Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6153168" data-attributes="member: 1465">I posted this as a comment to &quot;Skills should be core&quot; thread, but I would like to get your opinion on this matter, thus I'm making a spin-off thread.In lieu of 5e main target of being &quot;modular&quot;, the designer have been trying to make several parts of the game &quot;optional&quot; either on a group basis or on an individual basis.Just to clarify, &quot;optional on a group basis&quot; means that one group is able to decide to use a certain subsystem of the rules or not use it at all, and this decision should have no consequences on how the rest of the game holds up on its own. Of course, the game experience is going to change, but at least the group doesn't need to change other parts of the game to reinstate balance between the PCs or just to make things work. Because of this, IMO the requirements for a subsystem to be optional on a group basis are (1) that it isn't directly interconnected to other parts of the rules (example: Alignment in 3e was interconnected to spells, if you didn't use alignment, then you also had to check which spells should be changed or removed from the game) and (2) that such system affects different classes more or less equally (example: feats and skills are optional on a group basis if all classes get the same amount, but if some classes get more than others then not using feats or skills in the game is going to punish some PCs more than others).&quot;Optional on an individual basis means that each player is able to decide if she wants to bother with this particular character option. The requirement for this is typically that of having either a &quot;default option&quot; that works more passively (or applies more broadly) and is on par with the alternative choices, so that choosing the default sometimes means to stick a bonus somewhere in your character sheet and forget how you got it, and/or not to have to think too much when it applies and when not, because it applies to less specific cases.In my comment to the other thread, I wrote that my personal preference would be if D&amp;DNext was made in such a way that everything except class is optional, at least on a group basis. That's because class is maybe the only character choice that appeared in all editions of D&amp;D and is inequivocably characteristic of D&amp;D (you can of course have a class-less RPG, but it's a very different thing).What is the current status of modularity in 5e playtest rules?First of all, notice that in-game mechanics and character creation options also make for 2 types of &quot;modules&quot;. The first type includes stuff like combat rules (some announced modules for combat are narrative combat module and tactical combat module, although they've never been shown publicly), exploration rules (published) and interaction rules (announced). These rules by nature are easily modular, and they are so on a group basis, so there is not very much to discuss here IMHO, unless they decide to &quot;connect&quot; these to classes. If they do so, then it's possible to have a balance issue if some classes depend more on a module than other. This could be the case for skills, since they announced they are making them optional on a group basis, but we can't say until we see next packet.Therefore, I'd rather focus on discussing the current modular status of character options. Here's my 2cp:Thus in a nutshell:[CODE][U][I]Feature&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; group-optional?&nbsp;&nbsp; indiv-optional?[/I][/U]Race&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; yes&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; no (but can default to human)Skills&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; yes&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; no (but could be easily HR'ed)Feats&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; no&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; yesBackground&nbsp;&nbsp; yes&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; noEquipment&nbsp; &nbsp; yes&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; yesAlignment&nbsp; &nbsp; yes&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; yesSubclass&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; no&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; no (but will be)[/CODE]So what is your opinion on this matter?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6153168, member: 1465"] I posted this as a comment to "Skills should be core" thread, but I would like to get your opinion on this matter, thus I'm making a spin-off thread. In lieu of 5e main target of being "modular", the designer have been trying to make several parts of the game "optional" either on a group basis or on an individual basis. Just to clarify, "[U]optional on a group basis[/U]" means that one group is able to decide to use a certain subsystem of the rules or not use it at all, and this decision should have no consequences on how the rest of the game holds up on its own. Of course, the game experience is going to change, but at least the group doesn't need to change [I]other[/I] parts of the game to reinstate balance between the PCs or just to make things work. Because of this, IMO the [I]requirements[/I] for a subsystem to be optional on a group basis are (1) that it isn't directly interconnected to other parts of the rules (example: Alignment in 3e was interconnected to spells, if you didn't use alignment, then you also had to check which spells should be changed or removed from the game) and (2) that such system affects different classes more or less equally (example: feats and skills are optional on a group basis if all classes get the same amount, but if some classes get more than others then not using feats or skills in the game is going to punish some PCs more than others). "[U]Optional on an individual basis[/U] means that each player is able to decide if she wants to bother with this particular character option. The requirement for this is typically that of having either a "default option" that works more passively (or applies more broadly) and is on par with the alternative choices, so that choosing the default sometimes means to stick a bonus somewhere in your character sheet and forget how you got it, and/or not to have to think too much when it applies and when not, because it applies to less specific cases. In my comment to the other thread, I wrote that [I]my personal preference[/I] would be if D&DNext was made in such a way that [B]everything except class[/B] is optional, at least on a group basis. That's because [B]class[/B] is maybe the only character choice that appeared in all editions of D&D and is inequivocably characteristic of D&D (you can of course have a class-less RPG, but it's a very different thing). What is the current status of modularity in 5e playtest rules? First of all, notice that [I]in-game mechanics[/I] and [I]character creation options[/I] also make for 2 types of "modules". The first type includes stuff like combat rules (some announced modules for combat are narrative combat module and tactical combat module, although they've never been shown publicly), exploration rules (published) and interaction rules (announced). These rules by nature are easily modular, and they are so on a group basis, so there is not very much to discuss here IMHO, [I]unless[/I] they decide to "connect" these to classes. If they do so, then it's possible to have a balance issue if some classes depend more on a module than other. This [I]could[/I] be the case for [B]skills[/B], since they announced they are making them optional on a group basis, but we can't say until we see next packet. Therefore, I'd rather focus on discussing the current modular status of character options. Here's my 2cp: Thus in a nutshell: [CODE] [U][I]Feature group-optional? indiv-optional?[/I][/U] Race yes no (but can default to human) Skills yes no (but could be easily HR'ed) Feats no yes Background yes no Equipment yes yes Alignment yes yes Subclass no no (but will be)[/CODE] So what is your opinion on this matter? [/QUOTE]

Verification