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: 8316822" data-attributes="member: 71699">I think bonuses have magnitude and are typed, and a luckstone bears multiple types, but not all types. For instance, the luckstone doesn't add to the roll of a damage die. In order to apply to some rolls and not others, the implication is that each type has a translating rule. It could be that in your case that is a general handler, while in mine it is broken into the process-spaces. Intuitively, the complexity is identical (seeing as a general handler needs the same number of rules).However, I think your model will better facilitate super-types - such as 'all rolls' - so the sacrifice I make for the sake of diversity is to increase the cost of super-types (or more probably, to not have them). I might justify that by saying I didn't want luckstones to bonus damage dice rolls anyway.There have to be translator rules, whichever model we use. A wonderful example of that is for the 5th edition luckstone. It bonuses ability checks and saving throws. Initiative is an ability check, but not every player realises that. So luckstone is supposed to bonus initiative checks but at some tables it doesn't... their translator is broken. (Which in a neat way proves that there is such a translator.)I can't recall the text of the 4th luckstone. I gave up my books when we moved <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />It reminds me of Shahrazad in MtG. It triggers a sub-game of Magic, but in principle could have triggered any sub-game. As a design exercise, last year I designed a simple game that had subsystems that were isolated from the rest of the game, and subsystems that in principle wrote themselves into (and out of) other games. I was curious about the idea of entities in a game that were not part of that game.Thinking more on DW, it seems the move outputs include<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">delta to the fiction (e.g. X happens or say what happens)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">query the fiction (e.g. ask or tell me)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">create a resource token (e.g. 1 hold)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">create a bonus (e.g. +1 forward)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">delta to the data model (e.g. hard move dealing damage)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">launch a mini-game</li> </ul>It sort of surprises me that DW wasn't published as an LCG <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />4e is definitely a refinement. Principally in the meta-rules - how you gained and used the powers - rather than in the power design philosophy itself. Also 4e radically addressed the 'adventuring day' (which was a 3rd thing, not a Nine Swords thing, of course).We often feel drawn to mechanical universality. My philosophy is that as we do what we like with games, we ought to indulge both efficient and less efficient means. A kind of broader and more fundamental application of Suit's philosophy (that we adopt inefficient means just so that we can play the game).Here's a question, say we are in possession of a dozen DW moves selected at random from the book. Eleven are revealed to us, and one is concealed. Can we know what the contents of that concealed move must be? That is, can we predict its contents from the other eleven we possess? Can we say what its contents cannot be?</blockquote>

Verification