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: 6000610" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>I've pointing out myself in other threads, that it's not fair to judge the current 5e by what it is missing.</p><p></p><p>But "playstyles" is a tricky thing... it's not just something you can say "let's put this issue on hold, we'll come back and add support for playstyle XYZ next year". A playstyle is even quite hard to define (I hope however that they have already done that), but my concern is just that if you want to support a certain array of defined playstyles, you have to keep that in mind since day 1 of design, otherwise it's possible that the core rules takes a design direction that won't allow you later on. </p><p></p><p>I thought the example of "low-power" was quite simple, but there is a better example and that is low-complexity combat. In this case IMHO they took just the right path, starting with combat rules and action economy that are pretty simple. Tactical and narrative modules will build on that, and with this approach the game will support both low-complexity and high-complexity styles of running combat. Had they started with high-complexity, it would have been a mess later on, with the rules of combat already interconnected and balanced for high-complexity, to try and support a low-complexity version (try that starting from 3ed rules... it's not a job for the average DM).</p><p></p><p>Unless of course the OP is just right, and WotC intention is just to sprinkle "bits and pieces" of every edition so that anyone can say "oh look, this is like in my favourite edition, I'm sold". But they have to guess well which bits and pieces exactly define the feel of each edition.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is quite a difference between a module i.e. official and playtested houserule which is presented and explained in the books, and a DIY houserule. </p><p></p><p>The reason why I (over)reacted in my previous post to the suggestion "remove races and add prebuilt racial classes" is that such thing is an example of something not really that simple to DIY, at least it requires time and experience. If I have to do that for 2-3 different areas of the game, I would probably be fine. More than that, and you start wondering why you pay for the books if the game you want to play needs that much DIY work.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6000610, member: 1465"] I've pointing out myself in other threads, that it's not fair to judge the current 5e by what it is missing. But "playstyles" is a tricky thing... it's not just something you can say "let's put this issue on hold, we'll come back and add support for playstyle XYZ next year". A playstyle is even quite hard to define (I hope however that they have already done that), but my concern is just that if you want to support a certain array of defined playstyles, you have to keep that in mind since day 1 of design, otherwise it's possible that the core rules takes a design direction that won't allow you later on. I thought the example of "low-power" was quite simple, but there is a better example and that is low-complexity combat. In this case IMHO they took just the right path, starting with combat rules and action economy that are pretty simple. Tactical and narrative modules will build on that, and with this approach the game will support both low-complexity and high-complexity styles of running combat. Had they started with high-complexity, it would have been a mess later on, with the rules of combat already interconnected and balanced for high-complexity, to try and support a low-complexity version (try that starting from 3ed rules... it's not a job for the average DM). Unless of course the OP is just right, and WotC intention is just to sprinkle "bits and pieces" of every edition so that anyone can say "oh look, this is like in my favourite edition, I'm sold". But they have to guess well which bits and pieces exactly define the feel of each edition. There is quite a difference between a module i.e. official and playtested houserule which is presented and explained in the books, and a DIY houserule. The reason why I (over)reacted in my previous post to the suggestion "remove races and add prebuilt racial classes" is that such thing is an example of something not really that simple to DIY, at least it requires time and experience. If I have to do that for 2-3 different areas of the game, I would probably be fine. More than that, and you start wondering why you pay for the books if the game you want to play needs that much DIY work. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Were people's expectations of "Modularity" set a little too high?
Top