Core vs. Mod - The Meta Question

[KesselZero]

So. There have been many illuminating and entertaining arguments going down on this fine website recently about what sorts of rules we want/don't want/love/hate/etc. Everybody has a different matrix of opinions about what is best in life, and the promise of 5e is of course that we will be able to pick and choose the elements we love best and clutch them to our chests like careworn stuffed pandas, then take said pandas and make them fight each other in a dungeon. In other words, that we can take all the pieces we like and make our own perfect game.

This is a huge promise and a massive undertaking, and it has a lot of potential. But something I see again and again on the boards is the use of this as a panacea, as an answer to every possible argument. "Put it in a module!" has become the go-to fight-ender for every debate. We've had suggested modules for everything from altered ability score math progressions to different combat rules to totally disparate playstyles to new skill systems to rulesets for retiring from the adventuring life and opening an epic-level taco stand on a continuously-spinning earthmote floating above a plain of burning ice (coming soon from KesselZero RPG Publishing!). Every time two people disagree about an issue, it can be resolved with "Put it in a module!"

So my question is this: have we become too reliant on "Put it in a module" as the solution to all our disputes? Are we, and WotC as well, perhaps using this as a way to avoid meaningful but emotionally difficult arguments about what D&D really is, or really should be? Is the happy-clappy ethos of "everyone under one really big tent" going to dilute what D&D means, as a brand and as a cultural touchstone? How important is it to have a core experience shared by all players? Are there things that HAVE TO be in the core, and if so, what are those things or how are they to be chosen? Should there even BE a core?

I'm reminded of the philosophical saw about the old car: If over the course of your car's life you replace every single one of the parts, is it still the same car you started with? If my D&D game uses totally different modules than yours, can we reasonably be said to be playing the same game?

EDIT: I'd love to hear folks' opinions about whether there should be a strong, playstyle-defining core or not. This is my biggest open question about 5e-- should it be as style-neutral as possible, or should the core imply a certain style? Is it even possible to have a style-neutral rules system?

 

[tlantl]

The answers to these questions will be made clear in the fullness of time.

All that we can do is wait, speculate, and provide our feedback when we actually get our hands on the new systems and run them around the block.

I don't have any great expectations that they will be able to make good on their stated goals. I sincerely hope they can put together a system I'd like to play though, even if most of my personal preferences are absent.

As I see it if they add things that I don't care for to appeal to another style and it is as offensive to me as they have been in the past then I can exercise my option not to support D&D. Since I have already chosen to go down that path, I will have lost nothing in the process.

 

[Kynn]

Are we, and WotC as well, perhaps using this as a way to avoid meaningful but emotionally difficult arguments about what D&D really is, or really should be?

Yes.

SATSQ.

 

[KesselZero]

I sincerely hope they can put together a system I'd like to play though, even if most of my personal preferences are absent.

As I see it if they add things that I don't care for to appeal to another style and it is as offensive to me as they have been in the past then I can exercise my option not to support D&D. Since I have already chosen to go down that path, I will have lost nothing in the process.

So in a version of 5e you would end up supporting, are you envisioning a game with a stripped-down core to which you can add only the things you like, or a game with a fuller core that supports your particular playstyle?

 

[mkill]

"Put it in a module" is the right answer if you do module-based design.

 

[KesselZero]

"Put it in a module" is the right answer if you do module-based design.

So lots of modules, no core game?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Stripped down core that is still a complete game; modules to tailor to playstyle.

 

[KidSnide]

I'd love to hear folks' opinions about whether there should be a strong, playstyle-defining core or not. This is my biggest open question about 5e-- should it be as style-neutral as possible, or should the core imply a certain style? Is it even possible to have a style-neutral rules system?

The key to all this is that the definition of "core" is going to change. In 3e, "core" meant a small subset of the rules. In 4e, "core" meant almost anything published. In D&DN, "core" is going to mean something else.

My expectation is that "core" is going to mean the least complicated version of the supported rules. In other words, it's the rules set that will be closest to the BECMI / AD&D style of D&D. This core won't be privileged above other versions of the game, and I'm not sure it will even be the most popular way to play D&D. The least complicated version of the game will be core for the simple reason that it's easier to add complexity than take it away.

I think we, by which I mean the vocal on-line community, tend to have our own strange obsessions with advocating a core that is closest to our preferences in how D&D is written. (I don't exempt myself from that description.) But we have to adjust our expectations a little bit. I don't think core will be the "true" way to play the next version of D&D. It will just be the least complicated.

Personally, I'm just looking forward to a version of D&D that incorporates the design lessons of the last 20 years, without taking quite so long to resolve combat...

-KS

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm reminded of the philosophical saw about the old car: If over the course of your car's life you replace every single one of the parts, is it still the same car you started with? If my D&D game uses totally different modules than yours, can we reasonably be said to be playing the same game?

The same game? No. Nor should we. Every game should ideally strive to be as "it's own" as possible. Are we using the same system to play that game? Certainly.

EDIT: I'd love to hear folks' opinions about whether there should be a strong, playstyle-defining core or not. This is my biggest open question about 5e-- should it be as style-neutral as possible, or should the core imply a certain style? Is it even possible to have a style-neutral rules system?

I believe there should be, and by all rights there must be if DDN is to be anything other than a flash in the pan. I already have all my previous edition books, why should I buy DDN books if all it's giving me is a way to play a system I already own?

 

[Andor]

Is the happy-clappy ethos of "everyone under one really big tent" going to dilute what D&D means, as a brand and as a cultural touchstone?

How important is it to have a core experience shared by all players?

If D&D is supposed to be a cultural touchstone, then yes everybody is going to need to have the same core experience. That said, I think you're getting a bit carried away, this is a game, not a country. If my game always includes green hobgoblins and your's has orange, fuzzy ones, it's still D&D.

Are there things that HAVE TO be in the core, and if so, what are those things or how are they to be chosen? Should there even BE a core?

The core of D&D is the experience of play. If we meet in a tavern, get a job from the mayor and kill gobilns and loot their homes, we are playing D&D. It doesn't matter if my character sheet has only stats and a weapon and your's has skills, feats, martial dailies, spells and incarnum.

We are not emo vampires lurking under a bridge and weeping for our lost humanity and the crushing burden of being devastatingly handsome superheroes. We are not cyborg hackers robbing megacorporations and throwing concerts to awaken the masses from their torpor. We are not filth ridden zelots burning heretics in a decaying world. We are not two-fisted hard-drinking university professors battling Nazis on a burning zepplin over Incan ruins.

We are adventurers. We kick in the door, kill the bad guys, and loot the corpses. Then we spend our cash and do it again. This is D&D, this is what we do.

.
.
.

WRT to system, I think modules are not as far reaching as people think. In 3e terms let's look at what might have been a module.

Magic Using modules:
Vancian: Wizard, Cleric,
Spell slot spontaneous: Sorcerer, Bard, Favored Soul
Spell Point: Psion, Psychic Warrior
Power Based: Warlock, Dragon Shaman
Power based but switchable: Totemist, Binder
Skill Based: True Namer

Fighting Modules:
Simple: Nothing but a flat bonus to hit and damage based on class and level.
Feats:
Sneak Attack:
Grid Rules:
Martial Powers: Book of 9 swords
Attack of opportunity rules:
Criticals hits:

NPC Modules:
Animal companions
Familiars
Leadership Feat
Henchmen

Frankly I doubt anything in the 'core' 5e will allow for as radical a reconstruction of the basics of the game as the 3e Unearthed Arcane with it's generic class rules or gestalt rules did for 3e.