Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081232That's curious. And... how many combats have you run in either system before making this assessment if I may ask? If your answer isn't at least in the double-digits for both, you've just disqualified yourself.

However, if the answer is 10+ for each, please share your experiences so far.

Are you asking me about the WEG d6 system? I ran d6 Star Wars for a couple years in the late 1980s, a few dozen combats.

What I recall was that it did a good job in getting players to feel like they were the protagonists in a Star Wars film. The Force Points were overpowered if their use was min-maxed (a group all spent FPs at once and wiped out a Stormtrooper platoon in one round, more Rogue One than episode IV), but it worked very well overall in genre emulation.

And now please share your play experience with the thing you claimed only looks like cinematic combat but doesn't feel like it. And which should be more like d6 Star Wars. In some hitherto unspecified way.

Quote from: S'mon;1081229You are trying to simulate something that sort-of 'looks like' cinematic combat, but you are not trying to get the 'feel' of cinematic combat from the player POV. If you were doing that you'd be going for something like the WEG d6 System as used in d6 Star Wars.

To my mind the problem in emulating the outcome of the sort of cinematic combat that Alexander prefers is not that every character* in range is allowed an attack roll. The problem is how he sees the attack roll, i.e. in his interpretation of what an attack roll means.

I don't have the problem he has because in my mind rolling to attack and succeeding with the attack roll means that the attacker had an opportunity to attack. Succeeding with an attack roll means that attacker had an opportunity to attack and succeeded in connecting.**

If one cares why an attacker was unable to connect (i.e. what a missed roll means), there is a simpler way to mechanically determine whether the attack failed due to lack of opportunity (due to hesitation or position) vs. lack of connecting given an opportunity. And that method doesn't introduce a second failure point for players. And sometimes explaining a failure of an attack roll as "the move and flow of combat didn't allow you to get a clear shot at the defender" may actually make the player feel better about a missed die roll.

Quote from: S'mon;1081242Are you asking me about the WEG d6 system? I ran d6 Star Wars for a couple years in the late 1980s, a few dozen combats.

I concur with your experience that D6 Star Wars emulates the feel of being a character in a setting like the original Star Wars trilogy. And I've played and GMed WEG D6 Star Wars for over ten years and over one hundred combats.


* Here "every character" means every character who might reasonably get in range during a 5-6 second round. If twenty or thirty people attack one or two, not all of the attackers will get to make an attack roll and reasonable GMs and players don't allow all of the attackers to get a roll.

** In systems where armor blocks damage (e.g. Runequest, GURPS, Barbarians of Lemuria) a successful roll to hit may not penetrate armor and thus does no damage. In systems with increasing hit points like D&D a successful attack may not do damage but may cause fatigue, use up luck, create minor nicks and scrapes or whatever the players think "damage" means in that system.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081311And now please share your play experience with the thing you claimed only looks like cinematic combat but doesn't feel like it. And which should be more like d6 Star Wars. In some hitherto unspecified way.

I'm putting you on Ignore now.

Quote from: S'mon;1081332I'm putting you on Ignore now.

As you wish. But let me just wrap this up by briefly pointing out that there is a name for when you judge before ever having tried ; it's called bias.

Quote from: Bren;1081312If one cares why an attacker was unable to connect (i.e. what a missed roll means), there is a simpler way to mechanically determine whether the attack failed due to lack of opportunity (due to hesitation or position) vs. lack of connecting given an opportunity. And that method doesn't introduce a second failure point for players. And sometimes explaining a failure of an attack roll as "the move and flow of combat didn't allow you to get a clear shot at the defender" may actually make the player feel better about a missed die roll.

So I have to come clean first that I need to move goalposts here. Previously in this thread I was talking about generating additional information through dice-rolling. However, on second thought that is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. The information needs to be given mechanical weight as well. Here's why:

Suppose we take up the earlier suggestion that on odd attack roll results, you didn't get to launch the attack and on even results you did launch it but you didn't connect. This is bound to get ignored by gamers. Similarly in D&D, you CAN use the AC modifiers from armor and Dexterity to determine whether an attack was dodged or rather deflected by armor. I have seen nothing so far to indicate that this available information sees widespread(!) use in the narration of combat. Most GMs can't be bothered to do the math on each attack roll. Certainly none of my d20 GMs ever did. And I don't think Mercer does routinely either.

