Topic: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
Started by: Incendiary
Started on: 6/29/2006
Board: First Thoughts
On 6/29/2006 at 3:02pm, Incendiary wrote:
D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
Firstly: hi everyone. I am a lapsed RPGer (MERP, WFRP, Paranoia) who has been guided here when I presented some RPGing friends of mine with some random material I was trying to develop into a children's TV show. It wasn't working, and it was pointed out to me that I was subconsciously developing an RPG setting, perhaps showing a deep-seated need to return to the hobby :) Anyway, I'm running with that idea and will see how far it gets me... the tone, though not the theme, is Saturday morning adventure serial style. Swashbuckling may be encountered. I don't do angst. :)
I want to keep things simple, dice and book-keeping-wise. So I'm looking at using D6s. I'm not worried about physical Attributes, as they seem to function mainly as something to derive abilities and skills from rather than be useful in their own right...
So: a character will have various skills, rated from 1 through 5. The player will have to roll equal to or less than his skill rating on a D6 to succeed at something.
On a success, I want the GM and the player to agree on a suitable outcome. If a player rolls a 1, the GM sits back and allows the player relatively free reign in describing their "critical success". Conversely a player rolling a 6 hands his posterior to the GM on a silver platter for the duration of that round.
GM and players are encouraged to bear the story in mind. A critical failure might not mean terrible things happening to the character, unless he's in a blatantly high-risk or otherwise dramatically appropriate situation (a critical failure when sweet-talking a minor character will be less embarrassing and consequential than one sweet-talking a major character, even though the chance of it happening was the same). Critical successes should also be described with care and consideration; in a fight, a roll of 1 against minor villains would incapacitate them, but against a major villainous character who the GM has probably written a really nifty death scene for, it might only serve to disarm him or seperate him from something important.
Hrm, I think this makes me a Narrativist :) I'm aware that D6 systems aren't widely used in RPGs so I wondered if there was any wisdom about not using them. Does a 1 in 6 chance of critical failure dishearten players over their relative lack of control? Does the above-detailed GM and player agreement on the outcome offset this problem somewhat?
Second point: background. Even as a regular player, I found pre-gen backstories imposing. How did I know what a character was like before I'd even been him for a few hours? So, my putative RPG allows players to craft a character through play. At the moment all they start with is a one-word Motivation 'attribute' - something like Explore, Escape, Experience, Enumerate, Understand - just a seed of a reason why their character is off adventuring rather than putting their feet up and keeping out of trouble. After a session or two, player will have gathered a few ideas about why their character is out and about and what inspires them. That's the plan, anyway.
So, I ask the Forge community:
1) Can I just ditch Attributes as discrete stats in their own right and go for Skills?
2) Are D6 systems workable/fair/fun, probability-wise? Or do people prefer the range of statistical possibilities higher sided dice give them?
3) And is one word enough to start roleplaying?
I'm confident it's possible to answer Yes to all these questions, or I wouldn't be here, but I'd like some counter opinions and/or support.
P.S. I used to play Vampire: Dark Ages in the late 90s, the last time I gamed regularly, and we stripped down the rules to a similar one-d10, roll-under-number-of-dots mechanic. We also made up our characters as we went. That's the most fun I've ever had in a non-humorous RPG, so I'm keen to build on that here.
On 6/29/2006 at 3:14pm, jasonm wrote:
Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
Incendiary wrote:
1) Can I just ditch Attributes as discrete stats in their own right and go for Skills?
2) Are D6 systems workable/fair/fun, probability-wise? Or do people prefer the range of statistical possibilities higher sided dice give them?
3) And is one word enough to start roleplaying?
Hi Incendiary, and welcome to the Forge. Do you have a real name we can use?
As you predicted, I'm going to answer each of your questions with a resounding "yes"! If you've been away from the hobby for a while, I'd strongly encourage you to get out and play some games that embody the principles you are interested in. Games like Breaking the Ice and Polaris don't have stats or skills, but rather descriptors that both reveal player choices and drive play. Burning Wheel uses six-sided dice exclusively and is workable, fair, and fun. I'm sure somebody can shout out a game that begins with single-descriptor characters. The point is that these really aren't the right questions - if these things work for your design and your goals, then they are the correct choices. I hope that makes sense.
On 6/29/2006 at 3:41pm, Incendiary wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
Jason wrote:Incendiary wrote:
1) Can I just ditch Attributes as discrete stats in their own right and go for Skills?
