Do you have an example of a ttrpg that has accomplished this? I mean theoretically anything is possible until it's time to actually make it happen.
EDIT: To better clarify what I'm asking... is there an example of a ttrpg that is modularly designed to accommodate *through robust support) a multitude of playstyles?
I'm aware of only a tiny fraction of RPGs that exist, and I'm familiar with the rulesets of far fewer; as such I'm not personally aware of a non-D&D RPG whose design has deliberately set out to support multiple player constituencies. At the same time, the very fact of my unfamiliarity with the majority of RPGs means I would not assert, or accept as fact an assertion, that no such game exists.
That being said, we can clearly point to past editions of D&D for examples. For instance:
- Tome of Battle was clearly a "module" that was robustly designed within the parameters of the 3.X engine to provide an alternate experience of martial combat for a player constituency that WotC (a) realised was underserved by the core options in the PHB and (b) decided to support.
- The Epic Level Handbook (especially when taken together with Deities & Demigods) is clearly a "module" designed to support a player constituency that wanted amazingly gonzo mythic gameplay.
- 3.X psionics is clearly a "module".
- Supplements that introduced new ways of using magic, such as Incarnum (however badly it was designed) are clearly "modules", insofar as they were intended to appeal to player constituencies interested in alternatives to 3.X's classic Vancian spellcasting.
- Looking at them with "game" in mind, the myriad game settings of 2e are clearly "modules" that are intended to support different ways of playing the game that might appeal to different player constituencies, especially since they actually came with (often rather significant) alterations to the core ruleset; I'm also comfortable asserting that by the standards of D&D design at the time, these were "robust".
- The Basic/BX/BECMI lines versus AD&D 1e, although presented as separate product lines, are "modules" of D&D intended to appeal to different player constituencies.
We can also look at other games. World of Warcraft
also has multiple player constituencies that it has to satisfy, some of whose preferences are at odds with each other - hardcore raiders versus hardcore PvPers versus solitaire world explorers versus casual guildies and so on. Because WoW is approached
from the design side with a much more "gamist" mentality, it can do a better job of creating gameplay that can robustly satisfy the preferences of multiple player consitituencies, although I am sure even then compromises must be made. (Apropos of "even then", I am
also sure that WoW discussion forums are also full of people who very strongly feel that their gameplay preferences are equivalent to "objective metrics of quality" and who are not particularly interested in the game's design taking other player constituencies into account.)
Edit to add: Not related to the above reply, but so as I'm not spamming the thread with replies, I'm going to a quote a post that gets to the heart of what I wrote earlier.
Fighters can have nice things. The problem is that most people want the fighter to be able to leap tall mushrooms in a single bound, move faster than a locomotive, and cut buildings in half with a single slice without it being supernaturally(magical) honed skill. They want to keep things that are clearly beyond the mundane as mundane, which doesn't work for a lot of us.
This is what I mean about how a lot of this comes across as being about exclusivity and ownership. Whatever Maxperson intended, this post comes across as arguing that it's
not enough for the rules to accommodate authentically epic and mythic non-spellcasting heroes in a way that can be siloed off so those characters don't appear in Maxperson's games - it comes across as asserting that
they're not allowed to exist in the game, period. And on what basis? Again, whatever was intended, it comes across as treating "doesn't work for a lot of us" as an "objective" metric of quality
that the game must be made to adhere to.