Legends and Lore: Modular Madness

[LostSoul]

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

I don't know; my "hack" is a set of coherent modules for 4E.

I have a mini-less combat system that could be considered a module. How I handle Extended Rests could be another. Then there are Warlock Pact details, Oaths for Divine Characters, Goals/Destinies and how they feed into Paragon/Epic choices, Triggers for Martial Exploits, a different Skill List, Settlement Management...

The 4E base handles it all well. I imagine that someone could just lift one module from that list - say, Settlement Management - and run with it.

 

[Pour]

I'm a little confused as to what the purpose of this modularity is, if someone could explain it to me. Is this meant for a continued evolution of 4e or even the rumblings of 5e, to say taking into consideration the design principles into a newer iteration that functions on a modular level, OR is this an attempt at the universal edition meant to be a chasis that all other editions can play through with edition-favoring modular add ons? I'm very much for the former, and entirely against the latter.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm a little confused as to what the purpose of this modularity is, if someone could explain it to me. Is this meant for a continued evolution of 4e or even the rumblings of 5e, to say taking into consideration the design principles into a newer iteration that functions on a modular level, OR is this an attempt at the universal edition meant to be a chasis that all other editions can play through with edition-favoring modular add ons? I'm very much for the former, and entirely against the latter.

Yes.




What?

Seriously, we don't know. That is part of why we are talking about it so much.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Can't give XP, but this comment channels H.L. Mencken very well.

Thanks. Samuel Clemens and G. K. Chesterton is where I picked up the attitude. Don't know about Mencken's contribution.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm a little confused as to what the purpose of this modularity is, if someone could explain it to me. Is this meant for a continued evolution of 4e or even the rumblings of 5e, to say taking into consideration the design principles into a newer iteration that functions on a modular level, OR is this an attempt at the universal edition meant to be a chasis that all other editions can play through with edition-favoring modular add ons? I'm very much for the former, and entirely against the latter.

My reading of it is Mearls kind of wants both, and I don't really think that is possible. The game hasn't evolved in modular steps, 4E isn't 3E with more options, and 3E isn't 2E with more options (though I suppose it is a little closer in terms of root structure). So I think the only way to do what he is suggesting (because it sounds like he wants to unify all the editions in a way that lets you "build" a campaign to taste so it could be more 4E or more 1E based on preferences) is to take the core concepts from each edition and rebuild the game from the ground up so the options are stackable.

I really think the wisest thing is for wizards to move with an evolution of 4E into 5E. I see that term used a lot by fans of the current edition (the idea that the game is always evolving into something better) so I have to assume that any movement away from that would turn them off.

I could be totally wrong on this. I think a lot of us are just guessing at what his final intentions are (much of this is probably more about getting feedback as he goes).

Also, we should probably take what he says with a grain of salt here. I am sure these articles are as much about marketing as they are game design. If he states he wants to make a game that works for fans of all editions or all playstyles, that doesn't necessarily mean the end result will achieve that. It could be spin to attract lost players.

 

[Anselyn]

There may be a subset of more reasonable people who would buy Mearls's hypothetical fake big tent 5e without an aburd return to the bad old days,
but the closer you get to pleasing that hater demographic, the further away you get from the people with DDI subscriptions and book-cases full of 4e.

What is your opinion of the Dungeon Crawl Classics game (beta version available at Goodman Games)?

I have played this with players too young to have known anything before 3e and they enjoyed the feel of it, as I relived my youth. The old-school-feel appreciators discussing the game on its testplay forum seem to be doing this without suggesting they are part of a "hater demographic".

So, possibly there is a set of reasonable people who would come into the big tent?

 

[Anselyn]

Also, we should probably take what he says with a grain of salt here. I am sure these articles are as much about marketing as they are game design. If he states he wants to make a game that works for fans of all editions or all playstyles, that doesn't necessarily mean the end result will achieve that. It could be spin to attract lost players.

I'm sure that any published comments or thoughts by MM should be assumed to be more than musings of a creative mind. But, designers keep on designing, it's what they do ...

It's perhaps worth looking again at one of the RSD columns. The one called: 4 hours w/ RSD: Get Some Feedback especailly the section: What Great Designers Do

Ideas are the cheapest resource of our industry. They are commodities with little intrinsic value. Until you can validate an idea as being resonant with a substantial audience, you haven’t begun to move forward towards something that can be successfully published.

Clever designers are the constrained resource in this industry. Clever designers spew ideas like geysers – being in their presence is to be deluged with ideas for games. These people don’t obsess about any one of their ideas – they’re able to separate their cleverness from the reaction of others to those ideas and keep producing new ones as they seek a good fit.

It may be that we're just seeing some ideas spewing forth as a column has to be written, but I guess it's more likely that our resonant repsonse is being gauged.

PS Hi Mike! (waves)

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and gents, the rules of EN World are clear on this: if you have a comment on or issue with a particular act of moderation, take it to e-mail or PM. Don't argue about it in-thread.

Catastrophic will not be back in this discussion, I'm sorry to say. Please continue on without him.

 

[ButcherMagnus]

1) On the one hand we have a desire to have a simple, streamlined game to appeal to "old school" aesthetics and new or casual players. On the other hand we have a desire for a more complicated, robust game to appeal to 3E / 4E -type fans. Sounds like we could set up a D&D and AD&D dynamic: two separate games with some common ground. How did this work out the first time when there was both D&D and AD&D? Should it be implemented again?

