Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5899562" data-attributes="member: 70707">I think you're misunderstanding him.&nbsp; He's not saying that they shouldn't be included.&nbsp; But rather, that the core must be designed to at least anticipate those modules, for them to work.&nbsp; Or, the simpler design answer, just include those things in core.I think the central point here is that modularity makes a game much harder to design.&nbsp; It is not a way to make things easier on themselves.&nbsp; They are undertaking a hugely ambitions task by structuring their game like this.Then &quot;just put it in a module&quot; isn't a satisfactory answer to &quot;I want this in 5E&quot;.&nbsp; I don't want some half-assed houserules that I could have easily invented myself. I want a well-designed, well-balanced system that supports what I want from it. Balance is the hard part of game design.&nbsp; I'm not going to pay for something that simply pawns that off on me.Now, if 5E will not provide that, fair enough.&nbsp; I have no particular claim to being the customer WotC must win over.&nbsp; But if modules are just the same-old broken rules variants, then to me, &quot;just put it in a module&quot; means &quot;no, 5E should not have that&quot;.And I think there's tremendous value in that.The rules are the physics of the world.&nbsp; Broken rules are a broken world.If modules are just going to be another &quot;unearthed arcana&quot; of risky &quot;variants&quot;, then as far as I'm concerned, it's a stillborn system.&nbsp; They need to be more than that.&nbsp; I need to feel like, when I choose a set of modules with the features I want, that I'm getting a game that was designed with those features, with at least as much coherent design and balance as 4E.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5899562, member: 70707"] I think you're misunderstanding him. He's not saying that they shouldn't be included. But rather, that the core must be designed to at least anticipate those modules, for them to work. Or, the simpler design answer, just include those things in core. I think the central point here is that modularity makes a game [i]much harder to design[/i]. It is not a way to make things easier on themselves. They are undertaking a hugely ambitions task by structuring their game like this. Then "just put it in a module" isn't a satisfactory answer to "I want this in 5E". I don't want some half-assed houserules that I could have easily invented myself. I want a well-designed, well-balanced system that supports what I want from it. Balance is the hard part of game design. I'm not going to pay for something that simply pawns that off on me. Now, if 5E will not provide that, fair enough. I have no particular claim to being [i]the[/i] customer WotC must win over. But if modules are just the same-old broken rules variants, then to me, "just put it in a module" means "no, 5E should not have that". And I think there's tremendous value in that. The rules are the physics of the world. Broken rules are a broken world. If modules are just going to be another "unearthed arcana" of risky "variants", then as far as I'm concerned, it's a stillborn system. They need to be more than that. I need to feel like, when I choose a set of modules with the features I want, that I'm getting a game that was [i]designed[/i] with those features, with at least as much coherent design and balance as 4E. [/QUOTE]

Verification