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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8364056" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think there are features of 5e that make "generic" or "setting agnostic" a challenge: central to its design are (i) lists of PC build elements that are put together within certain pre-established frameworks ("classes", "races/ancestries/heritages"), (ii) lists of monsters/opponents for the GM to use in confronting those PCs with challenges, and (iii) a focus on task and process as the core of the resolution system.If you compare to more generic systems - say, HeroQuest revised or Cortex+ Heroic - they differ in all of these respects: PCs are built from descriptors, opposition is likewise built from descriptors, and resolution is mostly based around framing and intention with task and process being secondary concerns or even byproducts of resolution rather than inputs into it.This is not an evaluative comparison. It's just a comparison. For similar reasons to 5e, Apocalypse World is not a generic system - it uses distinct suites of moves (playbooks) plus thematically-conceived basic moves as the core of its resolution process, and these bring task and process to the fore also. In the same way that the way you move from AW to (say) DW is to come up with new playbooks and new basic moves, so the way to move from 5e D&D to some other sort of fantasy or some other genre would be to come up with new class, race and skill lists, and new monsters lists. I gather this is how Adventures in Middle Earth does it.</blockquote>

Verification