Gamers can afford to ignore such information because it is of no consequence to the fight. And gamers being lazy they do just that.

Instead, your game rules need to underscore that this is not something to be glossed over or else you're ending up with the same narration and combat dynamics as before.

Alexander the more I read, the more it looks like you are trying to solve people problems with new rules mechanics. In my somewhat considerable experience that seldom works out well. But best of luck anyway.

Thanks. Well, what can I say? If I look at the story of Luke Crane or Vincent Baker in "Designers & Dragons" - they were unhappy with how existing games worked and so they designed games that fixed what they saw as lacking in other games. Of course for each of them, there are countless other designers who did the same and whose ideas did not resonate enough with others. There's no telling in advance what will work; I would have never thought myself that a game more or less without circumstantial modifiers (Apocalypse World) would find as many interested gamers as it did. In hindsight, it makes sense though.

I appreciate your input, I hope I was able to convey that I've been considering all your suggestions so far. It's of course a little more difficult for you to give helpful suggestions if you don't feel bothered the same way I do by existing games.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081369As you wish. But let me just wrap this up by briefly pointing out that there is a name for when you judge before ever having tried ; it's called bias.

I've run probably conservatively 75-100 combats in d6 WeG Star Wars. *Easily*. And I agree with S'mon it does a very good job of letting players feel like it's Star Wars cinematic combat. My eyebrow raises a bit when you say this...

Quote from: Alexander KalinowskAnd now please share your play experience with the thing you claimed only looks like cinematic combat but doesn't feel like it. And which should be more like d6 Star Wars. In some hitherto unspecified way.

We are players and developers of RPG's in this forum... I don't think it's a stretch to ask you what *you* mean by by "looking" and "feeling". Because in all the decades I've been doing this, never once has throwing dice and describing what I and my players were doing has *ever* LOOKED like anything other than a bunch of people sitting around a room rolling dice and playing game. How it *feels* is precisely what I suspect the one-hundred+ years of gaming experience, professional/amateur game design and publishing experience, have been relaying to you for 18-pages worth of posts in good faith - have been trying to convey to you.

I'd never speak for others here - but I don't run games for the appearances of things. I don't write or design for the *appearance* of anything. I write for what works towards my intentions. And for it to be successful - it HAS to be fun. It has to make my players have a good time. Hopefully with my design elements producing the desired results.

You're claim of bias is one made against something so blatantly obvious it didn't need to be said. No one is questioning that *anyone* has bias. We're merely discussing what is proving to be an admittedly goal-post changing target on a topic I'm not sure you quite understand your own needs vs. what we're answering to you. To dismiss those opinions in this manner is to undermine your entire intent.

1. I have not said a single thing about d6 Star Wars.
2. Invocation of authority only reveals that one's argument cannot stand on its own.
3. I have no interest in debating this particular issue, given S'mon's absence from the conversation, other than repeating my position very clearly and unequivocally: anybody who makes a comparison between thing A and thing B without knowing thing B and claims in the same breath that thing B doesn't feel like the real thing (in this case: cinematic combat) is automatically disqualifying himself from being a good faith actor.

I have to say, this is a very unpleasant turn of events.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;10812321. I have not said a single thing about d6 Star Wars.

No one is accusing you of saying anything about d6 Star Wars. You made a proclamation based on someone using Star Wars d6 as an *example* to your very claim -

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081232That's curious. And... how many combats have you run in either system before making this assessment if I may ask? If your answer isn't at least in the double-digits for both, you've just disqualified yourself.

However, if the answer is 10+ for each, please share your experiences so far.

to which you made the authoritative claims about the requirements to even *answer* your apparently rhetorical question. The conclusion must be therefore, that you're not really interested in *any* answer to your actual question. Because *I* happen to fit the very requirements YOU outlined. And I answered them. Now you say this little gem...

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;10812322. Invocation of authority only reveals that one's argument cannot stand on its own.

Which is directly in relation to YOUR own criteria. Once again you move the goal-post. Because I HAVE run these systems for over a decade. TWO decades to be precise. And I've run many many combats. You're *asking* for us to prove YOUR requirements in order to merely speak to your own questions and claims. Who is the one being dishonest here?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;10812323. I have no interest in debating this particular issue, given S'mon's absence from the conversation, other than repeating my position very clearly and unequivocally: anybody who makes a comparison between thing A and thing B without knowing thing B and claims in the same breath that thing B doesn't feel like the real thing (in this case: cinematic combat) is automatically disqualifying himself from being a good faith actor.

