The Problems With Modularity

One of the stated design goals of 5e is that you can have a guy playing a 1st edition style fighter, with nothing more than his six stats, attack bonus, and other basics, and he can be playing alongside someone who has a 3.x or 4e style complex character, and both will work fine together and be balanced. Am I the only one that thinks this is a bad idea? It's simply not possible to please everyone. I can see alot of problems in trying to do so. There are good reasons why most games don't take this approach.

How do you make characters that have skills, feats, powers, etc. balanced with a 1st edition, plain, basic character? One of the developers mentioned the idea that you could "trade in" the basic things fighters get like attack bonus for special maneuvers or other more complex options. The problem is, balancing these things is not easy to do. Look at the feats in 3rd and 4th editions, for example. All feats cost the same thing, and yet they were far from balanced with each other.

I also doubt that people will like the idea of having to give up basic stats like attack bonus just to get the complexity they want in their class. 3rd and 4th edition players are used to getting both. People are going to see it as a "tax," and rightly so. But as long as the 1e and later edition style characters must be balanced with each other, that will be inevitable. You either must give up something in return for your extra options and complexity, or your character will just be plain better than theirs.

If the core game is extremely simple, like 1e simple, and everything else is optional modules, how on earth do people design adventures, monsters, etc, taking all of those things into account? This will be especially problematic if alot of these "modular" options aren't in the core rulebook. Yeah, great, we might get the option for a real skill system in some other book, for example, but what does it matter if nothing else in the future supports it? There's also the big problem that if the monsters weren't designed with that system in mind, the DM will have to fill in the blanks.

Having too many options can also confuse and divide players. I'm not against having the occasional optional rule, but if the game really is going to be as modular as it sounds, people could be easily overwhelmed by all of the choices. I can see all of this being a real headache for the DM as well, as he's not just going to have to learn one system, but every system being used by every player at the table and he's the one who has the headahce of makign sure they all work together and having to figure something out whenever they don't. One of the things I often hear people praise about 4e was how much easier it made life for the DM. Modular systems do just the opposite.

Different modular systems, even when designed to use the same base system, don't always end up very compatible with each other. I point to White Wolf games for an example. I've seen people try to mix vampires, changelings, werewolves and all the other various world of darkness games into one, and boy, was that a horrible mess. They all used the same basic core storyteller system, but when mixed together, it was just awful. The nWoD made an effort to fix this problem by making the various creature types use as many common rules as possible (or at least alot more than they did before), the exact oppposite approach of what DnD 5e is proposing.

The biggest concern I have, though, is that putting too much emphasis on trying to please everyone will just water the game down and discourage innovation. I want 5e to be a new game that stands on its own merits, with new ideas and improvements over older editions. I don't want a game that tries to be every edition in one. If I wanted to play basic dnd, there's already an edition for that. I don't want to see the desire to try and fit everyone in one big tent discourage the developers from being creative and experimenting for fear of alienating someone. Let's face it, not everyone is going to like every rule. That's just inevitable. And the truth is people usually do just fine making their own house rules to modify what they don't like, anyway.

Who knows, maybe WotC will amaze me and overcome all of these problems. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what they're saying and the system really isn't going to be as modular as it sounds.

I think rather than watering the game down, they are trying to refocus on the core, highly identifiable elements of D&D. Recapture the lost Pathfinder audience.

I don't think they are planning to have 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e style characters coexisting either. But modularity aims to make it flexible enough to run a single game in one of those styles. I admit though, it will be a challenge! Good luck to them

I think the OP makes some very good points regarding his worries for a new edition.

As he notes, it will be interesting to see how they can balance having a 1E-style simplistic character playing alongside a 3.X-style "tricked out" character that uses many of the modular rules. Even beyond issues of trading power for versatility, there are issues such as how to resolve a situation where the latter character has some abilities related to a situation (e.g. skill ranks) that the former character doesn't.

To put it another way, if both characters come to a wall, and the 3.X-style character has ranks in the Climb skill, what does the 1E-style character - with no ranks in skills - do? Just because he doesn't use the skill rules doesn't mean he's unable to do anything outside of combat, it's just that he doesn't use those rules for resolving non-combat actions.

That's where the problems come in. Because depending on what the GM does, the 1E-style player either gets screwed compared to the 3.X-style player (who just makes a check), or gets a much easier time of it - actually balancing the challenge of having both climbing the wall will be difficult.

