Game Modules you'd like/expect to see...

[steeldragons]

With Modularity the name of the 5e game, I am becoming increasingly amused by the various supposition threads that "this or that needs to be a rule" as opposed to a game of base guidelines with XYZ optional modules included.

If the "rules" you want are offered as an optional module...and you are gettign what you want...and those who don't want it don't have to include it in their games...then where's the debate? Everyone's getting what/how they want to play! Ding Dong, the OneTrueWayism is DEAD!

So, with that in mind, what Optional sets of Module rules would you like or do you expect to see...or at the very least hope are included in the basic game? Obviously, I would expect, as time moves on following the initial release, we can expect any number of additional supplemental books, splats, kits, sets, that will expand on the game, offering more and more optional modules.

But to start, here's what I'm thinking...

Alignment Module: use alignment in your games any of this number of ways or not at all.

Advanced Combat Module: Weapons reach, speed, damage type, weapon type against armor type, etc. Usable, completely independently of...

Tactical Mini's Module: For those who feel that they need the mini's to play the game or, at least, pull them out to conduct combat with the detail and fiddly bits they are used to. Maneuver, feat and 5-foot step to your hearts content with, presumably, the Advanced Combat Module in tandem...or without!

Training &/OR Retraining Module: If you want to allow it in your games, have at it. Impose PC training time and costs (not to mention having to find an NPC of sufficicient level to train you) at level up. And/or allow for "Retraining" of feats or skills, swapping out or adding Themes (outside of/beyond the allowances of the base guidelines), etc.

Magic System Module: Alternate ways of conducting all magic, some magic, wizard but not cleric magic, spell points, full on spontaneous casting, etc. Combat casting/interrupts, concentration checks, "learn spell" checks/percentages, etc. A few different ideas of ways to do it...in addition to or instead of the "default" casting system.

Anything else popped up recently that people are "discussing" that is really rather moot and could easily be added to the game, as desired? Or anything that hasn't come up that you want to see/use in your games...but has no reason it needs to be a "rule" in the core of the game?

Cheers. Happy almost Friday, all.
--SD

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Can't give ya xp, but these are very good.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

With Modularity the name of the 5e game, I am becoming increasingly amused by the various supposition threads that "this or that needs to be a rule" as opposed to a game of base guidelines with XYZ optional modules included.

If the "rules" you want are offered as an optional module...and you are gettign what you want...and those who don't want it don't have to include it in their games...then where's the debate? Everyone's getting what/how they want to play! Ding Dong, the OneTrueWayism is DEAD!

If you'll permit me a brief digression to critique this premise:

[sblock]Regarding modular design:

I'm not singling you out here, this goes for everyone saying "there's a module for that^TM" or "just throw it in a module and we'll be fine." Speaking as a software developer here, 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 with the "5e is entirely modular!" marketing spin, 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 few paragraphs describing the changes you need to modularize the topics that have been igniting flamewars on this forum for a while: the changes for HP acquisition, mundane healing, healing amounts, martial power recharge, and the like can be described quite concisely, and you can provide several different takes on the same system. But then the rest of the game experiences cascading effects from each of these modules--for instance, given different amounts of HP and healing, enemies change difficulty (you can't survive higher-level monster unless they're rewritten), available party compositions change (can you have a warlord as primary healer or not?), 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 two different versions of a particular mechanic available with one being 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 and the game as a whole even if there are groups who use zero modules in common with one another.

And yes, I know Monte and Mearls said that they (well, now just Mearls) are 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 and everyone was given what they said they wanted.[/sblock]
TL;DR for the above: You can't please everyone, and plenty of things do in fact need to be rules. OneTrueWayism won't be dying for a few more editions yet.

-----------------------------------------

With that out of the way, module suggestions that can actually work, like the ones you suggested:

--Cultures, whether real-world or fictional. Want to play a samurai in Rokugan, or a priest of Thor, or a sha'ir? Well, using the base rules your "samurai" wielding a "katana" is a fighter with a bastard sword, your priest of "Odin" is worshiping the standard storm god (or a custom one), and a sha'ir is simply an elemental- and genie-flavored wizard, but with some cultural modules you could expand equipment, pantheons, themes, and such in the style of 1e Deities and Demigods. It would provide a nice middle ground between basic core stuff and a full campaign setting, and could easily be slotted in multiple places.

--Freeform combat maneuvers. A stunting system more granular than a basic Page 42-style "Make X skill checks against Y DCs for Z effect" would provide more tactical depth and more baked-in options for those who want them, but you could keep things simpler and stick to existing combat maneuvers and improvization guidelines without it if you want.

