Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mearls: Augmenting the core
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Plane Sailing" data-source="post: 5636177" data-attributes="member: 114"><p>After reading Mike's article, I like the idea of more modularity in D&D, but I think the way he is describing it is all wrong - as if he is describing vertical modularity when what the game could benefit from is horizontal modularity (not that I'm intending to be griddist here, just that I think his thoughts expressed in that article are orthagonal to what would work well).</p><p></p><p>In some ways I think there is a lot to admire in the BECMI series, where increasing levels added extra complexity in terms of rules, options for adventures and so forth.</p><p></p><p>I wonder whether ideally though there ought to be an ultra-simple resolution mechanism for all kinds of things (melee, magic, social, exploration, sailing, politics, traps) which has options for simple checks (single die rolls) or complex checks (series of die rolls) as a baseline. So there are simple ways of handling ALL those things.</p><p></p><p>Then you could have modules which could be plugged in to extend any one of those things in a way which respects the basic mechanics but builds on top of it (ideally in a non-fiddly way!) which expands the options from simple and complex checks to elaborate checks (or some more appropriate name). Not 'more powerful', but 'more options'. A combat module might include more combat maneuvers that could be undertaken during a complex series of checks (and would include the extensions which are valid for PCs and Monsters - so you could seamlessly overlay it on ANY baseline adventure). Not necessarily feats, but rather teamwork maneuvers, or setup maneuvers or combination attack manouvers that could be attempted by anyone.</p><p></p><p>You would never create a module which depended upon another module. Each would independently sit on the baseline system, and have a clear and obvious way in which it extends it. </p><p></p><p>That's what I'd like to see, and how I think it ought to be done.</p><p></p><p>Cheers</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Plane Sailing, post: 5636177, member: 114"] After reading Mike's article, I like the idea of more modularity in D&D, but I think the way he is describing it is all wrong - as if he is describing vertical modularity when what the game could benefit from is horizontal modularity (not that I'm intending to be griddist here, just that I think his thoughts expressed in that article are orthagonal to what would work well). In some ways I think there is a lot to admire in the BECMI series, where increasing levels added extra complexity in terms of rules, options for adventures and so forth. I wonder whether ideally though there ought to be an ultra-simple resolution mechanism for all kinds of things (melee, magic, social, exploration, sailing, politics, traps) which has options for simple checks (single die rolls) or complex checks (series of die rolls) as a baseline. So there are simple ways of handling ALL those things. Then you could have modules which could be plugged in to extend any one of those things in a way which respects the basic mechanics but builds on top of it (ideally in a non-fiddly way!) which expands the options from simple and complex checks to elaborate checks (or some more appropriate name). Not 'more powerful', but 'more options'. A combat module might include more combat maneuvers that could be undertaken during a complex series of checks (and would include the extensions which are valid for PCs and Monsters - so you could seamlessly overlay it on ANY baseline adventure). Not necessarily feats, but rather teamwork maneuvers, or setup maneuvers or combination attack manouvers that could be attempted by anyone. You would never create a module which depended upon another module. Each would independently sit on the baseline system, and have a clear and obvious way in which it extends it. That's what I'd like to see, and how I think it ought to be done. Cheers [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mearls: Augmenting the core
Top