D&D 5E Does anyone else feel like the action economy and the way actions work in general in 5e both just suck?

[Imaro]

Were you trying to make a point? It does not matter if it works for lots of people in relation to thesword's point about 5e being modular because like every tv series or movie with multiple episodes movies seasons or spinoffs it can be added to. Star wars, star trek, & nightmare on elmstreet are modular by his absurd definition. When specific problems with his assertion were raised by myself & othes he refused to address them.

I'd be thrilled with a discussion attempting to address them rather than one with someone saying what amounts to "he made a claim go prove it yourself" & "supporting my argument is beneath me". Given that even you didn't pick up the baton trying to address the specific points raised despite your protest... I think it's fair to say that we both agree they are just nonsense.

SO why don't you post the definition of modular? I actually think thesword's definition is more in line with how it's used in IT but I'd love to see the actual definition you and others are using as a reference...

In other words the framework doesn't change, but functionality, utility, etc can be added, changed or removed in discrete pieces of code.

Edit: Swinging this back to 5e if I remove the current skill system and use different attributes with different skills that's modular because it's a discrete piece I changed the functionality of.
EDIT: But the underlying framework is still the same.

 

[tetrasodium]

SO why don't you post the definition of modular? I actually think thesword's definition is more in line with how it's used in IT but I'd love to see the actual definition you and others are using as a reference...

since you mention IT definition of modular

efers to the design of any system composed of separate components that can be connected together. The beauty of modular architecture is that you can replace or add any one component (module) without affecting the rest of the system. The opposite of a modular architecture is an integrated architecture, in which no clear divisions exist between components.
The term modular can apply to both hardware and software. Modular software design, for example, refers to a design strategy in which a system is composed of relatively small and autonomous routines that fit together.

5e's modularity is less "point the CRM to your smtp server", more "you can use whatever email addresses you want on your exchange server you point the CRM to & exchange can handle new TLDs including internal ones that don't exist". In that context it would be meaningless marketing speak

Instead of asking me to give a new one, how about @Maxperson's definition since we are talking in terms of an RPG in the context of an ongoing discussion not an IT thing like a CRM system?

 

[Imaro]

you've not shown any modularity The ability to add new things that work within the existing completely unchanged framework is not modular

So if I add a modular component to an application that uses a .Net Framework it's only modular if it somehow changes the entire framework... that's uhm... what??

 

[Imaro]

Instead of asking me to give a new one, how about @Maxperson's definition since we are talking in terms of an RPG in the context of an ongoing discussion not an IT thing like a CRM system?

So you claim his definition is wrong but don't present one of your own... seems like a recipe for shifting goal posts if you ask me.

EDIT: The problem with @Maxperson's definition is it doesn't define what is framework vs what are modules. Even a new module has to be built around the same framework.

 

[Oofta]

EDIT: I'm tired. I'm cranky. I'm tired of some people's constant negativity. I'm tired of people harping on the "modularity" marketing phrase from 7 years ago. I believe 5E is designed to be more modular than previous editions, but it will never be enough.

So sorry. I'll keep my rants to myself.

 

[Jaeger]

I don't think you can ever really say "never." Various post-apocalyptic fantasies were really hot during the 00s and early teens (Hunger Games, Fallout, etc), but nobody really had the right tabletop game idea to take advantage of the trend.

Maybe another Vampire like trend,, but IMHO - nothing that will topple D&D. Too big a head start. And as one poster pointed out as the Market leader it benefits from buyouts when it does make a misstep.

Because in the USA RPG land loves themselves their D&D.

However I set the bar a little higher than that. I’d like to find good players. Not just anyone with a pulse.

I did say that one will have to put in the work to sift the wheat from the chaff....

What, now? When was this? Are you talking about the very brief period between the end of 2e and the release of 3e?

Yup. Teeny-Tiny window of time when Vampire rose to the top of the charts! It was all downhill for WW after that.

...
Second of all, first world country or not you couldn't be more wrong. Your notion is the opinion most people have though.

Wut!?

I couldn't be more right! A 40 hour work week isn't so bad.

Not just the people I know from my current RPG network. But all my family, friends, and their friends, could easily block out a 4 hour period once a week to play in a TTRPG campaign once a week.

They choose not to because they are not interested in RPG's. And they would rather do other social activities, or watch tv.

People prioritize their time. You just have to put in the work to find people who choose to prioritize their time to play TTRPG's, and are fun to be around.

 

[Bolares]

Wat?

People in first world countries have never had more leisure time nor the money to be able to indulge in it.

You are kind of assuming we all are in first world countries....

 

[Bolares]

On modularity.... 5e is modular. It has a ton of optional rules, added features in adventures, crunch books, setting books... It may not be modular ENOUGH for your taste, or have to few new systems and subsystems to fulfill your expectations, but if we are giving the game a "modular" or "not modular" tag, you can1t say it is not modular

 

[fearsomepirate]

Well you will never accept any answer other than "yes, you are 100% correct".

I think what he's looking for is, "Yes, 3.5 is the one true edition of D&D, nothing else before or after can touch it."

 

[tetrasodium]

So you claim his definition is wrong but don't present one of your own... seems like a recipe for shifting goal posts if you ask me.

I'm not the one who claimed it was modular & gave a bunch of nonsense examples & happen to agree with maxperson's summary of what was being discussed before thesword lept in. That agreement is why I linked to it in the post you quoted. The goalposts didn't shift, they were drawn out & debated over before his entry.

as to your dotnet example you don't include enough detail to comment on. Lets say you wrote a dotnet CRM application with no ability to send out gather process an/or ackowledge email is a need other than then allowing customer email addresses to be recorded then claimed not every company needs email functionality so a company who does expect it in a CRM could just write a subsystem for that very basic expectation of CRM software, you'd get less than positive responses because companies who don't & you'd get those responses because companies who don't want email in their CRM could just turn off that component.

Failure to include basic things like functional tactical combat system that can just be ignored by groups who don't want to worry about things like a robust system for things like AoOs/facing/flanking/etc could just turn that off by not using those rules. Just like that email processing/managing capability in a CRM you can trivially turn those things off by simply not using those rules but can't simply drop it in because it touches too many things.

@Bolares this & other recent threads went into detail about why may of those optional/variant rules are incomplete & lacking. If you order a steak & it comes out raw or vastly undercooked "but there is a baked potato too" doesn't change the fact that the chef left out a key component of making a steak even if you didn't want the potato. If you get a perfectly (or even reasonably decently) cooked steak and a baked potato you don't want it's easy to ignore the potato because you wanted the steak.