Modularity: What Will and Should Be

Aldarc · Jan 13, 2012

"The new edition is being conceived of as a modular, flexible system, easily customized to individual preferences. Just like a player makes his character, the Dungeon Master can make his ruleset. He might say ‘I’m going to run a military campaign, it’s going to be a lot of fighting’… so he’d use the combat chapter, drop in miniatures rules, and include the martial arts optional rules.” - Mike Mearls.

To the best of my knowledge, while modularity has been discussed throughout the threads, it's been primarily mentioned at the point of compromise in thread conflict resolution (i.e., "Well hopefully those options will be modular, so you can have X while I can have Y," etc.). But where will the points of modularity lie? For example, in the above quote Mearls indicates that there may be a combat chapter with multiple rule sets, such as "miniatures rules" and "the martial arts optional rules," which can be dropped in the midst of play. What likely will be modular for D&D-Next and what should be modular? I'm more curious in this thread as to what the dials and options are (to borrow another thread's language) than what are the numbers that the dials can be turned, if you catch my drift.

Mercurius · Jan 13, 2012

I'm not sure I exactly catch your drift, but I'll go with what's in my net

.

I think "core" will be very simple and essential structural: Ability Scores, Races, Levels, HP, AC, Defenses, d20 + modifiers vs. target number...sort of like the basics of the d20/3E system. Pretty much everything else can and will be modular: skills, powers, feats, alignment, themes, combat sub-systems, magic systems, etc. Even Classes could be modular in that there could be different ways to advance through levels, from the traditional classes to a more free-form "build-as-you-level" approach.

What I don't seeing as being modular are stuff like Defenses vs. Saving Throws. I mean, I suppose that there is a way that 4E-style Defenses could be replaced with AD&D Saving Throws, but I think that would be getting too far away from a unified core (this may be where some Old Schoolers gripe about failed promises to make 5E adaptable to any edition, although this would be missing the forest for the trees, imo).

MichaelSomething · Jan 13, 2012

Everything! 5 different skill systems! 3 magic item systems! Two types of NPC/Monster generation rules! At least seven different non-combat subsystems! Dozens and dozens of world creation tools!

DonTadow · Jan 13, 2012

MichaelSomething said:
Everything! 5 different skill systems! 3 magic item systems! Two types of NPC/Monster generation rules! At least seven different non-combat subsystems! Dozens and dozens of world creation tools!

If the goal is to actually sell the game to people currently outside of our RPG circles, then more is worse. However, too little is just as detrimtnal.

The core needs to be able to play dungeons and dragons, combat included.

Trying to think from the players perspective. Someone attempts to grab someone

DM:woah there buddy, no grabbing, we arent playing that module?

So the fix they made for grapple was just not to include it. The fix for aoe is for me to spend another 20 bucks ona book.

Okay back to "previous edition".

A module should be just that optional. Not optional in order to play. Base things must be included.

nightwyrm · Jan 13, 2012

MichaelSomething said:
Everything! 5 different skill systems! 3 magic item systems! Two types of NPC/Monster generation rules! At least seven different non-combat subsystems! Dozens and dozens of world creation tools!

Or they can just staple all the previous editions of D&D together, call the monstrosity 5e and tell people to pick and choose what they want to play.

Li Shenron · Jan 13, 2012

The miniature rules were probably given as an example because there are people who don't like playing with minis on a map, and players who don't like playing without. If the game wants to cater to both, designers need to make it work both ways.

I also think that modularity could be in some cases meant as 2 or even 3 tiers of complexity.

For example, people who want a fast combat could use the tier 1 of combat rules, based on a minimum amount of action types (e.g. standard, move, free) and no interrupts or actions of any kind to take when it's not your turn; tier 2 could include the latter and have 1-2 extra action types; tier 3 could be even more complex with weapon speeds for example.

The challenge in designing something like that is that all the game must assume the minimum tier is always used, when designing character abilities (for example all spells would be necessarily either standard/move/free actions). If adjustment is needed, it should be taxed on those groups who want to use the more complex tier, not those who use the simpler one.

I'm A Banana · Jan 13, 2012

DonTadow said:
Trying to think from the players perspective. Someone attempts to grab someone

DM:woah there buddy, no grabbing, we arent playing that module?

I think it'll be more like this:

Someone attempts to grab someone.

DM: "Make a Grapple Check."

OR, DM: "Okay, you grab him."

OR, DM: "What power do you use to do that?"

...etc....

The player doesn't have to worry about it too much, if all they're doing is free-forming a grab.

Crazy Jerome · Jan 13, 2012

I think a substantial part of the modular stuff will be how you apply the core, not the things itself. Oh sure, you'll have optional classes that only work with certain subsystems. You can't play an alchemist class if you aren't using the associated alchemy rules (though you might play an "alchemist" character using some different rules about crafting). But then you'll have things like how movement works.

Let's say that the core has a "movement rate" stat on every creature. In a nod to older versions, let's say the stat block has things like "MV 12". In the core game, maybe this means you can move 12 5' squares while in combat or 120 feet in some unit of time. (Those probably aren't the best examples, but whatever it is, it will be simple and fairly regular--i.e. no "115 ft" entries.)

The 4E and 3E analogs to those are probaby obvious. But you might also have an abstract positioning movement module where you roll checks on your MV score versus opponents, to see if you get them where you want them or vice versa (perhaps merged with an initiative system). You might have a "zone" option where the number plugs into a check you make to change multiple zones. Then you have a more detailed simulation option where the movement rate is compared to a chart to get reasonable distances you can travel in different environments.

You can sort of do that with existing versions now. The trouble is, though, that the numbers are always kind of clunky, because the system wasn't designed to be changed that way. So the biggest part of the modular stuff here is not the specific options chosen, but that all of them work with the core stat.