Mini-Six

In my last post I Gave a very quick over view of what mini-six is. Ill go over it again and in a bit more depth with this post. As well as how to use it in a slightly different way.

Mini-Six is a condensed version of the westend games D6 system. Its the system that was used in the westend games Starwars. One change to the system, or more an addition to the system is set defenses, much like savage worlds or cinematic unisystem. Rather than all combat being opposed rolls, combat can be rolled against a set number based on the player/npc/monster abilities. To me this is nice since that is the one complaint I always had about the system. Combat can take a while and involve adding up a lot of die on both attack and defense.

Now that D6 has become OpenD6 it is now OGL. A few different companies are planning to use it, Two most notable to me are mini-Six and C6 (Cinematic six).

I Was reading over Mini-Six and hit the side bar about running Mini-Six with out Attributes. And something hit me. Mini-six could be played like Risus or Warrior, Rogue, and Mage. Rather than Attributes and skills why not just use descriptors.

Much like Warrior, Rogue, And Mage (awesome rules-lite game btw) you could just assign die to a descriptor. For example you could spread 9 die around the descriptions Warrior, Rogue, And Mage.
Say I was making a character who was good at swinging a sword, but better at thievery, Knew a little magic but not much could be: Warrior 3D, Rogue 4D, Mage 2D. Any action that falls into the realm of one of these classes uses the die assigned to that descriptor to make a test.

It just shows me how versatile the d6 system is. Add attributes, Add skills, Or play with out either.

Epic 6, How it applies to C&C for me.

I can really relate to the authors of Epic six. It really is hard to make a game gritty or epic when players can one day face a dragon solo and toe to toe.

In this article I looked at what E6 was. Since then I have read a lot of blogs and how other people have applied the idea to a great many games. From older editions of D&D to retro clones.

I find the idea of limiting advancement a great fit for the type of game I like to play, Gritty and epic all at the same time. After all if a player can never get to level 30 and rival a dragon in "hit points" and "to hit bonus" then he better get out there and find the armor and the sword that will help him and his party take down such a great menace. With limited advancement dragons will always be epic monsters.

Now I'm not saying players would still not be able to progress in other ways. I just like limiting: "to hit" bonus, Hit points, and spell progression. Basically I just want to limit how powerful the players can become by just attaining experience. I'm not against players gaining skills beyond max level or even talents (feats).

I'm pretty set on the idea of players stopping progression in C&C at level 10. Seems a good place to declare some one an epic hero.

Castles & crusades, Siege Engine

One of the most unique aspects of C&C is how attributes work.

Every class has one attribute that is prime and players get to choose one additional attribute to be prime. The remaining attributes are secondary.(humans get one additional prime).The difficulty

of most rolls is based on 12 if the attribute is prime, and 18 if the attribute is secondary.

Primes give a level of customization that I really like. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Say two of my players each make rogue characters. For both characters their class prime is Dexterity. Now each

player gets to choose a second attribute to be prime as well.

Say player one chooses strength and player two chooses charisma.

The character with the strength as prime would most likely be a brute or thug kind of rogue.

relying on strength possibly to wield bigger weapons. While the character with the charisma as prime would more than likely be a smooth talker and/or a con man. Both rogues. But rogues with a different set of tools to get the job done.

C&C multiple attacks. (3E style)

While I'm not a huge fan of how 3E handles multiple attacks. I had some one recently ask me how I would replicate 3Es multiple attack system if I was to use in in my C&C game.

Since my current game in maxing out at level 12, I think I would make the number of attacks based on level rather than bonus to attack. If I remember correctly in 3E once your primary attack bonus reached +6 you got a second attack. And every plus six there after.

For my example I will say at level 6 all classes get a second attack with the same bonus as the did at level one and progressing at the same rate.

A fighter would get a second attack at level 6 at +1. And progress at an additional +1 every level just like his primary attack did. where as a wizard would get a second attack at level 6 at +0. +1 at level 7 and +2 at level 10.

One thing I am still thinking about is would I allow a third attack at level 12? Or should I only allow man at arms classes a third attack? This begs the question. Which classes would count as man at arms? It would be too simple to say those classes the that use physical attributes as prime. But what about knights and paladins?
I could say only non-spell casters get the third attack I guess.

I really like this option, Since I feel at higher levels spell casters way out shine melee classes.

