What modules should come out sooner rather than later? [Poll]

[Morrus]

Do you mean "which module would efficiently be the correct one to playtest next in order to make WotC'sdevelopment process work and give us a good game?" or "which module do I want to be given to play with next?"

I ask, because you use both in your post,using the words "want" and "need" interchangeably. This is one situation where what we want right now should have no bearing. That's more appropriate to actual product releases. What matters is what facilitates the design process best. For example, character generation would probably need to be later, since how can you generate characters for a system which is not yet written? You don't know - as a designer - what numbers the generation process should be aimaing at.

Right now, the best thing for the game will be us adopting the right mindset: we're play testers, not consumers. We'll be consumers later!

If I were to answer the "want" version of the question, then it'd be tactical combat options (just out of curiosity more than anything else).

 

[Mercutio01]

Character creation

 

[Mengu]

For me the important stuff is:

Tactical/Grid Combat - this is what most my groups like in D&D.
Alternate Magic Systems - this is paramount to me for campaign building.
Change in character complexity - I think this goes with tactical
Alternate hit point and healing - alternatives here will be generally well received, we all want to have our cake and eat it too.
Domains - Need variety. I'd hate to see only two, like they did with Essentials warpriests.

Some sort of mass combat rules or guidelines would be nice, but not immediately necessary.

I could not care less about exploration, morale, strongholds, followers, or planes. I can deal with that stuff on my own, and am not likely to use written rules for it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Kind of like Feng Shui? That would be neat, but that seems like it would touch every part of the system.

Really? I haven't thought about it deeply, but my feeling was that it could be quite non-invasive...

Anyway, on second thought, it's probably a bit too strange to be an early module. Maybe something to put on an "Unearthed Arcana" book of modules/variants.

 

[delericho]

But I disagree they should all be in the core books.

I agree. Putting too many modules into the core rulebooks would make for a horribly complex set of options, most of which any given group won't use. They would be better off providing a simple baseline, and perhaps a small number of customisable modules, and then presenting the rest later.

I suspect that modules will be the splat book strategy. Complete Exploration Handbook, Complete Guide to Planar Campaigns, Mass Combat and You, etc., will be for DMs. And then Non-Vancian Magic, Extreme Character Options, etc., for players.

I agree, but...

I don't want to buy 3 books to be able to run D&DN. I really don't want to buy 6 books to be able to run D&DN.

This is also true. What's more, for a very large number of people the decision to go with 5e will be taken based on the core - and if that core doesn't entice them then it doesn't matter what comes later, because they won't even look at supplements for a game they've already decided against.

(In fact, their problems are deeper than that, because a lot of people won't even base their buy-in on the core rulebooks, but on the playtest material. Whether they like it or not, WotC need those playtests to serve both as actual tests of play and as marketing material.)

 

[GX.Sigma]

I agree. Putting too many modules into the core rulebooks would make for a horribly complex set of options, most of which any given group won't use. They would be better off providing a simple baseline, and perhaps a small number of customisable modules, and then presenting the rest later.

I disagree. That would defeat the entire purpose of a modular ruleset. I think they can do all the dials in the first release. They've been talking about organizing it with a step-by-step procedure for creating campaigns (presumably the steps include "how much magic is there" and "how does healing work"), so I don't think it'll be an incomprehensible bucket of options.

The argument that an individual wouldn't buy it because it includes options that he or she doesn't want is fallacious. The important thing is that it includes options that he or she does want. The more options, the greater the number of "he or she."

 

[delericho]

I disagree. That would defeat the entire purpose of a modular ruleset. I think they can do all the dials in the first release. They've been talking about organizing it with a step-by-step procedure for creating campaigns (presumably the steps include "how much magic is there" and "how does healing work"), so I don't think it'll be an incomprehensible bucket of options.

It depends how many dials, and how embedded they are in the system. I would point out that both 3e and 4e each provide one set of options, and in each case run to nearly 1,000 pages. How many more pages would it take to provide half a dozen dials, each with a number of settings, and have all the interactions between settings work?

(And bear in mind that some of those options are likely to be quite intrusive. A "low magic" variant of 3e is practically an entirely different game. Now, of course 5e isn't 3e, so probably won't have the same issue with that variant. But by the same token, it's quite likely that there will be some variant that is a very significant rewrite - "all the dials set to zero" would seem a likely candidate, as would "all the dials set to max".)

