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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8316502" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, but let me give an example "+1 Luck Stone" Now, we have an element, and it has a magnitude, and its Intent is to apply that magnitude to "elements of the system where luck is an input." One way to do that, which HoML uses, is to have certain types of bonuses, and said stone might manifest a property of "grants a +1 permanent bonus to all checks" and this then flows through the common system where that magnitude and type are understood throughout because they are hooked into the common 'check system' that underlies all resolution where anything is at stake. It could possibly input into some other area, like say if a ritual specified a cost of 'a luck stone' as an ingredient or something like that, so there are potentially multiple pathways, a tag (keyword) would be another route.Now, in a system with disparate implementations of mechanics, how is that magnitude actualized? In classic D&D for instance '+1' doesn't have any real meaning as a magnitude, unless it has been attached to something, and then its effective magnitude varies wildly (IE +1 to a 1d6 where you want to roll high is big, but it is a lot smaller to a 1d20 roll high, and NEGATIVE to a 1d20 roll low).I have to assume your solution has all these commonalities as well, or else it must present a 'translator rule' for each type of facet of information that it could potentially need (IE an explanation of how magnitudes are incorporated into its resolution mechanic). I would assume that it also needs something like my 'permanent bonus' attribution process in order to assign things in a generic way to these inputs.So, we may be essentially describing the same thing (though I am definitely saying I would prefer a common range for each facet of input, like 'magnitude of check benefit' vs some potentially large set of translator rules). Obviously there are also other bits and pieces, like the actual rules for how 'permanent bonus' works (IE how things might stack or not, etc.). In the case of HoML (the current version anyway) this is part of the rules for checks, which are pretty much the first thing the game sets forth, mechanically.Right, I think that is pretty much true. Most DW moves are pretty clearly 'in the moment', but there are some which are more of an 'episode', like Death's Door, or the downtime moves like Carouse where almost anything could happen and you could fight a whole battle inside the bar or whatever, if that is what the players feel like doing.No, I have played some 3.5e with friends. Didn't really delve much into the material, though I have heard quite a few mentions of that book. I know it has been stated to be a bit of a prototype for 4e power system design. IMHO I would say 4e IS the further refinement, no? I just see a really robust design has having that mechanical universality, which DW does, and then some sort of process which gives resolution or 'progress' mechanisms and player decisions some 'teeth' by fixing the valence of whatever the mechanical process is that instantiates them. 4e is only complete in that later part WRT SCs, DW does it inherently as long as you GM according to the game's GM rules, and other editions of D&D really don't do it at all, with the exception of combat or 'classic' D&D dungeon/wilderness crawling.</blockquote>

Verification