2) Are D6 systems workable/fair/fun, probability-wise? Or do people prefer the range of statistical possibilities higher sided dice give them?
3) And is one word enough to start roleplaying?
Hi Incendiary, and welcome to the Forge. Do you have a real name we can use?
Sure, my real name is Dan :) Hi Jason, and thanks for the speedy reply.
As you predicted, I'm going to answer each of your questions with a resounding "yes"! If you've been away from the hobby for a while, I'd strongly encourage you to get out and play some games that embody the principles you are interested in...
Thanks for the recommendations. I'll have a look and maybe run a game or two with my old RPGing friends, who like the same kind of game principles as I do.
The point is that these really aren't the right questions - if these things work for your design and your goals, then they are the correct choices. I hope that makes sense.
Indeed. I see where you're coming from, of course there's no 'right' way to design a game. I was a little concerned that the D6 system would limit the flexibility and fun, but with the sort of game I have in mind, it's how you interpret the result that counts.
Cheers,
Dan
On 6/29/2006 at 3:52pm, jasonm wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
Rock on, Dan. There are a ton of cool games that will bend your mind in new ways that have emerged in the last five years. Go find some, read them, play them, and pick their bones for your own project! For some low-risk exploration, try the Game Chef competition - the winners and runners-up are always interesting, fun, and free.
On 6/29/2006 at 9:10pm, joepub wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
GM and players are encouraged to bear the story in mind. A critical failure might not mean terrible things happening to the character, unless he's in a blatantly high-risk or otherwise dramatically appropriate situation
Dan, this is the coolest part of your post, to me.
I think that you should have the rules deal VERY explicitly with this.
I don't mean that the game text should have a suggestion of this...
I mean the actual game mechanics should deal with this.
There are a lot of ways to do that, and it gets back to Jason's post about "getting out there and reading some new stuff".
Also...
You are talking about saturday morning cartoons... Do you have examples of shows that you see as being represented by this game?
Better yet - individual episodes you are using as inspiration?
On 6/30/2006 at 11:45am, Incendiary wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
First up - Jason, thanks for the support! Looking at all the RPG development I've missed has been highly enlightening. Good to know my feelings on drama vs die rolls are shared by some other players / writers, too. I'll try a couple of those free systems out and see what I like.
joepub wrote:GM and players are encouraged to bear the story in mind. A critical failure might not mean terrible things happening to the character, unless he's in a blatantly high-risk or otherwise dramatically appropriate situation
Dan, this is the coolest part of your post, to me.
I think that you should have the rules deal VERY explicitly with this.
I don't mean that the game text should have a suggestion of this...
I mean the actual game mechanics should deal with this.
There are a lot of ways to do that, and it gets back to Jason's post about "getting out there and reading some new stuff".
Hi Joe, thanks for replying. Interesting... it would have to be fairly quick to resolve. Might help gamers and GMs keep perspective, though. Maybe a Drama rating (set by the GM) for each scene would affect how critical successes / failures can be interpreted (some sort of look-up table, if we're talking about hard-coding it into the rules). e.g.
Drama rating 1: A busy market. An attack by an unimportant villain.
- Critical success here means you find some dropped money, or incapacitate your opponent in one smooth action.
- Critical failure here means you have your pocket picked, or the villain knocks you out and takes something shiny off you.
Drama rating 5: A plot twist. A courtroom. The PCs unexpectedly corner the Major Villain before the GM planned on them doing so.
- Critical success here means you gain vital information, you have a sympathetic jury, or are able to injure or otherwise disadvantage the Major Villain. Can't kill him, though, no matter how many 1s you roll.
- Critical failure here means you are left in the dark, you are charged with a crime, or the villain knocks you down and gets to delay your plans or speed up his own. Maybe he kidnaps you and takes you to his secret base / balloon / castle / wherever.
Drama rating 10: A cliffhanger or a final confrontation with the Major Villain.
- Critical success here means you strike a powerful blow against the foe. You might need more than 1 critical to 'beat' (maybe kill, maybe capture, maybe deprive of power) them though, depending on the needs of the story.
- Critical failure here leaves a character seriously injured and in danger! Not an instant kill - Major Villains like to do a bit of gloating first.
So the Drama rating would provide, well, context to the mathematical results of task resolution. I still like the idea of player and GM agreeing on a suitably appropriate outcome, but rules like this could provide boundaries and spark people's imagination.