2) I for one am a big fan of the Castle Ravenloft Board Game (and, I assume, its kin), especially the stripped down 4E mechanics. You have a few character choices, a few power choices, every PC feels distinct from the others, and a character sheet could easily and clearly fit on one sheet of paper. Now the board game rules are fine for what they are, but I think with very little effort the player and monster mechanics could be the foundation for a very basic D&D game--a modern take on an old school-type game. Heck, even the tile system for measurements (as opposed to 1" squares) points the way to a more abstract version of 4E without the need for miniatures or grids (although I think miniatures and maps are great for new, young, or casual players). I think this could be the basis for the "baseline" of D&D in the future.

3) I think I like Mike's modular ideas as follows: Basic D&D is a separate game, stripped down to the studs, and is the baseline D&D. AD&D is a separate game, using the same studs but building on them to the extent that we reach the complexity level of 3E or 4E. I'm all for sub-systems (complex ship-to-ship combat or mass combat or kingdom management rules), optional rules (skill challenges or gaining followers or creating custom spells), or variant rules (different item creation rules or treasure distribution methods), but those are things that should come up in Dragon or Dungeon or in individual published adventures, campaign settings, or supplements. There doesn't need to be an explicit integration or explicit choice of those alternate rules in each campaign. This is how it used to be. There are the general rules (which are complex), and you can tack on something else when it is appropriate. I think I agree with the heart of what Mike is saying--appealing to more types of players and offering robust options--but I'm put off by the structure of his ideas. I don't want every component of D&D to be a mix-and-match, buffet-style affair--we as players will then cease to be playing the same game in a sense. Something about what Mike is saying seems too mechanical and intrusive to me. And whatever D&D becomes, it has to be it's own creature. It might appeal to fans of 1E, 2E, 3E, or 4E, but it cannot become all of those editions simultaneously, or it will collapse under its own weight. That being said, I think a company can create and maintain two different versions of the same game--and only two if one is very simple--and keep quality up.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

See, I always felt that Basic D&D in a sense was a mistake though. It was close enough to AD&D that it wasn't a really big deal, but since around 1978 I have actually never personally witnessed anyone playing Basic. I've seen a lot of use of Basic modules with AD&D, that was trivial. (not to dis anyone who WAS a Basic fan/player or who still is, just purely my observation). It alway seemed to me that the 2 weren't really that far apart for one thing. I always felt like AD&D could have been a half step closer to Basic (most of us effectively used something close to the Basic combat system anyway TBH). Basic could then easily have been AD&D with a few options filed off. I think Basic was really more of a mind set than a system in effect anyway. There certainly would have been no reason not to continue to support that aesthetic without the need for multiple product lines (which in the end killed TSR, though that certainly doesn't seem to have been the fault of Basic it couldn't have helped).

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] I pretty much agree with you. I think the smart approach would be to create a new edition at some point which deals with some of the parts of 4e that haven't worked as well as I think they were intended. I think this can be achieved without gutting what 4e has done to advance the game. In fact to the contrary it should strengthen those improvements to the game by perfecting them.

I really think that if there was a streamlining of the combat system, so that it runs twice as fast and still allows for clever tactical play for instance then most objections go away or become minimized. Feats and powers can be pared down to much smaller lists (feats might even go away, I don't know for sure). There can be some other adjustments and the presentation of the game can be evolved to more heavily emphasize the fantastic elements, show people better how to use the system, and present a more polished version of the SC system with better examples and an explanation of how to present stakes, integrate the SC with the narrative, etc. None of that requires going backwards in any way, but it can help to facilitate people playing with a more 'old school' sensibility.

There's nothing wrong either with presenting options to get rid of feats and skills (as an example). Other stuff can simply be presented as "rules extensions". This can encompass almost anything from psionics to mass combat to running a business. These kinds of things are more guidelines anyway. It would certainly be possible to present more than one option for this kind of thing too, though honestly I doubt WotC is going to publish several books with extensions covering the same ground, they could certainly put up some articles on DDI with alternate options.

I don't know about alternate combat systems. I'm not even sure you can really make the skill system optional or modular, though you might be able to present MORE options for it for someone that wants a 3e style encyclopedic list of skills and professions in an extension. In terms of combat, hmmmm... There certainly are things like Sarn Fu. They work. The question is are they something that WotC can really afford to support actively since they WILL change the balance of the game and I'm skeptical you can make modules that work with any arbitrary combat system.

I think it would either have to be a companion set of rules geared towards a specific mode of play, in which case you have the Basic issue all over again, or a sort of one off module that basically says "you have been warned, we aren't going to aim content at working with this, but we've tested it and this should work for gridless combat." As I said above, combat that is 2x faster than it is now is probably going to satisfy a LOT of people that are unhappy with grids now. There are some people who just hate the whole concept of any kind of map at all and won't be happy, but there are limits to how big the tent can be... A gridless combat module would at least be something they could still consider.

It is also overall worth considering what happens between now and 5e. Personally I don't believe there will be a 5e for a number of years yet. There could be a few things that could happen between now and then though. One would be some sort of semi-independent version of 4e, not a 4.5 really, but a game that is designed to work alongside 4e and IS compatible with it, but doesn't have to share elements with it, and can rework some of it. Essentials sort of tried to do this, but maybe what was needed was just a deeper and more radical application of that concept. Another option would be to break with the "edition nomenclature". Instead of creating "5e" simply create a companion game that IS 5e but isn't billed as a replacement for 4e. Both can continue to be supported for some period of time and this game could represent an experiment. If it simply works out to be a better game then eventually it simply replaces the existing one as a product. At the start it can be pretty limited, with say just a single softcover book. Heck, bill it right off as a potentially one-off product that might or might not get further support. If it is an interesting design I think it would sell well enough to be worth doing.