The problem I see is that making things modular potentially makes arriving at that social contract more difficult, or come with long term consequences. If somebody at the table wants old school high immersion, and another wants to play Spiderman with a laser gun, and 5E has modular rules for both, their is going to be some level of conflict in achieving the social contract, and whoever doesn't get what they want is likely to hold some level of resentment or at least longing for something they want but aren't allowed to use. That player starts enjoying the game less and participating less, and might become a problem player down the road.
Its something I saw back when I was playing 3E and a DM would label certain books off limits. Some people took it hard and the game suffered for it, and this was something I never saw in other editions(2E and 4E) or other RPGs that had didn't have lots of controversial optional rules.
This is exactly the issue I was going to offer as an example, but my experience is the opposite of yours! When I say "these books are acceptable, and no others are" my players say "okay" and we're good. They might ask "what about this?" from time to time, but even though I always stuck to a "I don't want to cherry-pick, sorry" they always took it in stride. I did the same when my brother placed restrictions on his game.
The thing is, my players are different from yours in that respect, from the sounds of it. We're okay following the DM's lead on what's allowed in his D&D campaign. We don't resent it, even if there's momentary initial disappointment. Other players, obviously, won't like that, and that's why I commented on the social contract informing each group's decisions.
Its a bigger issue when it is something that the game supports and has rules for than when its something the game doesn't offer in the first place.
True. And, it's an even bigger issue if the core rules support it. These things need to be taken into account when designing the game. As always, play what you like
For my money the key is not breaking immersion. And that is highly subjective of course. But it comes at both ends, if there is a class with a martial daily which the character describes situationally in a way that adds to the experience I think few of us would have a problem with it, conversely I suspect even most hardcore 4e fans might have an issue with a player saying "I'm casting fist storm! KamehaMEHA BOOM! Saiyin power FTW yo!"
If by "for my money" you mean in order to get you to purchase the game, I agree, personally. Immersion will be key to get me to buy it. So will other things, obviously. Nothing grossly unbalanced. I want options in character building. Etc.
And from the other end Wizards can choose to not ignore the importance of fluff this time around. If there are no
martial daily abilities, but instead daily abilities used by some fighting classes but described as supernatural in origin, is that a problem? Because we had that all over the place in 3e from Monks to Paladins to Sword Sages. Actually Monks and Paladins had martial daily abilties even in AD&D. And in AD&D your Fighter could role for Psionic abilites and go around mind blasting people if he got lucky.
Yeah, I think that wouldn't trample on the immersion of a wide audience, because "supernatural" has the same excuse as magic ("it's magic!") when it comes to suspension of disbelief. Which, from a design perspective, is very convenient.
In my RPG (sorry to head there again), anyone can purchase an ability (via character points) that lets them inflict a status effect once per round. So, if my melee warrior buys a "prone" status effect, he can flavor is however he wants when he buys it: knocking the enemy prone with his shield; using his telepathy to push them; tripping them with fancy footwork; the force of his screams are so severe they tremble momentarily.
For 5e, I'd like effects to be somewhat like this: here's what it does, and if your group can't decide how it's mundane, then it's supernatural. Let each group decide how it manifests, and each group can object to or accept supernatural effects for their mundane guys, or object to or accept powerful mundane effects for their supernatural guys. The idea of "refluffing" things is powerful, versatile, and helps each group achieve their own sense of verisimilitude.
If you are going this route, however, I'd also steer clear of a myriad of "this ability Xd6 + effect" style abilities, and give a more "make-it-yourself" approach. Something similar to [MENTION=1544]Zustiur[/MENTION]'s approach to things in this post:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5861201-post211.html. You have these moving parts, and you can create a maneuver that models something. Though, I'd prefer something with less restrictions built in. That is, he writes "
Immobilized 2 options, pinned to the ground somehow (arrow through foot), or held/grappled." I'd prefer something like "the creature can't move from its square(s)" and the specifics of
how that's done to be discussed when the ability is created. Do force rings appear and hold it in place? Does an arrow pin it's foot down? Then, once the flavor is decided, the group can decide whether or not it works for them.
Another example: you can inflict a "dominated" status effect on creatures in my game. This would be difficult to explain as mundane most of the time, but it's still possible. If a plant creature had it, it could be described as spores, for example. If the group can justify its use as mundane, and it passes their sense of verisimilitude, go for it. If not, they don't need to buy it (or gain it as a class feature, etc.).
Now, that doesn't mean that mundane characters should be forbidden from having supernatural things. Not at all. The Fighter, in my mind, should not be denied something "supernatural" like a fascination effect "because he's a Fighter." To me, if you accept it at face value as supernatural, you can justify it in any number of ways. Maybe that's an easy way to model minor multi-classsing (it's a spell). Maybe he's just that dumbfounding to opponents in combat (he's now in Epic levels, after all!). If a group doesn't like it, though, they can just say "that's ridiculous, you can't use that" and move on, and have fun. Other groups will get the benefit of the easily flavored mechanics of the game.
Personally, if you're trying to appeal to such a wide variety of groups, all which have a different sense of verisimilitude, all of which have different levels of suspension of disbelief, I think that refluffing is amazingly versatile and powerful. Sorry for the long reply. As always, play what you like
