How modularization subtly improves the game independent of the rules or participants.

[Ainamacar]

Many potential benefits of modularization are obvious, like the ability to better match our individual preferences to the rules, settings, and people with whom we game. There is another subtle benefit that, to my knowledge, hasn't been discussed yet. Namely, the very process of participating in a modular game is more likely to result in a better gaming experience compared to a non-modular game with exactly the same rules and participants.

The argument is quite simple. In a modular game with any given group of people everyone needs to know what modules are actually being used, and this increases the likelihood of discussion or at least awareness about everyone's individual expectations and preferences. In a non-modular game that happens to use precisely the same rules this is less likely to occur. Improved understanding of everyone's campaign expectations from the start can be used to forge firmer consensus about the campaign, will (often) increase mindfulness at the table, and greatly reduces the likelihood that unexpected differences crop up at the table. Those unexpected differences in expectation, especially, can give rise to anything from a small delay to grumbling to outright campaign meltdown.

Shared expectations about the game have always been important to successful play, and intentionally seeking to build it before games isn't exactly new advice. For tables that already do this well modularization may help them do it more easily, or cover small cases otherwise forgotten. For tables that barely do it at all, modularization might make some degree of it necessary.

I find it remarkable that a person could hypothetically play their ideal (but non-modular) version of D&D, yet be more likely to have a better experience if those same rules came from a modular version of the game. What an irony it would be to insist on one-true-wayism for game rules if this were true.

 

[Wightbred]

Interesting. The idea that everyone at the table can have a short discussion at the start of the game they will be more connected to the game sounds logical to me. We often do this with other games, like setting the lethality in Shadowrun or talking about lines and veils in a horror game.

Plus imagine if you are not having fun with a particular aspect it would be easier / encourage you to raise it later so the group could consider and potentially discuss it if you had discussed this at the start.

For noobs there could obviously be a clear uncustomised game, but the people I play with are happy to spend 5 minutes at the start of a campaign setting up the guidelines and expectations as a group for other games, so doing this for D&D wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That tendency also gets another reinforcement from an effect on the design/playtest side. If you have to design options for two different styles, you are far more likely to actually design both of them well, than if you did one. It's hard to really nail a style perfectly without something to contrast it against. (The same principle is why it is not uncommon for Americans to only really get English grammar when they study another language--even if they never get anywhere with the second language.) Without the contrast, it is all to easy to "phone it in" on a given piece.

So not only are the players "forced" to have a discussion, the examples they use to have it are likely to be better contrasts.

Of course, there are limits. Make things too modular in too many places, and you can get sucked into thinking too much about the structure instead of the pieces. (Not that this ever happened to me ... )

 

[Ainamacar]

Interesting. The idea that everyone at the table can have a short discussion at the start of the game they will be more connected to the game sounds logical to me. We often do this with other games, like setting the lethality in Shadowrun or talking about lines and veils in a horror game.

I certainly don't think the idea that extra discussion will, on average, help games is tendentious. The examples you give are apt. I do find it surprising that something like modularization, which ostensibly changes only the rules, actually has a 2nd order effect on the game by encouraging those discussions.

That tendency also gets another reinforcement from an effect on the design/playtest side. If you have to design options for two different styles, you are far more likely to actually design both of them well, than if you did one. It's hard to really nail a style perfectly without something to contrast it against.

Ahh, that's another good one! Even if only one of those design options makes it into the game, the idea of modularization (or at least a willingness to try multiple options) may have improved the non-modular element. It's something the players could never notice, but would nonetheless be a real effect.

The contrast thing is so widespread. For example, it is very difficult to argue why a particular set of rules is "rules-light" or "rules-heavy" without comparing it to a particular game. Differences are easy to see, but the absolute is difficult. Same thing for normal hearing and those with perfect pitch. In quantum mechanics we can only observe phase differences, not absolute phase. And so on.

Of course, there are limits. Make things too modular in too many places, and you can get sucked into thinking too much about the structure instead of the pieces.

Likewise with my original example. Establishing solid campaign expectations beforehand isn't strictly superior to not doing so, even if it is on average. For example, the early discussion could give rise to a disagreement that is never resolved and prevents the campaign from starting. If they hadn't discussed things in such depth the campaign would have started and it is conceivable the offending element would never have come up to unravel the game. I can see the headlines now: "Modularization encourages discussions which ruin perfectly good games!"

(Not that this ever happened to me ... )

I think we could start a support group.

 

[Wightbred]

OK, this is not independent of the rules but it may be another hidden consequence.

One of the things I disliked about 4e was how hard I found it to house rule the things I wanted compared to previous editions. This was because the rules were tightly bound together and used a large number of exceptions.

In a modular design the modules need to connect a clear, consistent points so they can be swapped for alternative modules. This might give an easier platform to connect house rules onto as well, so potentially it could be easier to house rule.

An example: in 2e to 3.5 we used to make damage dice wild (if you rolled maximum you re-rolled and added) to speed up combat and make it more interesting. In 4e this house rule was problematic because of the way Criticals worked and because of the features of some weapons so we didn't use it. In 5e if there are multiple ways Criticals work there will have to be a way they connect to the system and enough modular options that I will probably be able to go back to using this house rule if I want.

 

[Tallifer]

One of the things I disliked about 4e was how hard I found it to house rule the things I wanted compared to previous editions. This was because the rules were tightly bound together and used a large number of exceptions.

The main culprit for Fourth Edition's rigidity is the Character Builder. If the Fifth Edition is designed with a modular system and Character Builder then many complaints and problems will disappear. And I love the Character Builder and Fourth Edition: but I can see the benefits of a more open system.