The Gaming Den

http://playthisthing.com/tales-wild-blu ... -blackbird

When I was looking through the PDF, I really liked the Keys used for experience progression in the characters.

I'm not entirely sure. But I think that game is by the same guy who wrote the game that sparked me into writing my how to write no rules thread.

That thread has some description of that OTHER game. Before Frank and Murtak proceeded to have significant disagreements with the reality based maths community over the definition of averages, percentages and basic addition.

So anyway, I'm pretty sure both were his work. There is a small chance he simply brought along lady black bird to the same gaming event, but I got the impression it was his too.

Anyway it sounds like a fairly similar mechanic at it's core, and from the description I overheard of the session he ran of Lady Black Bird it probably had the same problems and the same good points.

People enjoyed it, probably because that guy was a pretty good GM running a largely free form RPG.

But the actual effect of the mechanics was that the entire team of pseudo-space swashbuckling adventurers unexpectedly and "hilariously"... drowned to death in some kind of a bath tub.

Which is probably just another good example of why no one should use complex arcane dice pool mechanics in combination with "rules lite" systems.

Not that anyone ever should use complex arcane dice pool mechanics in RPGs anyway. But just watch half the Den jump in here and attempt to rewrite the most basic of high school level maths in an attempt to claim otherwise.

Very interesting game and world. I think it could be expanded upon easily in several fun directions.

Also, The Owl looks suspiciously like Serenity.

PhoneLobster wrote:That thread has some description of that OTHER game. Before Frank and Murtak proceeded to have significant disagreements with the reality based maths community over the definition of averages, percentages and basic addition.

Shorter other thread, for those who don't care to read through it:

PL: 3d6 sucks because it doesn't do what its proponents think it does.

FT: The point of 3d6 is being able to find a +X that adds ~Y% for the majority of rolls and being able to apply that +X multiple times before going off the RNG.

PL: But you can't add +Y% to the roll multiple times. In order to do so, you'd have to recalculate X.

M: But I don't care about adding +Y% multiple times; I care about being able to come up with a +X that approximates +Y% for the majority of cases, with a small +X even for a large +Y%.

FT: Yep, the idea is to have a list of various +X bonuses in the rulebook that you just look up and apply.

PL: I don't consider that a worthy design goal.

Your summary misses out on the actual on topic posts. You know the ones relevant to this thread

Also fuck you you apparently innumerate moron. Your summary is not only inaccurate it is an insult to me AND to basic high school maths.

I have to say the fact that such an insult to basic high school maths is allowed to stand unchallenged, indeed frequently and stupidly supported, around here just because no one DARES to call Frank out on that idiocy is the main reason I am so very disappointed with the community around here lately.

PL: "I don't understand what people are saying, therefore they must be stupid."

Math is not a topic in which vagueness and misunderstanding occur Nine.

It's provably right or provably wrong. Frank and Murtak were and are, objectively, wrong in their math.

And if you can't see that then yes, it DOES mean you are, objectively, stupid.

Yeah, but Frank didn't address PL's basic point. Adding a few +1s isn't what most 3d6 proponents want. Frank does that often, explains things without facing the argument you gave.

Anyhow, threadjacking isn't cool.

I'll read the PDF as bedtime material.

-Crissa

I've had a glance at the PDF by the way.

Looking at the layout and mechanics it actually does rather closely resemble the system I encountered and discussed in the How to write no rules thread.

The basic mechanic looks like.

To succeed at a task you need some arbitrary number of successes declared by the GM.

You roll a pool of d6s. results of 4+ are successes.

You negotiate the size of your pool of d6s by arguing with the GM over which of your various vaguely titled abilities might be appropriate to apply to your proposed action.

You add more dice from a pool of expendable dice you happen to have, that seems it refreshes in some way when the GM thinks it should.

It varies from the other system in it doesn't have the bonus all or nothing success boosts from "removed dice".

I didn't catch whether it had the failures/complications mechanic.

It doesn't seem to use d4s and d8s.

So all in all it looks like basically the same system but possibly with a few of the somewhat worse aspects not present. So presumably is the better system. So thats a good thing.

It is however still a "rules lite" system with an opaque dice mechanic, which is why even the apparent game designer was accidentally drowning entire parties of heroes in bath tubs without meaning to. So thats a bad thing.

I should really read it in detail, but I don't know yet if I will bother going any further than a skim to spot similarities with the other system I mentioned.