D&D 5E Rules modules for 5E?

[Firebeetle]

I remember, early in the development for 5E, that there was discussion of possible "rules modules" for 5E. That 5E would serve as a template upon which different rules modules could be applied so you could play the game however you wanted. Examples given included true names, a system in which everything had a true name that was the key to magic. Another was rules for creating 4E style miniatures heavy play. Or one that would allow interesting cross multiclassing, so you could play a thief that stole a spellbook or some other interesting backstory.

What happened to all that?

There will be a hundred responses like "they have miniature rules" or "Monte Cook has true name rules for 3.5 and therefore Pathfinder, you could . . ." I'm really just interested in if there are any plans for rules modules from Wizards?

 

[MechaPilot]

WotC's policy is not to tell us what their plans are.

There are some options presented in the 5e DMG. For anything beyond that, the simple answer is that we won't know until they actually promote a book that contains such modules, because they won't announce it as per the policy that I already mentioned.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

According to the very limited things said before they effectively stopped talking about modules, there were real plans for a "tactical combat module"that had, IIRC, "interesting" rules for facing among other things. Based on the tweets I've seen and received, I think this has been so thoroughly back-burnered that, while it isn't truly cancelled, it's damn close. The D&D equivalent of "development hell." To the best of my knowledge, the only other "module" that was actually discussed does exist in the DMG, as the various optional alternative healing and rest rules. No other modules have been suggested AFAIK.

 

[Jester David]

"Rules modules" was really another term for "optional rules". Anything big or small that could be used to modify the game counts as a "rules module".

The plan always seemed to be to include them with the DMG, which had a LOT of optional rules. They did an article on Rules Modules here: http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130128
But, the reality of publishing and needing to release a coherent book proved problematic and there wasn't room for everything. Half them made it into the book in some form or another. A few more were released as part of Unearthed Arcana. A few are still MIA.

Of course, us fans also expanded the idea of "rules modules" into something much larger than it was planned. The tactical combat rules module was always likely to be some simple rules for using miniatures and facing along with some other options, but became this big, grand subsystem that turned 5e into a tactical miniature combat game. Which was never likely to happen.
I don't think WotC can be blamed because people read too much into their comments.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There are still some modules that got cut from the DMG that I'm anxiously awaiting (such as gestalt multiclassing). Hopefully those come out with some other material in one of the next couple big UA articles.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

"Rules modules" was really another term for "optional rules". Anything big or small that could be used to modify the game counts as a "rules module".

The plan always seemed to be to include them with the DMG, which had a LOT of optional rules. They did an article on Rules Modules here: http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130128
But, the reality of publishing and needing to release a coherent book proved problematic and there wasn't room for everything. Half them made it into the book in some form or another. A few more were released as part of Unearthed Arcana. A few are still MIA.

Of course, us fans also expanded the idea of "rules modules" into something much larger than it was planned. The tactical combat rules module was always likely to be some simple rules for using miniatures and facing along with some other options, but became this big, grand subsystem that turned 5e into a tactical miniature combat game. Which was never likely to happen.
I don't think WotC can be blamed because people read too much into their comments.

Granted, I don't have the DMG so I can't actually confirm this, but--is it really that much of an exaggeration given what is directly said in that article? "Include tactical combat rules that allow the option to add more miniatures gaming elements to combat. This would include a grid, options for facing, rules for more detailed zones of control, and so on." The grid is still (essentially) baked-in, what with all the 5-foot-incremet measurements, but AFAIK there are no special rules for facing or "detailed zones of control" in the DMG.

Plus, some of the stuff they call "modules" here is core game content now--the stuff about "motivations" became Backgrounds, and the book explicitly tells you to pick BIFTs.

I'm not really sure it's so much a matter of either side, the designers or the fans, being "responsible." I think it's a combination of the designers speaking grandly but also vaguely, the fans taking the grand terms at face value, and the designers finding that it was a lot harder to meet those precedents than they realized. Hence why they talked a LOT about the "tactical combat module" in the first, I dunno, third of the playtest or so, but steadily became almost silent about it thereafter.

Plus, as I said, I have actually asked the devs about this, and their responses (on Twitter) pretty clearly read, to me, as saying that they didn't feel they had actually published a "tactical combat module" yet.

 

[GMMichael]

Based on the tweets I've seen and received, I think this has been so thoroughly back-burnered that, while it isn't truly cancelled, it's damn close. The D&D equivalent of "development hell."

Odds are, rules modules were just a development dream that didn't work out in a way that the lawyers and CFO could see becoming profitable. WotC was tossing the term around at the same time I was, but they might have realized one of two things:

1) The rules module concept is similar to the video-game modding concept: it allows the community to create content that competes with official content, and
2) Having plug-and-play modules probably requires a level of transparency on par with 3e's open game license, and they're clearly not embracing that yet.

