The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Star Wars D6 2nd Edition: Revised, Expanded, and Updated
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Tools -> Star Wars D6 2nd Edition: Revised, Expanded, and Updated Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
aegisflashfire
Commander
Commander


Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Location: Cincinnati, OH

PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would you consider having the project be two-fold?

Take the existing rules, and make a 2.5 (or call it whatever)

At the Same time, allow a co-creation of 3.0 with more significant rules changes.

As long as they're seen as joint projects, material could be shared between them (preventing duplication of work) at the same time allowing the two projects to go separate directions as needed.


I understand the nostalgia factor and wanting to change as little as possible, but in order to be something actually NEW (instead of just consolidating what else is out there)
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4796

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

klhaviation wrote:


Well put, I do agree with the statement, and to clarify our mission, we DID originally want to make this book a one stop shop for 2nded R&E. I have stated many times I personally HATE the term 3rd edition, it is loaded and is not really the original goal of the project. I wish 2n ed R&E was called 3rd edition, that way we could call our doc 3rd ed revised and expanded.

That being said, we do stand on a bit of a crossroads. As of today, essentially all of the material is in some kind of text file, roughly edited and ready for more indepth copy editing. We have the best opportunity we have had in years as a community to make this document a "true" third edition.

For reasons stated as a team we are not sure that is the best move for the community as a whole, but we very well may be misreading the situation. Fortunately we have a few weeks before we rewrite the betas. Rest assured we are visiting, and revisiting the idea of making some more significant rule changes.

As a community please let us know what you think.


I think we're all in agreement that there are some areas of the rules that are clunkier than others. However, I know that I would much rather see a "one stop shop" for R&E rules with clarification and a few minor tweaks than to see a revamp of the rules stated above, especially if you think about re-doing the Force system.

You stand a much greater chance of turning fans aside with a complete re-work of even the more broken areas of the rules than with the RAW. I've seen several house rules and fan-proposals (ironically in other 3rd edition or "combined edition" rulebooks), and none of them really catch a lot of traction.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 15834
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

klhaviation wrote:
crmcneill wrote:
crmcneill wrote:
Are you planning on concentrating on the rules, or is there any plan to address the inconsistencies found in the background material?

Reposted, since the question was seemingly lost in the shuffle and never answered...

Sorry it was lost a bit, apologies. The short answer is yes, all galaxy, alien, equipment, creatures, starships, vehicles, and planets are receiving new copy. We are not sure if we will focus on simply the original trilogy, the OT+EU, or the Prequels + OT+ EU.

It has come up previously in other topics that the Imperial Sourcebook in particular has multiple inconsistencies. I know I'd like to see something done about that.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
klhaviation
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 19 Aug 2014
Posts: 154

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Imperial SB is being referenced a bit, but most of the material in in will not be in the final game. Mainly because the info in the book is more source material, not rule related. Second as you mentioned, it us wildly out of date, i believe the scimitar bomber squadron is a prime example.

There will be flavor text (history, tech, item/vehicle description) but we are taking care to make it relevent to the SW Legends cannon as it stands today.

You may have noticed that a lot of the copy in the betas reference the New Republic and Rebellion, and very little of the prequel material. This will be edited for the final documment to include other eras.

We are still a bit on the fence om how much prequel stuff to include. I prefer the days when pre-empire stuff was up to the GM, but with the movies and clone wars series being released, we have to make a call. Personally i like to think of all the pre epIV stuff as optional, but i have a feeling the community would like to see at least a cursery nod to it, so it is likely that you will see a few aliens, creatures and ships from prior to ep IV.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aegisflashfire
Commander
Commander


Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Location: Cincinnati, OH

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For now I'm looking at this as an editor without significant comment on rules changes. Please don't take what I say here as an endorsement of what is written, because I think there are places it can be better with different rules. That said, here are some cleanup adjustments/comments


Chapter 6:
a lot of this is cut & paste right out of 2nd R&E. I think you're going to run into copyright problems. in other words, it probably needs to be rephrased/rewritten

Estimating Ranges: Rather than measuring out ranges every round, you can use estimates:


I'm not sure I like how this is phrased. I read it 3 times and interpreted it as "you SHOULD use estimates" instead.


Hit Location seems to be missing

SUPPRESSION FIRE
The term is more commonly called "Suppressive Fire" rather than Suppression Fire though I know its referred to as "Suppression Fire" in specfoce

The identification of repeating weapons probably needs to be more explicit, and what a 'burst' constitutes


This is a rule that needs a better house rule. I'll put on the list for a 3.0 project.

