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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GuardianLurker" data-source="post: 9759801" data-attributes="member: 786">Now those could be meaningful for multiple game systems. That would add:Turn Order/Initiative: Individual/Group/Hybrid; Randomized/Adjusted Order/Fixed Order; Periodic Resets/Purely Cyclical<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">1e and 2e have initiative that is Individual, randomized, with frequent (every turn) resets.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">3e and later have initiative that is Individual, Randomized, and Cyclical. Though the GMs in all editions tend to change the Individual to Group, purely for practical reasons.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">FFGs Genesys games have a Hybrid/Randomized/Reset initiative. The character roll initiative every turn for party use, and any character can use any roll (once).</li> </ul>Skill "Scale"/"Use"/"Granularity" (no good term comes to mind): Character-based (e.g. Backgrounds as Skills); Broad/Generalized Skills (e.g. D&D 3e, many others); Narrow/Specific Skills (e.g. GURPS); Skill Trees (broad-to-narrow-to-specialized). Additional variant: Weighted cost by player/system/unweighted.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">1e and 5e both have Backgrounds-as-Skills, with no weight attached.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">3e and 4e are both broad skills, with a system specified (and limited) weight attached.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">2e is a broad skill, with no weight attached. (Ditto for late 1e with the Survival Guides.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">As a further example, Rolemaster has skills that are specific, arranged in a limited skill tree, with a system-specified weight.</li> </ul>The AC changes are already covered as "roll vs Target" and "increased consistency across the editions", in my opinion.There might also be a reasonable cross-system "Combat Lethality" term. Super-heroic/Heroic/Death Spiral/Lethal. I'm less sure about the gradations on this, or even if this makes a meanigful difference.[SPOILER="A side discussion"]And not to denigrate Deset Gled and GMMichael's points, but categorizing game MECHANICS is a very different thing from categorizing Game Design or Game (Design) Theory. Those are both much more nebulous concepts. Even just the "Rules-Light" vs. "Rules-heavy" debate is evidence of that. Strangely enough, if you avoid trying to define the terms explicitly, or nail down commonalities in design and philosophy, I think you'd find that most people could sort game systems by "rules-weight". At least, each game relative to each other game. I'll also admit that even that situation would be more inexact than my rough statement implies. There's a lot of "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" going on here.[/SPOILER]</blockquote>

Verification