Blending PbtA and FFG's Star Wars/Genesys system.

I have an unsellable system in early playtesting, and would like people's thoughts.

I've been working on a way to introduce the Fantasy Flight Games Star Wars (Edge of the Empire, etc) function to the Apocalypse World form. FFG's advantage/disadvantage is great for people who like player input into world and story, like I do. BUT, the custom dice and the weird symbols and whatnot are uncomfortable hurdles for me.

So, I painted 3d6 red and green. Odds are painted red, evens painted green. D6 are cheap, and the paints were $1 nail polish from the Reject Shop.

For success/failure the standard PbtA rules apply (roll 2d6 and results of 1-6: failure, 7-9: partial success, 10-12: full success). But:

• When players have situational advantage (the higher ground, for instance) they roll 3d6 and keep the highest 2 results.

• When players have situational disadvantage (they just lost a hand, for instance) they roll 3d6 and keep the lowest 2 results.

• Situational Advantage/Disadvantage is the net result of all good/bad factors. E.g. Higher ground (1 advantage) + Specialised Equipment (1 advantage) - Exhaustion (1 disadvantage) = Net advantage, therefore roll 3d6 keep highest 2.

Then for each roll, colours are assessed.

• If two reds, player gets a disadvantage (they succeeded in picking a lock, but are seen by a guard).

• Two greens gives them an advantage (they picked the lock and found that the head of security on the other side is asleep at his desk). (One red, one green cancel each other out).

• I'm toying with allowing the colours of all three die count when three are rolled, which would give triumphs (for 3 green)(Han and Chewie came back and shot the guy on your tail), and despairs (3 red)(they killed your pet).

Characters are a set of descriptors, so no stats, but have 3 positive traits and a negative trait. (e.g. positive: skilled bounty hunter, negative: shy around other humans). So far, these have been used to add situational advantage/disadvantage to rolls, so roll 3d6 and keep highest/lowest respectively. But, I am wondering if they need to instead change the numerical value of a roll (+2/-2 for example)

Only tested with one session so far, and I found that partial successes (rolls of 7-9) need simplifying. They bogged the game down for me, and I found it often felt like just adding a disadvantage. But my players felt positively about it still, possibly because I was the one, as the GM, who had the job of constantly thinking of what partial meant. I never struggled to think of something, but it got draining having to put that on top of dis/advantages.

Positives so far:

• cheaper and simpler than the (IMO) wanky FFG dice (though not necessarily cheaper or simpler than the free unlicensed apps, but I like to roll real dice. edit: and if I play a game, I buy a game)

• succeeded in creating a really interactive experience with players injecting dis/advantages

• usually really fast to work out what to roll and what that means

Negatives/Improvements to be made:

• I need a simpler way to figure out what the partial success rolls (7-9) mean

• Had to deface 3d6, and it required a small amount of arts and crafts. This didn't bother me, but it probably would bother others. (It doesn't need this, because it is still just odds vs. evens, but the colour makes it really fast to work out)

• Rolled Dis/Advantage (narrative consequence of rolling 2 reds/greens), and Situational Dis/Advantage (mechanical justification of rolling 3d6 instead of standard 2d6 and keeping highest/lowest) need better terminology. Maybe I'll use Positive/Negative Trait as the term for the latter.

• A lot, so far, is left up to assuming I am the GM. It's not able to just be given around yet. This will just take a bit of work.

So far it has been run in the Star Wars universe, but I think it could work well for anything.

I am hoping for feedback/suggestions from you all. Any ideas, or questions would be hugely appreciated. If you'd like my 2 pages of rules drafting, I can probably scan that in, too.

edit: formatting

Submitted October 12, 2018 at 03:58AM by Reifensteiner https://ift.tt/2yezwCL