Yeah, one of the advantages to Class based systems is, in THEORY, All Players will be roughly on par with eachother so X enemy won't be a cakewalk for some PCs and walking Death for others.   Of course, multiple text codes around "Theory" for a reason.  Just like how in Theory, Pre-Created monsters will be resonable amounts of challenge.

  For 'it's all a nebulous blur!', I can easily see how "No stats, Fair results" monsters would be popular.  and yes, Consistency, one of my greatest personal Keywords when it comes to mechanics/rules. (though unless counting carefully, if Player Swordmaster rolls a 10 on 'swing sword' and hits, and player Diplomat rolls 10 on 'swing pipe' and misses, could see that happening.  Similarly capable PCs on the other hand, yeah.).  Conversly, its why I either Obsess with amping Perception or something, or just don't give a damn becauce GMs often will or are encouraged to increase challenge to make things hard.  Or as we all know, Enemies get automatically granted ambush positions a lot.

  "You have taken no combat feats and loaded everything into skill buffs?  Oh, well then I'll just increase the DCs.  Oh, I'm running for a party with only normal Skills?  Better not raise them too much above Hard DC."

  Fully agreed on 'Useless = A Worst Thing', when you're trying to contribute.  Though amusingly it also crosses into 'well, you can stay useless if you are trying to be useful in ways that derail my game too much'.  What's that?  Half the party wants to become space mercs and the other half wants to fight the dark side of the force?  Guess who I'm going to passive aggressively ignore and then later admit it's because Darkside fighters were following my plot.

  I'm roughly 20 podcasts in to RhoPiGamma.  Oh Byron, you sound so reasonable most of the time and then you let lose gems like the Flower Girl.   I've lost track how many times "Glop Grenade!"  "Damn you" has been brought up with no context, but I know what they mean, hehehe.

  sometimes being honestly upfront with "Because I want it to be this way is why" as a GM is good.  My mind is wired to take any implied/pretending I have a choice or option as, you know, the fact I have a choice or option.

  If you want to give the Illusion of choice, you better be prepared to deal with the baggage of people trying to make those choices.  A lot of my Ire can be sidelined by Clean honesty.  It's not GM Fiat if you don't let people KNOW it is.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:18, Tue 17 Apr 2012.

Heh.  True 'nuff.  Admittedly, latest "wish I could have contributed" was kinda agreed to by players.

Group of PCs walk into dark wizard's room.  Mittens waves and says, "Hi!"  Dark wizard: "Annoying interruptions!"  ZAP!  *DM tells the group to all make will saves.  Everyone BUT the PC wizard makes the save.*

DM Byron: "... why did I even bother with rolls?  Wisards have good will saves.  This is supposed to be a wizard's dual between the PC wizard and the NPC wizard.  And he's the only one who DIDN'T make the save!"

Players: "Don't sweat it.  Just hand wave.  We're cool."

DM: "OK.  The rest of the group is encased in crystal, but Boomer manages to resist the spell..."

At the end of game, player complained, "wish I could have been more helpful in that encounter...  And the solo one for the druid.  And the solo one for the thief..."

DM: "Sorry.  Couldn't think of a challenge geared toward each of your classes that wouldn't also have some clever way around it that another class could come up with."

On the topic of amping up DCs to match amped up PC specs, Tim and I have been thinking about a system where each individual player can customize how difficult they want their individual play experience be.  One player might want to have a difficult challenge to match his amped up skills, while another would rather low challenges for his amped up skills.  Or anywhere between.  Which might work out with abstract enemies and challenges.  Pure RP can overcome the issue of making all the players happy in their own little worlds of selective challenge rating because dice and stats aren't involved, though even there issues can crop up.  *Cough*X-Men*Cough*
This message was last edited by the GM at 06:23, Wed 18 Apr 2012.

  To me, there is no such thing as 'amped up skills' if the DC chart MOVES.  It's more like "oh, you practiced climbing a whole ton huh?  Well guess what, GRAVITY HATES YOU PERSONALLY aren't you so glad you tried hard instead of not giving a *censored*?".  There's a challenge, and then there is rigged odds.  Especially in a system where you passed up combat benefits (my backstabs are bigger dice now!) for more skill (I have a thievery bonus!).  Except you feat is effectively useless because the DC chart is actually a DC sliding scale that moves based on how big your skill+ is.

