Fragmentation Fears
- Thread starter Texicles
- Start date
We already have fragmentation; if someone says they are playing "D&D," you still have to ask them which edition, since they are fairly different.
I suspect with 5e that some modules will be "bigger" than others. Like a game with the Tactical Combat Module might play very different than one with Narrative Aspects Module, or a game that uses only the core rules. So people will talk about "D&D, using most of the Tactical Combat rules" or "mostly just core, but with realistic healing and no at-will magic." I think this will be more informative than people who say they are just playing "2e" but then you show up and there's a big packet of house rules. ;}
-- 77IM
I suspect with 5e that some modules will be "bigger" than others. Like a game with the Tactical Combat Module might play very different than one with Narrative Aspects Module, or a game that uses only the core rules. So people will talk about "D&D, using most of the Tactical Combat rules" or "mostly just core, but with realistic healing and no at-will magic." I think this will be more informative than people who say they are just playing "2e" but then you show up and there's a big packet of house rules. ;}
-- 77IM
delericho
Legend
It's not really going to be any different from what we have now - where DMs have their own lists of house rules, where different groups use different supplementary materials, and where it's not at all uncommon for people to be "playing D&D" when they're actually playing another game entirely.
Bottom line: I wouldn't worry about it.
(What I am a bit concerned about is how things like published adventures will work with the modular system. But my expectation is that the adventures will be written for some sort of baseline, and that the modules will provide guidelines for how to adapt adventures to suit. At least, that's how I would structure it. The only significant problem is that groups who use a lot of modules, or who don't use the 'baseline' modules, might have a lot of adaptation work to do. But then, if they're happy with the added complexity of using lots of modules, they're probably also happy with the extra conversion work.)
Bottom line: I wouldn't worry about it.
(What I am a bit concerned about is how things like published adventures will work with the modular system. But my expectation is that the adventures will be written for some sort of baseline, and that the modules will provide guidelines for how to adapt adventures to suit. At least, that's how I would structure it. The only significant problem is that groups who use a lot of modules, or who don't use the 'baseline' modules, might have a lot of adaptation work to do. But then, if they're happy with the added complexity of using lots of modules, they're probably also happy with the extra conversion work.)
Drowbane
First Post
WotC's goal with 5e blows my mind. In reality they are probably trying to unite the 3e and 4e gamers (despite what has been stated), as the diehard oldskool gamers were never their customers to begin with. Even just looking at those two systems... I personally (and I may be alone in this) do not want to play a game that is 3e and 4e's love child. The two systems are just too different.
I think WotC would be better off continuing with 4e as well as reopening the 3e line. Perhaps even sell 1e, 2e, etc as PDF and POD. D&D players are divided, so sell each version of D&D instead of trying to sell one bizarro D&D that tries to please everybody. financially viable? Probably not...
One D&D to unite the masses of D&D Gamers? I am a skeptic.
edit: ok, so if they do pull it off it would have to be some sort of super-rules lite system that probably resembles a cleaned up version of OD&D or AD&D. From there the modularity could add the "4e style module" or the rules heavy "3e style module", 2e kits and proficiencies... whatever. Would they then try to do splat books by Module type or fit in each module type into every book? Cause if I and my group all all into the 3e style, then 2/3rds of the books are going to be complete rubbish... it would be like as if every splat book was the Minis Handbook from 3e (for those of you who missed that, the second half of that book was entirely devoted to crap for the D&D Minis game).
I think WotC would be better off continuing with 4e as well as reopening the 3e line. Perhaps even sell 1e, 2e, etc as PDF and POD. D&D players are divided, so sell each version of D&D instead of trying to sell one bizarro D&D that tries to please everybody. financially viable? Probably not...
