Mearls: Augmenting the core

[Quickleaf]

It's in that loony section stork at the back of the book, along with a piece of short fiction, Drake of the Locks.

Yes, you're right! I think I have the old version with No One Cries Duckthief instead. Do you remember who the publisher was? Maybe they have some webbed fiction now billed at a younger audience?

 

[Umbran]

Don't be pathetic.

Don't be rude.

 

[catastrophic]

So, how will you support this monstrosity?

This is a fair point.

Not only that, but how could you support it- short of the extremly unpopular style of combat-obsessed dungeony grind modules that WOTC has a habit of putting out?

I feel like maybe they've already made a mis-step on the road to inclusiveness, in that their modules were so clearly aimed at 'core' combat and dungeon gameplay- to the neglect of a lot of other play goals.

I can't imagine a modular systme helping that problem.

There is one option that might work though- modular modules.

Literally if the core modules were story and combat, and then purchasable pdf suplements would beef up support for various subsystems.

The idea being that the modular add-ons could work for multiple modules. A sea voyage is a sea voyage no matter where it ends and begins, for instance.

But even that would be much easier said than done.

And really, I think the game does a decent job now of distinguishing the feel of the game at different tiers. It could probably do a BIT more, but remember, it is A game, not 3 games. It is bound to be that a lot of what was true in heroic tier will continue to be valid in paragon, etc.

Yeah but, why have them in the system if they're not well supported? And frankly I don't think they suceed without a lot of work from the GM- work that could be enhanced by better system support. YMMV on that goal, but that's where I am on tiers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, you're right! I think I have the old version with No One Cries Duckthief instead. Do you remember who the publisher was? Maybe they have some webbed fiction now billed at a younger audience?

I don't rightly recall...guessing, I would narrow it down to Mon Goose or Mallard Havoc.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't rightly recall...guessing, I would narrow it down to Mon Goose or Mallard Havoc.

Your kilin' me, Danny!




(Please, XP this joker, someone! Gotta spread it around before I can . . .)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As I said earlier, you:

1. Have some things that are off limits to the general modularity of the sytem. I used the example of not having a skill-based character system that could replace a class-based one, as an obvious place to keep a single structure. But there would need to be others. Modules can't just hang in space with anything you can imagine. They need to be attached at points that are designed to support the attachment.

2. The things picked as modules need to tie back into something you can label, so that you can use the label to stand for all the possible modules. For example, depending on the module, with a "longsword" you might only be able to roll a d20, add a modifier made of STR mod + a few other things, beat AC, and if you hit, do 1d8 + mods. Pick a more complex module, and you can do more with that "longsword". But it stays a longsword.

Naturally, both of those requirement feed off each others, as well. That is a big part of what makes them work. Because you can't just do this for "longsword", which is easy, but it also has to work for "flaming longsword +3" or whatever. Note, that might mean that certain options were out. If you want three particular modules (because you like what they bring), then having +N weapons may not work. That's a trade off.

Nor is the effect limited to things as singular and concrete as a "longsword". You can do the same thing with class labels, role labels, race labels, spell schools, effect keywords, etc. Whatever is worth making static in the structure and attaching a label to, so that they things around it can vary.

Yeah, but like I said before, it isn't enough to have each module be a black box that only exposes and modifies things that are 'visible' in other modules (or only in the core, etc). Each module changes the VALUES of those things, and other things it doesn't even touch. You can try to carefully calibrate things so that doesn't happen, but personally I would liken that to trying to get around Kirchoff's Laws. You simply can't. Add a new branch to a circuit and you change the voltage all over the place. You can add more branches and resistors and whatnot and try to rebalance things, but analogously you probably will add a lot of complexity to your modular system doing that.

And I still haven't really seen a convincing story about how you support the system as a whole with adventures etc.

I can totally buy a system that adds only 'peripheral' modules and maybe allows a very small number of core options, like basically 2. Then yes, your kingdom building module, your ocean adventures module, etc etc etc will probably work fine. The thing is, this is really how far from 4e at that point? I think you can accomplish the same thing by just creating an alternate abstract combat system for 4e at that point, something that Wrecan at least has already fully realized in a working form. At which point we don't seem to need this whole debate...

 

[Balesir]

I'm not playing the gns game with you, and that includes the bit when you pretend the burden of evidence as to it's validity rests with me.

If you simply dislike the theory and don't wish to use it, no burden of proof rests on you at all. Just ignore mentions of it.

If, however, you wish to rubbish the theory, then, yes, a burden of proof does rest on you. If I were to slag off something you found useful, without a shred of supporting evidence, I daresay you would consider that rude and unreasonable - and I think you would have a point in doing so.

There's a reason why it fell out of favour, even amongst it's most zealous proponentsm, who moved onto the big model, and beyond.

Creative Agenda (i.e. "GNS") is part of "the big model". It hasn't been "moved on" from at all, except in the sense of expanding and refining it.

Lots of interesting things came out of the forge movement: a coherent, functional theory was not one of those things.

The fact that you can't be bothered to actually read the coherent descriptions of the elements does not mean they are not there. They are quite tricky concepts to use well, I agree - I often misstep when doing so, but the definitions are "coherent" enough that, particularly if someone highlights my error, I can ususally see where (either they or) I have erred.

Try actually reading the essays with a mind to understand what they are driving at - it's really not all that hard.

No see, those guys explained their ideas in coherent, functional ways. GNS never did.

The essays explain GNS at least as well as Plato's explanations of metaphysical forms or prognostications on civic politics.

It's fine to use terms like 'simulationist', but you don't get to pretend that it has any special credibility or value.

The term "simulationist" is certainly used in a plethora of ill-defined ways. Hence why, if you mean it in the "GNS sense", it is important to be clear that you do so.

To be honest, TCDT stretches credibility at times. I mean, did we really need three different paraduckamental planes, each described in detail? I don't even know how pcs could adventure in that plane made completly out of ducks, unless they were continually casting the passduck and airy ducks spells.

It was the NPCs that got to me. I mean, Howard, Daffy and Scrooge, OK, but Huey, Dewey and Louie were pure (down) padding. And the "Quack of Doom" adventure is a canard.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It was the NPCs that got to me. I mean, Howard, Daffy and Scrooge, OK, but Huey, Dewey and Louie were pure (down) padding. And the "Quack of Doom" adventure is a canard.

We should probably stop all this duck punnery pretty soon or we're gonna take a lot AFLAC.