  You are putting in the investment but not getting any returns.  Suddenly, Timothius can't heal someone with a scratched knee because his extra practice in healing is clearly in need of punishment.

  Save Or Die/Save or Be out entire encounter also needs to Die in a fire.

  DC amping can also lead to some counterproductive results "Hmm, I can pick a lv 6 God's safe, but these locks are beyond me.  We need to leave this dungeon guys, we're supposed to come back later at a higher level.  Otherwise the DCs wouldn't be higher than Paragon scale for our level six party.  Not like we can even get INTO the place anyway unless the GM handwaves us in or puts a Thievery negating key somewhere."
This message was last edited by the GM at 06:49, Wed 18 Apr 2012.

Heh yeah. One of the biggest problems for ANY game is "lose a turn" syndrome. One of the biggest problems for 4e SPECIFICALLY is skill DCs. So we're addressing those two first before all the other problems we tend to merely roll our eyes at by comparison.

Well first things first for that, then.  Remember, the idea is to test stuff, so don't assume that these next tests will be the final product...

1) No class skill lists.  Any class can train any skill.

2) PCs all have the following:

Hobgoblin Resilience (immediate reaction, when the PC suffers an effect that a save can end; encounter)
The PC makes a saving throw against the triggering
effect.

So in 4e skill DC's increase as you train in it? that sounds ridiculous! 3.5e doesn't work that way, that I know of. If you train in it, eventually you can do it as long as you don't roll a 1. (most of the time anyway)

Unwritten (maybe) rule in most game systems:  If anything is getting to easy for the players, raise the difficulty.  Players got to where walking across a tightrope is trivial for them?  Add an ice storm.  And a poison dart trap.  And a river of lava...  Etc.  So in essence ANY system, you're going to have the challenges "adjust themselves" to match your skill and power level.

Not so in 6 knuckle!  The player chooses his how challenged he wants to be!  At least... that's the goal.

Brainstorm idea: Tim earlier suggested players being allowed to fail an individual challenge on purpose.  Doing so grants them some sort of alternative reward.  There's kind of an example of this in one of the modules.  I'll try and dig it up when I have more time.

True I can understand that during a dungeon or a campaign. But say they are just walking through a town. X decides to go scale a wall and look over the town square from above. At earlier levels this would be very hard to do and take a while. At higher levels, assuming he focused on climbing and rooftop walking, X could do it quickly, efficiently and be back before anyone noticed he was gone.

For the option to fail yourself, I've played most games that way. Although, there have never been any bonuses for it. Mostly it's been done for creative flare. I do like the idea though.
Ex: Fail a balance check while walking across a narrow walkway to gain a bonus to the jump check to the nearby ledge.

  Technically, DCs are on a static chart like everything else in 4th edition.  It's just that module writers tend to ignore them completely, ignore established skill rules, or throw in crazy stuff just because they can (Like, okay it's one extra move action to climb on top of a table in the Bar Brawl.  It's DC 30 Athletics to Get on top of the Bar counter. you are all level 1.  Actual example.)

  It seems a chunk of the crazy DCs are because "This is based off the old insanely high DC chart, where skills checks also meant +5 DC modifier (SKill training is a +5 to a skill, incidentally)".  But an equal amount is just the writers not caring or making stuff up.  Pretty much no DC that isn't part of a reference chart ever got any errata when it comes to 4th ed.  So while the DC chart itself got an errata...

  My comments of sliding scale, is just how a lot of GMs/the "Increase difficulty if your Players are ramping up their skills" mindset do it, even when it isn't the modules fault.  It's part of why I nerd rage over DCs so much.  That and systems where if you did it mechanics wise, you hade a 50/50 chance of tripping and falling on your face just walking across the street if your Base Stats were "Captain America".
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:35, Wed 18 Apr 2012.

And then players and GMs alike will cry me rivers about how "unrealistic" it is when I suggest, "the chance of failing at trivial stuff is so small that characters shouldn't even have a 1 in 20 chance of failing."  And yes, Bahamut swatting at a lvl 1 minion should be considered trivial for him.  But not in the minds of the "purists" who argue their point from their bizarre idea of what's "realistic" in a fantasy game.

