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: 5635381" data-attributes="member: 3192">I can think of 2 different methods implementing modular rule supplements.1. Fully integrated modules built from a core game. Sort of like a basic game with a number of optional subsections for a more advanced game. The upsides are many. Designers can create and sell many different add-ons for each subsection. Groups only purchase and use the modules they like. Modules can be customized to particular adventuring activities, they could even be designed to highlight special elements within a setting. Perhaps even new subsections could be devised? But what I'm reading from the column is: every module must balances with every other in every possible combination. While that's a big upside it's also really scary as a downside. What happens if the very tough balancing act doesn't work. I think the major reasoning for this is the desire for a game that caters to each individual player, while all are still in the same game. I have complex+3 combat rules, you have core simple, but we are both in the same combat at the same table. Maybe I'm reading too much customization into what he's saying though.2. "Silo"ed mini-game modules with a connecting core game. For example, the core ability stats might balance each character within each mini-game, but the modules are not balanced across each other. Skirmish combat would not be the same system as mass combat. The arcane magical spellcasting could be different from a divine prayer ritual system. Sailing rules and stronghold building / management could each their own thing.The upside is still each group choosing the modules they wish to use, but this time all the players are using the same module. This still offers optional purchase and usage as well as customization. What it doesn't offer is integration between each system or differing levels of complexity for each player in the game.The downside is more uniformity for all characters at the table within each module - but this is already the case. The upside, however, is each supplemental game is vastly easier to balance. It's simply the core stats and how they integrate into the modular mini-game designed in and of itself for fun play.3. I know I said 2, but another leaps to mind. Perhaps some layers could be integrated and other not? The skirmish combat system integrated with a mass combat system sort of makes sense. Plus, a stronghold building game doesn't need to include stronghold management. The second could really be another beast as running a city isn't exactly the same as building one. But having integration in certain elements like this could go a long way. Of course it has its downsides too as larger numbers of supplements increase the potential balancing act.4. Well, I leave others to think of anymore.</blockquote>

Verification