ARMOR
The opportunity on Armor here is to simplify things a bit. Instead of adding the defender's strength, how about subtracting from the attacker's damage. Mathematically its the same thing, but it does reduce the number of dice rolled total, speeding combat.


Knockout
Not sure where this rule came from, but I think its needlessly complicated.

There DOES need to be a way to deal non-lethal damage in hand-to-hand, but I don't think this rule is it.


How about this?
Brawling: By default, brawling attacks do stun damage, unless the defender rolls a 1 on the wild die, which automatically converts the damage to physical, or the attacker rolls a 6 on the wild die, where the attacker MAY convert to physical.

If the attacker has Brawling: Martial Arts, damage may be converted to physical on a 4,5 or 6 on the Wild Die.
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
klhaviation
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 19 Aug 2014
Posts: 154

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah combat needs some clean up, these are good catches. we used a lot of d6 space stuff here to expand some of the rules, and on second inspection, there is a lot on needless rules bloat. i agree that supression fire needs work, i wanted to stay away from too much automatic weapon stuff, i think it exceeds the scope of space opera and enters the hard sci-fi realm. Perhaps we need to omit it completely.

knockout was an attempt to have non-lethal dam, but we had to balance it with thw martial arts rules.

This chapter along with skills needs the most editing.

we caught hit location already and it is in our notes.

thanks for the catches.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aegisflashfire
Commander
Commander


Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Location: Cincinnati, OH

PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some combat areas that will need cleanup and clarification.

MFTAS rules need to be better spelled out. When does the bonus start? When does it end?

Starting/Stopping/Movement Rules need clarification.

Bonuses on skills from equipment need to be sorted out
Sights?
Extendable Stocks?
Prep-Rounds?
MFTAS?

Which are cumulative? What are not?
(Some sights only give bonuses on prep rounds, some are universal, some are cumulative, some are not. Does a prep round require a declaration of target in the round before?)
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
klhaviation
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 19 Aug 2014
Posts: 154

PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aegisflashfire wrote:
Would you consider having the project be two-fold?

Take the existing rules, and make a 2.5 (or call it whatever)

At the Same time, allow a co-creation of 3.0 with more significant rules changes.

As long as they're seen as joint projects, material could be shared between them (preventing duplication of work) at the same time allowing the two projects to go separate directions as needed.


I understand the nostalgia factor and wanting to change as little as possible, but in order to be something actually NEW (instead of just consolidating what else is out there)


It is definitely possible. For now we will have to focus on one or the other. I know that a lot of you have worked on various sourcebook and other projects before. So you know how much time this takes. Each chapter (depending on the material) takes hours and hours to complete, not just the text OCR, but the proofreading, the re-reading, the little rule changes. In addition to finding the little extras here and there. You tend to get tunnel-vision very quickly.

It is really unwise to try to execute both projects at the same time, there would be too much confusion and clutter, but that is not to say we won't do both. We will need a looooong break before making an undertaking like this again, not to say we are discouraged, but living in the ruleset for months takes its tool.

I do plan to make all of the files available as text in a .doc format to anyone who wants the when we are done. So anyone can have at them and add their personal house rules for their own groups.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4796

PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

klhaviation wrote:


It is really unwise to try to execute both projects at the same time, there would be too much confusion and clutter, but that is not to say we won't do both. We will need a looooong break before making an undertaking like this again, not to say we are discouraged, but living in the ruleset for months takes its tool.


Heh. TELL me about it. I've been on a few long-term projects. It got to be very tiring once at the end of it.

I think that Gry, Forceally, and I were churning out a conversion guide about once every 2.5 months for about three years. That and I've done some work on a couple of other projects. If you don't pace yourself and takes breaks in between, you can go crazy.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Methedor
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Posts: 110
Location: Zeltros

PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aegisflashfire wrote:
Perception:
Add Awareness skill
Rationale: One big hole in WEG's perception skill use is that Sneak is only opposed with Perception. Since perception is capped at your attribute limit, anyone with even a little bit of sneak will always be rolling more dice than someone attempting to notice them

I thought that Search provided the characters were being actively aware (vs being jovial over drinks or some other "I'm just lounging" status) allowed a roll against Sneak\Hid instead of pure perception. Perhaps its a misinterpretation of mine.