In short, Joe and I agree completely.  But good luck finding a consistent indication of what's supposed to be "easy" "medium" or "hard" at any given level.  I've searched high and low for anywhere that says, "It should be considered easy for a character to climb a 10' wall at 1st level.  Add the following modifiers for the following unfavorable conditions."  So no one has any idea what climb check to put down for any given climb.  So no surprise they're inconsistent in modules.  Just added insult that they throw epic size DCs in heroic level stories.  Maybe that's their way of being spiteful for the lack of a concrete climb chart.

Athletics skill, comes with the DCs in the skill rules.

Ladder: DC 0
Rope: DC 10
uneven surface (cave wall): DC 15.
rough surface (brick wall) DC 20.
Slippery surface: +5 DC.
unusually smooth surface: +5 DC [how is this compatible with a rough wall tough?]

So, its a combo problem.  A) arbitrary DCs listed by module writers (that can actually land UNDER legit DC at times) for climbing stuff.... Buuuuut
B) Every PC tends to have a rope and grappling hook.  Ropes are DC 10.

On the topic of race:  I don't like that X race gets more goodies than Y race.  To me, that's like saying, "black people get a +2 STR and a -2 INT, white people get a +2INT and an extra 1d20 starting gp.  All females get a -2STR and +2CHR."  and so on.

City of Heroes, an MMO does not have race bonuses or penalties.  It doesn't have race at all.  You can make your char LOOK like a Drow if you want, and he'll be just as awesome as someone who made a Hulk looking char.  You can be a gnome paladin if you want.  (Unlike in WoW or older D&D editions).

Idea: What if race were just flavor text on your charsheet.  Where Humans are just as awesome as Elves or Dwarves at making weapons and armor.  Where Humans can see just as well as Drow.  Where gnomes don't take damage for trying to walk as fast as the taller members of the group (actual pathfinder rule), and so on.  Saying race X is better than race Y is racist.  Hard coding that into a game system is even worse.

So in MY fantasy world, no race gets any plus or minus on their charsheet.  All racist ideas about Elves being better than everyone else at everything shall be tossed out the window.

A thought from my Faction thoughts:

What "feels" different about a race? Their culture. So a Blissian, while just as strong and just as intelligent a Coalwren, lives in a culture where you don't eat rocks like the Coalwren do. Sure, there's a kind of sand Blissians eat, but that's different. Anyways, the point is that Blissians would have the perc of having access to all kinds of resources from their home world while Coalwren would have access to all kinds from THEIR own home.

Meanwhile, currency would be the same, but be flavored different. Blissians have a communist culture, where they give freely to each other, but that's because each member of the race gladly gives of themselves to the others. Mechanically, it's the same as work traded for work, so you can give them "community service" points which is the Blissian equivalent of gold points. Coalwren meanwhile, trade with gems and certain rocks. Meanwhile, *all* the races as a whole have a "common" currency that all would have to earn in space.

With this in mind, you can have a home currency and a "world" currency. That alone would make your race feel different because "My people don't use money... blablabla etc"

My point is that while yes, City of Heroes rules and continues to be amazing, it's still a graphical game. Meaning your obvious difference of LOOKING different is unavoidably there on the screen. In a tabletop game, not so much. People need *some* mechanical difference or flavor difference so they don't have to keep saying "my DROW is walking into a town of DROW haters. WINK. WINK." and such. This is why I keep a print-out of my character on display at a given game table and why when Rick found his character swapping bodies with my character, I had to remind him what it's like to be a small, female, fox with a sword that's normally average to him but big and hefty to the fox. And in an earlier game, even WITH all the mechanical differences, Liz had to remind Chris and I both that her character is a half-elf.

