So, I'm curious how this is done in a way which is different than what is already being done with some of the toolkit systems.
...
Is the D&D 5E model similar to that (in theory) or different? I'm curious how such an approach can be made in such a way to keep the core essence and feel of D&D. I'm also curious how such an approach can make itself different enough to make me choose it over one of the other modular games.
It's a really good question, and I don't play a game designer on TV (much less in RL), so I probably won't do a very good job of guessing what they're up to. So take this with the same giant grain of salt you're already using for all the other threads in this forum.
The GURPS comparison is apt, though. That style of modularity intended to provide completely different games using the same mechanics.
Next is trying to give you the same game with different mechanics, so to speak.
Let's try that another way. GURPS/Hero/Etc extends the same game rules to implement many different genres, which can each be described as having it own
language. GURPS/Hero/Etc translates each of those various setting tropes to a common set of mechanics. So in theory, a
GURPS Traveller imperial marine could head-to-head with a
GURPS CthulhuPunk mythos critter because even though their genre languages are completely different, they use the same mechanical underpinnings.
D&D Next is not at all concerned with genre-tripping. D&D is
its own genre, and the designers are seeking to create a language (lexicon) that distills the common experience of D&D gameplay. That's why you hear these guys muttering on about "what is a wizard?", and so forth. What are the axioms (invariants) of the D&D experience, and how can we create a dictionary of terms with strict definitions that describe this experience? Once you have the language defined, you can then back-fill with different sets of actual rules (implementation) to taste. In theory, the different flavors of rules will still produce a common D&D experience. In theory.
So what kind of stuff goes in lexicon? Here's a possible example:
Well, the thing is it is one thing to think of the lexicon in terms of things like say keywords or whatnot, but at least as important is what the numbers mean. While in theory you could have different baselines of say hit points, in practice you can't really do that because every other layer is going to have to depend on a hit point meaning something fairly concrete. In other words you can't make a module that provides a certain magic system or combat system unless you know that doing '10 hit points of damage' means a scratch or a killing blow.
That was handly, thanks!
So, I think its safe to say that
hit points will definitely show up as an important entry in the lexicon. It's got a have a concrete definition. Even if methods for adding, reducing, and recovering hit points vary across rules modules, as long as they hew to the defined meaning, they can remain compatible to some degree. Words like level, fighter, hit point, spell, turn, etc, are the inflection points where all the parallel D&D universes meet.
That's a lot of ivory tower noodling. In practice, I am sure there will be some amount DM greasing required to make it work smoothly.
