How to Package Modules?

[The Shadow]

This is something I've been a little worried about. We know that Next will be heavy on modularity, and IMO this is a good thing.

But, by the very nature of the thing, a given group is only going to use certain modules. They may vary a bit from campaign to campaign, or even player to player, but in general there are going to be plenty of modules that certain groups or players just don't care to use. Heck, there will probably be modules that aren't even compatible with each other.

Which means that when you buy the PHB or the DMG, we are all going to judge it to have a fair bit of dead weight. We're paying for a book, only a certain fraction of which we will ever use. Everybody will be more or less equally unhappy, which doesn't strike me as a good business model.

So I'm starting to wonder if the traditional PHB model is really best for Next. Maybe what we need is a series of smaller books: One for the core rules, which everybody gets. And then others which contain groups of modules that hang together thematically.

Yet there are perils in this approach too - it makes things more difficult for the entry-level gamer. Perhaps the "core" book should have a section at the end talking about the different modules and which ones you might want to suit certain preferences? Not to mention that it would probably be more expensive for WotC.

I honestly don't know, and I'm interested to hear what other people think.

 

[Libramarian]

I am skeptical that this edition is going to be substantially more modular than the others.

I think the purpose of the modularity idea is mostly to make the playtest discussions less rancorous and to discourage brinksmanship.

I definitely can't see there being any incompatible rules modules in the core game. It would just be too far of a shift in philosophy from the last edition, when we have a design team entirely made up of people from that edition. I haven't seen anything in the blogs and articles to indicate to me that they're really embracing the modularity idea. I mean look at the Wizard design article by Mike Mearls, it's all about "finally fixing the mechanical issues that have plagued D&D throughout its history". This does not sound to me like a guy who actually believes in letting us build our own game. This is more like a guy who's coming at this like an engineering problem, where there's an objectively right and wrong answer.

Which you know, some people probably appreciate. I think that's kind of a skewed perspective, and I am a little miffed at the change in tone that I'm getting from the blogs/articles now and what I was getting from the L&L articles 6 months ago, but when it comes down to it I'll do whatever tinkering I like with the game whether the rules encourage it or not, so eh, whatever, we'll see.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One of the beautiful things about rules options is that they don't take up much space. Looking at my Psychic's Handbook, there are in slightly less than two pages options to make psychic abilities use power points, drain ability scores, cost XP, require saving throws to avoid fatigue, deal lethal or nonlethal hit point damage, or for them to be used freely. All of these make for a very different campaign. With options, you can stuff a lot of content into a small amount of space, and people get more book for their money.

That in mind, I think it's not hard to present rules in the same book formats we've seen previously. Their Sword & Fist/Complete Warrior book can include facing-based rules and advanced health systems, while their magic book can include alternate magic systems, and the new Heroes of Horror can include mental health rules. A new Unearthed Arcana full of campaign changing options can come out sooner than in the past. Really, they might be able to do this more aggressively or explicitly, but it doesn't sound that different from the past to me.

Which means that when you buy the PHB or the DMG, we are all going to judge it to have a fair bit of dead weight. We're paying for a book, only a certain fraction of which we will ever use. Everybody will be more or less equally unhappy, which doesn't strike me as a good business model.

Isn't that how it's always been done? A large portion of content in almost every D&D book I have strikes me as useless. I just focus on the useful parts.

I am skeptical that this edition is going to be substantially more modular than the others.

I am also skeptical of that. 3e is very modular, especially when you consider UA. 2e was also drowning in options. I think what they mean but can't say is that they will return to this level of customizability, perhaps handled more explicitly and more right from the start.

 

[howandwhy99]

I expect the PHB & DMG to be relatively slim just so completely new players & DMs can buy and play without any further assistance.

I think they won't go completely opposite to the Pathfinder Core book model, but slim enough. Some options will be included, but not many.

Instead I expect we will see many, many, many modular elements published as single publications. Add in adventures and campaign settings and we're getting quite a few books on the docket.

That would be pretty cool.

What I keep saying is stuff like "Try and see if anything can be made a standalone game too." If they can make a organization running module also a game looking sort of like Lords of Waterdeep, then they can sell to a completely different audience and begin crossbreeding.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Sounds like a BECMI approach might be up your alley and down your street.

 

[slobster]

By that logic, every feat we don't use, class we don't play, and weapon that nobody swings at my table is dead weight in the core rule books. I suppose you could choose to think of it that way, but I see the value of choice. Sure nobody has ever played an assassin at my table, but it's an interesting thing to include, the mechanics of the class spark ideas that can be used elsewhere, and I'm glad to know that we've had the option of using it even though, ultimately, none of us have taken that option.

 

[Trance-Zg]

I would like to see classes not cast in stone, but rather heavy subjected to customization.

A class should be a general direction of a character not a focused path.

In 3.5e half the classes that were added could have been avoided by adding bonus feat to classes instead of giving them predefined.

wizard, sorcerer, war mage, dread necromancer, warlock, wu jen, ...yawn... all could have been molded into "mage" class that could pick and choose various feats to get close to mentioned classes.

ranger, rogue, scout, ninja, all experts and more or less equal classes.

from all classes paladin and monk are the ones that will require 2 or 3 full progresion modules because of their special training and life philosophy.

 

[Yora]

I think Psionics in 3rd Edition were handled quite well.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Sure nobody has ever played an assassin at my table, but it's an interesting thing to include, the mechanics of the class spark ideas that can be used elsewhere, and I'm glad to know that we've had the option of using it even though, ultimately, none of us have taken that option.

Total, my very first D&D (1st Ed AD&D) character was a half-elf Assassin (good times).

 

[Kinak]

I am skeptical that this edition is going to be substantially more modular than the others.

I agree on this, up to a point.

It wouldn't surprise me if 5e was more modular "on paper" than 4e. Which is to say, people houseruled the hell out of 4e, but I don't recall much being called out as optional.

But I would be shocked (and, frankly, kind of worried for WotC) if 5e was as modular as 1st or 2nd edition. Especially towards the end of those editions, it was hard to even trade stories about your home game because the rule systems were so very different from one DM to the next.

I'd expect, at most, something like the core 2nd Edition books where certain optional rules are called out in sidebars (like Death's Door and Armor vs. Weapon Type were in the PHB).

In my perfect world, I'd like to see an "Optional Rules" chapter in the DMG discussing a handful of options, when they're appropriate, and what they do. Then leave the door open for setting-specific options to show up in the books for those settings.

Cheers!
Kinak