Or, more mechanically, a Drama rating could be added/subtracted from target numbers. Less narrative, but faster, perhaps.
I'll have a poke round and see what other designers have done!
Also...
You are talking about saturday morning cartoons... Do you have examples of shows that you see as being represented by this game?
There are lots of influences hurtling round in my head - I expect they'll settle over the next few weeks, as I pare them down rather than trying to cram everything in. And this will inform the rule writing, and vice versa. I do have an actual setting in my head (which I'll explain another time!), but I'd like these rules to be good for any swashbuckling / Exciting Adventure serial type scenario. Current influences include: from film, Indiana Jones, The Crimson Pirate, The Princess Bride; from TV, Battle of the Planets, old Flash Gordon, Quatermass, Star Fleet, Mysterious Cities of Gold, Thunderbirds; and from print, Commando comics, Famous Five novels, Moomins books...
Moomins? Famous Five? For me, half the appeal of the Saturday serial "genre" is the sense of awe and wonder... I know that smugglers and pirates in real life are pretty dangerous people. And secret passages are normally locked and barred by the Health and Safety department of the government, because they present a non-risk-assessed danger level to taxpayers. So, I want this game to allow glorious fun adventures, of excitement and intrigue and capturing the thrill that comes when you're six years old and exploring an overgrown old garden, or the mind-ripping awe when you look up at night and regard the infinite awesomeness of space...
Relax, people, you may also get to hit a guy and swing on chandeliers and that. :-D
- Dan
P.S. (scrolls up) I aim for brevity in my posts. And always miss...
On 7/1/2006 at 1:55am, joepub wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
One more response, then I'll give you some time for reading new stuff! (lol)
Maybe a Drama rating (set by the GM)
Frankly, I don't like this idea/solution, for this game.
First of all, I don't like the "set by the GM" part.
Part of the cool-ness of the game is that players are involved. ACTION! SUSPENSE!... you don't want to remove involvement, by having the GM set a drama for the scene.
If you include a Drama Rating/Level, have the player set it.
Or, more mechanically, a Drama rating could be added/subtracted from target numbers. Less narrative, but faster, perhaps.
Instead of that direction, might I suggest:
-Have some kind of Story Arc structure. So that the players say "I'm going to bid X many Drama Points to advance the plot to Climax." maybe... or "Okay, now that we've concluded that chapter, we move onto Chapter Three: Rising Tension."
- Have either luck or drama points, which can be gained and spent during tests.
-Check out Carry (game about Vietnam), and the way that you can respond to a conflict through four venues. (I'll respond with "Violence" this time, in order to have a violent outcome.)
Something like this would allow you to change the way in which success is achieved. (ie, "Well, I roll one of my Grapple dice, meaning that if I win, this is a nonfatal attack, but still one of great impact." "Well... I want to see blood in this combat. So I'm rolling two Weapon dice, meaning if I win, you are severely wounded.") Something along those lines.
On 7/3/2006 at 11:02am, Incendiary wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
Hi again Joe,
thanks for your input. I wasn't satisfied with the Drama rating plan as posted, and thanks to your comments I've realised why - the GM-set Drama level runs counter to the concept of players' involvement in storycraft. Sometimes it takes someone else's perspective to see something simple :)
If you include a Drama Rating/Level, have the player set it.
Makes sense. I'm still looking to have the GM set up the story arc and the plot - there's still going to be someone definitely 'in charge' of the game - but I want a way for the PCs to set the tone of events.
-Have some kind of Story Arc structure. So that the players say "I'm going to bid X many Drama Points to advance the plot to Climax." maybe... or "Okay, now that we've concluded that chapter, we move onto Chapter Three: Rising Tension."
- Have either luck or drama points, which can be gained and spent during tests.
One thing that's been interesting catching up with recent developments in the field, is the dramatic increase in poker/gambling techniques employed in RPGs. I'm not sure I want to explicitly divide the adventure into Chapters but your first suggestion has inspired me...
Players will earn Drama tokens and can play them during any scene. Doing so raises the importance of that scene in their character's story arc. This will allow the players to determine which parts of the plot are important to their own character, rather than have the GM declare it.
Example: Dave's character, Snicket, is surrounded by hoodlums in an alleyway. From the general tone of play established by recent GM/player actions, this is a low drama scene. (I see most damage incurred in fights as being temporary. Beaten characters are just beaten and go away for a bit unless the plot demands they are removed) If, however, he plays a Drama token, it ups the stakes. Losing this fight will mean serious injury or incapacitation for Snicket. Winning will mean greater rewards, possibly a new lead, or new equipment (hey, it's an RPG, are you really not going to search the bodies? ;) ) Additionally, either way the player and GM will see that these events have repurcussions. If he doesn't play a token, this is just a minor brawl / escape.