 

[Jester David]

Granted, I don't have the DMG so I can't actually confirm this, but--is it really that much of an exaggeration given what is directly said in that article? "Include tactical combat rules that allow the option to add more miniatures gaming elements to combat. This would include a grid, options for facing, rules for more detailed zones of control, and so on." The grid is still (essentially) baked-in, what with all the 5-foot-incremet measurements, but AFAIK there are no special rules for facing or "detailed zones of control" in the DMG.

Plus, some of the stuff they call "modules" here is core game content now--the stuff about "motivations" became Backgrounds, and the book explicitly tells you to pick BIFTs.

I'm not really sure it's so much a matter of either side, the designers or the fans, being "responsible." I think it's a combination of the designers speaking grandly but also vaguely, the fans taking the grand terms at face value, and the designers finding that it was a lot harder to meet those precedents than they realized. Hence why they talked a LOT about the "tactical combat module" in the first, I dunno, third of the playtest or so, but steadily became almost silent about it thereafter.

Plus, as I said, I have actually asked the devs about this, and their responses (on Twitter) pretty clearly read, to me, as saying that they didn't feel they had actually published a "tactical combat module" yet.

There are rules for marking and flanking in the DMG that adds some control, and there *are* rules for facing and detailed grid/hex rules.

 

[Li Shenron]

You gotta pierce the veil of Maya, and see the difference between what it is, and how it is presented...

A rules module is a set of rules which can be added to or removed from the game without changing the rest. A game is 'modular' if it has rules modules.

The reality is that 5th edition is highly modular, the core PHB/MM/DMG game possibly more modular than all previous editions (we can't compare supplements since we don't have much yet in 5e) because there are a lot of things which can be added/removed without the need for other changes. Even more so, the current edition has stuff that can be add/removed for a single player without the need for the others to be adjusted. And while not perfectly modular, there are even more things that require an adjustment that is very small (like removing a couple of feats, or adjusting one racial feature).

The problem eventually is that the rules don't tell you that much stuff is de facto optional and so it's a module.

And at the same time, we often call "module" something that actually requires quite a lot of changes in other rules in order to work fine. It's common to say "we're using a vitality/wounds rules module", but typically such a thing cannot be added/removed in a simple way because it has consequences on many other rules: you need to replace HP per level, change resting rules, review death saving throws, you have hundreds of spells related to HP etc...

Just on the top of my head...

- Races are a group-module. We have played without using races during the playtest. You don't need to change anything else in the game. However if you remove them, the whole group should not pick a race (they are not modular at individual player's level).
- Subclasses are a player-module, in fact the Basic rules default everyone to a chosen subclass.
- Backgrounds are a player-module (you can pick your skills) but skill proficiencies are not modular because they don't have the same weight on all classes, so if you don't use them some classes need work to compensate them
- Magic items are a group-module, the game doesn't assume them, but if you use them you better give each player a fair share
- Inspiration is a group-module
- Weapons are a player-module, you can default anyone to using a generic "simple weapon" or "martial weapon" (to keep balance between classes with different proficiencies)
- Multiclassing is obvioudly a player-module
- Feats are obviously a player-module
- Passive checks are a player-module
- Encumbrance is a group-module, but even the officially non-optional rules for lifting/carrying/pushing are
- Resting could be group-modular but I'm not sure if some class has special abilities that work only with the default resting rules (at least resting is regarded a "dialable")
- Downtime rules are group-modular
- Combat as a whole is obviously not modular, but you can remove/ignore many combat actions from the game without other effects, but it depends if you have PCs with special abilities related to them, such as a Rogue's Cunning Action: it's possible to run combats with only Attack/Spell actions but you need to replace those abilities
- Opportunity attacks + Disengage are possibly group-modular (I think some feats are affected, although I don't remember if there are class features and spells related to these... the more there are, the less modular of course)
- Massive damage is group-modular
- Death saving throws are group-modular

...and that's just in Basic!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You gotta pierce the veil of Maya, and see the difference between what it is, and how it is presented...
<snip>
...and that's just in Basic!

I feel like this cheapens the meaning of "module" until it no longer signifies anything at all--except that the rules can be thrown out, or tweaked, by the DM as they see fit. Which has always been true, 5e just takes great pains to make you keenly, intimately, intensely aware of that fact.

I mean, just about the only thing you didn't say was modular was classes, and even that should count if "you can only play as subclass X" counts.

It seems clear to me that several of the things you call "modules" really aren't--or, at least, not modules in the same sense. Skill proficiencies, for example. You have to actually hack or ban classes (e.g. Bard, Barbarian, and Rogue) and races (Elf, Half-Orc, and Half-Elf) if you drop them completely, because significant parts of their design hinge on the presence of skill proficiencies (Expertise in particular). Comparing this to the changes in resting times or the "gritty" healing rules, I see a pretty substantial difference in the effort required on the DM's part. (Also, the expectations I would have, being familiar with most everything in the PHB.) And surely "removing skill proficiencies" is a far deeper and more sweeping change than "removing passive checks."