Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Problems With Modularity
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="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 5809386" data-attributes="member: 6688937"><p><strong>Warning Long</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>With the approach they are taking, its very hard to say how it will work out. However, I think the primary reason most games don't take this approach is development resources, not some fundamental impossibility.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Keep in mind that they are not talking about actual characters (or even mechanics) <em>from</em> 3e and 4e. Just characters with similar levels of customizability and complexity. My (and I think the general) suspicion is that the "basic" classes will be pre-chosen versions of the complex classes, to one extent or another. The critical thing here (mechanically) is to avoid stacking bonuses upon bonuses.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's a heap of (somewhat pessimistic) speculation. It might be correct, but I think we've already heard that the escalating power of gaining levels in 3e and 4e is going to take a break for the milder progression that keeps an orc dangerous for several levels. Players and fans of <em>every</em> edition are going to give things up (or keep playing the edition they love), but they are also going to get things in return. <em>Every</em> new edition has included things that people fretted over, yet people still play. </p><p></p><p>Of course, that's only for the base game. The idea of a modular structure opens up the possibility of having a "super hero" module to get back that 4e rampant smackdown feel. It just might take an extra moment for the GM to adjust monsters and the players to adjust some stats.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm thinking that simple DM prep is one of the things they are trying to take from 4e. So monsters will be simple. This may mean that the "tactical movement" module has a few simple pages on adding that system to monsters generally (give soldiers <em>this, </em>give controllers <em>that</em>..) Additionally, the Monster Manual could have group entries like 4e, with a note attached to the Goblin page:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>Goblins are a very crafty and sneaky race, if you are using the Grid Tactics module in your game, all Goblins gain the following special ability: <strong>Gobliny Movement</strong> rules text rules text...</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't they add (or need to add), very much complexity to the DM's life. However, that is very dependent on how they are implemented. I've seen it implemented well in other games (even 2e to an extent). You do touch on my greatest fear for the modular idea, though. The idea of finding a group which plays like you want. Its great to say that the 2e complexity character and the 3e complexity character can sit at the same table, I have no trouble imagining that scenario. However, if the DM and the six other players want to use the grid combat, and you hate that...umm I don't see how that works out. (Maybe you let them move you?) Similarly, if you want gritty, but everyone around like 4e super-heroics....</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah...umm...I don't think that's modular. The original WoD titles weren't so much the same system as they were similar games with the same r<em>esolution mechanic</em>. That is the core of the problem you are describing (and one that I experienced in a short-lived mashup game.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's exactly why you keep the base game simple and work out from there with modules. Making your own module, or houseruling the game's mechanics get exponentially tougher as the core rules get more complicated. The earlier editions had <em>huge</em> holes that DMs had to fill in to make their games just work logically. (So much so that in the 2e era, when you joined a new GM you often asked "How do you handle X, Y, and Z?") 2e was also modular, many of the combat rules that almost everyone used weren't in the PHB or DMG, they were in Complete Fighter. I fully expect similar things from 5e. Some modules will be so popular that you'll be hard pressed to find a game without them.</p><p></p><p>I also expect (and eagerly anticipate) that a simpler core will bring back some of that wonder and vitality that campaigns had back then. Of course, not having seen any of the rules yet, I reserve the right to be totally disappointed<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 5809386, member: 6688937"] [b]Warning Long[/b] With the approach they are taking, its very hard to say how it will work out. However, I think the primary reason most games don't take this approach is development resources, not some fundamental impossibility. Keep in mind that they are not talking about actual characters (or even mechanics) [I]from[/I] 3e and 4e. Just characters with similar levels of customizability and complexity. My (and I think the general) suspicion is that the "basic" classes will be pre-chosen versions of the complex classes, to one extent or another. The critical thing here (mechanically) is to avoid stacking bonuses upon bonuses. That's a heap of (somewhat pessimistic) speculation. It might be correct, but I think we've already heard that the escalating power of gaining levels in 3e and 4e is going to take a break for the milder progression that keeps an orc dangerous for several levels. Players and fans of [I]every[/I] edition are going to give things up (or keep playing the edition they love), but they are also going to get things in return. [I]Every[/I] new edition has included things that people fretted over, yet people still play. Of course, that's only for the base game. The idea of a modular structure opens up the possibility of having a "super hero" module to get back that 4e rampant smackdown feel. It just might take an extra moment for the GM to adjust monsters and the players to adjust some stats. I'm thinking that simple DM prep is one of the things they are trying to take from 4e. So monsters will be simple. This may mean that the "tactical movement" module has a few simple pages on adding that system to monsters generally (give soldiers [I]this, [/I]give controllers [I]that[/I]..) Additionally, the Monster Manual could have group entries like 4e, with a note attached to the Goblin page: [INDENT][I]Goblins are a very crafty and sneaky race, if you are using the Grid Tactics module in your game, all Goblins gain the following special ability: [B]Gobliny Movement[/B] rules text rules text...[/I] [/INDENT] I don't they add (or need to add), very much complexity to the DM's life. However, that is very dependent on how they are implemented. I've seen it implemented well in other games (even 2e to an extent). You do touch on my greatest fear for the modular idea, though. The idea of finding a group which plays like you want. Its great to say that the 2e complexity character and the 3e complexity character can sit at the same table, I have no trouble imagining that scenario. However, if the DM and the six other players want to use the grid combat, and you hate that...umm I don't see how that works out. (Maybe you let them move you?) Similarly, if you want gritty, but everyone around like 4e super-heroics.... Yeah...umm...I don't think that's modular. The original WoD titles weren't so much the same system as they were similar games with the same r[I]esolution mechanic[/I]. That is the core of the problem you are describing (and one that I experienced in a short-lived mashup game.) That's exactly why you keep the base game simple and work out from there with modules. Making your own module, or houseruling the game's mechanics get exponentially tougher as the core rules get more complicated. The earlier editions had [I]huge[/I] holes that DMs had to fill in to make their games just work logically. (So much so that in the 2e era, when you joined a new GM you often asked "How do you handle X, Y, and Z?") 2e was also modular, many of the combat rules that almost everyone used weren't in the PHB or DMG, they were in Complete Fighter. I fully expect similar things from 5e. Some modules will be so popular that you'll be hard pressed to find a game without them. I also expect (and eagerly anticipate) that a simpler core will bring back some of that wonder and vitality that campaigns had back then. Of course, not having seen any of the rules yet, I reserve the right to be totally disappointed:D. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Problems With Modularity
Top