All the combat resolution rules, die rolls etc. are unchanged - but the context, determined by the player, affects the interpretation - critical successes and failures become just that.
This may sound like a lot of work for the GM, since the capacity to hard-code plotline milestones into the story is removed. But:
1) In my system, he has the support of the players in storycrafting anyway, so he's not alone;
2) This is an RPG; GMs are always prepared for their players to ignore their painstakingly plotted adventure and blunder off chasing some other target. Tweaking an adventure on the fly should be par for the course, really.
When a GM crafts a story to fit a pre-generated group of adventurers, he should have something interesting for each character to do. (In D&D he'll want a fight scene for the barbarian, with opportunities for magic users and bow wielders; there'll be a scene for nicking stuff to satisfy the rogue etc.) This is a lot of work - if the above system works well, some of the burden will actually be removed. Now the players can say which scene is important to their character - and then have a say in the long-term consequences (e.g. a high-Drama fight in a high-technology setting would probably be recorded by security systems, this material will affect how lawmakers deal with the character. In a fantasy setting maybe Lo, his mighty deeds are spake of by the peasantry and his fame doth spread.)
As a player I was a pretty cautious individual, wondering if the GM was planning something nasty and whether I should commit resources to some task or save them for later. With this system in place I could have a say in whether a scene actually Mattered or not.
I like this idea more than having extra dice or extra modifiers, but that's just my gaming style - I really want the basic math to remain unchanged, as I want people to enjoy and advance by telling stories rather than working the system to "win" a round or action.
The GM should have a couple of Drama tokens too, to play in the final scene if his players are uncooperative ;)
Comments and criticisms welcome as always, in particular: should there be more than one class of Drama token, each with different effects (e.g. Action! Suspense! Schmooze! for physical, sneaking and social gambles) My gut feeling is no, as it limits the ability of players to set the tone ("Damn! I want this fight scene to be important, but I'm all out of bits of blue plastic!")
Oh and while I'm here, another possible rule: taking multiple actions in one turn. My proposed rule: you can take as many actions in a turn as you like, go ahead, but it means rolling more dice, and even one six can cost you... mutiple sixes will seriously mess with your character! This is nice and simple. I wouldn't discourage players from doing it, as in a story-led game the players should just go with the flow and not worry about getting their character into trouble. After all, the GM won't do anything really nasty to them unless the story demands it - and they get a big say in that.
- Dan
On 7/3/2006 at 3:25pm, cydmab wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
Incendiary wrote:
2) Are D6 systems workable/fair/fun, probability-wise? Or do people prefer the range of statistical possibilities higher sided dice give them?
Different people have different aesthetic opinions on this one. I don't want you to think every person on earth loves 1d6. I for one think having a 1 in 6 crit success and 1 in 6 crit failure violates my aesthetic sense. This could be because I have a more sim view of the world - it doesn't "feel realistic" TO ME for my badass swordfighter/lockpicker/scientist to botch so often, or my incompetant boob swordfighter/lockpicker/whatever to succeed so often.
OTOH 1 in 6 might work better if you WANT more chaotic occurances of people doing wierdly well or poorly, perhaps because you think that'll lead to cooler stories.
-William
On 7/4/2006 at 7:41am, Incendiary wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
cydmab wrote:
Different people have different aesthetic opinions on this one. I don't want you to think every person on earth loves 1d6. I for one think having a 1 in 6 crit success and 1 in 6 crit failure violates my aesthetic sense. This could be because I have a more sim view of the world - it doesn't "feel realistic" TO ME for my badass swordfighter/lockpicker/scientist to botch so often, or my incompetant boob swordfighter/lockpicker/whatever to succeed so often.
OTOH 1 in 6 might work better if you WANT more chaotic occurances of people doing wierdly well or poorly, perhaps because you think that'll lead to cooler stories.
Hi William,
thanks for your input - this lack of statistical 'range' does concern me a bit, and I think for a lot of games it wouldn't work out - but as you say, it depends on what you want out of your RPGing. In my system, the effects of 1s and 6s are context-sensitive; so a 1 in a low-risk situation would mean very little (perhaps it might even count as a success) - only in a critical, dramatic scene (as noted in previous posts this drama level is determined by players as well as GM) would a 1 cause the player problems. Therefore the range might not be an issue.
