On the Matter of Modules

context: 
My facebook group has had some confusion over what is meant by the word "module."  I placed this post after some trollarific blathering that ended up on one of my posts where I expressed excitment about the narrative module.  At the behest of one of my colleagues there, I'm reposting the exchange here as a PSA for those that are confused about what it means when "module" is said.

Unnamed 4E Gorgnard :
"I think the importance is in what you will expect to see at events like their successful Lair Assault and Encounters program. If they are only putting out a narrative combat system and I have to wait months and pay an additional $20 for tactical combat that is not great for me. Great for marketing"

The Explanation Mearls would love to throw out there but Can't because it'd be rude to the playerbase:

Someone made a really good post about the difference between a a 5E module and a rule expansion book. They've been so. repeatedly. explicit. about this difference at Wizards that how people continue to fail to grasp the concept of what is being done astonishes and irks me to no end.

The tactical material for the 4E grognards is in the works now. not months after release. not as an extra book. it is being added now. during development.

When they say module, they are not talking about a paperbound 2E adventure book. They are talking about what you see in the 3x material, where the rules for tactical grids are included in your PHB or the multiple kinds of ability score rules determination rules that regularly appear in the fronts of PHBs such as the Standard Array and 4d6 drop lowest. There are options but not dictates. Why is that so hard for so many to wrap their little heads around, after having been told that that is the explicit aim dozens of times?

The core rules are a bare skeleton of the most minimal elements that the game needs in order to function smoothly and quickly. The modules are those extra bits such as a crit table, facing rules, themes, backgrounds, grid measures, titles of nobility, or whatever other kind of thing you want codified in rules but that not everyone wants or needs. When you pick up your PHB and DMG for 5E, the design goal is that you will then flip through it a la carte and email your players saying "we're going to play a game about xyz, use character creation elements 1, 2 and 4 but not 3, applying wound system B, ability score generation method C, and using the races from chapter 2 excepting dragonborn because they're absurd." 
+1 
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!

When they say module, they are not talking about a paperbound 2E adventure book. They are talking about what you see in the 3x material, where the rules for tactical grids are included in your PHB


They haven't defined what exactly will module be and how they will be delivered so your opinion may as well end up being incorrect if the Tactical Combat module is indeed a splatbook. 


It could very well be:

Core Rules: Intro Boxed Set.

Tactical & Narrative Combat Module: Additional Rules Accessories Splatbook

Delving & Exploration Module: Additional Rules Accessories Splatbook

Interaction & Roleplaying Module: Additional Rules Accessories Splatbook

Etc...

When it comes to a Tactical Module I'm not convinced that the 4e grognards will get the kind of tactical play that they had in 4e.  

The 5e tactical module might simply be bunch of rules for playing with minitures.  In fact, there is no reason to assume that the module will be as gamist as some of the 4vengers would like either.   From what I've read,  I really get the impression that the designers are looking at the 2e Players Option Combat & Tactics book for the style of tactical/ miniture combat they are considering.

IMAGE(http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/7536/facing.jpg)


A module is a paperbound 2nd edition adventure.  It's stupid to call Optional Rules a Module.  WotC needs to look at the 2nd edition PH to see how Optional Rules should work.

But I don't think WotC is gonna have Optional Rules ala 2nd, I think they are going to publish another editon of D&D and ask you to buy a Tactical Module splatbook.  Don't expect a skeleton ruleset, and don't expect they won't charage you for "modules".
OP, you claim that it has been "explicitly" declared "dozens of times" that the rules modules will be incorporated into the core books such as the PHB or DMG, not published as separate objects.

Where, precisely, have you seen that stated?  It's certainly possible that I missed that post, but I had not understood that they'd declared a publishing model yet.


And yes, Jim, it is a leetle bit confusing that they decided to use the word "module" for these rules elements when that word already has a useful meaning in the D&D canon, being the adventure modules published in the first several editions.  Perhaps "ruleset" or some other neologism would be less potentially confusing.

    
With how cheest WotC is about chasing naming trends, Microsoft Essentials and Pepsi Next, I wouldn't be surprised they change modules to Rules+.
Module/ modular rules confusion aside, I have seen no evidence that any specific modular rules will be included in the Next PHB (or DMG).

