What Can Modularity Look Like?

One of the central components of the discussion of ... whatever the next iteration of DnD will be called has been modularity. This seems promising but it has a whiff of being all things to all people -- with very little information as to what it would look like. The more I break it down, the more skeptical I become.

I leave it to the people here to correct my growing pessimism.

The basic notion of modularity is that your game can include whatever components you want and ignore what you do not want. The poster child for this (across editions) seems to be psionics. It is pretty easy to run any edition of DnD without psionics but it is a module you can graft on to any edition if you choose -- with varying perceptions of the success of the graft.

It sounds like the intent with the next iteration is to take such modularity MUCH more seriously. This leads me to wonder what will be core and what will be modular. Here is my off-the-wall guess as to what is core and what modules can be added to recreate specific "edition-specific" experiences.

Core - *basic classes (fighter, thief, magic-user, cleric)
*basic level-based advancement - probably with an AEDU-light system to balance choices across classes
*basic combat (NOT requiring a grid -- more on this in a second) including a simple Vancian magic system

The core will be rules-light and emphasize setting and RP.

Example modules --
* Expert combat (grid-based)
* Alternative magic systems (3e sorceror, etc. -- maybe vancian is a module)
* Psionics
* Planar mechanics
* Additional classes by, roughly, power source
* Skill-based play a la' skill challenges
* Setting specific modules (Dark sun, generic sea-based setting, etc.)
* Investigation-specific systems a la' Lorefinder
* Horror themed rules (think BoVD, HoHorror, sanity rules, etc.)
* Diplomacy-specific systems

If you want ODnD or 1e feel- you can stick to the core (I am not an expert there - just guessing)

If you want 2e - core + skills + a setting

If you want 3e - core + skills + expert combat + a setting

4e may have an AEDU based alternative if that is not core

If you want heavy RP -- core + diplomacy / investigation but not expert combat

If you want heavy combat -- core + expert combat but not skills etc.

Is this the goal?

There is a chance this create a common infrastructure that players of all editions could buy in to (this seems to be the goal from PR documents) but it could dramatically accelerate fragmentation as well.

I wonder how well one could write a Ravenloft of Shadowfell supplement (lets say) in year 3 of the edition. Would it be core only? Would it have to include explanations of how to adapt expert combat, Vancian magic, investigation skills, etc. into Ravenloft such that a third or more of each book is irrelevant to large segments of the community?

Well, I will base off 4E for no particular reason.


To me, 4E can be divided into these modules

Classes (Start with the basic four, can mod up to subclasses or new classes)
Races (Start with races as names more or oles and mod up to racial abilities and powers)
Feats (Start with none and mod up to having them)
Skills (Start with 4E's set(Very simple) and mod up to a more 3.5 version with ranks, or such)
Powers (I think this needs to change more, but going with 4E, start with At-wills and stances (essentials Martial style) and mod up to more complicated individual powers.)

Things like this, basically.

GURPS?

Castles and Crusades?

DocSER said:

I wonder how well one could write a Ravenloft of Shadowfell supplement (lets say) in year 3 of the edition. Would it be core only? Would it have to include explanations of how to adapt expert combat, Vancian magic, investigation skills, etc. into Ravenloft such that a third or more of each book is irrelevant to large segments of the community?

Click to expand...

Supposing your framework for modularity is akin to the model under development, campaign supplements might be developed by heavily privileging narrative/setting elements over rules, leaving individual DMs to decide how they wish to establish the rules environment using the core D&D game and later rules accessories. This way, DMs can decide what sort of game (espionage, combat-heavy, mystery/investigation, etc.) they want to use the D&D rules to help model within the setting. If setting supplements were to also include modular rules, they might include only optional rules (in various categories/modules) that seem most appropriate to the milieu, that could be included to enhance existing rules modules. For example, suppose a Dark Sun setting expected the use of core rules + expert combat + psionics+ advanced magic (all theoretical). A Dark Sun campaign supplement might include optional rules for any and all of these rules categories (optional core races, classes; gladiatorial expert combat; specific Athasian psionics; defiling and preserving magic models).

Yeah I'm thinking it's going to look a lot like GURPs.

But I also have the feeling that:

1) There's going to be a lot of modules. Because they want to sell books, expect things people like to be put into this book vs. that one. People were upset the barbarian/druid/bard weren't in the 4e PHB1? I don't see that changing.

2) That one book is likely all the support that category is going to get*. It may be supported online with DDi (If they keep it; I can't imagine why they would stop with a service like DDi) but that's it. Prime example: psionics. It generally gets one book (3.5) where it gets options, and that's that.

*The caveat being if that one thing is super popular and sells like gangbusters.