The argument that an individual wouldn't buy it because it includes options that he or she doesn't want is fallacious.

Well, in extreme cases...

However, what is more likely is that people will look at yet another near-1,000 page monstrosity of a ruleset, and decide to pass sight-unseen. (I know, because I'm in exactly that category.) Eventually, the sheer weight of the system reaches a point where it's just not worth bothering with - because just doing all the reading required to understand the dials makes it more effort than just house-ruling 3e (or whatever their edition of choice is).

And that's something 5e is up against. It's not good enough for it to be a good game, or even to be a great version of D&D. It needs to be "better enough" than 4e to convince the majority of 4e fans that they must switch, and "better enough" than 3e/PF to convince a large number of 3e/PF fans that they must switch, and "better enough" that pre-3e versions of the game to pull in a large number of fans of old editions. And the first hurdle lies in just getting all those groups to look at the game.

That's absolutely not fair, it's probably an impossibly high bar... but it's also the reality that WotC have to content with.

The important thing is that it includes options that he or she does want. The more options, the greater the number of "he or she."

The 4e DM in our group was a massive fan of that system, to the extent where his enthusiasm was contagious, enough even to overcome my dislike. But he was eventually turned off by the game, precisely because of what he called "the sheer weight of the system" - the available set of options reached a point where it killed his interest in the game.

Hard as it is to believe, more is not always better.

 

[GX.Sigma]

It depends how many dials, and how embedded they are in the system. I would point out that both 3e and 4e each provide one set of options, and in each case run to nearly 1,000 pages. How many more pages would it take to provide half a dozen dials, each with a number of settings, and have all the interactions between settings work?

But it's not 3e or 4e (very detailed systems) with dials. It's 5e (a very light system) with dials.

(And bear in mind that some of those options are likely to be quite intrusive. A "low magic" variant of 3e is practically an entirely different game. Now, of course 5e isn't 3e, so probably won't have the same issue with that variant. But by the same token, it's quite likely that there will be some variant that is a very significant rewrite - "all the dials set to zero" would seem a likely candidate, as would "all the dials set to max".)

The point is they're building the rules to be modular, so you don't have things so integrated that they're difficult to houserule away. None of the modules will be significant rewrites of the kernel, because they're designing the kernel at the same time as the modules specifically to avoid that problem.

However, what is more likely is that people will look at yet another near-1,000 page monstrosity of a ruleset, and decide to pass sight-unseen. (I know, because I'm in exactly that category.) Eventually, the sheer weight of the system reaches a point where it's just not worth bothering with - because just doing all the reading required to understand the dials makes it more effort than just house-ruling 3e (or whatever their edition of choice is).

Compare and contrast the following product strategies:

1. Core rulebooks with only the kernel rules, then a big book(s) of modules
2. A simple "basic box" with only the kernel rules, and thick core rulebooks full of modules

Number 1 seems to be what you want (correct me if I'm wrong), number 2 is what I want. Either way there's a simple core product that can introduce people to the system without making them worry about big books, and big books for the people who have decided to invest in the system. I think number 2 accomplishes that much better than number 1, for many reasons.

 

[Dedekind]

Do you mean "which module would efficiently be the correct one to playtest next in order to make WotC'sdevelopment process work and give us a good game?" or "which module do I want to be given to play with next?"

...

Right now, the best thing for the game will be us adopting the right mindset: we're play testers, not consumers. We'll be consumers later!

...

I tried to refine my thinking in another thread, but didn't get much response. I agree the original question/post could be clearer in hindsight. Another reason why I'm not usually in the business of soliciting opinions, I guess.

I AM thinking final core product, whenever that will be. I am also thinking as an eventual consumer, not just a playtester. Other people have made the point that some effect of the playtest is marketing and I agree.

More generally, I just can't see the scope of the final core product including even half of the modules discussed here, but the early modules probably should reproduce some semblance of every edition. Maybe baseline core product or maybe additional books. But the goal of the poll is to identify which modules "need" to be earlier rather than later.

 

[jadrax]

More generally, I just can't see the scope of the final core product including even half of the modules discussed here, but the early modules probably should reproduce some semblance of every edition. Maybe baseline core product or maybe additional books. But the goal of the poll is to identify which modules "need" to be earlier rather than later.

I am not sure that the 'modules' are always going to be in the form people seem to be expecting. Stuff like 'Non-Vancian Casting' may well end up being 'Here is a Warlock and a Shaman, don't use Wizard and Cleric'.