That said, I don't really care, because I'll probably just take advantage of whatever digital delivery system they implement (ala DDI).  Yes, I realize that there's been no guarantee of such a system either, but I expect WotC will implement one if they know what's good for them.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

I don't think WotC is gonna have Optional Rules ala 2nd,


Contrarly i think DDN will have a lot of Optional Rules. Things like HP and Ability Scores will most likely have multiple generation methods found in Optional Rules (Standard Array, Fixed, Point-by, rolled etc...) Alignment will have multiple options (the Nine, the Five or no Alignment etc..) the D&D Cosmology will have multiple options (the Great Wheel, the 4E cosmos etc..) Dying Rules will also have Optional Rules (Dead at 0 HP or at Death's Doors etc...) and these will be described either in sidebars, shaded box or right along in the text labeled as alternatives.


I don't think WotC is gonna have Optional Rules ala 2nd,


Contrarly i think DDN will have a lot of Optional Rules. Things like HP and Ability Scores will most likely have multiple generation methods found in Optional Rules (Standard Array, Fixed, Point-by, rolled etc...) Alignment will have multiple options (the Nine, the Five or no Alignment etc..) the D&D Cosmology will have multiple options (the Great Wheel, the 4E cosmos etc..) Dying Rules will also have Optional Rules (Dead at 0 HP or at Death's Doors etc...) and these will be described either in sidebars, shaded box or right along in the text labeled as alternatives.



+1

This is my interpretation as well.
Calling someone who disagrees with you an "XE grognard" is childish.

Assuming everyone who wants a tactical module is some sort of 4E fanatic is also incorrect.

We have not yet been given any real concrete idea of what a module actually is. We have not been given any examples. I'd like to know what the "dozens of" sources you are talking about are from.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
From Mike MEarls REDDIT comments:







I know there’s a million (okay, 500) questions in here, so I’ll keep it short and sweet:


Can you tell us more about the modular aspect of Next?


If the core rules are designed as a jumping off point where nothing that offends people is in, how will modular aspects work so we can add complexity we want back in, and how granular will these components be? Will these rules modules be in the core rulebooks, or have a separate distribution scheme?







Answer #50







You can expect the modules we see as the most popular or commonly used ones to come out with the core of the game, likely in the DMG.


The easiest way to think of modules and the core is this – the core is the generic RPG engine that powers the game. It’s fairly vanilla in design and is unfocused. Rules modules have a lot more focus. Their design starts first with asking, “Who is the target audience for this?” and designing from there. Since we 100% expect people to ignore them, we can go all out in speaking to the specific part of the audience a module addresses.







I suspect that a Tactical (grid) module will be in the PHB/DMG. A Gothic Horror Fear/Terror module would likely be in supplemntal book (a Ravenloft campaign setting book eg).

Modules will be in the PHB/DMG/MM

More modules will be in splatbooks
context: 
My facebook group has had some confusion over what is meant by the word "module."  I placed this post after some trollarific blathering that ended up on one of my posts where I expressed excitment about the narrative module.  At the behest of one of my colleagues there, I'm reposting the exchange here as a PSA for those that are confused about what it means when "module" is said.

Unnamed 4E Gorgnard :
"I think the importance is in what you will expect to see at events like their successful Lair Assault and Encounters program. If they are only putting out a narrative combat system and I have to wait months and pay an additional $20 for tactical combat that is not great for me. Great for marketing"

The Explanation Mearls would love to throw out there but Can't because it'd be rude to the playerbase:

Someone made a really good post about the difference between a a 5E module and a rule expansion book. They've been so. repeatedly. explicit. about this difference at Wizards that how people continue to fail to grasp the concept of what is being done astonishes and irks me to no end.

The tactical material for the 4E grognards is in the works now. not months after release. not as an extra book. it is being added now. during development.

When they say module, they are not talking about a paperbound 2E adventure book. They are talking about what you see in the 3x material, where the rules for tactical grids are included in your PHB or the multiple kinds of ability score rules determination rules that regularly appear in the fronts of PHBs such as the Standard Array and 4d6 drop lowest. There are options but not dictates. Why is that so hard for so many to wrap their little heads around, after having been told that that is the explicit aim dozens of times?