When I'm in the playtesting phase I'll run some games with D6 and some with D10 (with skills from 1-9 instead of 1-5), to see which one fits the action best. Given my planned play style, it may not actually matter.
- Dan
On 7/5/2006 at 2:56pm, daMoose_Neo wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
I *may* have to disagree with Joe-
The "Drama" ranking could work, but only as an aid, not as a primary or an "official" item factored in.
On the one hand, its a handy GM aid, to lay out how much influance or weight they want to give the situation. I like that. On the other, the ranking is too telling to the players: "Oh, its just a two, thats not bad. Worst case scenario I stub my toe. Best case scenario I find that someone left a prime-rib steak in the fridge as I'm hunting around for a midnight snack."
This would have to be something hidden from the players, and used as a gauge for the situation, not a deciding factor. If the players have a really really good idea that turns a 5 into a 9, by all means they should be allowed to run with it. If they handle a situation that turns a 6 or 7 into a 1 or a 2, they don't have an interest in that situation and should be allowed to move on with little recourse.
So long as it is flexable and can be used as an aid, I can see it and I like it. If its hard & fast, this is the situation and this is the best and worst that can happen, I hate it. Doing this last option, you might as well start each scene with the options present to the players and make one roll to see which way it goes.
On 7/6/2006 at 6:02pm, Alex Johnson wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
Incendiary wrote:
1) Can I just ditch Attributes as discrete stats in their own right and go for Skills?
2) Are D6 systems workable/fair/fun, probability-wise? Or do people prefer the range of statistical possibilities higher sided dice give them?
3) And is one word enough to start roleplaying?
I'm confident it's possible to answer Yes to all these questions, or I wouldn't be here, but I'd like some counter opinions and/or support.
I'm going to jump in right away since I'm impatient and a slow reader. :-S I may post again once I've read all the replies.
1. Absolutely. I too find Attributes or Ability Scores to be generally unnecessary if you are going into a light, skill-based approach. They generally serve as a) a starting point from which skills improve, or b) a peak of ability that skills cannot exceed. When the range is 1-5 for all skills, there isn't much point in having discrete Ability Scores. You obviously like a simple, and rules-light style of game so I think stripping out this luggage is to your advantage.
2. Most people prefer larger ranges, but it can have a lot to do with what kind of game they are playing. Most mainstream RPGs seem to draw their players from the Gamist crowd, where it is rooting on chance or the probability of the outcome that drives excitement. So having a more complicated and larger range of potential outcomes is in their interest. Many games here, and one or two that I've sketched out privately work on d6 exclusively. There can be a lot of variety and complexity in the approaches used by just that simple cube. The straight roll equal or under on d6 that you are investigating is close to the simplest you could make. But you will find that with many gamers of more diverse experience that the mechanic won't have that big of an impact on interest compared to the way you use it in relating the events. I find your game contract to be interesting: 1 = player relates description of successful outcome, 6 = GM relates description of unsuccessful outcome, 2-5 = player and GM cooperate on description of outcome, ensuring it over-all meets the success/failure result of the roll. Is that a fair description of your idea? Here you've already taken the focus off the simple mechanic and put it into how the outcome is related. That makes the level of detail of the mechanic less of an issue to me, and I believe you'll find others that agree. Most important is if you can try it with someone and you both agree the small die range is not an issue because of the way you tackle the tasks or conflicts you are rolling to resolve.
3. I personally don't think one word is enough. From your examples I couldn't think of even a skeleton of a character or how I'd use that term to influence my choices in game. I'd suggest that if you want single word descriptors, start with three. I can describe a skeleton character with three words pretty well, where-as one word is very vague. I'd also use adjectives rather than verbs. Describing something with verbs is gramatically confused. Take these examples:
* Conan (lusty, superstitious, balsy)
* Mr. Spock (inquisitive, logical, reliable)
* Han Solo (amoral, greedy, loyal)
With one point you are pretty one-dimensional. With two you have a simple skeleton that seems a little artificial, but you can expand on that in game. With three you have a deeper skeleton that describes the character well with little verbiage. Now I described the character, with adjectives. If you prefer to describe the motivation of the character than the character itself, let's see if I can do that with nouns:
* Conan (pleasure, wealth, survival)
* Mr. Spock (information, understanding, duty)
* Han Solo (wealth, comfort, friends%)
% That last one was hard. I wanted to say "welfare of friends" but in one word. The motivation of Solo is not to get friends, but to ensure that they are safe and secure.
