NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8316212" data-attributes="member: 71699">I have directly observed each of those rules producing emotive responses from players. Thus, they meet my test of methods delivering feel. I'm assuming we don't need to debate whether they are each game mechanics, processes or methods? Right? The 5e system where 20 auto-hits and crits, and 1 auto-fails, that is a process for deciding if I get to apply or not apply a randomised decrement.I was mulling that. I think it is handled in the data model(s). For interfacing to be meaningful, there must be data that has meaning in more than one process-space. So for a potion of speed - assuming potions were handled by one process, I am passing meaningful data into another. Even so, not everything about potions needs to be known to that other process.In DW by intent (it's spelled out in the guidance on developing moves) the contents of a move are not limited. Many moves contain micro-processes within them, but there is nothing to say the process must be micro... it could be expansive. It could have equal or higher complexity to all other moves in aggregate. I don't see this as necessarily problematic - in some ways I very much like it. I just see it as a fact about DW's design as an abstraction: anything can be inside a move.The interface between moves is the moving fiction, that they address in common. Roughly, it looks like each move applies a delta to the fiction, which triggers other moves.Did you play 3.5 with Book of Nine Swords at all - the earlier instantiation of some of the core 4e concepts? It makes a great deal of good sense to me, to base a game on that design arc. Speculatively, one envisions further refinements!</blockquote>

Verification