Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KesselZero" data-source="post: 5851060" data-attributes="member: 6689976">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?</blockquote>

Verification