage in a similar ways to his spells, etc. From the other view, and the one I favour, HP allows for characters to be kick-ass heroic, which is the point of the game. In D&D a character can survive a combat with a Dragon – you have very few ways to do this other than with HP systems. With respect to the fighter/mage issues what you have to realise is not all damage is equal in D&D. If a character suffers 20 damage, that might be a scrape for a fighter or a serious wound for a mage – look at the 20 damage as a percentage of his total HP. A fighter might see the 20 damage as a 6th of his hit points while a mage might see it as half.

[Andrew Martin]

You do realise that Star Wars D6 has numerous problems because it does not use classes? Such as all characters ending up being the same, and the GM having to control character power inflation himself?

The problem of characters ending up being the same in Star Wars D6 is because the game system of Star Wars rewards players for improving characters to the point where all characters end up being the same. This happens, not because it doesn't use classes, but because skill and attribute increases simply cost more, the more they are improved. This ever increasing cost then "forces" players to improve their characters in other ways and other areas. A suitable fix for this problem is simply linear improvement, where each skill improvement costs the same as the previous and the next improvement.

The next best improvement is to start with competent characters and have no "advancement" in terms of skill points and so on.

As an example, D&D is very much about resource management, and really heroic characters.

Resource management? Yes. Really Heroic characters? No! I've found that players and their characters become more heroic in other game systems that reward heroism. D&D, at least with the several dozen players I've played with, tends to favour caution and munchkin-like behaviour, where entering a new room or opening a chest becomes a game like, "No, you go first!"

So your comment above about realism (the mage/fighter issue) is actually irrelevant in many ways.
...
If a character suffers 20 damage, that might be a scrape for a fighter or a serious wound for a mage – look at the 20 damage as a percentage of his total HP. A fighter might see the 20 damage as a 6th of his hit points while a mage might see it as half.

It's plain to me that Scratchware is concerned about believability. D&D seems to have "snapped the reality suspenders too much" of Scratchware. I point to things like poison needle traps (save or die), basilisk stare (save or turn to stone), poison daggers (save or die), snake and spider attacks, and numerous poison or glance related attacks, where an attack is literally one attack that actually hits the character in the game. Hit Points (HP) are literally mystical ablative armour, that is miraculously restored by priestly invocations (cure ____ wounds). Trying the approach of redefining damage doesn't work. I've tried it, other players and GMs have tried it and it doesn't fit the rest of the D&D system in any form.

The Star Wars system, at the moment, fills more of the believability holes than D&D does for Scratchware.

[Ian O'Rourke]

Okay I'm backing out of this debate - the 'which system is better debate' - is not a function of the Forge - this is what numerous people on this thread missing, and it's what I and numerous others have tried to change.

The Forge is about discussing systems, styles, role-playing dynamics and how all of them interact. It is not about people complaining D&D is not realistic - it ain't supposed to be - that is my point. It's not about how good D6 is.

It's about how these systems promote a certain style of play, what elements a system brings to the table - how it influences the overall dynamic.

And this can only be done from within the context of what the system is meant to achieve.

If you've never seen D6 twinked then your seriously deluded. Your comments about D&D twinking again show your ignorance about the Forge's ethos. Every game can be twinked, especially those following a gamist principle and to some extent a simulation perspective (as I believe D6 would be categorized). It can be harder in narrativist games sometimes as they often give you less to twink - but it can be done.

We have to side above the D6 good, D20 bad argument. It's not the point of the Forge and it also not a good argument. They are just different and they bring different things to the table.

This thread probably should have been cancelled.

[Andrew Martin]

I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, Ian.

I do take some exception to these statements of yours:
> ...your seriously deluded.
> ...show your ignorance about the Forge's ethos.

> 'which system is better debate'

Which system fits the needs of the players better? Isn't that a better goal?

> Every game can be twinked, especially those following a gamist principle and to some extent a simulation perspective (as I believe D6 would be categorized). It can be harder in narrativist games sometimes as they often give you less to twink - but it can be done.

I prefer to design game systems that when twinked create the same behaviour in a munchkin or rules lawyer as they would in a role player. Basically creating a coherent system that rewards desirable behaviour. I've got a long way to go yet in my designs, I feel.

> We have to side above the D6 good, D20 bad argument.

I try not to make the mistakes in D&D and Star Wars, in rewarding undesirable behaviour (caution and paranoia) or behaviour that is incompatible with the rest of the system (injury, HP and cure light wounds), or creating behaviour that doesn't match the source material (Star Wars movies).

[Ian O'Rourke]

Ahhh, forget it, you caught me at a bad moment. I thought I'd learn to calm down before posting (even though it was not so much your post that annoyed me) but we are open to lapses in policy.

Let's forget it. Nothing to see. Move on :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think Scratchware has made his case very clear regarding why he prefers D6 over AD&D, and I think Andrew has paraphrased it well. (Ian, obviously, this is a bad hair day for you. Thanks for recognizing this.)

Scratch, I want to tell you how much I appreciate you sticking with us! Clearly the Forge is a weird place, and at any moment someone suddenly descend into the conversation with a ton of bricks.

You probably won't be surprised that Star Wars, first edition, gained a huge number of fans and active players, the moment it was published in the late 80s - it was due to all the things you're mentioning.

So here's my question for you: Have you encountered, during play, any use of the rules for the Light/Dark sides of the Force? How have those rules affected any decisions you've made for your character?

Best,
Ron

P.S. Andrew, Star Wars predates Vampire, et al.,  by a wide margin, but you knew that, right? I think we might be stumbling over definitions of "dice pool." That term refers to using a number of dice as indicated by a number of some kind. One guy rolls four dice to nail the other guy, the other guy's rolling seven. That's a dice pool. Target numbers or not, other modifiers or not, etc, are all secondary. It's distinct from previous systems because in those, target numbers varied widely but the number of dice rolled was fixed for any character, any time.

[Eric J.]

Charly, since you seem unreluctant to post my name, I'm posting yours. Anyway, this conversation is NOT about D20 vs. D6 (That would be boring as D6 is far superior), but is about aspects of the two systems to incorperate. And, guys, give Scratchware (*ARGG* now how do we talk about Scratchware?) a break.  He's my friend and he's unable to drive without an adult in the car. Anyway, because this is the ACTUAL PLAY part, I will continue with tales of my journeys.

My favorite aspect is how skills match the characters' personalities. You can make a character as versitle or as specialised as you want. The combat system could be improved, but I can stand it long enough to get to the starship battles.

[Eric J.]

Uhh.  I ask you to move your conversation of the origins of the dice pool to another thread. This is because it is strictly off topic, has been continued, and most importantly becuause I don't care. Star Wars WEG was made after I was born (I think), but I wasn't old enough to appreciate it.

[Ron Edwards]

Good point, Pyron. The dice pool thing is getting split and moved, to RPG Theory.

We'll continue here with D6 Star Wars and other elements of Scratchware's play experiences.

Best,
Ron