Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5899182" data-attributes="member: 52073">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[sup]TM[/sup]" 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.</blockquote>

Verification