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
*Dungeons & Dragons
So did they just drop modularity ? This is what has me worried.
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="Transformer" data-source="post: 5995455" data-attributes="member: 70008"><p>My impression, honestly, is that the designers never intended that Next be modular to the degree that everyone is expecting. I admit I don't have any particular quotes to back this up, and maybe someone could refute me by going back to early announcements and interviews. But I really suspect that people are anticipating some kind of erector set D&D, where almost everything is a separate piece that can be dropped in or pulled out as desired, and there are ten different subsystems that you can choose for every little thing, all on top of an extremely bare-bones core.</p><p></p><p>People talk about two or even three complete combat systems, where you have something extremely basic and bare-bones, and then a whole separate section clearly labeled "Tactical Combat Module 1" which details a whole optional set of rules for miniatures play. They talk like there's going to be a version of the Fighter which is almost like a different class, complete with AEDU powers. And here's this thread, in which some people are expecting every arcane caster class to be fully compatible with three or four different magic systems.</p><p></p><p>I really don't think WotC ever promised any of that. They said a few vague things about modularity and "adapting the game to your table" and "playing the D&D you want to play" towards the beginning, and people's imaginations just ran with it. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong to want that kind of modularity; maybe you're absolutely right to want it. I'm just saying that I don't think most of us forumites and WotC are (or ever have been) on the same page here. There isn't going to be a whole separate rules-set, complete with its own chapter in the PHB, for grid combat. Every single caster class is not going to have four different alternative subsystems for how its magic works. That was never the plan.</p><p></p><p>This article is a great example:</p><p><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120529" target="_blank">Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 05/29/2012)</a></p><p></p><p>As KaiiLurker pointed out, all they talk about in that article is some very minor tweaks to facilitate a high-magic or low-magic game, maybe something you'd find in a sidebar. But evidently someone looked at that article and concluded that every caster class would have multiple magic systems, perhaps depending on what the DM wanted in his campaign. I'm a bit afraid of what's going to happen when we see more of Next and everyone realizes that they've been expecting a level of modularity that WotC never intended to promise.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Transformer, post: 5995455, member: 70008"] My impression, honestly, is that the designers never intended that Next be modular to the degree that everyone is expecting. I admit I don't have any particular quotes to back this up, and maybe someone could refute me by going back to early announcements and interviews. But I really suspect that people are anticipating some kind of erector set D&D, where almost everything is a separate piece that can be dropped in or pulled out as desired, and there are ten different subsystems that you can choose for every little thing, all on top of an extremely bare-bones core. People talk about two or even three complete combat systems, where you have something extremely basic and bare-bones, and then a whole separate section clearly labeled "Tactical Combat Module 1" which details a whole optional set of rules for miniatures play. They talk like there's going to be a version of the Fighter which is almost like a different class, complete with AEDU powers. And here's this thread, in which some people are expecting every arcane caster class to be fully compatible with three or four different magic systems. I really don't think WotC ever promised any of that. They said a few vague things about modularity and "adapting the game to your table" and "playing the D&D you want to play" towards the beginning, and people's imaginations just ran with it. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong to want that kind of modularity; maybe you're absolutely right to want it. I'm just saying that I don't think most of us forumites and WotC are (or ever have been) on the same page here. There isn't going to be a whole separate rules-set, complete with its own chapter in the PHB, for grid combat. Every single caster class is not going to have four different alternative subsystems for how its magic works. That was never the plan. This article is a great example: [url=http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120529]Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 05/29/2012)[/url] As KaiiLurker pointed out, all they talk about in that article is some very minor tweaks to facilitate a high-magic or low-magic game, maybe something you'd find in a sidebar. But evidently someone looked at that article and concluded that every caster class would have multiple magic systems, perhaps depending on what the DM wanted in his campaign. I'm a bit afraid of what's going to happen when we see more of Next and everyone realizes that they've been expecting a level of modularity that WotC never intended to promise. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So did they just drop modularity ? This is what has me worried.
Top