--Wilderness survival. The AD&D Wilderness Survival Guide provided tons of information on checks for surviving different environments, necessary equipment, custom wandering monster tables, and much much more, but recent editions have glossed over most of that stuff. If you want the nitty gritty details back and the mechanics provided for the Exploration pillar don't do it for you, this module's got your back.

--Narrative structures. Changing out per encounter/per day for per scene/per chapter and providing some new mechanics for more cinematic/abstract HP recovery and that sort of thing can be handled here. You can't really muck around with the base resource systems too much, but this should work for most people.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm not sure if you want just the modules that I personally want to see, or the modules that I want to see for the sake of all, or the modules I expect to see regardless. Anyway, I made a list!

My definitions:
Basic: the default simple version of the game that's in the Red Box. If it ain't simple, its there for historical reasons. :sigh:
Expert: non-default, possibly more complicated options, but still pretty simple. May change the way your game plays, but in a pretty predictable manner.
Advanced: non-default, possibly very complicated, fiddly, or tricky in play. May also be on the verge of "Not D&D" or affect your game in ways that are not easily predictable.

Character Motivation
Basic: Alignment
Expert: Heroic Drives
Expert: Alegiances
Expert: Aspects (from Fate)

Races:
Basic: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling
Expert: Dragonborn, Tiefling, Half-orc,..most of the rest
Advanced: Monster Races as PCs

Classes:
Basic: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric
Expert: most of the rest...possibly deprecated by use of themes&Backgrounds
Advanced: Build a Class a la 2e's skills and powers ::shudder::
Advanced: Classless Point buy
Expert: sequential multiclassing a la 3e
Expert: simultaneous multiclassing a la 1-2e

Themes & Backgrounds
Basic: The DM assigns a +2 when appropriate
Expert: Choose a Background and Theme, get the listed benefits as you level.
Advanced: recombinant Themes and Backgrounds

Advancement
Basic: XP
Expert: Natural Advancement (basically DM declaration in-story)
Expert: Awesome Points (from Old School Hack)

Combat/Movement Rules
note: each might have a list of martial powers with it, or instructions on modifying the basic system of maneuvers. Also, they purportedly have some kind of martial maneuvers system in the rules they've been playing with, but not knowing what it is...
Movement
Basic: Theatre of the Mind/measured
Expert: Zones (from Fate) or Arenas (from Old School Hack)
Advanced: Tactical Grid
Advanced: Tactical Hex
Initiative
Basic: Initiative by sides every round
Expert: Individual Initiative (optionally every round)
Expert: Phased Initiative (Defend/Prevent, Move/Maneuver, Casting/Concentrate, Shoot, Attack, Cleanup/Spells resolve)
Saves and Conditions
Basic: follow what it says in the spell/ability
Expert: a list of possible conditions a la 3/4e

Damage and Wounding
Basic: Traditional HP (possibly with "Bloodied")
Expert: Wound/Vitality
Expert: Critical hit location charts
Expert: SWSE condition track
Expert/Advanced: Mutants and Masterminds wounds

Narrative Control Rules
Expert: Action Points
Expert: Fate Points (with Aspects?)
Advanced: Alternative OoC resolution systems with stakes-setting, etc.

Spells and Magic
Basic: Traditional Vancian style (perhaps modified, though)
Expert: rules mucking with spell recovery
Advanced: Mana points
Basic(?): rituals

Of course, that might be wayy too long for the first PHB.

 

[Ratskinner]

If you'll permit me a brief digression to critique this premise:

Regarding modular design:

I must heartily and collegially disagree. I understand what you are talking about, and you are correct, for software. However, D&D is not software running on a computer, it is played at the table. The humans "running" it are much more fault-tolerant and, in fact, capable of responding to faults by fixing it on their own initiative. In the old days (AD&D) the rules had plenty of holes that individual DMs/groups had to fix. I never walked into a room and had to reboot the DM.

Their choices helped make each game unique. I believe it gave DMs in particular a sense of ownership and license that seems to be missing lately. Honestly, sometimes I think that D&D would do well to revisit that "sloppy" era.

All that being said....I don't think 5e will kill "One True Wayism", either.

 

[dkyle]

I must heartily and collegially disagree. I understand what you are talking about, and you are correct, for software. However, D&D is not software running on a computer, it is played at the table. The humans "running" it are much more fault-tolerant and, in fact, capable of responding to faults by fixing it on their own initiative. In the old days (AD&D) the rules had plenty of holes that individual DMs/groups had to fix. I never walked into a room and had to reboot the DM.

Their choices helped make each game unique. I believe it gave DMs in particular a sense of ownership and license that seems to be missing lately. Honestly, sometimes I think that D&D would do well to revisit that "sloppy" era.