On 7/11/2006 at 3:51am, billvolk wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
Incendiary wrote:
1) Can I just ditch Attributes as discrete stats in their own right and go for Skills?
2) Are D6 systems workable/fair/fun, probability-wise? Or do people prefer the range of statistical possibilities higher sided dice give them?
3) And is one word enough to start roleplaying?
I'm confident it's possible to answer Yes to all these questions, or I wouldn't be here, but I'd like some counter opinions and/or support.
1.) I definitely think so, but you should consider all the actions that players will want their characters to be able to do. If skills are too narrow, players will be frustrated by all the things in which they have no skill.
2.) I'm a fan of the six-sided die, as well, but the system you're describing requires a lot of subjective judgement calls. When a PC rolls to do something, the player and the GM may have very different expectations for the results of success and failure, and this could lead to frustration and resentment.
3.) I don't even think that most players start out by roleplaying more than one word anyway. You could even start out with a word that doesn't obviously describe someone's personality and make a character through free-association.
On 7/17/2006 at 2:08pm, Incendiary wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
Hi again all, and cheers for the suggestions and encouragement.
Nate: hiding the Drama rating from players seems like a good idea - with a judicious GM this should allow players to tweak the drama level without being entirely certain they're safe in an apparently low-scoring encounter.
Alex: I agree, the fact that GM and player agree how a roll is resolved, with due respect paid to the story and the situation, means the narrow statistical range of a d6 is less of a big deal. Regarding your three-descriptor character concepts: I see where you're coming from, though I think I'll still allow uncertain players to fill them in as they go (as their character emerges through play). Reckon I'll have a three-adjective 'Who' (or maybe 'What') attribute and a one-noun 'Why' one - and ask players to fill at least one in at the start of the game. So taking your example, Mr Spock would be WHO: Inquisitive, Logical, Reliable; WHY: either Explore or Duty.
Bill: I too foresee some potential pitfalls with GM + player agreeing on task resolution; the people I game with I have known for years, we get on great, we all share certain views of the world... which means we'll generally be able to agree on something, and if somebody is powergaming unneccessarily we can good-naturedly sort it out. This may not be the case for other gaming groups... Ultimately though, I have to design the game that's in my head and just hope the players are up to it :)
Right then. I could stay on this board interminably and throw ideas around, but it's time to knuckle down, get an adventure written and see how everything works as designed thus far. All being well, the next time I post here it'll be to the Actual Play thread when we have something concrete to dissect & chew over (holy mixed metaphors Batman!) I'll still be lurking though, so if anyone has any more insights, post a reply.
Before I bury myself in development, just wanted to say what a friendly and welcoming board this is - your comments, level-headed criticism and support have been much appreciated. What a splendid bunch of chaps. Thanks all.
On 7/19/2006 at 8:19pm, apeiron wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
Haven't read much of this thread yet, sorry, because one idea jumped out at me.
Recall how many of our favorite cartoons had some moral to the story. What if, for each episode (session) there was a moral, that the players must "learn" from the story? Or if the moral is known to the players and they have to make their characters learn it? Maybe the PCs get a bonus when acting on the episodes moral.
On 7/20/2006 at 9:07am, Incendiary wrote:
RE: Re: D6 system, fair / fun for players? Also, background.
apeiron wrote:
Recall how many of our favorite cartoons had some moral to the story. What if, for each episode (session) there was a moral, that the players must "learn" from the story? Or if the moral is known to the players and they have to make their characters learn it? Maybe the PCs get a bonus when acting on the episodes moral.
Those morals used to set my teeth on edge! At first reading I thought your suggestion, though funny, would be a structure too far for the sort of free-flowing style I envision. However, the more I think about it the more I like it, as a neat epilogue to a story and as a nod to the cartoons that inspire me. In fact I'm going to get the players to all turn, face an imaginary TV audience and laugh heartily in unison when the moral is revealed :D
On 7/20/2006 at 12:45pm, apeiron wrote:
And knowing is half the battle!
GI Joooooooooooooooe!
i never spotted Orko once... i think they were lying about him hiding somewhere in the episode.
Glad you like the idea. i suppose it depends on how the players feel about cheesiness. If they dig it, the moral thing will work wonderfully. Or it will make them grate their teeth.
Is this game posted anywhere but here?