Quote:

Replace with:
Sublight Systems Repair - Fixing ion/sublight engines on cloud cars, fighters, transports, capital ships
Repulsorlift Systems Repair fixing repulsors on anything from gravsleds & boots to ISD's and Cloud City
Computer Systems Repair repairing any computer system including navicomputers,
Hull/Armor Repair physical repair of anything from Clone Trooper armor to welding plating on a ISD or cross bracing a mineshaft; repairing the physical integrity of a system
Mechanical Systems Repair Fixing a device with moving parts, includes engines, pistons, the motor on a minigun or the servo that moves the landing doors on a Venator Star Destroyer
Energy Weapons Repair Fixing Blasters, Ion Cannons, laser cannons
Shield Systems Repair repairing both Particle & Ray shield projectors on anything from a Gungan personal shield to a Star Destroyer
Missile Systems Repair repairing the non-moving parts on missile/rocket/torpedos systems
Hyperdrive Systems Repair obvious.
Environmenal Systems Repair Grav Plating, HVAC, food processors, air scrubbers, etc

Rationale: The logic here being that if repairing the repulsorlifts on a swoop, speederbike, X-wing, TIE or VSD are all the same; same physics go into each so the same repair techniques work.
Similarly the same hyperdrive physics are at work be it on a Mon Cal Cruiser or a TIE Phantom
Repairing the Hull/Armor is still about fixing/welding a physical system that requires bracing, ablation, etc
Repairing mechanical systems means fixing engines, servos, aka,physical moving parts.
Repairing a laser cannon is the same if you're fixing the turbolaser on a death Star or a blaster pistol- its the same physics, the same type of engineering.

Using the logic that WEG used, some yokel who spent their entire life fixing an antiquated sub-light only barge, somehow develops a knowledge of fixing the hyperdrive on the Millennium falcon just because they're both space transports.

And again, WEG's bizarre rulings about whats a transport vs a fighter vs. capital ship: repairing a Skipray Blastboat or Assault Shuttle is somehow vastly different than repairing an X-wing or Lambda Shuttle because The Blastboat's engine is somehow too big.

A systems-based repair rule also allows for new vehicles to be interpreted into the existing skills. Want to fix a dirigible? Sure, fixing the hull? Got a skill for that. Fixing the propeller? Got a skill for that. Fixing the nav systems? Got a skill for that. How about an archaic ship? Want to patch the hull? Sure. you can weld a piece of plating on it the same way you do a YT-1300. You don't suddenly forget how to weld just because its an old ship.


Like the Subsystem repair idea! I might use it in my game provided my players aren't too thrown by the switch. It makes sense as well. I'd suggest in addition and because people (players) might ask to add Cloaking Device (A) as an advanced skill based off of Shield repair as Cloaks are rather complicated to operate and fix and as I understand it it is a field projection similar to shield systems.

Thank you aegisflashfire for the idea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2155
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd caution against doing both a 2.5 and 3.0 concurrently. I think doing something like that would split the (already pretty small) player base.

Far better to come up with a definitive edition (personally, it sounds to me like you're going for a 2.5, rather than a 3.0) and do the best you can on that.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
klhaviation
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 19 Aug 2014
Posts: 154

PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DougRed4 wrote:
I'd caution against doing both a 2.5 and 3.0 concurrently. I think doing something like that would split the (already pretty small) player base.

Far better to come up with a definitive edition (personally, it sounds to me like you're going for a 2.5, rather than a 3.0) and do the best you can on that.


Well that is the direction we will go. I think there are some great house rules that have been proposed; and, if WEG still held a SW license, would be more than worthy of addition into a "true" third edition, but we are going to stick to 2.5 (or R&E if you prefer) for the following 4 reasons:


First There are only 3 of us, and despite the great and intelligent feedback we receive from the D6 community, we do not have enough playtest teams to really test the rules, and how they cascade across the entire game. Even simple skill changes and combat changes will require a whole new set of FAQs, part of this is the reason we are cutting a lot of "tweaks" we did in the betas, even in our little playtests the rules just create more questions than answers.

Second, there is far too much competition. Sure we aren't selling the game, but we want people to download it and use it. It really doesn't stroke our egos if people love or hate it, but we want it to be useful as a core rulebook by anyone who plays the 2.5 edition. Between buying the SW 2.5 game on ebay, the new FFG edition, and the old WOTC editions, there is no reason that people would pick up and learn a house ruled edition, much of which GMs would be unfamiliar with or leary of. I know a few people might, but it would likely not gain much traction.

Third we could not support it long term. When WEG (or any game company) came out with new editions, they released many sourcebooks, adventures, and galaxy guides for use with the game. We don't have the time, energy, or resources to do that. And why would we, the community has made, and continues to make, some of the BEST fan books in the gaming industry. All these books are (generally) 2E or 2E R&E compatible, releasing a heavily altered ruleset would negate all of that material.

