I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Remathilis said:I doubt they expect "a 4e brutal scoundrel rogue, a 3e warlock, a 2e specialty priest of Talos, a 1e fighter, and a BD&D elf all go into the Caves of Chaos were they fight a group of OD&D orcs, all using their native systems". I think they mean "A tactical/powers rogue, a simple at-wills warlock, a vancian cleric, a simple basic-attack fighter, and a elven fighter/multi-classed mage go into the caves of chaos and fight down an orc horde, using a unified resolution mechanic that is fairly simple but can be layed with some complex choices if the GM/player wants".
The question will be if that simplified mechanic can suit the general needs of all those edition players to convert to the universal language.
My half-formed abortion of an idea is that it might look something like this.
Something like:
[sblock]
Monsters and Other Obstacles
The simplest way to fight a monster is to describe it. If the DM places a monster between your character and their goal, you can describe how you overcome it.
For instance, if the DM says, "Before you stands a hideous troll, dripping pus from an open sore," you can say, "I cut it down with my axe!"
If the DM wants to include some chance for failure in your attack, they will have you use some conflict resolution mechanic (such as a die roll, or a coin toss). Success indicates that you slay it, and failure indicates that you don't slay it -- perhaps, in fact, it slays you.
Some DMs may add more steps between an attempt and ultimate failure or success. Perhaps, for example, you will have to get two or three successful rolls or coin tosses before the monster gets the same amount.
This works no matter the obstacle that stands in your way, though, depending on your DM's chosen ruleset, you may have more detailed ways to overcome certain obstacles.
[/sblock]