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: 4753301" data-attributes="member: 467">Not in the example given. "Orc" is a monster straight out of the MM and for 1e, 2e and 3e, at least, no more work needs done than flipping open the appropriate MM to the appropriate page. I won't speak to 4e because I have no idea whether a) 8 orcs would be a good fight for 3rd level PCs, and b) whether "orc" is a useful or complete term in 4e.My fault, I am sort of talking about 2 things at once, though they are related.On the one hand, I am talking about a sort of edition-neutral lexicon, the terminology that is common through editions of D&D and related games that have inherent equivalent meaning, even if the details vary between editions ("orc" and "3rd level" being the terms in the example given). It doesn't matter that 1e orcs and 3e orcs are different when compared to one another, it is that they are equivalent when compared to 3rd level characters in their respective editions.On the other hand, there's this though experiment floating around half formed in my mind in which you take both the terminology and numbers from any given edition (doesn't matter which one) and change the meaning and use of those terms and numbers to fir a different set of rules, but maintaining equivalency. It's more an extension of the idea of compatibility being a function of terminology and numbers than anything else. It's hard to use 1e adventures with 3e, for example, because the numbers change between editions, even if in many cases the terminology remains the same. One could conceivably maintain both the numbers and terminology, but change play.I apologize for having a hard time coming up with a concrete example, mostly because the idea is still nebulous.  I'm not even sure it is possible, in fact.  But what I mean is rather than adding or changing a whole bunch of system information, which then requires conversion, one uses the system information differently.For example, let's say I want to create Reynard's Fantasy Heartbreaker, but I want to be able to sell to the existing market. So the RFHB Core Rulebook comes out, detailing a whole different system for going in holes and killing things and taking stuff, built around opposed rolls and percentile dice and the occasional game or rock-paper-scissors. However, I not only use terms like Hit Points and Attack Bonus and Saving Throws, I apply numbers to those terms in a way that is consistent with their values in D&D, relative to the other terms and numbers in the game. So while 30 hit points in RFHB might serve as a wound check value versus a damage total (just to pull an example out of thin air) it is, in relation to the rest of the system, the equivalent of 30 points of damage attrition points as it is in D&D. Therefore, when I start pumping out adventures and monster books, those publications still have value to and are balanced for use with D&D (to catch the widest possible potential market, not just fans of RFHB).Again, it is more of a thought experiment: is such a thing even possible, with no real concern as to whether such a thing is desirable.</blockquote>

Verification