Module Scope...

[Scribble]

Here's something I hope.

I hope that when we do start finally seeing information about the rules add on modules, they aren't like an "all or nothing" concept.

It doesn't sounds like they plan for them to be, but still.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not exactly sure what you mean, Scribs...

Do you mean that you hope there's not just a single "module" all told that gets layered on top of the base game (that might transform it into '2E-like' or '4E-like')? But rather that there are many modules, and thus you can take one module here and another module there and create whatever type of game you want?

Or do you mean that you hope that any particular "module" as it were, is also broken down into several even smaller components that can and can't be added to create this "module"? So in other words... if there's a "tactical miniature grid combat" module, that within that there are several different components that you could and did not have to use? So "difficult terrain" was a module component you could choose to use or not... that 1-1-1 diagonal movement was a component you could choose, or 1-2-1 movement was another one instead... that Auras as a concept could be used or not used, etc. etc.? Getting really nitpicky with individual component parts?

 

[Scribble]

Not exactly sure what you mean, Scribs...

Do you mean that you hope there's not just a single "module" all told that gets layered on top of the base game (that might transform it into '2E-like' or '4E-like')? But rather that there are many modules, and thus you can take one module here and another module there and create whatever type of game you want?

Or do you mean that you hope that any particular "module" as it were, is also broken down into several even smaller components that can and can't be added to create this "module"? So in other words... if there's a "tactical miniature grid combat" module, that within that there are several different components that you could and did not have to use? So "difficult terrain" was a module component you could choose to use or not... that 1-1-1 diagonal movement was a component you could choose, or 1-2-1 movement was another one instead... that Auras as a concept could be used or not used, etc. etc.? Getting really nitpicky with individual component parts?

Kind of the second part... I mean obviously I don't think they can make EVERY rule an optional add in style thing, but I don't want it to be like One module for 4e style, one module for 3e style etc... Like I'd want to be able to mix elements from each game style.

I know they've mentioned mixing styles in play like a 1e guy can sit next to a 4e guy... but it would be nice if I could make a single character that has mixed elements as well.

And yes, I would preffer like if you were doing grid combat, to not have to take EVERY rule that goes along with grid combat.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree, though the issue is kinda spiderwebby. One rule affects another, which affects another and so on and so forth. Ultimately, any module for variant play will probably have a significant portion of "re-ruling" in order to avoid making the game too broken or silly or both.