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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5638301" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Right, and since you may use either (or one of the several) combat systems at any given point in play in those systems it is less of an issue. There could be the oddity that my bard is awesome if the abstract system is used and sucks if the tactical system is used, but at least my resources apply in some situations. In Mearls' proposal by contrast you'd be playing with module X OR Y, but once you pick tactical combat then my bard just sucks... Or you have to now provide a whole alternate set of resources or hacks to all of a whole set of resources when you introduce the tactical combat module to fix all of that. It is fairly easy to see this becoming unworkable quite quickly.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, and when you design a system all in one shot you can easily correct those things (even if it doesn't always manage to actually get fixed). Even here though we can see how including enhancement bonus threw things off, as I'm guessing they dealt with the consequences of magic items AFTER they roughed out the core math. Supposing items were a 'module' in a modular system, well, this example would be easily fixable as you've outlined, but there would certainly be a lot of these kinds of things that would come up as each module interacted with the core.</p><p></p><p>Some people have suggested limiting modules to only tweaking some sort of restricted "API" of things in the core, but I feel like that is a pretty harsh restriction to place on modules (IE no, no, you can't make a module that affects AC, that's off limits). </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It made lots of sense late at night. Try having a couple drinks and staying up for 24 hours and read it again <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, I think that all makes sense, modulo how 'meta-game' you want to get with that kind of thing, but fundamentally that's kind of a separate question I think. The real question again is with the value of resources under different variations of the rules. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, and this is kind of the beating heart of the issue. Is it possible to make a set of modules such that choice of alternates won't change the balance of value of resources so much that it breaks other modules. Again, people have suggested that modules only expose a limited set of things that can be tweaked by other modules, but that doesn't help with this kind of question. If tactical factors are not important in the simple combat module or represented in a very different way (as they almost have to be) then items, powers, feats, etc will have significantly different values under each system. Again this is not too big a problem if you start out with a design where you know what all the alternatives are. When you contemplate adding new versions of existing subsystems later on it seems like it would get ugly.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right. I would expect adding modules would create almost geometric increases in complexity and issues. A system with 3 parts where 2 are replacements for each other is fairly trivial, there are just 2 instances interactions between the 2, so there is a single increment of added complexity. Now add a 4th module that relies on either of the previous 2 permutations (IE you have A, B or C, and D) you have now ABD and ACD on top of AB and AC. So you now have 4 increments of added complexity, and 4 different sets of values that every element in the game might potentially have. It isn't too hard to balance 2 things against each other, but it gets a good bit harder with 4, especially if the balancing is say between abstract combat and tactical combat, or between say a spell point system and Vancian casting.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5638301, member: 82106"] Right, and since you may use either (or one of the several) combat systems at any given point in play in those systems it is less of an issue. There could be the oddity that my bard is awesome if the abstract system is used and sucks if the tactical system is used, but at least my resources apply in some situations. In Mearls' proposal by contrast you'd be playing with module X OR Y, but once you pick tactical combat then my bard just sucks... Or you have to now provide a whole alternate set of resources or hacks to all of a whole set of resources when you introduce the tactical combat module to fix all of that. It is fairly easy to see this becoming unworkable quite quickly. Sure, and when you design a system all in one shot you can easily correct those things (even if it doesn't always manage to actually get fixed). Even here though we can see how including enhancement bonus threw things off, as I'm guessing they dealt with the consequences of magic items AFTER they roughed out the core math. Supposing items were a 'module' in a modular system, well, this example would be easily fixable as you've outlined, but there would certainly be a lot of these kinds of things that would come up as each module interacted with the core. Some people have suggested limiting modules to only tweaking some sort of restricted "API" of things in the core, but I feel like that is a pretty harsh restriction to place on modules (IE no, no, you can't make a module that affects AC, that's off limits). It made lots of sense late at night. Try having a couple drinks and staying up for 24 hours and read it again ;) Right, I think that all makes sense, modulo how 'meta-game' you want to get with that kind of thing, but fundamentally that's kind of a separate question I think. The real question again is with the value of resources under different variations of the rules. Right, and this is kind of the beating heart of the issue. Is it possible to make a set of modules such that choice of alternates won't change the balance of value of resources so much that it breaks other modules. Again, people have suggested that modules only expose a limited set of things that can be tweaked by other modules, but that doesn't help with this kind of question. If tactical factors are not important in the simple combat module or represented in a very different way (as they almost have to be) then items, powers, feats, etc will have significantly different values under each system. Again this is not too big a problem if you start out with a design where you know what all the alternatives are. When you contemplate adding new versions of existing subsystems later on it seems like it would get ugly. Right. I would expect adding modules would create almost geometric increases in complexity and issues. A system with 3 parts where 2 are replacements for each other is fairly trivial, there are just 2 instances interactions between the 2, so there is a single increment of added complexity. Now add a 4th module that relies on either of the previous 2 permutations (IE you have A, B or C, and D) you have now ABD and ACD on top of AB and AC. So you now have 4 increments of added complexity, and 4 different sets of values that every element in the game might potentially have. It isn't too hard to balance 2 things against each other, but it gets a good bit harder with 4, especially if the balancing is say between abstract combat and tactical combat, or between say a spell point system and Vancian casting. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mearls: Augmenting the core
Top