That's without even going into the question of how published NPCs will be statted up. Presumably the easiest way is to write them up using all of the modular rules, and then you can just ignore the parts you don't use (since subtraction is easier than addition), but it could still be tricky depending on just how "modular" the rules really are (to say nothing of having new module rules sets come out later).

Making a "fractured" set of mechanics in order to appeal to a fractured fan base is understandable, as it seems like the best way to appeal to them all. But it could very well solidify those fractures among the fans, rather than healing them.

It is far easier to include elements you like to a simple stable core than hardwire in complexity and make removing things akin to playing Jenga with the rules.

I think the biggest fear coming out of all of this is that for the first time since the launch of 3E, WOTC may be producing a game that doesn't dictate playstyle via the rules. For those who never fully understood the enjoyment of being told how to play this is wonderful news.

Another way to look at it is that modularity is (or will be) 5E's major innovation (if, of course, they pull it off!).

I agree that it is potentially very problematic but I don't think it is insurmountable. But the problem only approaches insurmountable if we expect and want a perfectly balanced game, one that is impossible to bend to the point of breaking (that is, one in which system mastery doesn't reward those who spend hours upon hours trying to find ways to optimize their characters). I would suggest that we simply accept the fact that no matter what 5E's design is, there is going to be some degree of system mastery, of munchkinization and character optimization possible. And yes, "core" characters will likely end up not quite as powerful as "advanced" characters. There probably isn't a way around this - and, I think, this is OK, as long as the gap isn't too much or too obvious.

There are a couple other ways to look at it this. It may also be that core won't be quite as simple as we might think it will be, but that a lot of its ease of play will be through pre-given options. For instance, a core fighter will still be able to do something akin to Combat Maneuvers, but they will be laid out in a relatively straight-forward manner and won't be as granular. In other words, "Advanced" won't simply mean "more stuff" as much as "greater detail of stuff."

The challenge of core-to-advanced also varies depending upon what aspect of the game we're talking about. Ability scores and skills are relatively easy, with modular degrees like so:

Ability score -> skill group -> specialty skill
(e.g. Strength -> Athletics -> Swim, Climb, Jump, etc)

A core character would likely just have an ability score (for passive checks) and modifier (for active checks), along with some kind of level adjustment and/or bonus for specialization. An advanced character would take that same number and then differentiate it further, like so:

Core STR mod +8
Advanced STR skills: jump +9, swim +7, climb +8

Same average, but more detail.

This has a correlate in class features:

class feature -> combat maneuvers -> specific combat maneuver (trip, grapple, push, etc)

A core fighter might have a single number for all combat maneuvers, while an advanced fighter would have different numbers for different maneuvers.

But again, with different degrees of complexity there are going to be ways to optimize and exploit; the key for WotC will be to minimize this as much as possible. But I would also argue that even if it could be totally balanced, it shouldn't be - that some degree of system mastery should be rewarded, in the same sense that players that really put their hearts into playing should be rewarded over those that just show up to eat snacks and kill things. The difference shouldn't be huge, but it should be (imo) there.

The key is the phrase "style of edition x..." A D&D Next character that emulates OD&D, AD&D, or BECMI D&D will be less complex than their later edition counterparts but will still have options available to them that all PCs will share (i.e. the core system and basics of the game).

Warning Long

Falling Icicle said:

One of the stated design goals of 5e is that you can have a guy playing a 1st edition style fighter, with nothing more than his six stats, attack bonus, and other basics, and he can be playing alongside someone who has a 3.x or 4e style complex character, and both will work fine together and be balanced. Am I the only one that thinks this is a bad idea? It's simply not possible to please everyone. I can see alot of problems in trying to do so. There are good reasons why most games don't take this approach.

Click to expand...

With the approach they are taking, its very hard to say how it will work out. However, I think the primary reason most games don't take this approach is development resources, not some fundamental impossibility.

