Core vs. Mod - The Meta Question

[Alan Shutko]

I almost think Core should consist only of those rules which are needed so that modules can be compatible with each other. It shouldn't even be a complete game. There could be a set of default modules that combine with the core to make a complete game, but little of it would actually be required.

I don't see this happening, though. It would be very difficult to build a system THAT modular. And if they did, it would make it really clear how people could build their own system on top of it, and it would make it less necessary to buy something from them. Wizards has seemed reluctant to expose the underlying rules they to build things, in favor of just trying to build and sell anything it is the consumers could want.

 

[Minigiant]

I almost think Core should consist only of those rules which are needed so that modules can be compatible with each other. It shouldn't even be a complete game. There could be a set of default modules that combine with the core to make a complete game, but little of it would actually be required.

I don't see this happening, though. It would be very difficult to build a system THAT modular. And if they did, it would make it really clear how people could build their own system on top of it, and it would make it less necessary to buy something from them. Wizards has seemed reluctant to expose the underlying rules they to build things, in favor of just trying to build and sell anything it is the consumers could want.

I'd going even further and say Core is a boring, near unplayable, mess of a game that fans will have to implant modules and vast amounts of their own creativity to not fall asleep and quit unless they are the most hardcore 1e player ever.

 

[KesselZero]

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 don't think core will be the "true" way to play the next version of D&D. It will just be the least complicated.

You make a good point, and I certainly agree that from a design standpoint it makes sense to have an extremely simple base to which anything can be added, but I'm not sure WotC is thinking of it the same way. My guess (with all the caveats that implies) is that they're looking for a core version that might be considered one of the "true" ways, as you put it, or is at least one of the popular ways to play. A lot of the playtest reports from DDXP talked about how "old school" the game felt, with references to door spikes and low HP and all that. It may or may not be rules-light or rules-simple, but that's definitely a style, and not one everyone wants. I get the impression WotC is intentionally returning to that with the core game to try to win back some players who were put off by 3e and 4e.

 

[KesselZero]

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?

Hm, I think we might be thinking of this in two different ways. To me, the idea of a totally neutral core with lots of modules seems like it would be a system more likely to let you mimic a system you already own. To get away from that, 5e would have to have elements that are new-- some posters have already called for 5e to introduce new mechanics, and it sounds like it's going to to a certain extent-- which to me would suggest a stronger core that has its own built-in style.

 

[Sunseeker]

Hm, I think we might be thinking of this in two different ways. To me, the idea of a totally neutral core with lots of modules seems like it would be a system more likely to let you mimic a system you already own. To get away from that, 5e would have to have elements that are new-- some posters have already called for 5e to introduce new mechanics, and it sounds like it's going to to a certain extent-- which to me would suggest a stronger core that has its own built-in style.

I certainly hope it's not a white ceramic plate that they're telling me I can paint glossy blue to look like my blue plastic plates.

5e should ideally take it's Core elements to be the best pieces from previous editions, and I don't mean the most popular ones, I mean the ones that playtest the best and make for the best overall game. I want the Core game to be flexible enough to mimic certain aspects of previous editions I like, but I want it to be distinct enough as to not feel like I'm playing a past edition in a new wrapper.

I want the Modular elements to allow me to bring parts of the game closer to elements I liked that were not deemed suitable for 5e Core, but also ways to make 5e new and unique on it's own.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I have to say that this is an interesting and important subject. I certainly have been a bit worried by this habit of treating everything as a module, simply because I don't think it is possible to create so many modules as some people seem to want and still be able to connect one module to another or even feasibly connect them to the core. The core needs to allow a certain amount of room for different kinds of modules. In its own way, you need to build the core in anticipation of every really major module that will be added to it. Similarly, you need to build modules so that they fit with each other. I really believe that the game can only really be built on a fairly small number of major modules, and that adding too many more modules too long after the initial release of the game won't really work.

In other words, the core game can't be that simple, and any effective module will pretty much need to be created from the beginning. You can't just turn any given hope for the game into a module because there won't be enough room for them all. People really do need to settle these issues, not just hope for modularity to make everyone happy.

My biggest fear for the game is that WotC gets too shortsighted in its approach and initially just makes a core without building it to actually be modular. If they just think they can make a module for something later without planning ahead, then it will be a nightmare for the players who want to play with those modules.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The regular comments of "Make it a module!" reminds me of "Make it an option!" in software design. Excuse me while I make an extended comparison.

Before Mozilla launched Firefox, they had the Mozilla Browser. It had a huge feature set, including mail, IRC chat, and news-feed subscriptions. It also provided a plethora of options to its users. But it didn't have the capacity to succeed in the larger browser market because it was too complex, slow, and difficult to understand.

Firefox came about as an answer to that. The people in charge of designing Firefox had two large guiding principles:

1. Be able to say no. Firefox was to have extensions. The core program had to be agile and avoid confusing features, so the lead designers had to be able to say no to new features that didn't fit the core design.
2. Make decisions about default settings. For most people to be able to use the program, hard decisions had to be made as to what the default was going to be, and exactly which options would be made visible to the user.

But those two principles were backed up through extensibility. Extensions were a major part of the Firefox design from the very beginning, and how they would interact with the browser was considered as each piece was built.

