D&D 5E The basic logic at the heart of 5E design - core, modular, etc

[I'm A Banana]

With Mearls on record saying they want a game where you can use your old books, I am not even sure there is going to be much of an assumed "core."

Or rather, there's going to be a lot of different ways to do a "core."

Ability scores might be rolled, or they might be point-buy, or they might just be bonuses assigned at character creation.

Attacks and Defenses might be attack vs. defense, or they might be categorical saving throws, or they might be "player rolls all the dice" defenses, or they might just be "roll a d20 and get more than 10."

I think what lies at the core is much more likely to be concepts than mechanics.

"You play an adventurer in a fantasy world. So do your friends. There are dangerous monsters in the world. There are vulnerable townsfolk in the world. The DM is the judge and facilitator. You roll dice to try to do things that you might fail at."

That will already create some guidelines for the rules (no, don't expect detailed farming mechanics, or rules for how to fly starships), but it leaves the door pretty wide open, and there is cause to think they might actually want to leave it THAT open.

I think folks are thinking way too small and specific about this. If everything is optional, from class to race to XP advancement to preferred resolution mechanics, the possibilities are pretty huge.

 

[Wightbred]

<Snip>

I think folks are thinking way too small and specific about this. If everything is optional, from class to race to XP advancement to preferred resolution mechanics, the possibilities are pretty huge.

I agree the possibilities are huge, but I only started to see this after I played around with some specific modules. I've found it eye opening. Also, all these amazing possibilities are going to need to be bolted onto the simple core, like different roof and cladding options onto the frame of a house. The way these connect is really interesting to think about, and concrete examples help me thing of what this means, like how would could multiple skill options bolt onto resolution mechanics.

So yeah, the opportunity is amazing, and we can't forget this. But its fun and illuminating thinking about the detail of how this could work.

 

[Mercurius]

I think what lies at the core is much more likely to be concepts than mechanics.

....

I think folks are thinking way too small and specific about this. If everything is optional, from class to race to XP advancement to preferred resolution mechanics, the possibilities are pretty huge.

Good post, and I very much agree with you. However, I do think there will be--and probably should be--at least a core dice mechanic (d20+mods vs target number) and, if not set in stone core rules, a default configuration that is assumed in most games, and certainly tournament play. So in a sense you could have a wide variety of approaches, but with four generation categories:

Default Core, or "Basic D&D" - this would be a configuration of basic rules, such as the d20 mechanic, ability scores, race and class, HP, AC, defenses, and not much else.
Modular Options - this is almost everything - rules sub-systems, feats, skills, talents, powers, etc - that can be added to the core, depending upon the DM and players.
"Advanced D&D" - this would be the default configuration of modular options that could be used in tournament play. It would be, in essence, WotC's house ruled modular options and what they recommend, or at least an example of how modules can be put together.
House Ruled Core/Modular Options - this would be a variant along the lines of what Kamikaze Midget is talking about: a completely self-configured game, even with different assumed core components.

 

[Zireael]

I hope that we get one of two:
1) the Core is free and everything else is cheap
2) we pay for Core but we get everything else for free

I mean, why pay many times for what is essentially the same game?

 

[BryonD]

Yeah, I'm very eager to see how this comes along.

And the immediate question for me is, if it is this modular then what exactly are they play-testing right now?

 

[Aeolius]

So long as I can play Thistle, an awakened "classless" bunny rabbit, in the same game as Glaucus, a spellstitched swarm-shifter dread necromancer emancipated spawn half-scrag sea kin lacedon with aboleth grafts, I'm set.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I can't speak for Crazy Jerome, but I'm using "hook" to be the bit that connects the various skill option modules to the rest of the system. (snip good stuff)

From thinking about this the critical element of the modular design will be choosing the right hooks. The wrong hooks will limit module options, but the right ones have the potential to make the game more streamlined.

Yes, this is basically it. That's why my suggestions were only examples thrown off the cuff, and Wightbred came up with probably a better idea almost immediately.

I'll add to what he said above that another critical element is only using a limited number of hooks, though I guess that is part of picking the right ones.

If it helps, think of it almost straight, as a coat hook somewhere in a house. It can be done efficiently several ways. You mount some discrete hooks on the wall somewhere. You can buy a rack of hooks and mount it under the stairs. You can get a coat rack. And so forth. Those are potentially good, depending on exactly how the house is built (i.e. how the rest of the system comes together).

With a good solution, you can hang coats on it, but also light jackets, scarfs, umbrellas, hats, and probably a few other things that it wasn't exactly designed for. (Good design often displays that characteristic. There may be three official things to hook onto the system, but if done well, the hook will probably have more widespread uses.) If you have a "hat rack" mounted such that you can't hang anything longer on it, it may work for you, but it is not a general purpose, flexible solution.

Whereas, pure additive soultions are often that we just make something work. Hang your own coats in the hall closet, leave them on doorknobs and the backs of chairs when using them a lot, and when you have company, pile them all on the bed in the spare room. And if "coats" aren't all that important in the system, maybe you do that, and leave the modular options for something more pertinent.

What I see in a lot of the modular option discussions, though, are things like, "No one would ever entertain company with this system. So just forget all that." Or, "Just add something on; it will work just as well." Both of those are seldom true statements. (And it is fairly clear in context that some--but certainly nowhere near all--of these statements are thinly veiled code for, "I'd never do that, and haven't thought about what anyone else might do," or "I'm not planning on doing that, and if I do it will be all ad hoc," or some variation that really has nothing to do with whether the option is a good idea for the wider audience or not.)

Better objections to a particular piece of modularity are things like, "if you do this, you'll have to have some flexibility here, when it would be better to have that flexiblity there." Don't build a trailer hitch such that you hardweld that little ball on it, when you can bolt it on instead and still have it work with pins. (And it doesn't matter how much the people who only want the ball straight scream about having to bolt it on occasionally, they are objectively wrong about welding it.) Or, "this way to get the flexibility is really unwieldy and trouble for what the flexibility buys us." Something like making 3.5 gestalt (as written) the default rules. Or, of course, "We can do better than that to get the same results with less cost, even though your idea is alright by itself."

People that are making the first set of objections aren't engaging in the modularity discussion at all, but attempting to kill it (whatever their intentions may be, pro, con, or indifferent).

 

[Wightbred]

Yes, this is basically it. That's why my suggestions were only examples thrown off the cuff, and Wightbred came up with probably a better idea almost immediately.

I'll add to what he said above that another critical element is only using a limited number of hooks, though I guess that is part of picking the right ones.

<Snip>

Yes, definitely limited numbers of hooks!