Yes, the DM can adapt better than the computer. But that's really because the DM is essentially able to play the role of both the programmer and the computer. Flaws with the system are still flaws, there's just a last line of defense to fix them (hopefully) before they screw up the game at the table.

While I like designing games, I do not want to be forced to do so to make a game system work, especially one I purchased. And it's a serious mistake to expect every DM to be good at redesigning games.

Each and every time I must fix a game, I consider it either:

1. A sign that the game is not well suited for the campaign I'm running, or
2. A sign the game is just not well designed

Basically, just because the DM can fix a flaw, does not mean it isn't a flaw. An RPG is more fault-tolerant than a computer, but it's just a matter of degrees. The same principles and ideals for good software design apply to game design as well.

 

[steeldragons]

Of course, that might be wayy too long for the first PHB.

Perhaps too long for the PHB, but noon'es gonna tell you you ain't thorough! lol. A great list, imho!

Of course, as it seems with everyone who I want to XP lately, I'm stuck in "spreading some around" limbo. But the intent to XP is there.

Just wanted ya to know.
--SD

 

[steeldragons]

If you'll permit me a brief digression to critique this premise:

[sblock]Regarding modular design:

I'm not singling you out here, this goes for everyone saying "there's a module for that^TM" or "just throw it in a module and we'll be fine." Speaking as a software developer here, 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 with the "5e is entirely modular!" marketing spin, 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 few paragraphs describing the changes you need to modularize the topics that have been igniting flamewars on this forum for a while: the changes for HP acquisition, mundane healing, healing amounts, martial power recharge, and the like can be described quite concisely, and you can provide several different takes on the same system. But then the rest of the game experiences cascading effects from each of these modules--for instance, given different amounts of HP and healing, enemies change difficulty (you can't survive higher-level monster unless they're rewritten), available party compositions change (can you have a warlord as primary healer or not?), 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 two different versions of a particular mechanic available with one being 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 and the game as a whole even if there are groups who use zero modules in common with one another.

And yes, I know Monte and Mearls said that they (well, now just Mearls) are 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 and everyone was given what they said they wanted.[/sblock]

Yes, the DM can adapt better than the computer.-snippage- The same principles and ideals for good software design apply to game design as well.

Thanks for the posts and I appreciate and respect the opinions...nor do I wish to insult your chosen profession. I'm sure that is all very true for computer program writing. Since DM's (and all players at the table, for that matter) can handle things in more than "1" or "0" ways, I tend to disagree.

Good fashion design is not the same as good print layout design. For that matter, good print layout design is not the same as good website layout design. Good architectural design is not the same as good interior decorating design...and all of those designs that are hailed as "good" change and evolve, devolve and change s'more.

Computer software design (even for games) is not the same as table-top RPG game design.

AND, also, "design" and "programming" are not the same thing. Nor should we kid ourselves that it should or has to be the same.

If you want your D&D game to be a series of 0's and 1's, have at it. I'm sure the game can accommodate that..in fact, this thread is kinda advocating that, if that is what you wish.

Personally, I prefer my RPGs to be 0-to-infinity (and BEYOND! ..which probably explains why I don't play C-RPGs.

Moving on/back to the thread topic at hand.
--SD

 

[dkyle]

Since DM's (and all players at the table, for that matter) can handle things in more than "1" or "0" ways, I tend to disagree.

Obviously, computers can handle things in much more than "1" or "0" ways.

Computer programs, RPG system, boardgames, laws, regulations, corporate policies, and industry standards are all ultimately the same basic thing: a set of rules. They vary in purpose, of course, but beyond that, the real difference is the entity that interprets and executes those rules.

RPG systems are highly fault-tolerant, much moreso than boardgame rules, laws, or computer programs. But faults are still faults. They should not simply be accepted, if they can be avoided, and they certainly should not be encouraged.

Modular design is nothing new to programming. I don't see any reason why the principles of modular design for that form of rules-building does not apply to RPG rules building. Less essential, sure, but that's not the same as inapplicable, or in any way harmful.

Good fashion design is not the same as good print layout design. For that matter, good print layout design is not the same as good website layout design. Good architectural design is not the same as good interior decorating design...and all of those designs that are hailed as "good" change and evolve, devolve and change s'more.

No, they are not the same, of course. But there are plenty of principles that apply well across them. Color theory, for example.

If you want your D&D game to be a series of 0's and 1's, have at it. I'm sure the game can accommodate that..in fact, this thread is kinda advocating that, if that is what you wish.

Every rules system is, ultimately, a "series of 0's and 1's". Rules are rules, whether RPGs or computers. They just differ in how much can be done that breaks those rules.