  <nerd>City Of Heroes does have racial Benefits and penalties.  Kheldian, Able to shapeshift between Humanoid, Space Squid, and Space Rhino Man forms.  Causes special hardmode enemies to spawn for party</nerd>  Granted, that's a special case for the Hero Epic Class.  Overall who and what you are is purely cosmetic (A case I often forget at times, when my "Looks Like a Robot" Robotics Mastermind is reminded he does not have the same status protections of his summoned robot horde)

  Even though 4th ed does have race bonuses, at least it is a step in a more easy going direction.  There are only Racial Bonuses, no racial penalties (Outside of quirky newer stuff like Shades having -1 Heal Surges in exchange for their goodies).  Any race can be any class.  Heck, VAMPIRE is a Class in 4th Ed.  So is being a Revenant.  So yes, Robot(Warforged) Zombie Vampire Ninjas(Rogues) Pirates(Martial based paragon path) are a real thing in 4th Ed.

  As for "Elves So COOL and above you silly people". While the statistics issue can be dealt with (and mostly is in 4th ed), that doesn't help the NPC Social/plot ACTING like that still happening a lot of the time in games, any more than it stops "We don't have an intelligence penalty anymore guys!" Orcs and Goblins from being portrayed as dumb violent maniacs in such.

  City's "Influence/Infamy" was intended to be abstraction of what you are saying about in game currency.  It's just that everyone knows Currency stand ins are, for all intents and purposes, Cash.

  <nerd>City Of Heroes does have racial Benefits and penalties.  Kheldian, </nerd>

I stand corrected.  The few times I made a Kheldian I ignored the bit about being a space alien and treated it like any other CoX class so it was easy for me to forget that bit.  Ah well.

So speaking of which.  I like Tim's point.  Keep the flavor, but don't force players to be saddled with a set of bonuses or penalties they don't want.  In Byron's game, I was able to get away with playing as a cat lady because she was born Human but then "cursed" by some sorcerer in her background story to look like a cat lady.  That way I'm not stuck with whatever level adjustments and stat modifications of whatever cat lady races exist in his universe.

So!  As part of this experiment, replace the words "race" or "racial" with something generic like "cultural origin."  None of the mechanics of D&D changes, just the flavor.  You're a Drow that grew up among Minotaur?  You had to learn to be tough.  You gain all the benefits of being a Minotaur, but none of the percs from being a Drow.  You're a Gnome who grew up among Dragonborn?  Nature granted you fire breath instead of being able to turn invisible when hurt.  And so on.  It's a magical world, magical things can happen.

Sounds almost exactly like a point I keep making to people considering Their interpretation of how things happen as The One True Way in Comic Superheros based games.  If fittingly, usually when someone is explaining "THIS is how magic works!" for the fifth time, and of course it's not how the LAST five magical characters said it worked.

As it is, your point most often seems to only work on the Setting/NPC setup/Things the GM inflicts upon players, end of the spectrum for most people.  Unfortunatly.

On the road: Kobold Brigands

Enco u n te r L eve l 1 ( 4 7 5 X P )

This encounter includes the following creatures.
5 kobold minions (M)
1 kobold slinger (S) (1 use of glue, 2 uses of fire pot)
2 kobold dragonshields (D)

Tactics
The dragonshields and the slinger allow the minions to
act first; even if they have higher initiative check results;
they refrain from taking any actions until after the minions
have acted. (From that point until the end of the
encounter, their initiative count is 1 lower than the minions’
initiative count.) Any minion close enough to a PC
to charge does so; a minion not close enough to engage in
melee hangs back and throws a spear.
The dragonshields attempts to engage the PCs’ most
capable melee combatant.
The slinger remains behind cover as long as possible,
using its sling against the nearest PC. If this creature is
flushed out of its hiding place, it tries to move to a new
location from which it can continue to attack while enjoying
the benefit of cover or concealment.
The kobolds fight to the death;

Round 1!  All attacks deal 1/2 damage on a miss!  (Striker extra damage is applied after halving damage)

1 surprise round (only ranger acted among PCs) and nearly 4 normal rounds.  PC damage:  Ranger: 40.  Wizard: 30.  Paladin 19.  Warlock 24.  Cleric 15.  Total: 128.  2 uses of healing surge but no real risk of PC dying.

