Core vs. Mod - The Meta Question

[Andor]

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).

Exactly right. I mean they could say "The core is that you roll a d20 to resolve prooblems. For me details see the module appendix." That would be stupid and useless.

Instead they'll have (I trust) a solid base sytem with stats, hp, bab, ac, classes, races, themes, and weapons and armour. All this is in principle module independant although the fine details of what it might mean may be module dependant. The modules are probably going to be closer to 3e stat generation methods than Vampire vs Hero system level differences however.

Example I just made up: Hitpoints. You might have three listings for each class, fixed, random and heroic.
So for a fighter random would be 1d10, fixed would be 6 and heroic would be 1d4+6. In this case heroic has a much higher average although the same cap as random.

This would have to be set by the GM because it would not be fair for one player to use the fixed and another the heroic at the same table. It would be fair to allow random or fixed as personal preference however.

 

[WheresMyD20]

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?

It's too late. D&D as a brand and a cultural touchstone got diluted a long time ago. The "core experience" has already been subjected to drastic changes over the course of the many editions of the game.

 

[Iosue]

IMO, we need more "Put it in a module." That's not a comment on what I think they're doing, or even what I think they should do. It's more of a comment on our discussions. Methinks that in the vast majority of discussions I've read, everyone's talking about the basic game, what they want to put in it, and what should not be there, with little allowance for modularity, or even willingness to engage in it.

The idea of DDN is that you can use it to create the ideal version of D&D for you, be that a 1e style of game, or a 4e style of game. Key to that is the concept of modules. For it to work, there needs to be trust that the style you like can be created, and a willingness to let some of the stuff you want go into a module. We don't get that in these discussions. Every bit of news or theorycraft by the designers gets scrutinized, and summarily judged as "the game". Then come the "they've lost me" and "I'm not going to like the new edition" posts. Some people are drawing lines in the sand, saying, "If the way I want to play is not in the core, I'm not interested."

It's like WotC is saying, "Look! With some tweaking and choices, everyone can play the kind of D&D they like to play, and it'll be supported!" And the overwhelming response that I'm seeing on the boards is, "Nuh-uh. If he gets to play the way he likes, I'm out."

 

[KesselZero]

It's too late. D&D as a brand and a cultural touchstone got diluted a long time ago. The "core experience" has already been subjected to drastic changes over the course of the many editions of the game.

So would you say that 5e should just be all modular and let people play whatever they want, since there's no longer any real shared experience across editions?

 

[KesselZero]

IMO, we need more "Put it in a module." That's not a comment on what I think they're doing, or even what I think they should do. It's more of a comment on our discussions. Methinks that in the vast majority of discussions I've read, everyone's talking about the basic game, what they want to put in it, and what should not be there, with little allowance for modularity, or even willingness to engage in it.

The idea of DDN is that you can use it to create the ideal version of D&D for you, be that a 1e style of game, or a 4e style of game. Key to that is the concept of modules. For it to work, there needs to be trust that the style you like can be created, and a willingness to let some of the stuff you want go into a module. We don't get that in these discussions. Every bit of news or theorycraft by the designers gets scrutinized, and summarily judged as "the game". Then come the "they've lost me" and "I'm not going to like the new edition" posts. Some people are drawing lines in the sand, saying, "If the way I want to play is not in the core, I'm not interested."

It's like WotC is saying, "Look! With some tweaking and choices, everyone can play the kind of D&D they like to play, and it'll be supported!" And the overwhelming response that I'm seeing on the boards is, "Nuh-uh. If he gets to play the way he likes, I'm out."

I definitely hear this, and I totally agree that anyone demanding that their "thing" HAS to be in the core is being unreasonable, especially if their "thing" is more complexity (e.g. 4e-style tactical combats). However, if we followed the modularity thing to its ultimate end, we'd end up with a system where you could just rebuild 1e or 4e and play exactly that game-- and what would be the point of that? Why not just play 1e or 4e? So I think 5e has to have some sort of meaningful core or else nobody will buy it. Some posters have called for it to include new mechanics that take advantage of 40 years of RPG design theory, so that even your 1e-style game won't have the same rules as 1e. But again, that would require a stronger core, one that says "here's how some things are going to be done, and it's not the same as 1e but it can be used to play a 1e-style game." For example, the talk from seminars etc. about automatic skill successes, basing everything on ability scores with slight modifiers, etc. sounds to me (although of course I'm guessing) like they intend it to be part of the core, and these will be somewhat new rules.

 

[WheresMyD20]

So would you say that 5e should just be all modular and let people play whatever they want, since there's no longer any real shared experience across editions?

