And to hit your point, Catastrophic, I think they've promised 4e-style rules modules. I'll be fascinated and excited to see those go into place.
It is not possible to talk about 5e unless we can also talk about the previous games, games who's fans the developers have clearly stated they seek to include in it.
It is vital to be able to contrast those systems, and their qualities, when the stated goal of the developers is to
make a system which supports play as represented by various editions.
If 5e doesn't give fans of 4e, or 3e, or 1e what they want,
including in contrast to other editions, then it's not fulfilling one of it's core design goals. And if discussions of the system are to be fruitful, they must be able to discuss those contrasts, as well, despite the bad history of such discussions.
It is impossible to discuss the new system otherwise, considering it's key goals.
Likewise, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, you can't just plonk all the bits of one edition or another in some hypothetical module or later version- the game
on all levels must be built to handle those modules,
even when the modules are not in use.
Pursuant to this, having read it, and since i'm not under NDA (and unlikely to ever be so since i'm genuinly critical of the process), I do not feel that 1.0 shows any signs of a genuine 'modular' system, or one which 4e-style modules in particular could be plugged in to. Nor is the early stage of the development an excuse for this- on the contrary, such components or foundations should be the very first thing laid down in design, if such an ambitious goal is to be realized.
To design a game which offers such a feature, you have to have that in mind from day one, to be sure that you don't design another part of the game which clashes with it. You have to have the modular system clearly laid out at least in test form, so you can check it against new work.
For instance, when making a spell which involves movement, the 5e devs have to be able to ask themselves "How does this new kind of movement relate to how we are managing the difference between combat on a battle map, and combat without a map? Does it translate between the two in a way comparable to the way other movement modes translate? Or will it act very differently between the two modules?"
Instead, in 1.0 we have. . . everything that used to be in squares, is in feet instead. That's it. That's all they've got to build the 'tactical combat' module on. To say nothing of people who might have hoped for a better take on mapless combat (using something like FATE style zones, for instance). And again, other options would also need support. They'd need something to plug into.
That is what 'modular' means, after all. You have to have the sockets and plugs in place in the base design, so you can plug bits into them. And, much like a hard-point on the wing of a jet fighter where a missile is mounted, the structure has to be built to handle the extra weight, for when it's in place. You can't just pile a bunch of extra rules on, you need to be able to give the GM a functional workload, regardless of the complexity level.
Those plugs don't exist in 1.0. There are no hard points. Seemingly no effort is being made to manage complexity at various levels, if the fluctuation in complexity in this example is anything to go by.
There's just a bunch of 'fantasy roleplaying game' with very little genuine oversight displayed. Certainly, there's no sign of the kind of core mechanic or mechanics which would allow variations in say, wether combat takes place on a battle map, or what a fighter does apart from dealing damage (or how it is that this old school fighter is somehow also a newbie-friendly fighter). You can't just 'add a feat' or 'change a rule', you need to figure out how those module-feats compare to others, and how changing a rule impacts other systems.
And yes, I get that some people don't care about things like that, or disagree with the assertion i'd make of how much fun it ruins when rules implode or neglect a key class because of design issues of this sort. But again,
as a fan of 4e amongst other games, I do not feel that this is a promising development, and since
wotc has stated a clear goal of including people like me in the game, that makes this a problem.
At best, if such module-friendly design is present, it's very deeply buried and disguised- but that would also damage it, since DMs using such a system would have to understand it, in order to make it work.
People will make a bunch of excuses. As i've said, these excuses will define the discussions over 5e, clearly. Apparently the initial test version of a game has nothing to do with the game? It's just kinda. . what, a coincidence? There to test the font? That's the conventional wisdom apparently?
Hogwash. This isn't internal playtesting. This is something they are taking to conventions.
A playtest is not an excuse to just throw some stuff together and hurl it at people, like some kind of developmental reading of entrails. It is meant to test and iterate
the design.
If 1.0 doesn't have those features, then the whole process will involve playing catch-up and never really locking such features down.
Where's the design? Where's the edition fan inclusion? Where's the modular system? It's not in 1.0. And it should be.
