Is modular gameplay/edition intercompatibility possible without technology?

[GregoryOatmeal]

WOTC has a beautiful dream, and I'm feeling a lot of love from this company. It's really beautiful to see they're working on unifying people after all of the trolls flocked to my posts about modules supporting multiple editions and ending the edition treadmill. After all, despite some unimaginative and unproductive responses WOTC ultimately came to the same conclusion I did. The game thrives when people aren't divided by editions and D&D products are inter-compatible.

Still that's a tall order. How can a level 12 4E Deva invoker, a level 12 1E fighter, and a level 12 3.5 multi-prestige-classed whatever go through the 2E Return to the Tomb of Horrors?


I've been wondering that and this is what I arrived at. The way I see it each edition is like a language that is stronger at expressing certain ideas than other languages. In most cases an analogue translation exists and the different languages can effectively communicate most of the same ideas. If not, ya know, we'll think of something, it's just D&D. Translations can't be perfect. So a 2E non-weapon proficiency is roughly equivalent to, I dunno, 8 skill ranks (or whatever number you think sounds right). It's good enough, it works. The game will break and certain builds will be unbalanced and hard to translate, but that seems a fair trade-off for getting everyone back together at the table.


Developing rules to translate between editions seems a lot easier than actually playing a game this way. Effectively everyone would tell the DM what they're doing in their language, the DM would translate and process the result, and then return the result to the table in a language that everyone understands. Presumably players would then retranslate that back to their native language. Whose head wouldn't explode while playing such a complicated game?


The only way I see that working is if everyone at the table has a tablet, a smart phone, a laptop, or some kind of device feeding data to the DM's device. They develop their character and the devices feed each other data and do the translating. I'm not sure how feasible that is as a programming challenge... it seems hard but doable with enough resources.


If this does come to pass I suspect unless we all agree to speak the same language we will ultimately require a DDI subscription to play in this manner. This seems like the direction WOTC would want to go, since profit margins must be higher for subscriptions than books. As books, bookstores, and gaming stores become less feasible D&D will increasingly be driven by apps and subscriptions.


In the short term I see some big obvious hurdles. When I was 12 and started playing D&D buying a subscription was totally out of the question. Then we played D&D, always a game with huge barriers to entry, with merely a 2E PHB, a 1E MM some dice and our imagination. Now many people can't imagine playing 4E without a grid. Add smart-phones and costly monthly subscriptions to the mix and you've got a game that is very cost-prohibitive to the under-16 crowd. And to be honest many of the folks in my group may refuse to buy the subscription (most of them don't own the core rulebook to the games we play anyway). So if the goal is unifying all the different factions of the edition war I'm concerned this may backfire. What would most likely happen is players would play in the base language of 5E that requires the least time and technology to translate.



I'm just thinking out loud. This is pure speculation and I may be totally off-base. I hope I am and WOTC continues to surprise me. What do you guys think? How can WOTC implement modular game-play and technology?

 

[Tehnai]

I believe in the ideal, I think it's entirely possible for WotC to pull it off, under the condition that they listen to the community, which seem to be screaming for an end to the subscription model (to me, anyways).

I think the targeted modularity is exactly why it won't need such technology; it will require both the players and the GM to come to a middle ground as to preferred rule modules to use (and, perhaps more importantly, the exclusion of the ones that are not). As such, a given group wouldn't be using everything that was ever printed up until game night, but an agreed upon set of rules chosen before even character creation.

As such, a given game, let's say, an Advanced Core game set in an oriental setting would use the Advanced Combat and martial arts module, the Advanced skill system, the Advanced Core classes, the Oriental module classes (or archetypes), races and special magic rules, thus it would be agreed upon that the resources used for that given campaign would be the Core books (specifically, everything with Advanced in it) and the Oriental Setting Book, and thus limit options (and as an extension, bloating) to what works in what said given group wants.

Basically, I'm optimistic.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

I believe in the ideal, I think it's entirely possible for WotC to pull it off, under the condition that they listen to the community, which seem to be screaming for an end to the subscription model (to me, anyways).

I think the targeted modularity is exactly why it won't need such technology; it will require both the players and the GM to come to a middle ground as to preferred rule modules to use (and, perhaps more importantly, the exclusion of the ones that are not).

Didn't they say the 4E and Rules Compendium players could all do their thing at the table together? I think that was a quote...which suggests to me this isn't the direction they're going.

I really hate the subscription model and emphasis on computers, but I'm not sure the community is screaming against it. From a business perspective you'd think the subscription has much higher profit margins than any other product they sell. But yeah, I could do without it.

I think they also said computers would be optional, but I can't see how that jives with everyone playing the game in their own style.

 

[DonTadow]

I really think that peopl edon't understand teh word modulear. It has nothing to do with playing every edition. It has more to do with making sure that 5e has the flavor of all of them. A system is not a module. A combat style might be. A group of classes might be. But I don't think they'ld be crazy enough to attempt to sell anyone on "hey play a3.5 character with a 2 edition character". Why wouldn't i just play 3.5.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

I really think that peopl edon't understand teh word modulear. It has nothing to do with playing every edition. It has more to do with making sure that 5e has the flavor of all of them. A system is not a module. A combat style might be. A group of classes might be. But I don't think they'ld be crazy enough to attempt to sell anyone on "hey play a3.5 character with a 2 edition character". Why wouldn't i just play 3.5.

We're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Looking at the Past and the Future)

Apparently they are that crazy. The reason you'd play this and not 3.5 is because you'd be able to get your 4E friend and 1E friend to sit down at the same table together. I think it's a beautiful vision. Now the real question is how do you pull off anything that ambitious?