Monster damage: to Wizard: 5.  To warlock: 0.  To paladin: 14.  To cleric: 7.  To ranger: 19.  Total: 45

Summary of conversation that followed.  Tim: "I wasn't feeling angry or upset even with lousy rolls.  It's interesting that the gap between striker and defender damage was lessened, because it FELT like my striker was doing more especially full damage applied on curses damage even on a miss.  I will forever roll my eyes at controllers out-damaging strikers.  Why bother being a striker if you're not dealing the most damage?  Here's a thought.  What of ONLY strikers got the 1/2 damage on a miss feature.  I was more disappointed that Callie's healing strike didn't heal than I would have been that it didn't do damage.  I can easily envision her big sword clashing with a big shield but divine energy gets channeled to aid an ally anyway.  So what if your role determined what your "on a miss" feature is.  Fighter gets mark on a miss, which is awesome.  At least you're still performing your job.  But I would have liked bolstering strike to have done something other than damage on a miss.  Or sacred flame.  Perhaps if at least all encounter powers had a built-in 'on a miss' feature depending on your role.  Another idea: What if you make basic attacks then decide what power you're using AFTER you know it hit.  That way you're not wasting encounters and dailies.  So today we learned that the most important thing is 'are you doing your char's role?'  Another idea: What if the difference between the attack roll and the defense gets added to damage.  That way high defenses act as a kind of damage reduction instead of just dodge."

My observation.  The real fistshake at the d20 is the no-man's land of 'not doing anything' when you roll below the enemy's defenses.  So strikers go from 'completely worthless character' on a 1 to 9 roll to 'actually doing your job at all' from there up, (but even then there's a laarge die dependance on how effectively you're doing your job.)  Then on a roll of 20 your effectiveness jumps up.  I don't mind the jump in effectiveness for critting.  That's fine.  It's the 'drop down to zero if you roll less than a target number' part that bothers me.  I would like a smoother progression on the left side of the effectiveness graph.  So a roll of 3 isn't a complete failure, it's more like 15% effectiveness.  15 > 0.  A roll of 9 is 45% effective.  45 > 0.  Making that happen without completely retooling the system on the other hand, will be interesting.  Maybe add OR subtract the difference between the attack roll and defenses to/from the damage roll.  For example:  +6 v 13AC; 1d6+3 damage.  Dido rolls 2 on the d20 and 6 on the d6.  That's +9 damage, but -11 difference on the to-hit.  So no damage done.  Dido then rolls a 5 on d20, 1 on d6.  He deals a total of 2 damage.  Rolls a 10, he'll deal a minimum of 7 damage.  Rolls a 15, minimum 12 damage.  So on.  This might be what we try next go.
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:29, Sun 22 Apr 2012.

Round 2!  The difference between your to-hit and the target defense is added to or subtracted from the damage dice and then applied to the target's hp.  of course if the total is zero or less, no change to target hp.  this applies to both PCs and monsters.  all other "only happens on a hit" effects remain the same.  minions still immune to missed attacks.  (example, 19 to-hit vs 18 AC means 1 bonus damage and all the power's effects apply.  17 to-hit vs 18AC means -1 penalty to damage and none of the power's other effects apply.)

no surprise round and just over 3 normal rounds.  PC damage:  Ranger: 27.  Wizard: 26.  Paladin 29.  Warlock 49.  Cleric 17.  Total: 145.  2 uses of healing word.  callie came close to being KO in 1 round

Monster damage: to Wizard: 0.  To warlock: 3.  To paladin: 16.  To cleric: 21.  To ranger: 0.  Total: 40