Falling Icicle said:

How do you make characters that have skills, feats, powers, etc. balanced with a 1st edition, plain, basic character? One of the developers mentioned the idea that you could "trade in" the basic things fighters get like attack bonus for special maneuvers or other more complex options. The problem is, balancing these things is not easy to do. Look at the feats in 3rd and 4th editions, for example. All feats cost the same thing, and yet they were far from balanced with each other.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that they are not talking about actual characters (or even mechanics) from 3e and 4e. Just characters with similar levels of customizability and complexity. My (and I think the general) suspicion is that the "basic" classes will be pre-chosen versions of the complex classes, to one extent or another. The critical thing here (mechanically) is to avoid stacking bonuses upon bonuses.

Falling Icicle said:

I also doubt that people will like the idea of having to give up basic stats like attack bonus just to get the complexity they want in their class. 3rd and 4th edition players are used to getting both. People are going to see it as a "tax," and rightly so. But as long as the 1e and later edition style characters must be balanced with each other, that will be inevitable. You either must give up something in return for your extra options and complexity, or your character will just be plain better than theirs.

Click to expand...

That's a heap of (somewhat pessimistic) speculation. It might be correct, but I think we've already heard that the escalating power of gaining levels in 3e and 4e is going to take a break for the milder progression that keeps an orc dangerous for several levels. Players and fans of every edition are going to give things up (or keep playing the edition they love), but they are also going to get things in return. Every new edition has included things that people fretted over, yet people still play.

Of course, that's only for the base game. The idea of a modular structure opens up the possibility of having a "super hero" module to get back that 4e rampant smackdown feel. It just might take an extra moment for the GM to adjust monsters and the players to adjust some stats.

Falling Icicle said:

If the core game is extremely simple, like 1e simple, and everything else is optional modules, how on earth do people design adventures, monsters, etc, taking all of those things into account? This will be especially problematic if alot of these "modular" options aren't in the core rulebook. Yeah, great, we might get the option for a real skill system in some other book, for example, but what does it matter if nothing else in the future supports it? There's also the big problem that if the monsters weren't designed with that system in mind, the DM will have to fill in the blanks.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking that simple DM prep is one of the things they are trying to take from 4e. So monsters will be simple. This may mean that the "tactical movement" module has a few simple pages on adding that system to monsters generally (give soldiers this, give controllers that..) Additionally, the Monster Manual could have group entries like 4e, with a note attached to the Goblin page:

Falling Icicle said:

Having too many options can also confuse and divide players. I'm not against having the occasional optional rule, but if the game really is going to be as modular as it sounds, people could be easily overwhelmed by all of the choices. I can see all of this being a real headache for the DM as well, as he's not just going to have to learn one system, but every system being used by every player at the table and he's the one who has the headahce of makign sure they all work together and having to figure something out whenever they don't. One of the things I often hear people praise about 4e was how much easier it made life for the DM. Modular systems do just the opposite.

Click to expand...

I don't they add (or need to add), very much complexity to the DM's life. However, that is very dependent on how they are implemented. I've seen it implemented well in other games (even 2e to an extent). You do touch on my greatest fear for the modular idea, though. The idea of finding a group which plays like you want. Its great to say that the 2e complexity character and the 3e complexity character can sit at the same table, I have no trouble imagining that scenario. However, if the DM and the six other players want to use the grid combat, and you hate that...umm I don't see how that works out. (Maybe you let them move you?) Similarly, if you want gritty, but everyone around like 4e super-heroics....

Falling Icicle said:

Different modular systems, even when designed to use the same base system, don't always end up very compatible with each other. I point to White Wolf games for an example. I've seen people try to mix vampires, changelings, werewolves and all the other various world of darkness games into one, and boy, was that a horrible mess. They all used the same basic core storyteller system, but when mixed together, it was just awful. The nWoD made an effort to fix this problem by making the various creature types use as many common rules as possible (or at least alot more than they did before), the exact oppposite approach of what DnD 5e is proposing.

Click to expand...

Yeah...umm...I don't think that's modular. The original WoD titles weren't so much the same system as they were similar games with the same resolution mechanic. That is the core of the problem you are describing (and one that I experienced in a short-lived mashup game.)

Falling Icicle said:

The biggest concern I have, though, is that putting too much emphasis on trying to please everyone will just water the game down and discourage innovation. I want 5e to be a new game that stands on its own merits, with new ideas and improvements over older editions. I don't want a game that tries to be every edition in one. If I wanted to play basic dnd, there's already an edition for that. I don't want to see the desire to try and fit everyone in one big tent discourage the developers from being creative and experimenting for fear of alienating someone. Let's face it, not everyone is going to like every rule. That's just inevitable. And the truth is people usually do just fine making their own house rules to modify what they don't like, anyway.

