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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5899430" data-attributes="member: 70707">I'm saying that principles of modular design in software design can help understand modular design in RPG design, because it helps reduce faults.  Faults are bad.  Does not mean we cannot have faults at all, but if we can avoid them, all the better.I'm not arguing for more rules hard-coded in, or arguing against modularity. Perhaps I'm not being clear.  I'm merely arguing that lessons learned form modular software design should not be glibly ignored because it's on a computer.  Rules are rules. Just as in software, modularity in RPGs is not as simple as "here's some rules ideas you can use if you want".  Good modularity must be planned for, and carefully designed."Game design" is rules, and only rules.  Rules are what makes a game, a game. Modularity in 5E is a matter of rules, of game design.But RPGs aren't pure games.  When you playact out a social encounter, you are not playing a "game".  You are roleplaying.  Nothing wrong with that, but I think it's important to understand the distinction.I am not saying that. I'm saying that "stick it in a module" is not an easy answer to every debate on what should and should not be in 5E.I don't see a meaningful difference between ignoring a rule, and using DM fiat instead, and just using DM fiat because there is no rule.I don't think you are, either.  Using a module is not DM fiat.  That's not the point Eldritch_Lord and I have been arguing over.What we're arguing about is more that, if peopleNot stopped.  Using less.  That was in reference to this:Do you disagree with this?Then what did you mean by "Personally, I prefer my RPGs to be 0-to-infinity (and BEYOND!"That sounded to me like a point of contrast to the "1" or "0" approach you were ascribing to me.It doesn'tI'm not talking about fiat against the module's rules.  I'm talking about fiat required because the module wasn't sufficiently well designed to integrate into the rest of the game.Again, this is the post I originally replied to:I'm not talking about whether or not modules are good or bad.  I'm talking about how important it is to use solid design techniques to avoid faults, and whether borrowing techniques from a related field is a good idea.  I'm talking about how we shouldn't just rely on the DM to fix things.I don't think this is off topic.  I think it's quite important to the topic to understand what modules really mean, and to understand how hard they can be to get right.</blockquote>

Verification