Finally, lets talk seriously about new editions of games and why companies make them... Really its for 1 reason, book sales. Sure it offers the designers a chance to take another "crack" at the fiddy and clunky bits of a game, but that is secondary to the $$$. (often times designers make the game inadvertently more clunky in a desperate attempt to make their particular "edition" unique). A designer will never make a perfect edition, you just cannot please every one, and keep the rules simple enough to be accessible. SW 2 R&E is, in Bill Smith's words, "something you could take down of the shelf years later and fell proud of, we got it right". Now it is not perfect, (we all know this) but its pretty darn close.

Please don't think that we do not believe in progress. Sure, you could make the game better. Sure there are problems in the ruleset. But as it stands 2.5 is a very, very tight game. One of the best of all time, just look at how many top 5 lists it is on. A "new" ruleset would be great if the first 3 obstacles we noted did not exist.

The reality is, they do, and we cant change that. But what we can do is make sure the SWD6 community is well served with "modernizing" the "prefered" edition. At the very least, making it available in .pdf. And at the most, adding a few clarifications and rules developed by WEG, and a few by the community. And bringing it up to date with the Legends cannon.

So are we missing an opportunity. I don't think so. If we somehow could make the "perfect" SW D6 game and only 5 gaming groups actually adopted it, is it even a good game? Maybe, but it certainly didn't impact very many people, and it didn't matter how good of a game it was. But If we can keep kindling the flame of an already accepted edition, I think it will have a lot more influence in keeping this community going for decades to come.

And for those who want to create the perfect edition, DO IT. I think it is good to have fresh ideas, as a team, we just don't have a passion to do it (and when you do this much work for no compensation, you MUST have a lot of passion for it). If any one ever wants to take a crack at it, we will be happy to give you any "raw" material you want, and any support we can offer if you find it useful. Just let us know.

Well back to work on Droids.

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
klhaviation
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 19 Aug 2014
Posts: 154

PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Methedor wrote:
I thought that Search provided the characters were being actively aware (vs being jovial over drinks or some other "I'm just lounging" status) allowed a roll against Sneak\Hid instead of pure perception. Perhaps its a misinterpretation of mine.


No you are correct, the RAW states as follows

Under Perception:
"Gamemasters often ask players to make search or Perception rolls to see how much their characters notice about their surroundings."

Under the search rules, the book does state that it is used to oppose the hide skill, but does not specifically state that it opposes the sneak skill.

HOWEVER.. under the sneak skill section:

"Sneak represents the character's ability to move silently, hide from view, move in shadows and otherwise creep around without being noticed. This is an opposed roll the character sneaking around makes a roll, and anyone who might spot the character makes a search or Perception roll.

Regarding the repair rules... they do make sense and are well devised. I think they begin to step outside the realm of "space opera" and move toward the "hard sci-fi" realm (by this I mean it starts looking a little more like Traveller than Star Wars). That is not to say that some groups would love to use them, it just gets a little frustrating if your X-Wing pilot can fix the sublight engines very well, but is rubbish and fixing the maneuvering thrusters.

Yeah the Starfighter, Space Transport, Capital Ship thing ticks off a lot of people. Here is my take:

A fighter pilot who has flown an F-16 for years is hired by an airline. He certainly has a working knowledge of the fundamentals of flight, but most of his career he has been concerned with air combat, formation flight, high-g maneuvers. But he has little experience at flying in sever weather, he is not especially proficient at flying instrument approaches (foggy days where you cant see the runway), and he likely will be overwhelmed by the Air Traffic Control procedures airline pilots use. He may be a "great" fighter pilot, but it will take several months to a year to get the hang of flying an airliner.

Now take that airline pilot and put him in command of a large ocean going freighter, and good luck...

Ok so the illustration is not perfect, but I think you get the point. The 3 distinctions aren't perfect, the boundary between the 3 is often blurry. BUT many of the house rules I have seen just move the blurry boundary to other places. (for instance having just Starship Piloting and Starship Combat Maneuvers... what ships can a pilot use combat maneuvers in???) I think the system as stands is workable, yeah its not ideal, but GMs will modify this as they see fit.[/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4796

PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it's any support, I think you've got a good head on your shoulders as to how you and your team are going about this prospect. Though there are a lot of fans that can dream about how great a true 3rd edition would be with all the fixes to all the little broken bits, it's really just a dream. I have at least two 3rd edition books on my hard drive right now. Neither of them ever caught traction. I think you've listed a few reasons why they probably haven't.

In the end, it's just another book of combined house rules and official rules.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2155
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have you guys figured out what you'll call it? I'd recommend going 2.5, as calling it 3rd Edition would give the impression it's a completely different version than what we've already got with 2R&E.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Tools All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 3 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0