Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5842205" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Just remember who said it, and look at the Runepriest vs the Fighter. The logic is clear.</p><p></p><p>Just a couple of other notes on this:</p><p></p><p>1) It is unproven that 'PC-side things can all co-exist'. In fact I find this whole aspect of the modularity concept highly unlikely. Some limited options will probably work OK on different characters. Which exactly ones those are will be highly dependent on what you consider 'works OK'. I'd note that many people here don't even think E-Martial classes work OK. I'm not as picky as that, but I've been around a long time and I've really not seen this mythical disparate yet equal mechanics in a game. </p><p></p><p>2) Which option is this? You have to realize, the unpopular 'options' simply won't be developed enough to BE really usable. Sure, you can play your AEDU wizard that has all of 40 spells, or you can play your Vancian wizard that has 300. Even if they are hypothetically 'equal' in some theorycraft way, they aren't ACTUALLY equivalent, which is all I care about.</p><p></p><p>3) Everything but the PCs are going to be using the 'standard' option in any case where you're playing published material. Of course the DM can deal with this, but what is the point of buying a game where you have to homebrew at least half of it to play how you want? It is the wrong game for you at best. </p><p></p><p>'Modular' is effectively a pipe dream. Of course you can tack 42 different sorts of mechanical options onto any game, label them all 'optional' and have a 'modular' game. That is not at all the same thing as having a game that fully supports a variety of very different play styles. Supporting that is no less work (and no more likely to happen) than putting out 8 different games and supporting them all. WotC doesn't have any interest in supporting more than one RPG now. Show me where there is even a snowball's chance in the nether regions they're going to support even 4 styles of D&D play. They don't even support 4e's version of GW.</p><p></p><p>And lets suppose for a moment they DID try to support all those different play styles... What is going to happen? They're going to put out 2 modules grand total for each one, and 1 or 2 supplements a year? Do you think that level of support is going to impress the people playing PF right now? Really? Do you need a bridge? It is absurd. WotC guys are not dumb. They understand all of this. I don't doubt for a minute they'll provide some basic modules for "4e style play" and some for "3e style play" but bluntly one of those styles is going to be DOA because that's pretty much the last we'll here of it. If your tastes don't happen to be the ones WotC chooses to cater to, you're going to be pretty much out in the cold and better off playing a different game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5842205, member: 82106"] Just remember who said it, and look at the Runepriest vs the Fighter. The logic is clear. Just a couple of other notes on this: 1) It is unproven that 'PC-side things can all co-exist'. In fact I find this whole aspect of the modularity concept highly unlikely. Some limited options will probably work OK on different characters. Which exactly ones those are will be highly dependent on what you consider 'works OK'. I'd note that many people here don't even think E-Martial classes work OK. I'm not as picky as that, but I've been around a long time and I've really not seen this mythical disparate yet equal mechanics in a game. 2) Which option is this? You have to realize, the unpopular 'options' simply won't be developed enough to BE really usable. Sure, you can play your AEDU wizard that has all of 40 spells, or you can play your Vancian wizard that has 300. Even if they are hypothetically 'equal' in some theorycraft way, they aren't ACTUALLY equivalent, which is all I care about. 3) Everything but the PCs are going to be using the 'standard' option in any case where you're playing published material. Of course the DM can deal with this, but what is the point of buying a game where you have to homebrew at least half of it to play how you want? It is the wrong game for you at best. 'Modular' is effectively a pipe dream. Of course you can tack 42 different sorts of mechanical options onto any game, label them all 'optional' and have a 'modular' game. That is not at all the same thing as having a game that fully supports a variety of very different play styles. Supporting that is no less work (and no more likely to happen) than putting out 8 different games and supporting them all. WotC doesn't have any interest in supporting more than one RPG now. Show me where there is even a snowball's chance in the nether regions they're going to support even 4 styles of D&D play. They don't even support 4e's version of GW. And lets suppose for a moment they DID try to support all those different play styles... What is going to happen? They're going to put out 2 modules grand total for each one, and 1 or 2 supplements a year? Do you think that level of support is going to impress the people playing PF right now? Really? Do you need a bridge? It is absurd. WotC guys are not dumb. They understand all of this. I don't doubt for a minute they'll provide some basic modules for "4e style play" and some for "3e style play" but bluntly one of those styles is going to be DOA because that's pretty much the last we'll here of it. If your tastes don't happen to be the ones WotC chooses to cater to, you're going to be pretty much out in the cold and better off playing a different game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian
Top