Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 4751195" data-attributes="member: 467">Forked from: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?postid=4750556" target="_blank"> I’m not dead yet…..sticking with 3.5 </a>This post got me thinking: just what is compatibility.  I mulled it over for a while, thought about various editions of D&D and D&D like games and how they interact (just how easy is it to use KotBL with 4e; can I run Scales of War in 1E?; etc...) and think I hit upon the very definition of compatibility when it comes to d20/OGL and related games:It doesn't matter how much you change the rules, so long as the terminology remains the same and the meaning of that terminology remains the same.  I know, that's going to sound contradictory, but allow me to attempt to explain by way of example.Let's say that you want to create a d20 variant with gritty, granular combat. At first blush it would seem you've just stepped outside the realm of "compatible" with typical D&D/d20.  However, the combat rules in D&D are terminology dependent.  You have Attack Bonus and Armor Class and Hit Points and all the terms used to define how and when characters and creatures act. In addition, all of these terms have values and meanings that interact with one another. Damage is related to Hit Points and the relationship between the two in quantifiable.So it stands to reason that if you wanted to change the flavor and flow of the d20 combat system, yet maintain compatibility (in both directions), then you'd keep the terms and the numbers and change their meaning within the context of the new system, and make sure those values have the same relative values as they do in the core system.Hmmm... need to think on this more.</blockquote>

Verification