The core rules are a bare skeleton of the most minimal elements that the game needs in order to function smoothly and quickly. The modules are those extra bits such as a crit table, facing rules, themes, backgrounds, grid measures, titles of nobility, or whatever other kind of thing you want codified in rules but that not everyone wants or needs. When you pick up your PHB and DMG for 5E, the design goal is that you will then flip through it a la carte and email your players saying "we're going to play a game about xyz, use character creation elements 1, 2 and 4 but not 3, applying wound system B, ability score generation method C, and using the races from chapter 2 excepting dragonborn because they're absurd." 



+1 Billion.

Please please please.  Read it and understand.

There is going to be a players handbook, a dungeon masters guide, and a monster manual.

Those books will include core and a ton of modules.  Sufficient to support 1e/2e, 3e, and 4e playstyles.  You may not like their choices in all cases but there will be stuff there that they think will make each group happy.

CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!


I have not met a group more able to misinterpret words than I've met here.




 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Addendum:
Of course they are going to produce more rules modules beyond whats in the PHB as time goes on.  But the PHB is going to be full of the modules they think will support the various playstyles.   A tactical grid will be in the book.  If the world doesn't end and WOTC produces 5e they will have a tactical grid module.  0% chance they won't.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

@pnxer
What's funny is pnxer this problem has been around for a long while.  Look at the topic link in my sig --> What core means and does not mean.   That is how long I've been fighting this battle.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Calling someone who disagrees with you an "XE grognard" is childish.

Assuming everyone who wants a tactical module is some sort of 4E fanatic is also incorrect.

We have not yet been given any real concrete idea of what a module actually is. We have not been given any examples. I'd like to know what the "dozens of" sources you are talking about are from.

Yes we have.
failry explicit: community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/...
implied: www.wizards.com/dnd/Print.aspx?x=dnd/4ro...


It would be really suprising if they were shipping a final ruleset small enough for me to print at home. IT would be really suprising if they were doing all this work talking about about and working on systems that are to be sold in a seperate book after release. 
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!


Tempted to sig this....
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
A module is a paperbound 2nd edition adventure. 



Oh.  So what were those published adventure thingies we used prior to '89 called? 
You know, the ones with titles like "Keep on the Borderlands", "Oasis of the White Palm", "Ravenloft" etc etc etc.
Or the the ones that came later in 3x days like "Sunless Citadel", & "Red Hand of Doom"?
Or the 4e ones such as "Keep on the Shadowfell", & whatever the one about stopping the giants was called?
Or the several metric tons of stuff published by 3rd parties over the past 12 years....
 
I am amused. I'd also like to see this conversation to move towards modulez we want to see. I'll start! I want to see a survival horror, gritty, and stealth/infiltration. I know my brother wants whatever the dark sun module will be. Damaging magic +psionic? Also... I feel like my sig is rocking for this thread.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
I am amused. I'd also like to see this conversation to move towards modulez we want to see. I'll start! I want to see a survival horror, gritty, and stealth/infiltration. I know my brother wants whatever the dark sun module will be. Damaging magic +psionic? Also... I feel like my sig is rocking for this thread.



You and me both, man!  I love stealth games, survival horror, and whatnot!  Stealth might be a core module, but survival horror?  Maybe in Ravenloft if we're lucky...  if not, it shouldn't be too hard to make!  If I can run my D20 Resident Evil game in 5e, I'm satisfied!

An undead spectre occasionally returning to remind the fandom of its grim existence.

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
context: 
My facebook group has had some confusion over what is meant by the word "module."  I placed this post after some trollarific blathering that ended up on one of my posts where I expressed excitment about the narrative module.  At the behest of one of my colleagues there, I'm reposting the exchange here as a PSA for those that are confused about what it means when "module" is said.

Unnamed 4E Gorgnard :
"I think the importance is in what you will expect to see at events like their successful Lair Assault and Encounters program. If they are only putting out a narrative combat system and I have to wait months and pay an additional $20 for tactical combat that is not great for me. Great for marketing"

The Explanation Mearls would love to throw out there but Can't because it'd be rude to the playerbase:

Someone made a really good post about the difference between a a 5E module and a rule expansion book. They've been so. repeatedly. explicit. about this difference at Wizards that how people continue to fail to grasp the concept of what is being done astonishes and irks me to no end.

The tactical material for the 4E grognards is in the works now. not months after release. not as an extra book. it is being added now. during development.