tim: this is tonns better than "half damage on a miss."  it's earning it's name 6 knuckle.  rolling a 7 didn't feel near as bad.  callie nearly dying made me a little nervous, sure, but the worst part was when i rolled my encounter.  2d10 damage, roll a 2.  juuust hit means no damage bonus.  need to find a way to fix damage dice.  but at least in hitting, was able to heal with that encounter power.
me: if damage is your job, effects are icing on the cake.  if effects are your job, then damage is icing on the cake.  also, maybe have static damage.  at-wills do mod damage, encounters 2 mod, dailies 4mod.  this will have the added effect of ensuring dailies will always do something.
tim: agree that you should be able to perform your job regardless of dice.  but i'll be most folks wills still want to roll dice for damage.  what about spending a feat to make your SWORD brutal.  and don't HAVE to wield a specific weapon like an axe to get brutal property.
me: what if all dice have at LEAST a brutal 1 property.  no crit fails exist.
tim: what if you have in the rulebook different "levels" of play.  for example, the “hit 'em hard!” setting would have the brutal 1 property on all damage dice.  or another option, the “spending a hero point for reroll.”  it's a good idea because the rerolls are then a limited resource that the player has control over.  AND hero points encourage players to RP!
me: what about pathfinder's way of dealing with hero points where you get one anyway when you level, and there's a max number.  tim: dunno about the max number thing.  then again, jd is sitting on a pile of hero points and he rolls terribly but hoards his points anyway.  does he LIKE missing???
me: i hate missing.  part of why i love aoe.  i'm sitting on a pile of hero points too, but that's because as an aoe slinger, i usually hit at LEAST once and feel like i've contributed.  but then when you have a "million orc challenge" players who don't have AoE wind up looking like BMX kids.
tim: fighter should at least get AoE TAUNT if not aoe damage
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:33, Tue 01 May 2012.

Oh how soon they forget Heroes Of Metro city.  Yeah, that will lead to a slaughter of players.  For a DnD example, just think back to Kalarel.  Hit the best PC defense on a FIVE or more.  It took PC's meanwhile, a FIFTEEN or more to hit Kalarek's WEAK defenses.  You will basically be handing Enemies an extra 10+ damage on average if they have decent aim.  and that's if they HIT.

The wording is vauge, it's worded to sound like "We tried under/over target value, but no Damage on miss gig"... But if both were used at the same time, oh sweet baby new year...

I did like your idea to split off the bonus damage of a striker class from the damage halving.  But that only helps strikers with a clear cut bonus damage gimmick.  Doesn't do anything for Avengers, for example.

More complicated, what does a "half damage on miss by default" outlook do to all those powers that do so already?  (when they were doing wizard revisions, they made even MORE wizard powers have effects and half damage on miss).

EDIT:
So.  I think I figured out a GOOD IDEA.  I was thinking about how "stuff happens anyway on miss" negates tanker stuff.  And how "difference between target hit needed" can get out of hand.

So, here is an idea (that should only really be applied to PCs.  If only so Jerk GMs in Theory can't use it to force a Finger Of Death Hit).

Player misses once.  They earn OPTION of +1 To-Hit/-1 DMG (applicable even to the first miss).
Player misses Twice.  They earn OPTION of +2 ToHit/-2 DMG.
Missed Three times you poor guy? Option +4 ToHit/-4 DMG.  Yes, skipping straight to 4 on third miss.
Missed 4 times: Option +6 To-Hit/-6 DMG.
It should PROBABLY cap out there.

You get to pick to use these options AFTER you roll your attack.  If you are up to +3 crutch, but only missed by one?  You can use just the +1 Hit/-1 DMG.

IMPORTANT:  This can only apply ONCE PER TURN.  Multi hit/target attacks, or Action points/AoO would inflate the Training Wheels Bonus gains.  Also, Flat Damage attacks need some consideration.  I guess "If damage penalty is equal to or greater than Flat Damage power, Halve Damage instead regardless of bonus size".
This message was last edited by the GM at 06:08, Tue 01 May 2012.

Don't forget: This isn't "let's make D&D better". This is "Let's use D&D as a canvas and experiment the hell out of it so we can observe results, record, and then examine said results for what we want on our own game system."

So none of this has any effect on the future of D&D. We won't be some day playing a character with half-damage daily and going "oops, that rule was a mistake". We'll be likely some day playing a game so alien to D&D, nobody will even be able to say it reminds them of it. :)

Brainstorm:  what if the lower you roll, the higher your bonus to your next to-hit?

Joe idea:  sounds like giving the "inescapable weapon" property to all attacks.  Only if you miss by less than the snowballed bonus, you don't have to spend the entire bonus to make the miss a hit!  very nice.  kind of like a communal weapon that builds up more energy when it misses.
This message was last edited by the GM at 06:16, Tue 01 May 2012.

Hmm, I completely botched my at-will/basic attack...  Action Point/Wait in evil glee for next turn, Daily/Uber attack with guaranteed hit please!