Another answer to the whole thing could be to give Talents (feats) at levels 6 and 12. And create two talents that allows for an additional attack each with a prerequisite of levels 6 and 12 and only able to be taken once each. So a players has the option to not take it if they are not a physical combat character.

4E Rituals Options (resizing Magic Items)

I'm really reading over my 4E books. When I first got them I read just enough to learn how to play and we jumped right in. I ran a few games, and every one seemed to have a lot of fun.

Now with my little break right now I'm going back and reading some of the sections I just skimmed before. Like rituals. While I can see a lot of promise in most of them the rules for Disenchanting and enchanting Magic Items really seem interesting.

I had an idea. What if you could re-size magical items. Not physical size but level of an item.

If you had an item you really liked, say a level 3 thundering weapon. And you start to out grow it. by hitting level 8. But you really like your thundering weapon. Instead of disenchanting it or selling it you could use enchant weapon to re-size it.

The cost would be enough residuum to pay the difference between the previous cost of the item and the new cost of the item.  A level 4 thundering weapon costs 840g and a level 8 costs 3400g. So to re-size the weapon from levels 4 to 8 the cost would be 175g for the ritual plus 2560g worth of residuum for the difference in cost.

The usual restrictions apply. You cant raise the level of an item higher than your own level.

4E D&D Revisit

I really want to give 4E another go. As I've stated We really enjoyed it. But I just didn't feel it was a game we would continue to play. I have really been focusing on rules-lite games. And has nothing to do with most criticism
against it.

Most of the criticisms again 4E really doesn't matter to us. Yes its tactical and uses minis. Yes it has elements in common with online MMORPGs. My players love strategic mini games and all have or do play Online MMORPGs. Most of those elements are just common elements between the two. It just uses the MMORPG terminology for it. Who doesn't have the fighter first in marching order rather than the wizard. Now it is called a defender or tank. But the job is the same, Meat shield.

I just felt the system was far from rules lite. But to be fair I'm coming into it years after the release with tons of material out for it. Tons of material, Tons of options and abilities. With the release of the essentials and articles like this one by Greywulf I have really been thinking it over. Much of this is my perspective. I really don't need all three players hand books for every game. Or even every ability from players hand book one.

Before I permanently shelf my 4E books I really need to scale a game back a bit and play the game with out trying to include every bit of material I can find. I'm debating getting some essentials books.

Limited Advancement (looking at E6)

Limiting advancement is something I have been thinking about for a while. One decision I made in my C&C game was to end advancement at level 10. I want to add talents (renamed Feats) but at a much slower pace. Since I find Feat bloat a major turn off for me in 3rd edition.

Another bloat I really hated is Hit points. Although It doesn't bothers me as much as it used to. But I used to hate that a fall from a roof could kill a level one character. And a level 10 could take crazy amounts damage.
I think its one of the reasons I prefer to run low level adventures and rarely like to continue a campaign past level 6 or 8.

The other day I stumbled across E6 (Epic 6). It is basically the Idea of ending progression at level 6. At every 5000 exp you give out a feat. The basics of it is to make a gritty and more tolken'esq style of game.

Here is some info on it from: Epic_6 Wiki

Q: Where did E6 come from? A: E6 was inspired by the article Gandalf was a Fifth-Level Magic User by Bill Seligman. The article was published in The Dragon (which became Dragon magazine) in issue #5, March 1977. When I first had the concept of E6, where we used the first six levels for the whole game, my very first step was pitching it to my players. Some thought it was a great idea, and the rest were willing to give it a try, so I gave it a shot. E6 worked really well for our tastes, and we've done lots of playing inside E6 since then. Back then E6 was a lot more convoluted than it is now: there were intricate quasi-gestalt rules and several other little things that weren’t so much about the cap as they were about my group’s thoughts on D&D class balance. Over time, we found that the only rules we were really using (on both sides of the screen) were the feat rules, and that was producing a great play experience. So when I returned to E6 just recently, that’s how I wrote it up: As it was actually played.

Q: Why 6th level for the cap? Why not 12th, or 20th? A: My experience in D&D is that at around 6th level the characters are really nicely balanced, both in terms of balance against other classes, and against the CR system. Also, there was an element of setting assumptions; each class is strong enough that they're well defined in their role, but not so strong that lower-level characters don't matter to them any more.

While I'm not sure if I want to go to the extremes of only going to level 6 in my games. Although I may just try it. What if i was to cap some things at lower levels though? Like maybe hit point progression.