When they say module, they are not talking about a paperbound 2E adventure book. They are talking about what you see in the 3x material, where the rules for tactical grids are included in your PHB or the multiple kinds of ability score rules determination rules that regularly appear in the fronts of PHBs such as the Standard Array and 4d6 drop lowest. There are options but not dictates. Why is that so hard for so many to wrap their little heads around, after having been told that that is the explicit aim dozens of times?

The core rules are a bare skeleton of the most minimal elements that the game needs in order to function smoothly and quickly. The modules are those extra bits such as a crit table, facing rules, themes, backgrounds, grid measures, titles of nobility, or whatever other kind of thing you want codified in rules but that not everyone wants or needs. When you pick up your PHB and DMG for 5E, the design goal is that you will then flip through it a la carte and email your players saying "we're going to play a game about xyz, use character creation elements 1, 2 and 4 but not 3, applying wound system B, ability score generation method C, and using the races from chapter 2 excepting dragonborn because they're absurd." 



+1 Billion.

Please please please.  Read it and understand.

There is going to be a players handbook, a dungeon masters guide, and a monster manual.

Those books will include core and a ton of modules.  Sufficient to support 1e/2e, 3e, and 4e playstyles.  You may not like their choices in all cases but there will be stuff there that they think will make each group happy.

CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!
CORE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK.    NOT EVEN A MAJORITY!!!!!


I have not met a group more able to misinterpret words than I've met here.
 


    I would wonder who is doing the misinterpreting myself.  Yelling and repeating a claim is frequently a sign the claim is wrong.
    Note here that a majority of the non 4e handbooks are spells.  And by most definitions, spells will be core.  [They for example were part of the basic core playtest.]  So unless you are going to do something drastic to reduce the space used by spells, core will be a majority of PH5.
    [Now I suppose you could declare spells a module, but who would call core complete in that case?  And many spells need more space to explain them, not less.]
Note here that a majority of the non 4e handbooks are spells.  And by most definitions, spells will be core.  [They for example were part of the basic core playtest.]  So unless you are going to do something drastic to reduce the space used by spells, core will be a majority of PH5.


??? While they have been a substantial portion, spells have not been a majority of the PHB page count in any edition.  And while I've never done a page count, gut feeling is that spells take up a comparable amount of space in 4e as they did in any prior edition.
I thought they were gonna have lots of Module styled optional rules, but I don't think it will be like that anymore.  Putting them in the DMG, for example, is not what I had in mind.  We'll see.

And modules have been around for ever, I don't know why they would use that term again.
I agree with Jim11735, maybe as part of the journey toward the release of the final product they can work on the terminology a little bit

so what could an alternative be ? Optional Rules? Rules+? Rule Segments? Hydras? (I don't know trying to think multi-parts)

I think rules module or suppliment rules should not be names

edit: I missed some other names my apologises (JOKE!)
Rules Pascal, Rules Visual, Rules backend, Rules CSS, Rules modules could instead be 802.11X where x is the module, Expansions, the rules set you use could be called the clipboard, the modules copied and pasted ?Rules Drivers? or Rules Call
There isn't actually a Rules+, that was a joke I played on everyone.

It goes Rules, Rules++ and Rules#.

The last one is read "sharp" and not "number sign" or "pound" or "hashish tag", fwiw.   
Note here that a majority of the non 4e handbooks are spells.  And by most definitions, spells will be core.  [They for example were part of the basic core playtest.]  So unless you are going to do something drastic to reduce the space used by spells, core will be a majority of PH5.


??? While they have been a substantial portion, spells have not been a majority of the PHB page count in any edition.  And while I've never done a page count, gut feeling is that spells take up a comparable amount of space in 4e as they did in any prior edition.


     I do seem to be in technical error.  3.5 has 317 pages, of which 134 are in the spells chapter.  Now I can probably fiddle with the definition enough to get the page count for spells up to half, but even without any recounting, we have less than 30 pages to cover the rest of core if we are to say core is less than half of PH5.  Given that we were using around 180 pages before [Equipment alone was over 20 pages.], our ability to get core in a minority of PH5 seems dicy at best.

    4e had a much lower percentage devoted to spells because all classes have approximately the same amount of space, with about half the classes deemed to be more or less mundane, and The number of spells was greatly reduced.  Instead of 400, the wizard has about 150.  A ballpark estimate is that 4e has about 70 pages devoted to spells, or less than 25%.
"hashish tag"




Sums up my general reaction to twitter, right there....
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I am amused. I'd also like to see this conversation to move towards modulez we want to see. I'll start! I want to see a survival horror, gritty, and stealth/infiltration. I know my brother wants whatever the dark sun module will be. Damaging magic +psionic? Also... I feel like my sig is rocking for this thread.