Plus, this also kicks tanks in the groin still.

What made me think of "this works and still keeps the tanker doing their job" is the fact that in BESM, Tread is built on HP (aka damage absorption). It worked really well towards being a tank. In the case of modifying D&D, it also worked nice to treat AC as damage absorption. Tankers already get high HP, but with the high AC absorbing damage on top of that, it's still a lot harder to take down a tanker than a non-tanker. The test showed this to be so. Note: NOT knocking your idea. Just saying that Chris and I actually tested the damage reduction thing and to me, it made the game feel better.

Now granted, every player is different. But we have a friend who consistently rolls low. Two examples:

Example 1: (Actually happened)
David playing D&D with us at game store. Miss.
Half hour later, his turn comes up. Miss.
David pulls out game boy and plays that.
Turn up again. Miss.
Turn up again. This time, he doesn't even bother looking. Just rolls his dice while staring at game boy and keeps playing game boy.

Example 2: (Theoretical, but I'm sure it's happened)
PC dies in the first round. Nobody can heal him.
Player who was playing that character pulls out a game boy and plays it instead of D&D.

What these examples have in common: Both examples, the player wasn't playing D&D. David made motions he was required to, but he wasn't really playing.

What these examples don't have in common: David died a slow, painful, boring death. The death of "I'm not useful / doing anything". Example 2's player at least got out of it early and easy.

So... losing a turn = worse than death. I would sooner have monsters getting past my AC and potentially killing me than to miss 4-5 turns in a row.

Quick thought: Roll dice to decide the quests!
CoX has random radio missions. So.
Roll d20: Rescue mission, retrieval mission, or beat up badguy mission.
Roll d20: Ah! You're fighting the Freaks!

and so on.

Pokemon.  Lately, the more I think about 6 knuckle, the more I come back to Pokemon.

One, it represents the abstraction of PC / monster.  MY Ratata = goodguy.  THEIR Ratata = badguy.  But both were built about the same way.  A list of moves to choose from.  PC = monster = PC.

Two, it represents the large variety of player tastes.  "Pokemon is fun because you get to love and cuddle cute fluffies!"  "Pokemon is fun because my dragon can incinerate monsters!"  "Pokemon is fun because my cute fluffies can take on nasty dragons."  So on.

Three, in the cartoons it was much like D&D.  A group of heroes go on an epic journey to do heroic deeds.  They of course have to fight monsters with amazing powers to save the day.

Four, the concept was ported over to a number of different forms of entertainment, including video games, a card game, and a table-top rpg (admittedly fan made).  A game system or mode of play can accommodate just about any concept.

Of all these my thoughts focus on the card game the most.  Mechanically, it was pretty straight forward.  Every pokemon had HP, abilities, and the potential to become more powerful.  Which usually just meant more HP and abilities.

Ordinarily, the game was just 1v1, but I've been thinking about a way to have the card game more closely resemble the D&D flavor of the cartoon.  What if you had a PC group vs an NPC group rather than just 1v1.  Or better yet, each player plays on two fronts: goodguy monsters and badguy monsters.  Each player battles the monsters of the player to their left.  Then the players would be playing constantly rather than once every 5-6 turns.

Thoughts on how to work on making a system feel more like a cooperative story than just another card game:  Ravenloft has a basic story then you go dungeon crawling with the occasional twist that pops up in the deck you draw from.  Incorporate the "random plot" idea Tim suggested by having a plot deck to draw from.  What if someone wants to be a GM rather than "no GM" style random plot idea.  They can prepare the story and simply not use the plot deck.  Gamma World had the OPTION to be more purposeful in your chargen than just rolling random combos, but quick random play was available too.  Note to self: Look into whether Gamma World also had random plot generation.

Important: Although pokemon didn't have dice (technically)), there was still an element of chance and play was exciting and unpredictable.  Even with a deck you knew like the back of your hand.  POINT: Dice aren't absolutely necessary to add an element of unpredictability and excitement.

Flux: Game play changes depending on what cards the players play.  What if PLOT cards were like the "new rule" cards of Flux?  Players could then take a greater part in the storytelling.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:08, Thu 03 May 2012.