Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8275752" data-attributes="member: 82106">Not trying to be perverse, but why NOT do it that way. I mean, IMHO, one of the great techniques of life is to treat things the same way. Often a solution in one area generalizes to another. More than that, often a pattern of solution can create a kind of 'language' which allows different elements to combine, substitute for each other, or be used in a nested fashion. I admit, 40 years of very intensive practice at software engineering and coding has given me a specific set of problem-solving tools which rely on these kinds of techniques.So, in my own practice of GMing I tend to do that. I abstract away common concerns too. So if I notice that all different situations could produce complicated success, then I will generalize that practice. I will always tend to build universal subsystems in games too when I tinker with them. When I see games like PbtA designs which are built using a set of regular elements I see expressive power. Every class in Dungeon World has a playbook with moves. I could give any move in any playbook to any class, or through some effect, etc. 4e has that characteristic with player-facing elements where any class can use any feat (obviously some are more limited, but as a general concept). Any skill can be utilized within any SC, mechanically. Heck, an SC can be nested inside another SC, or inside a combat, etc. This is power. So, if we were playing 5e and we handle all our skill failures in a consistent way, we've created a pattern. Now we can start to leverage that for other techniques. This is just my thinking, though I haven't tried to take any of this to the point of building a generalized story now set of play processes on top of 5e. I don't really see it as having much advantage, 5e isn't that special TBH. If I go to that work, then why not use a game that is already more sophisticated?</blockquote>

Verification