Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5885438" data-attributes="member: 52073">Regarding modular design:Okay, everyone saying "there's a module for that[sup]TM[/sup]" or "just throw it in a module and we'll be fine"?  Modular design just Does Not Work That Way.Modular design implies a solid core to which modules are added that can add to or modify this core.  Modular design also implies that modules do not modify other modules or change the core such that other modules become incompatible.  Video game DLC is a good example of this: You can add a module to Mass Effect 1 to give you some new missions, but (A) you can't add another module to Mass Effect 1 that modifies that other DLC, since you can't guarantee that people will have that other one, and (B) you can't turn ME1 into ME2 with some DLC, you need to rewrite the game from scratch.That's essentially what's being asked for here, rewriting the game from scratch with a module.  Even if you can make a module that technically makes all of the necessary changes in and of itself, the consequences of that change will affect other modules.  To use the ME example, ME1 has all of your powers on different cooldown timers while ME2 has them all on the same timer.  It's pretty trivial to change ME1 to use a universal cooldown--I could probably do it myself with 3-4 lines of code--but doing so changes tactics, enemies, difficulty curves, and the metagame almost beyond recognition.  If you want a universal cooldown, you have to build that into the game, and ME2's combat system is quite different as a result.In the same way, you can trivially write a single paragraph describing the changes you need to make to HP to make them more realistic.  Drop them by 3/4, or remove Con bonuses, or whatever it is that reduces them to a satisfactory level.  But then enemies change difficulty (you can't survive higher-level monster unless they're rewritten), tactics change (a bunch of 1st-level crossbowmen can take out PCs...and everything else under the sun), the metagame changes (martial types have a much smaller comparative HP advantage, so defense becomes much more important than offense and thus the favored builds and strategies change), and so forth.  To be able to have both traditional and gritty mechanics available with one standard and one in a module, the core has to be built to be able to handle both of them, and that will in fact impact the quality of both systems even if the traditional people and the gritty people use zero modules in common.And yes, I know Monte has said that they're taking D&D Next in this exciting new direction to a magical land where modular design totally works that way and the game can be everything to everyone.  I've interned before for people who have said that yes, they can totally take this buggy software platform written by a different team and make it work to specifications within the 1-week deadline.  PR people can say whatever they want, and aim for whatever goals they wish, but that doesn't mean it will actually work, or that if it does work it actually pleases people.  I mean, look at the 4e announcements: plenty of people were clamoring for better martial abilities and simpler combat maneuvers and ritual magic and other things, and loved what they saw in the previews, and yet when the full game came out many of those people hated it despite the fact that all of those design goals were fulfilled.-----------------------------------------------------Regarding suspension of disbelief:Internal consistency and realism are different things.  It is not realistic that you can expect survive roughly 1 sword to the gut for every 2-3 levels you have, but it is internally consistent, because it is observable in-game, it works that way for everyone, and the implications of this are taken into account.  Both PCs and players can make plans and decisions based on this information and won't be surprised at the outcome, because that's the way the game physics work.  It would be realistic to suppose that lava and falls instantly kill people, but it would not be internally consistent if those same people routinely survive fires hotter than lava and blunt force trauma more lethal than those falls.  If a 10-ton weight falling on you kills you but a bite that conveys more than 10 tons of force doesn't, you can't assess threats accurately or plan around various factors of the game world.Suspension of disbelief works fine as long as the world is internally consistent.  Many people easily suspended disbelief about the Force in Star Wars, because the explanation of it, its power, and its wielders was internally consistent...until Episode I, when they tried to explain that the Force comes from microorganisms, and that replacement of magic with biology broke many peoples' suspension of disbelief even though it's technically more realistic to attempt to give a scientific explanation for the Force.  Action-movie or comic-book physics aren't realistic in the slightest, but are plenty consistent, to the point that you can tell how plots will play out (the Joker will survive again and escape Arkham Asylum again...) because they're fairly formulaic, and if you tell someone that a world or game operates on comic-book physics they can easily grasp what you mean and play along.DM fiat is not the best way to achieve internal consistency and thereby achieve suspension of disbelief.  In fact, it is a terrible way to do so: DM fiat in other media is better known as deus ex machina, and it is generally regarded as a terrible way to resolve things because it happens regardless of whatever other rules of the world have already been established.  In Doctor Who, you get plots all the time where something happens and is "fixed in time" and can never ever ever be changed, and then later on the Doctor goes and changes it anyway because *mumble mumble wibbly wobbly timey wimey*.  It's usually entertaining because of the technobabble and humor and flashy effects, but if you tried to do the same thing in a game ("The BBEG is immune to fire and lives in a volcano.  Just kidding, fire is his special weakness because plot.") the players would rightly complain that it makes no sense and really screws with their perception of the world.In some games (i.e. not D&D) a T-Rex is a threat to everyone.  In some games (i.e. not D&D) a freakin' disintegration ray is instant death for everyone.  In other games (i.e. D&D) this isn't the case.  Games of both kinds come with certain expectations, and changing those expectations arbitrarily by DM fiat mid-game (or even stating before hand "some things will insta-kill you for realism's sake" without outlining every case) just isn't a good strategy and is certainly no way to design a complex rules-heavy game like D&D.</blockquote>

Verification