Mercurius
Legend
Here we could run into the problem of "anecdote vs anecdote." I'm fine with you saying that you and many gamers that you know feel that this isn't the case, but I've experienced differently - as have many participating in this thread.
But there could be other explanatory factors. For instance, it took me some time to learn 4E because my group played only once a month for the first year so it was always two steps forward, one back. I didn't feel like I knew the game well enough to think about house rules for the first year or so and then it was another year before I felt like I could come up with house rules that didn't have the "pick-up-sticks" effect of impacting other aspects of the game.
I haven't played 1E or 2E for decades, so my memory is fuzzy. What I do remember is that there were many rules that I simply didn't use (e.g. weapon speed). It seems to me that it is harder to bypass whole rules systems in 21c D&D because of the pick-up-sticks effect.
Now I actually think that 3.5 and 4E are better designed games than previous editions; one of the reasons that I feel the biggest edition jump was from 2E to 3E was because of the jump from a kind of anachronistic, hodge-podge approach to a game with a stronger, more balanced core that theoretically allowed for more options because of its core simplicity, but because of this we got the feat bloat that exists in both recent editions.
Modular systems, generally speaking, aren't. Just as unified systems rarely are that.
And, just because the knock-on effects are not as blindingly obvious, at first blush, does not mean they don't exist, and won't impact on actual play. They most definitely will, and do.
By all means, approach a "modular" system as you might a "black box" design of any other kind. And if that happens to be blithely/trustingly? Bully for you.Er, and good luck with that - you'll need it.
Cue the equally classic "But the rules don't matter anyway! It's all down to interpretation!1!!one" response, in 3..2..1..
You've kind of lost me here. Care to rephrase this?
Yes, and this is exactly what I'd like to see: A simple variant of modern D&D that is about 64 pages, maybe 96-128 with encounters and an adventure, and is fully playable as is, without the need to buy more stuff, at least for the first five levels or so. So my ideal approach would essentially include three tiers:
*Basic Set - a box set with a short rule book, an adventure, maybe an encounters book. It would detail the basic rules plus the first 3-5 levels of the core four classes plus a few races.
*Core D&D/Player's Handbook(s) - A series of PHBs that expands the classes and races from the basic set, from level 1-30.
*Advanced D&D/Modular Options - Anything you could possibly imagine. This would include everything from monsters to optional rules, class variations, unearthed arcana-type stuff, and so on. Most of this could be offered through DDI.
The basic set would teach you the game and get you started for the first few levels. But then you could play a relatively simple--but still comprehensive--form of D&D through the PHBs, with a DMG that focuses on design, and MMs that offer Core and Advanced stat optinos. That is, a monster would have a Core stat block and then Advanced options for more detailed tactical play, feats and such.
I appreciate your advice. Actually, this is similar to what I've done. For this campaign I designed a rather "points of lightish" setting and have mainly run slightly tweaked pre-published adventures. What I haven't done all that well is connect the two - the setting with its backstory with the actual adventures. Maybe this is because I hadn't not DMed in many years and was out of practice, but I had a difficult time going beyond the setting being just a back-drop for the adventures. What I wanted to do was make those adventures more momentous, bring in larger story arcs. And I had just started to do so and then began to feel burn-out - I was looking for excuses to cancel sessions and realized that this was a warning sign.
I will probably get the game going again, but another problem is that I'm also working on a novel that has remained on the backburner for most of the last few years with my busy schedule (I work at a private boarding high school and have spent most of the last three summers in a teacher training). This summer I will have a lot of free time and will want to focus on finishing the draft of my novel; while I think it is possible to put some energy into running a campaign, doing both (the novel and running a campaign) has proven difficult, especially with the teaching job, a working wife, and two young children!
I feel like we're getting off topic, though!
Yes, exactly, which is why I'm dabbling with the idea of a simplified 4E game in which feats are optional, sub-sets of class features if you will. Another idea I'm playing with is that players could choose a class template similar to a build that includes built-in feats.
But what I'd like to see is a way to reduce the number of feats a character has but make them more meaningful, thus the idea about class features. "Meta-feats," if you will, that could improve at later levels. So a paragon level character could have maybe five or less class features/feats, rather than the 10+ they have now. Less quantity, more quality.
I have the book and have skimmed through it a bit but not read it in-depth. I'll check it out.
That's not what I'm talking about at all, but rather making a simpler, core game that allows for modular "attachments" that are all optional. I've used the analogy of Basic and Advanced D&D, but imagine if they could be used interchangeably. I think this is a bit what they were going for with Essentials but it wasn't simple enough, imo.
So the "padding" would still be there, it would just be optional. It is now to an extent, but the problem is that the simple core to 4E is mixed in with everything else. It is hard to separate out the signal from the noise.
