Were people's expectations of "Modularity" set a little too high?

[john112364]

While people's expectations of modularity may or may not be too high, modularity has fallen fall short of the promises they made for it in the early days just after the announcement of 5E. They promised that 5E modularity would allow you to run any playstyle of D&D, and 5E hasn't come close to delivering that to this point.

Well of course it hasn't come close yet. They haven't introduced ANY modularity yet. I've probably said this a hundred times (with some of my own group too) they are play testing the CORE GAME right now. They MUST get that right before you add any modularity or the whole thing falls apart. If you start with a bad core and then start adding and/or subtracting you are going to have a mess.

I think they are off to a promising start but they still have a long way to go. Remember they stated at GenCon it was going to be a two year process so it's not even close to the final draft.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Well of course it hasn't come close yet. They haven't introduced ANY modularity yet. I've probably said this a hundred times (with some of my own group too) they are play testing the CORE GAME right now. They MUST get that right before you add any modularity or the whole thing falls apart. If you start with a bad core and then start adding and/or subtracting you are going to have a mess.

I think they are off to a promising start but they still have a long way to go. Remember they stated at GenCon it was going to be a two year process so it's not even close to the final draft.

Their statements and what little they have shown of modularity had indicated a strong, unchanging core and modules that would be additive only, nothing that changes the core. For those unhappy with that core or who find the current core to be in direct conflict with how they play D&D, not being able to change that core, to remove and replace pieces of it, is a failure of modularity.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Their statements and what little they have shown of modularity had indicated a strong, unchanging core and modules that would be additive only, nothing that changes the core. For those unhappy with that core or who find the current core to be in direct conflict with how they play D&D, not being able to change that core, to remove and replace pieces of it, is a failure of modularity.

How is that a failure?

To be able to customize a car you still have to have a working engine or it's all for nothing.

The game has to have a solid foundation before it can really take off. It sounds like you are worrying about what kind of furniture to go in your new house even before the blueprints have been finished.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

How is that a failure?

To be able to customize a car you still have to have a working engine or it's all for nothing.

The game has to have a solid foundation before it can really take off. It sounds like you are worrying about what kind of furniture to go in your new house even before the blueprints have been finished.

They promised 5E would deliver for every style of D&D through modularity. If the core is fixed, not subject to change by modularity, and that core prevents a style from being catered to, the promise fails.

It's not a question of the car working or not, it's a question of the car sucking and not being worth the trouble.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

They promised 5E would deliver for every style of D&D through modularity. If the core is fixed, not subject to change by modularity, and that core prevents a style from being catered to, the promise fails.

It's not a question of the car working or not, it's a question of the car sucking and not being worth the trouble.

The "core" or "frame" has to be solid, period.

Now once you have established your frame then you are able to add and take what you like.

We have only had two playtests so it's too early to be able to make a legitimate argument for how the final product will be.

All this is costing you is time so if you don't want to give Wizards anymore of it then don't continue but if you are willing to stick out until then end and maybe found out that there is a light at the end of "your" tunnel then go for it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Let's be fair here: We have 2 playtests, neither of which showcase ANY modularity.

Well that's not true/fair...

"Modular" means simply that there are parts of the rules which can be taken out of the game (or into, depending how you see them) without affecting how the rest of the rules work. (However the meaning of "affecting" is not as obvious as it may sound.)

The Skills & Background system is modular. Take it out of the game and you don't need to change anything else, the game still works without skills (you just handle everything with ability scores at DM's call) or without backgrounds (you can use skills without using backgrounds, or neither). Furthermore, the classes and races maintain their original balance if you remove these.

The Specialty & Feats system is modular. Even easier than the previous case... feats are just add-ons, ignore them and the game is practically the same.

That's it however, practically nothing else is modular so far, although it's been announced that the Tactical Combat Module and Narrative Combat Module will be "modules" in this sense.

3ed core were not modular. You couldn't ignore skills or feats altogether, because that would have gimped certain classes. 3ed was the opposite of modular, it was "organic", meaning that all the rules were interconnected. I actually liked that property, and I always say that 3.5 changes scarred that organicity somehow, which is why I went back to play 3.0. OTOH because of this property, it's hard to simplify 3ed, which e.g. makes it a pain for me to DM 3e games today that I have much less time, so I'm welcoming 5e modularity.

A new edition that allows one to play in the style of previous editions, is a better idea, and one I think WotC is aiming for. Set your expectations for a previous-edition-like-experience or a new experience and I think you won't be disappointed.

I agree on everything else you say.

Unfortunately I think in this they are already partially failing. 3ed and 4ed gamers may have no problems with 5e, and perhaps even AD&D fans. But I have serious doubts that OD&D/BECMI/RC fans (probably considered a small minority anyway) would be interested in 5e. Removing skills and feats is not nearly enough to provide an "old-school" feel... that is already impossible to achieve when you have for example 1st level characters that have even more stuff and abilities than in 3ed (even after you remove skills and feats), and genetically superior humans.

 

[Argyle King]

They promised 5E would deliver for every style of D&D through modularity. If the core is fixed, not subject to change by modularity, and that core prevents a style from being catered to, the promise fails.

It's not a question of the car working or not, it's a question of the car sucking and not being worth the trouble.

The "core" or "frame" has to be solid, period.

Now once you have established your frame then you are able to add and take what you like.

We have only had two playtests so it's too early to be able to make a legitimate argument for how the final product will be.

All this is costing you is time so if you don't want to give Wizards anymore of it then don't continue but if you are willing to stick out until then end and maybe found out that there is a light at the end of "your" tunnel then go for it.

My understanding of Casual's posts are thus:

1000 variations of vanilla is great, but it doesn't do me any good if I want chocolate.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

My understanding of Casual's posts are thus:

1000 variations of vanilla is great, but it doesn't do me any good if I want chocolate.

More than that, if I want chocolate, the quality of the vanilla is irrelevant and focusing on making the best vanilla possible is counterproductive.

It's not about the core being good or bad, it's about the core being wrong.

 

[jrowland]

3ed core were not modular. You couldn't ignore skills or feats altogether, because that would have gimped certain classes. 3ed was the opposite of modular, it was "organic", meaning that all the rules were interconnected. I actually liked that property, and I always say that 3.5 changes scarred that organicity somehow, which is why I went back to play 3.0. OTOH because of this property, it's hard to simplify 3ed, which e.g. makes it a pain for me to DM 3e games today that I have much less time, so I'm welcoming 5e modularity.

I agree 3ed core was not modular, but your definition of modular is strange and I disagree with that...you could ignore PrCs. You could ignore individual feats or skills (fine grain modularity). Classes are modular (vancian caster= wizard, spontaneous caster = sorcerer, pick your arcane caster module). In fact you could ignore all sorts of things and lots of people did. What I disagree with is the notion that "modularity" is only "things that you can ignore". Modularity is the notion of "things that you can swap" (include nothing/ignore). Until there is another way to gain feats in a playtest, all we have at the moment is Specialty. Until there is another way to gain skills, all we have at the moment is Backgrounds. Ignoring those things is something I could do at any edition. Swapping them with another method of acquiring them would be modular and new in the context of 5th edition.

 

[triqui]

While people's expectations of modularity may or may not be too high, modularity has fallen fall short of the promises they made for it in the early days just after the announcement of 5E. They promised that 5E modularity would allow you to run any playstyle of D&D, and 5E hasn't come close to delivering that to this point.

I'm also curious. Which "edition style" of DnD do you think is impossible to get with current hinted core, once you add different options?