One D&D to unite the masses of D&D Gamers? I am a skeptic.
edit: ok, so if they do pull it off it would have to be some sort of super-rules lite system that probably resembles a cleaned up version of OD&D or AD&D. From there the modularity could add the "4e style module" or the rules heavy "3e style module", 2e kits and proficiencies... whatever. Would they then try to do splat books by Module type or fit in each module type into every book? Cause if I and my group all all into the 3e style, then 2/3rds of the books are going to be complete rubbish... it would be like as if every splat book was the Minis Handbook from 3e (for those of you who missed that, the second half of that book was entirely devoted to crap for the D&D Minis game).
Last edited:
an_idol_mind
Explorer
In terms of modularity, I could see things becoming like 2nd edition to an extent. Looking through the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, there were a lot of optional rules, such as weapon modifiers based on armor, critical hits, story-based XP, death from massive damage, material components for spells, and proficiencies, which was an entirely optional chapter.
The problem was that many of the optional rules stopped being optional if you used any supporting modules or supplements. Most of them assumed the use of many optional parts of the core books, especially nonweapon proficiencies.
As with most things involved with 5th edition, I don't think the core books will be a problem. The real test will be in how WotC supports the game beyond that.
The problem was that many of the optional rules stopped being optional if you used any supporting modules or supplements. Most of them assumed the use of many optional parts of the core books, especially nonweapon proficiencies.
As with most things involved with 5th edition, I don't think the core books will be a problem. The real test will be in how WotC supports the game beyond that.
I've never felt it was the VERSION of D&D that was the issue in why I did or did not like a particular game I was playing in... it was the DM that was always what made me like it or not like it.
You give me a game that has ever single rule / houserule / campaign idea that I love, and put it in the hands of a crappy DM... I'm hating the game.
You give me a game that has so many esoteric and personalized nitpicky bits and bobs that I can barely keep them straight and find most of them to be a complete waste of time, being run by an absolutely OUTSTANDING Dungeon Master who makes it all sing... I'll play that game for years.
My advice?
Find a good DM and hold onto him like he or she is a life preserver. Cause even if the game he/she wants to play is fricking Tunnels and Trolls... the DM will make it work. Who gives a rat's ass if the rules make no sense to you or includes "modules" that run counter to your entire being? The DM makes the game fun to play regardless of that crap. Always has.
You give me a game that has ever single rule / houserule / campaign idea that I love, and put it in the hands of a crappy DM... I'm hating the game.
You give me a game that has so many esoteric and personalized nitpicky bits and bobs that I can barely keep them straight and find most of them to be a complete waste of time, being run by an absolutely OUTSTANDING Dungeon Master who makes it all sing... I'll play that game for years.
My advice?
Find a good DM and hold onto him like he or she is a life preserver. Cause even if the game he/she wants to play is fricking Tunnels and Trolls... the DM will make it work. Who gives a rat's ass if the rules make no sense to you or includes "modules" that run counter to your entire being? The DM makes the game fun to play regardless of that crap. Always has.
PinkRose
Explorer
I can't articulate what is trying to be said here that people are missing.
Yes. A DM set the rules in every other version.
However, now there are specific rules (modules) that people will look for.
Like I didn't know I was missing Module A in my 3e game but now that it is prominent and I'm aware, I want it in my game.
I fear that every player will have to post a list, "A, B, C, little E, No G"
And there will be 300 different versions of a game.
Does that make sense?
Yes. A DM set the rules in every other version.
However, now there are specific rules (modules) that people will look for.
Like I didn't know I was missing Module A in my 3e game but now that it is prominent and I'm aware, I want it in my game.
I fear that every player will have to post a list, "A, B, C, little E, No G"
And there will be 300 different versions of a game.
Does that make sense?
Li Shenron
Legend
Well maybe those players would grow up and understand that it is not so important to have "exactly" what you think would be perfect. I mean, if everyone would really think like that, it would be like the proverbial kid with the soccer ball that if he cannot play exactly the game he wants, he takes the ball home and nobody else plays, except that the ball here is the PHB. If everybody does that, everybody plays alone.
But seriously... even in all previous editions people complained about something and made their own house rules, so you still often had to adapt to someone's pet peeves if you wanted to have a DM. But people still managed to play the game.
