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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Were people's expectations of "Modularity" set a little too high?
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="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6000366" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>Well that's not true/fair...</p><p></p><p>"Modular" means simply that there are parts of the rules which can be taken out of the game (or into, depending how you see them) without affecting how the rest of the rules work. (However the meaning of "affecting" is not as obvious as it may sound.)</p><p></p><p>The Skills & Background system is modular. Take it out of the game and you don't need to change anything else, the game still works without skills (you just handle everything with ability scores at DM's call) or without backgrounds (you can use skills without using backgrounds, or neither). Furthermore, the classes and races maintain their original balance if you remove these.</p><p></p><p>The Specialty & Feats system is modular. Even easier than the previous case... feats are just add-ons, ignore them and the game is practically the same.</p><p></p><p>That's it however, practically nothing else is modular so far, although it's been announced that the Tactical Combat Module and Narrative Combat Module will be "modules" in this sense.</p><p></p><p>3ed <strong>core</strong> were <em>not</em> modular. You couldn't ignore skills or feats altogether, because that would have gimped certain classes. 3ed was the opposite of modular, it was "<em>organic</em>", meaning that all the rules were interconnected. I actually liked that property, and I always say that 3.5 changes scarred that organicity somehow, which is why I went back to play 3.0. OTOH because of this property, it's hard to simplify 3ed, which e.g. makes it a pain for me to DM 3e games today that I have much less time, so I'm welcoming 5e modularity.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree on everything else you say.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately I think in this they are already partially failing. 3ed and 4ed gamers may have no problems with 5e, and perhaps even AD&D fans. But I have serious doubts that OD&D/BECMI/RC fans (probably considered a small minority anyway) would be interested in 5e. Removing skills and feats is not nearly enough to provide an "old-school" feel... that is already impossible to achieve when you have for example 1st level characters that have even more stuff and abilities than in 3ed (even after you remove skills and feats), and genetically superior humans.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6000366, member: 1465"] Well that's not true/fair... "Modular" means simply that there are parts of the rules which can be taken out of the game (or into, depending how you see them) without affecting how the rest of the rules work. (However the meaning of "affecting" is not as obvious as it may sound.) The Skills & Background system is modular. Take it out of the game and you don't need to change anything else, the game still works without skills (you just handle everything with ability scores at DM's call) or without backgrounds (you can use skills without using backgrounds, or neither). Furthermore, the classes and races maintain their original balance if you remove these. The Specialty & Feats system is modular. Even easier than the previous case... feats are just add-ons, ignore them and the game is practically the same. That's it however, practically nothing else is modular so far, although it's been announced that the Tactical Combat Module and Narrative Combat Module will be "modules" in this sense. 3ed [B]core[/B] were [I]not[/I] modular. You couldn't ignore skills or feats altogether, because that would have gimped certain classes. 3ed was the opposite of modular, it was "[I]organic[/I]", meaning that all the rules were interconnected. I actually liked that property, and I always say that 3.5 changes scarred that organicity somehow, which is why I went back to play 3.0. OTOH because of this property, it's hard to simplify 3ed, which e.g. makes it a pain for me to DM 3e games today that I have much less time, so I'm welcoming 5e modularity. I agree on everything else you say. Unfortunately I think in this they are already partially failing. 3ed and 4ed gamers may have no problems with 5e, and perhaps even AD&D fans. But I have serious doubts that OD&D/BECMI/RC fans (probably considered a small minority anyway) would be interested in 5e. Removing skills and feats is not nearly enough to provide an "old-school" feel... that is already impossible to achieve when you have for example 1st level characters that have even more stuff and abilities than in 3ed (even after you remove skills and feats), and genetically superior humans. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Were people's expectations of "Modularity" set a little too high?
Top