Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6161429" data-attributes="member: 3192">The great benefit about making D&D Next modular is everything that is potentially contentious can still be included. It gets to be cutting edge, but not necessarily at every table. Not to mention some directions are going to end up being largely contradictory to others. Modularity allows for tons of additional features and the possibility to court even small niches of interest in the hobby, be they about particular play styles, settings, game mechanics or whatever.But I don't believe in panacea. What these designs do is shift to each table the choice -and therefore potential conflict- of what modules to include in any group's particular runnings of the game. This means potentially contentious discussions for what each person wants in the game. Sure, Next is designed so each person's experience is different, but those differences don't include everything and that design brings up its own special challenges.My point is, Wizards could really help itself out by getting ahead of those discussions before they happen. I don't see this as a design issue, but rather advice and perhaps even common protocol presented in the rulebook. I'm thinking selection of these core elements of design, the modules, could be presented as part of overall play. They are "campaign decisions" the group makes together as part of the first session, perhaps where players submit setting content, desired adventures, and create characters too.No one I've read has said the mechanics in the article should not be in the game. But what features are tightly woven into the base game are going to cause a stir regardless of what they are. The game is almost 40 years old after all with many varied iterations. We should keep taking the inclusive approach. I suggest helping groups at the table find their own harmony.</blockquote>

Verification