Yup. Very minimal core rules + lots of optional rules.

 

[Libramarian]

I'm wondering if this assumed extreme focus on modularity is actually what the designers have in mind, or just what is most fun for us to talk about.

It kinda makes sense that this idea would be just a quick edition-war palliative to get everybody paying attention during this preliminary phase.

Do we really believe that the game is going to function as an emulator of all previous editions? It's an absurd notion.

I don't think we've actually seen much evidence of modular design at this point, have we? While we have seen plenty of evidence of brand-new mechanics.

Every edition begins with a review of the previous editions, to try to scale things back to the core D&D experience, a lot of talk about respecting the history of the game, etc.

I don't think they're actually approaching this edition fundamentally differently from the previous WotC editions. They're making radical changes to try to take an evolutionary leap forward, instead of building incrementally on the previous edition, same as before.

Which is alright for me, because I need radical changes from the previous edition in order to be interested at all, but at the same time, I don't have any concrete reason to be optimistic. It's a crapshoot. If it's an enormous disaster I hope it's an entertaining one.

 

[Ratskinner]

First off, let me say that I think people are getting too hung up on the word "core" and the idea that the "core rules" will be exactly the same as the simplest game that they present. I've been trying to use the word "basic" for that game, and "core" for the rules in the Big3 books, which will cover playstyle options for the current editions of the games (if I understand what's been said so far.) I see it like this:

Basic Game < Big3 "Core" books < all of 5e*

*includes rules modules and material from all the Campaign Settings, Supplemental Splatbooks, adventures, etc.

I hope for a "red box" that handles just the Basic Game for those that are new or want to sample it. The idea that "I hate Rule X and don't want it taking up pages in my PHB/DMG" doesn't mesh with the stated goals of 5e so far, IMO. (Nor does it make much sense to me..."Wait, you want fewer options for your game?")

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.

I don't think the goal is to make all the modules cross-compatible. I mean that some modules will be serving the same purpose and thus you only pick one of them. So yes, any given campaign will be built with a relatively small number of modules. However, even a small number of choices for each module type will lead to a lot of (possible) variations of play.

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.

Keeping in mind that some modules will exchange/replace the simple modules that comprise the core....I don't think its actually that hard. This isn't computer programming, we humans are pretty flexible and if my memories of 2e are any indication, we are quite willing to patch up rules left and right with or without a module to help us. DMs and players are very fault-tolerant, something that later editions seem to forget or ignore (no judgement implied).

That being said, I believe that there will be some who just refuse to let it work for them. I'm not sure why, but many seem fixated on the idea that the "basic" game be the game as they want to play it.

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.

I don't take that as a given. I really think this is the actual purpose behind the emphasis on a simple basic game. The simpler that base is and the less intertwined the mechanics are, the easier it is to add or exchange modules. The utility and ease of later modules is far more dependent on the playtesting and design effort that goes into those modules than the core rules being built specifically with them in mind. I think the 2e "Options" books were illustrative of this idea. Some of them dug in and altered some pretty deep architecture of the original game, a game that was certainly not designed with them in mind. While some of those were better than others, it wasn't their interoperability that was the issue. (IME)

 

[Ratskinner]

So would you say that 5e should just be all modular and let people play whatever they want, since there's no longer any real shared experience across editions?

As much as possible, Yes. How could letting people play what/how they want possibly be a bad thing? I'd be pleased as punch if the core game was composed of completely swappable modules. (I won't be surprised if there is a "root" of D&D that isn't swappable presented either.)

Honestly, the idea that D&D plays "one way" is relatively recent phenomenon, IME. The group I played in in HS played very differently from the first group I played in in college. The group I ran in college played wildly differently than either of those, and the later campaigns I participated in through the gaming group on campus were all fairly unique as well. All the groups had the shared "language" of D&D, but the feel of play (perhaps due to Old-School dependence on DM adjudication) was wildly varied.

 

[KesselZero]

Honestly, the idea that D&D plays "one way" is relatively recent phenomenon, IME. The group I played in in HS played very differently from the first group I played in in college. The group I ran in college played wildly differently than either of those, and the later campaigns I participated in through the gaming group on campus were all fairly unique as well. All the groups had the shared "language" of D&D, but the feel of play (perhaps due to Old-School dependence on DM adjudication) was wildly varied.

That's an interesting point that I think I missed due to my age. My games in middle school were 2e (and all run by my brother) and I didn't play much in high school, so when I got back into gaming in college 3e had come out, so naturally the game was quite different. Ditto when I finally found a group a couple years after graduating college-- 4e had come out, so it was again a very different experience. It would have been really cool to have played the same edition with many groups...