3) The Flip side of 1 is that they'll only make modules that will sell a certain amount. If they project that something won't sell enough to cover its production costs, I can't see them doing it. (Although hell, WotC made Magic of Incarnum so what do I know. )

In a way I see it possibly working as layers, working something akin to past editions:

Basic: Core classes, 1 axis alignment (Law-Chaos-Neutral), no skills or any fancy combat abilities.

Advanced (1e/2e): Sub-classes, some basic skills, more in depth character abilities, 2 axis alignment

Modern(3e): Prestige classes, feats, more detailed skill system, AoOs

Post-Modern (4e): Grid based combat, new alignment, the dailies and all that jargon that goes over my head (not being a 4e player), that DDI stuff

I mean, as things like C&C and other games have shown, you can peel away 3.x and get something resembling previous editions. I have no idea if that's possible going forward.

DocSER said:

One of the central components of the discussion of ... whatever the next iteration of DnD will be called has been modularity. This seems promising but it has a whiff of being all things to all people -- with very little information as to what it would look like. The more I break it down, the more skeptical I become.

I leave it to the people here to correct my growing pessimism.

Click to expand...

You want to see it done really well? Go check out the beta playtest edition of Novus and the first three issues of Libram Novus. Check out the beta playtest forums.

That's how the game's going to work when it's finished-- all of the future rules expansions are going to be in those little two dollar online magazines and compiled in magazine-sized softcover splats. Everything's optional and you can have your rules as simple or as complex as you want them.

Yeah, Tim's a friend of mine, but that's not why I keep saying his name every time someone asks who I would ideally want to see developing the next version of D&D-- I'm saying it because Novus is doing a lot of the things I want to see D&D do.

trancejeremy said:

In a way I see it possibly working as layers, working something akin to past editions:

Basic: Core classes, 1 axis alignment (Law-Chaos-Neutral), no skills or any fancy combat abilities.

Advanced (1e/2e): Sub-classes, some basic skills, more in depth character abilities, 2 axis alignment

Modern(3e): Prestige classes, feats, more detailed skill system, AoOs

Post-Modern (4e): Grid based combat, new alignment, the dailies and all that jargon that goes over my head (not being a 4e player), that DDI stuff

Click to expand...

That is very interesting. I'd give you XP if I could.

This is just me hashing ideas out. I'm interested in learning just what ideas they have already.

Core Game:
This is a very simply game like Savage Worlds, but it will have the common components to every D&D version so far. These will be treated differently, but they will be able to be built upon. For instance:
Classes, Levels, Races (with racial abilities), the 6 ability scores (this will be most of the game, basically 6 skills for everything), HP and attack ability by class, Saving Throws as defenses as well as AC, Gold Pieces & equipment, spells / Powers, and alignment.

Supplements based upon earlier editions will probably be piecemeal. If you want 3.0, add the pieces for that game only.
Feat supplement (3.x, 4E)
Skill supplement (2e, 3.x, & 4E)
Expanded combat with powers (4e)
Expanded combat with class abilities (3.x/d20)
Many Exploration variants (all)
Expanded spell systems (3.x, 4e rituals, 1e?)
etc.

Other supplements could be created that are not attempts to umbrella under the core game all of the previous editions. These don't not need to be re-creations.
Mass combat
Monster races
Vehicle combat
New classes which break the core rules
3D, underwater, and space combat
Kingdom ruling
Investigation
Setting specific additions
Social interaction mechanics
Adventure specific additions
Player narrative control supplements
Alternate power/spell systems a.k.a psionics
etc.

I would expect all of the core races, monsters, spells, and "essential D&D" stuff to be in the core game. A lot of it is optional anyways really. No specific instance in any of those cases must be used to play a game. Single race, single class, single opponent type campaigns have been done before.

What I hope is that they make the core all one book, but I could settle on two. That books sales is where the income all of the other supplements will drive. It's the NEXUS of the system.

What they will actually end up doing, I don't know. But I think being a lot like GURPS would be a huge mistake. Don't get me wrong, I like GURPS a lot. But the one drawback to systems like GURPS or Hero System is that the they are a lot of little parts that you assemble.

For D&D, I see a much coarser form of modularity being the way to go. For example, you either use no skills (and ad hoc "skill" attempts with ability scores) or use a simple set of adventuring skills or use a more complicated and comprehensive set of skills. Then if you want to tweak from there, that is mainly house rules. (However, to make that work, I wouldn't necessarily make the skills work as they do in 3E or 4E. Rather, I'd tie them to ability scores more closely using a feat-like system. That makes varying the number of skills without changing the underlying math possible.)