Now this is modularity I would support

Saint&Sinner · Jan 13, 2012

Sage has been doing a series of responses to the L&L columns. The latest is very very interesting.

Syntax Error | How I’d Make D&D Next

DonTadow · Jan 13, 2012

Saint&Sinner said:
Sage has been doing a series of responses to the L&L columns. The latest is very very interesting.

Syntax Error | How I’d Make D&D Next

The cost to play DND would skyrocket, and, in the end, won't be for anyone.
I love apple pie, I love chicken and I love orange juice. I don't want chicken apple pie smothered in orange juice.

Imagine the confusion at hte game table.

I know how to play 5e, great, what modules oh 1d, 2f, and 4d, and a little 2d mixed with s4. Wait, we don't play with that we play z3, d3 and d0.

That's getting a little too into campaign creation, which should be things that adventure books and campaign guides detail, not material neccesary for the game.

Would you buy a novel where your friend recommended
"So buy this novel it's good. But, itsn ot complete. If you want the version i read pay another 20 bucks and get the martial expansion module. And another 10 for the magic module.

I'm for optional material, but not optional materail as apart of neccessary for the core.

MortonStromgal · Jan 13, 2012

seams overly complex... I would put all the "options" in the PHB, and allow PHB2 etc to add specific feats, classes, etc to those and not change the rules at all.

blalien · Jan 13, 2012

The core rule book, the first thing a new player sees, absolutely must have a simple set of rules that the player can read through and understand right away. The worst possible mistake Wizards can make is to make the core books too intimidating for new players. A group of five kids, having never seen a D&D book before, should be able to skim the books and be able to run a game on their own. Any sort of modularity should be listed only in the DMG or in the back of the PHB, with a warning in bold that this is only for advanced players.

The Spycraft system handles modularity very well. The core game is a modern James Bond style d20 system, but the system can be adapted to other settings with the use of qualities, each quality changing one rule about the game. Then there are different campaign settings, each setting applying a few qualities. For example, a quality might be "Bottomless Bullets: You have unlimited ammo," or "Extra Deadly: NPCs die as soon as they reach zero HP." Then, to play a Rambo style setting, you'd apply the Bottomless Bullets and Extra Deadly qualities, and maybe a couple others. I could see D&D going this route, where each DM is free to add a set of patches on the core rules.

Saint&Sinner · Jan 13, 2012

This is more of a designer layout than something directly for the masses. He mentions this near the end saying the vast majority of people would utilize specific sets of this framework. It would give 3rd party developers and WotC a common language to handle their products.

BrockBallingdark · Jan 13, 2012

blalien said:
The core rule book, the first thing a new player sees, absolutely must have a simple set of rules that the player can read through and understand right away. The worst possible mistake Wizards can make is to make the core books too intimidating for new players. A group of five kids, having never seen a D&D book before, should be able to skim the books and be able to run a game on their own. Any sort of modularity should be listed only in the DMG or in the back of the PHB, with a warning in bold that this is only for advanced players.

The Spycraft system handles modularity very well. The core game is a modern James Bond style d20 system, but the system can be adapted to other settings with the use of qualities, each quality changing one rule about the game. Then there are different campaign settings, each setting applying a few qualities. For example, a quality might be "Bottomless Bullets: You have unlimited ammo," or "Extra Deadly: NPCs die as soon as they reach zero HP." Then, to play a Rambo style setting, you'd apply the Bottomless Bullets and Extra Deadly qualities, and maybe a couple others. I could see D&D going this route, where each DM is free to add a set of patches on the core rules.

I agree and I think alot of people agree, 5E has to be basic and simple for a new player. The 3x and Pathfinder books were scary to go through and I've been playing for 20+ years. My cousin and I would play 1st edition as kids and then he got out of it after 2nd edition. He came back to the game after Pathfinder (4E ed D&D as well) and I gave him the Core book to look over for the week. My cousin is pretty bright and loves to read, he had difficulty grasping some of the rules on his own. Start basic, then add the advancement modules to the basic rules, it's going to be the only way to attempt "unity" for all the different version fans of D&D.

Brock