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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6185919" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Within the confines of d20...sure. I mean, one could theoretically recreate FATE with a d20 resolution. Give a (relatively brief) list of pre-defined aspects and stunts, and call it a day. Because of the mechanical differences, you really don't have the same kind of need for that delicate balancing in FATE. (dunno whether the die mechanic might change that a bit) The technical fiddly bits are all pretty standardized, even if the "descriptor" parts aren't. Most of the recent versions of FATE have sections that spell out what exactly a typical stunt can do right in the core rules. So if, for your game, you need to develop the "Blood Wizard", doing so is very transparent and often fairly trivial.  Of course, that capability relies on a certain amount of "meta" mechanical function, which D&D and its audience are not really keen on (in spite of it appearing in the game in other places).Now, there is also the argument from legacy. D&D has a number of sacred cows. Which, IIRC, was a very long fairly specific list during the pre-3e development ("a fifth level wizard can cast a 5d6 Fireball"), a shorter and more abstract list for 4e ("Characters of different iconic abilities fighting battles in dungeons"), and a very nebulous "core experience" for 5e (?). At this point, I don't know what mechanics pass the "core experience" muster or why. I think the fuss about Dungeon World's OSR street cred kinda highlights this sort of confusion of mechanical and narrative sacred cows. I suspect that by the time 4e was in development, they felt a bit confined by expectations of the d20 engine. That is, they had created new mechanical sacred cows of things like feats, skills, etc. and wanted to give some sort of nod to 3e's massive fiddly-bit customization menus.</blockquote>

Verification