Click to expand...

That's exactly why you keep the base game simple and work out from there with modules. Making your own module, or houseruling the game's mechanics get exponentially tougher as the core rules get more complicated. The earlier editions had huge holes that DMs had to fill in to make their games just work logically. (So much so that in the 2e era, when you joined a new GM you often asked "How do you handle X, Y, and Z?") 2e was also modular, many of the combat rules that almost everyone used weren't in the PHB or DMG, they were in Complete Fighter. I fully expect similar things from 5e. Some modules will be so popular that you'll be hard pressed to find a game without them.

I also expect (and eagerly anticipate) that a simpler core will bring back some of that wonder and vitality that campaigns had back then. Of course, not having seen any of the rules yet, I reserve the right to be totally disappointed.

Shroomy said:

The key is the phrase "style of edition x..." A D&D Next character that emulates OD&D, AD&D, or BECMI D&D will be less complex than their later edition counterparts but will still have options available to them that all PCs will share (i.e. the core system and basics of the game).

Click to expand...

I think this is probably right. Just because you've got a stripped-down, lightweight BD&D-type character adventuring alongside a tricked-out 3E-type character doesn't mean that one of them is playing in BD&D and the other is playing in 3E. Taking the "climb walls" example, the 3E-type character might have a bunch of skill points to allocate while the BD&D-type character just gets a flat across-the-board skill bonus. The 3E character can specialize to be moderately better than the BD&D character at certain things, at the cost of not being as good at other stuff. But they'd both use the same rules for climbing walls.

(Note: I am not privy to the design and am just using this as an example of how things could work.)

I'd point out that WotC has already done this "varying complexity" approach. That is, after all, the whole point of Essentials; you have characters who are lighter and simpler than core 4E, adventuring alongside regular 4E characters with all the bells and whistles. I think it works quite well... although if you're playing an Essentials character, you can quickly get bored with the non-Essentials folks taking forever on their turns.

Falling Icicle said:

Am I the only one that thinks this is a bad idea? It's simply not possible to please everyone. I can see alot of problems in trying to do so. There are good reasons why most games don't take this approach.

.

Click to expand...

You're not the only one

Its an incredibly ambitious goal. I work in software development and I can assure you that having intelligent, creative, well trained people (which the 5th edition design team is) is NOT even remotely a guarantee of success when you pursue ambitious goals.

My biggest concerns mirror yours
1) Balancing all the options is going to be insanely difficult
2) Writing adventures for the final system may well be prohibitively difficult.

The second point is very important to me. As a GM one of the main reasons that I play D&D (as opposed to the zillions of other RPGs) is that I can buy lots of modules/Adventure Paths. While I change them very substantially its still easier to start from one than to start from scratch.

The key unknowns at this point are how long WOTC has and how receptive to feedback from the open playtests it is going to be (the two being very, very related, of course).

The shorter a time frame they have the less likely they are to pull this off. But the time frame is going to be strongly influenced by pressure from HASBRO and the impact that the simple announcement of 5th edition and the diversion of resources will have on 4th edition product sales.

ExploderWizard said:

I think the biggest fear coming out of all of this is that for the first time since the launch of 3E, WOTC may be producing a game that doesn't dictate playstyle via the rules. For those who never fully understood the enjoyment of being told how to play this is wonderful news.

Click to expand...

It's nice to know that those of us who hated the "buff everything out the max, using a spread sheet, to handle the inevitable dispels--only to see the whole thing blow up in 2 rounds anyway, due to save and die"--didn't have our playstyle dictated to us in high-level 3E.

That caveat noted, I agree with the larger point. Indeed, I would change it to "since AD&D first came down the pike." It is has been obvious in many of the discussons thus far that one of the biggest objections that some people have to modularity is that the game will no longer dictate styles. Apparently, this is not only important to them for their own games, but extends to other tables--as if the way we are pretending to be an elf over here affects the quality of them being an elf over there.

That's also a separate issue for those with the "My Fair Lady" problem*. They don't care how the mechanics works, as long as the style they want is in there and labeled properly--according to them.

* An aside in a song on language--"Actually, the French don't care what you do, as long as you pronounce it properly."