Legends and Lore: Modular Madness

[Gundark]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Modular Madness)

For those of you going to Gen Con, ask MM what these articles where all about....

 

[Sonny]

I do like the idea of the modular rules. Kinda reminds me of the optional rules built into 2E, just seriously beefed up.

Actually, the optional rules built into the PH and DMG were one of my favourite things about Second Edition. So I hope something comes of all this. It does sound like a good way to proceed into Fifth Edition. If done right, it would certainly make running old adventures easier if you could tone down the system for older editions and beef it up for newer edition adventures.

 

[KidSnide]

I think a good foundation is the key to effective modular rules. The core needs to be written with a general understanding of what types of modules will be attached. Likewise, module writers need to have a sense of how their modules will interact with ones that have yet to be written. Lastly, GMs need a sense of how adding or removing components will affect the balance and difficulty of the game.

Oh, and I love the idea that GMs build their campaigns from modules just like PCs build their characters. That's awesome...

-KS

 

[Argyle King]

I had a dream that they were playtesting for 6th Edition. They've already been done with 5th Edition, but just haven't released it yet.

 

[Stormonu]

These modifiers are pure additions without drawbacks. They make characters more powerful because that’s how Dark Sun works. On the DM’s side of the screen, the adventure and encounter building guidelines account for this increase in power. In addition, the rules for non-metal weapons and the rarity of magic items also help to balance the campaign.

Sorry Mike, I've seen the results of this before - it just ends up with power inflation in campaigns, as the downsides get ruled out, and then you end up with DMs mad at the designers for "letting it happen" (even though they caused the situation by ignoring the balancing points).

 

[delericho]

It's odd. I really want to like what Mearls is talking about, but the last few columns have just left me cold.

If this is 5e then I'll check it out, but I'm not enthused. If this is just a new direction for 4e, then it's irrelevant - that ship has sailed.

 

[Sammael]

No way that changes of this scope can be implemented into 4e.

 

[Anselyn]

There's a lot here that I like. The ability to return to old-school play and the thought again that:

The core class concept—class progressions with choices predetermined across each level—works well here for pick-up games, new players, or quick NPC creation.

However, while I am a bit fuzzy-headed this morning, isn't it rather confusingly worded this week?

If we make feats and skills part of the core, we can then create a fairly simple rules module for old school D&D play. These rules not only would remove feats and skills, but they would also explicitly push the game toward DM rulings rather than hard and fast rules.

I think this means that the functional game effects of feats and skills will be integrated into core class definition - (perhaps as class abilities?). Hence, the choose your "feats and skills" phase of charcter design would be eliminated. Thus, they are both removed and not-removed. Clear??

 

[UngainlyTitan]

No way that changes of this scope can be implemented into 4e.

I disagree, if they keep feats and skills then it could definitly be implemented in 4e.
At the moment all the classes are currently implemented as sub classses of abstract base classes.
Redefine the base classes as default packages of abilities and powers and a set of encounter creation guidelines for that power level.
Then define the current classes as sub classes with the additional elements and their own encounter guidelines.

The other elements, exploration rules, social combat and realms management mentioned are effectively completely new subsystems and could be as easily bolted onto 4e as to anything else.

 

[Tuft]

Sorry Mike, I've seen the results of this before - it just ends up with power inflation in campaigns, as the downsides get ruled out, and then you end up with DMs mad at the designers for "letting it happen" (even though they caused the situation by ignoring the balancing points).

Isn't the Dark Sun example the kind of power creep that is trivial to handle by doing a "Red Queen" on it? If the players hit too well, increase monster AC, if they do too much damage, increase HP, if they are too hard to hit, increase monster to-hit, etc. It's the most basic adjustment you can make...

Adjusting *all* parameters of an encounter is definitely within the DM:s powers.