Personally, I prefer my RPGs to be 0-to-infinity (and BEYOND! ..which probably explains why I don't play C-RPGs.

Nothing is stopping you from applying whatever DM fiat and ad-hoc fixes you desire, to any RPG system, whether 1E or 4E. People didn't stop using ad-hoc rulings because the system somehow stops them from doing so. They stopped because they didn't want to anymore, and they had systems that did less to force them to.

Good design has nothing to do with limiting the full range of possibilities. It only has to do with expressing possibilities in ways that do not require DM fiat, adjudication and ad-hoc fixes.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

I must heartily and collegially disagree. I understand what you are talking about, and you are correct, for software. However, D&D is not software running on a computer, it is played at the table. The humans "running" it are much more fault-tolerant and, in fact, capable of responding to faults by fixing it on their own initiative. In the old days (AD&D) the rules had plenty of holes that individual DMs/groups had to fix. I never walked into a room and had to reboot the DM.

Thanks for the posts and I appreciate and respect the opinions...nor do I wish to insult your chosen profession. I'm sure that is all very true for computer program writing. Since DM's (and all players at the table, for that matter) can handle things in more than "1" or "0" ways, I tend to disagree.

Personally, I prefer my RPGs to be 0-to-infinity (and BEYOND! ..which probably explains why I don't play C-RPGs.

As I mentioned above, there are some concepts that can be done as modules, such as the examples in the OP and the examples I gave. DMs and software alike can incorporate actual modules just fine if the system is designed for it. However, there are some things you can't modularize, and there are some things you can modularize but shouldn't do to the ramifications of doing so. That's my main point, that people are quick to say "Oh, you can just stick X in a module," without looking at the effort required to incorporate such a module or the consequences of doing so.

For instance, with all due respect to Ratskinner, some of his suggestions should not be modules.

Advanced: Monster Races as PCs

"Monster races as PCs" should not be a module, because if you do not build that possibility into the core it simply will not work. Monster races weren't considered at the outset of 3.0, and that's how we got the massive, clunky mess that was the LA/ECL system. If you want monsters to be playable as PCs, you have to build a "hook" for it into the core, at which point you may be cutting off other possible modules and you may impact the design of the rest of the core system by doing so.

Advanced: Classless Point buy
Expert: simultaneous multiclassing a la 1-2e

How much is a feat worth in 3e? How much is a power worth in 4e? Feats, powers, and other aspects of characters vary wildly in power and value across the system. You cannot possibly try to retrofit a point system to an existing slot system and expect for it to be balanced. If the designers are using a point-based system behind the scenes to balance things and simply release that publicly, that's different...but in that case, the mere fact that a point system has been incorporated from the beginning affects the system design.

Likewise for simultaneous multiclassing. 3e didn't implement it at the start, so its incarnation in 3e was the gestalt system, a vague, unbalanced (albeit very popular these days) variant in the back of UA. Using gestalt, you have to throw CR out the window--well, more so than you already do, anyway--because the designers didn't build things with the assumption of its existence, nor did they sit down to figure out relative level equivalences between gestalt and non-gestalt or the like.

Expert: Wound/Vitality
Expert: Critical hit location charts
Expert: SWSE condition track

All of these are quite simple to implement, but have major cascading effects throughout the system. Implementing V/W the standard way drastically changes the value of crits and therefore crit-related effects, since crits go straight to wounds. Implementing crit locations means implementing implementing systems to deal with this, such as called shots, piecemeal armor, more common regeneration effects, and more. Implementing a condition track changes the flow of combat, introducing a dangerous death spiral that can lead to lots of dead PCs unless mechanics are introduced to lessen or manipulate the track's effects, in which case you run into the same problem as in SWSE where you can manipulate the condition track and bypass HP entirely.

All three of these would take so much space and effort to implement properly, with due thought given to all the consequences and lists of changes provided for existing mechanics, that you'd almost be better served writing a whole variant PHB by that point.



As dkyle pointed out, ad hoc DM rulings are separate from the rules themselves. Anything that requires DM modification to work at all isn't a module, it's a poorly-thought-out dubiously-balanced add-on to the game engine--and by this I don't mean houserules or deliberately blank areas of the rules, but rather anything that is supposed to be insertable without any extra effort on the DM's part but actually requires tweaking to make the game function normally.

Just as the layperson might think that computers are all 1s and 0s with nothing in between while the software developer realizes that those 1s and 0s can represent anything from numbers to pictures to anything else with arbitrary precision (just a metaphor, no offense intended ), the initial reaction to modularize everything often misses the design ramifications of modularizing certain things. All I wanted to point out was that you need to think about how something would be made into a module, not just "Gee, it would be cool to have a variant for X," and that many things just aren't an option without a major overhaul.