Well it's a good thing - because *I* am the one making the claim, now, that you're not *discussing* in good faith. I've been involved in the coversation and everytime I or anyone else responds, you are the one that changes the criteria of the discussion then *you* start making assumptions about us that are flat out untrue, or you're not speaking in good faith on these goals. Which is it? Nevermind - I don't think it matters.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081232I have to say, this is a very unpleasant turn of events.

I don't think you really care.

All you had to say was "Okay guys, thanks for the input."

And we'd all have dropped the subject.

I feel I have to requote the relevant passage, the origin of contention which you seem to be missing out on, in the name of clarity here:

Quote from: S'mon;1081229You are trying to simulate something that sort-of 'looks like' cinematic combat, but you are not trying to get the 'feel' of cinematic combat from the player POV. If you were doing that you'd be going for something like the WEG d6 System as used in d6 Star Wars.

Some "requirements" of mine have nothing to do with it other than my requirement that if someone compares two things and is being dismissive of one of those two things, then that person should at least have some personal experience with the thing they're being dismissive of. Actually, they should have sufficient familiarity with both objects (in this case the two things being the approach I am pursuing and d6 Star Wars). Something like 10+ combats run prior in both systems would have been nice, for starters, especially when it concerns something like the feeling of a system - which comes down to experiencing it in actual play.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081676Some "requirements" of mine have nothing to do with it other than my requirement that if someone compares two things and is being dismissive of one of those two things, then that person should at least have some personal experience with the thing they're being dismissive of. Actually, they should have sufficient familiarity with both objects (in this case the two things being the approach I am pursuing and d6 Star Wars). Something like 10+ combats run prior in both systems would have been nice, for starters, especially when it concerns something like the feeling of a system - which comes down to experiencing it in actual play.

I responded to your quote. It changes *nothing* about your position, correct? So you have some unstated criteria. And that seems to be the direction this "discussion" has gone for many pages. That S'mon doesn't rise to your "level of qualification" - for whatever reason, and as totally arbitrary as it is, *I* do actually qualify. And I agree with him. Which changes nothing for you. So now what? Maybe S'mon is 20-times smarter than me, and he grasped the value of d6 Star Wars in less time. The fact we both have the same basic ideas of the system seems to be of no value. Which is odd logic.

So if the "approach of what you're pursuing" is not being well communicated by you - to us, when we're tossing out systems that do the things we *think* you're trying to convey, based solely on your attempts at explaining them - which in my opinion seems to change every time we try to address it, then you "disqualify" people trying to talk in good faith... it's pretty clear that you're either not conveying what you really want. Or you don't quite know yourself. Maybe there is no real solution to your "problem".

Quote from: tenbones;1081705I responded to your quote. It changes *nothing* about your position, correct? So you have some unstated criteria. And that seems to be the direction this "discussion" has gone for many pages. That S'mon doesn't rise to your "level of qualification" - for whatever reason, and as totally arbitrary as it is, *I* do actually qualify. And I agree with him. Which changes nothing for you. So now what? Maybe S'mon is 20-times smarter than me, and he grasped the value of d6 Star Wars in less time. The fact we both have the same basic ideas of the system seems to be of no value. Which is odd logic.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your familiarity of d6 Star Wars. It seems to indicate that you continue to not understand the nature of the contention.

Let me reiterate it for you one more time:
S'mon indirectly compared my approach, which he has clearly never played, with what d6 Star Wars has been doing and claimed that, unlike d6 Star Wars, my approach may look like cinematic combat but doesn't feel like it. But to make this claim, he'd need some familiarity with both my approach and d6 Star Wars via actual play. I have never had any doubts about his nor your experience with d6 Star Wars. That's not the issue and hasn't been.

I doubt that S'mon (or you for that matter) have any idea of what I am proposing here feels(!) like in actual play. Thus there was no basis for him to make that claim, thus he's been putting himself as a good faith actor in doubt. Plus he couldn't even be bothered to elaborate why my approach doesn't "feel" like cinematic nor what d6 Star Wars does right in comparison. It was just a cheap shot.

Hope this helps. This conversation has become tiresome.