The reason Firefox is such a great comparison is that it made these difficult decisions, and yet remained the most extensible browser in existence. Basic users got a simple but well designed browser, and advanced users could alter and extend the browser in any way they wanted.


This is the model that D&D Next needs to follow. There needs to be a core game playable out of the box. It needs to be very well designed and it needs to make decisions about what will make the best experience for the most players. It also needs extensibility to be built in from the beginning.

It sounds like this is the plan, so, cool.

But it also means that our discussions, as much as they matter, should focus on what will make for the best core experience for most people and what is really best as an extension to the game.

 

[KesselZero]

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.

True enough, but I'm really talking about mechanical distinctions. For example, the question of how many HP a first-level character should get has a large effect on how the game plays and feels.

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 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.

I see your point-- that the mechanics aren't all that important, that the heart of the game is really in the flavor. But the flavor you describe, while definitely the classic D&D style, isn't how everyone plays the game, and not every possible ruleset supports that style equally well. A core that includes lots of rules for combats and dealing with traps would work well for that style, but a core that included lots of rules for social interactions and nothing about traps wouldn't really. Nor would a core that built political power and followers into the level-gain progression, nor a core that gave everybody plane-jumping powers at a certain level.

I think that this argument leads to a very weak core, with as little flavor as possible to it, so that there's nothing built in that leads away from the playstyle that you see as the heart of D&D. Is that what you're looking for from 5e? (This is a genuine question, not some weird leading rhetorical thing. I'm legitimately curious about what folks are hoping for from the game.)

 

[Andor]

I think that this argument leads to a very weak core, with as little flavor as possible to it, so that there's nothing built in that leads away from the playstyle that you see as the heart of D&D. Is that what you're looking for from 5e? (This is a genuine question, not some weird leading rhetorical thing. I'm legitimately curious about what folks are hoping for from the game.)

Yes, although I don't think that means it's weak or flavorless.

Not weak meaning the core system should be mathematically robust with enough wiggle room and the correct granularity to allow the desired degree of tuning.

Flavorless is impossible unless the core system includes no spells, magic items, races, weapons, monsters, etc.

I think there is a misconception (although it could well be me who has it) about what the core/module thing means.

To my mind the is no such thing as an "all options and modules off" character. There is one that uses the "Simplified progression" module, but that module is no more or less core than the one with 3e style feats or 4e style powers. It's probably the first module presented, because it's the easist to describe. It does not represent the baseline others grow from either. It grants simple bonuses that average out to about the same power level as the other modules.

Remember the goal of 5e isn't total campaign customization in the hands of the GM, it's playstyle customization in the hands of the players. Those modules are what you choose to help build a character that works the way you want it to work. They are not golden pools of awesome for your GM to hold mockingly out of your reach.

Some things will be in the GMs hands. If he doesn't want to use grids and minis he won't. Some things are in his perview, like magic items, but you should have a say. Some thing should be determined by the table before the campaign begins. "Will we use Vancian magic? Steve hates martial dailies but I really want to use that "Strike of the Happy Walrus" power."

Sometimes it will matter, if your GM has a very specific campaign world in his head he might say "All arcane magic is Vancian only. All Divine magic is point based. Psionics exist but to regain power points you have to eat a puppy, and I mean YOU, the player." And if you wanted something he outlawed you'll have to take it up with him, just like always.

For the generic game? It won't matter a whit which modules you use to build your character as long as you have it all on your sheet when the dice start rolling.

 

[KesselZero]

Yes, although I don't think that means it's weak or flavorless.

Not weak meaning the core system should be mathematically robust with enough wiggle room and the correct granularity to allow the desired degree of tuning.

Flavorless is impossible unless the core system includes no spells, magic items, races, weapons, monsters, etc.

I totally agree with the first part. I've been using "weak" and "strong" core here, but I don't intend "weak" to mean that it's crappy or so simple as to be unplayable (although one or two posters have supported the idea that the core is unplayable without any modules and is just connective tissue). I agree with the second part, too, about flavorlessness, and certainly I think that it gets back to your initial point about the heart of D&D being a flavor experience. There should be orcs in the core-- there, I've said it! But the more flavor you include in the core, the "stronger" it becomes, in the sense that it includes more stuff that will be universal to every game played with 5e.

I think there is a misconception (although it could well be me who has it) about what the core/module thing means.

To my mind the is no such thing as an "all options and modules off" character. There is one that uses the "Simplified progression" module, but that module is no more or less core than the one with 3e style feats or 4e style powers. It's probably the first module presented, because it's the easist to describe. It does not represent the baseline others grow from either. It grants simple bonuses that average out to about the same power level as the other modules.

Remember the goal of 5e isn't total campaign customization in the hands of the GM, it's playstyle customization in the hands of the players. Those modules are what you choose to help build a character that works the way you want it to work. They are not golden pools of awesome for your GM to hold mockingly out of your reach.

This is a good point, and one I hadn't been thinking about in my original post. But there still have to be shared characteristics between PCs; you can't have two characters using different scales of hit points, for example. That's something that has to be core (with a DM able to choose something else for all players at the table).