I've yet to see that happen though. Mainly I see the developers throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, and then ignoring feedback from all sides...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I do seem to be in technical error.  3.5 has 317 pages, of which 134 are in the spells chapter.  Now I can probably fiddle with the definition enough to get the page count for spells up to half, but even without any recounting, we have less than 30 pages to cover the rest of core if we are to say core is less than half of PH5.  Given that we were using around 180 pages before [Equipment alone was over 20 pages.], our ability to get core in a minority of PH5 seems dicy at best.

    4e had a much lower percentage devoted to spells because all classes have approximately the same amount of space, with about half the classes deemed to be more or less mundane, and The number of spells was greatly reduced.  Instead of 400, the wizard has about 150.  A ballpark estimate is that 4e has about 70 pages devoted to spells, or less than 25%.


For 4e, discount the page count devoted to magic items since no other edition had them in the PHB, but rather, placed them in the DMG.  Given the bulk of the PHB1 that remains, the Cleric, Paladin, Warlock, Wizard, and Rituals chapters of the PHB1 all map to what older editions would dump into the spells chapter and take up a comparable amount of space.

Spells have been a huge portion of the PHB in every edition and will likely take about the same percentage of the 5e PHB as they always have.  4e is not some mystical outlier, but rather, is an edition of D&D very much like every other edition but for the presentation.  I will grant you that, from what little we have seen thus far, 5e appears to be moving toward older styles of presentation rather than the 4e style.
I've yet to see that happen though. Mainly I see the developers throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, and then ignoring feedback from all sides...


Actually, what has been presented in the playtest and hinted at in blogs is almost line-for-line what I have been asking for years on these boards, and if the course remains straight will make 5e by far my most favorite edition.  So they have presumably been listening to my feedback?

    I would wonder who is doing the misinterpreting myself.  Yelling and repeating a claim is frequently a sign the claim is wrong.



It's also frequently a event that occurs when you keep repeating yourself and people keep not getting it.   One common misconception going on around here is that the phb is core only.   The devs though have repeated over and over that this is not the case and that for most people modules are essential to playing the game.  This is not a debate about some theory.  This is a debate about a fact.   We have the fact.  People who can't see that fact just refuse to see it.   The devs have repeated themselves on it.

You might be surprised.  Feats, Skills, Backgrounds, Themes, Tactical Combat, Narrative Combat, Magic item creation if it exists, alignment, etc...  all modules.   

So yeah I think modules will be a significant majority.  But even if you think they won't be it is a red herring to debate that detail.   The main point here is that there are going to be tons of modules in the players handbook.





My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I am amused. I'd also like to see this conversation to move towards modulez we want to see. I'll start! I want to see a survival horror, gritty, and stealth/infiltration. I know my brother wants whatever the dark sun module will be. Damaging magic +psionic? Also... I feel like my sig is rocking for this thread.



I've yet to see that happen though. Mainly I see the developers throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, and then ignoring feedback from all sides...


If you see evidence that they ignoring feedback, you WANT to see it.
In reality, they have said the following:
1) 4e fans were underservd in the first packet
2) They are working on giving players more options. Specifically fighters and rogues need some love
3) They are looking at ways to provide alternative casting styles for PCs
4) they need to work on the core mechanics for armor and healing

If this is "ignoring" feedback from all sides, I don't want to play  a game designed under a more open circumstance. The 4 points above are basically every thread on the front page of these forums on any given day.

We haven't seen a 2nd packet or a 3rd or a 4th. We don't know if they will deliver on these promises. However, it takes a lot of effort to convince ones self that they are IGNORING feedback and also see them mentioning the exact things I see everyone complaining about. I know we live in an age of hyperbole, but c'mon...


    I would wonder who is doing the misinterpreting myself.  Yelling and repeating a claim is frequently a sign the claim is wrong.

 

It's also frequently a event that occurs when you keep repeating yourself and people keep not getting it.   One common misconception going on around here is that the phb is core only.   The devs though have repeated over and over that this is not the case and that for most people modules are essential to playing the game.  This is not a debate about some theory.  This is a debate about a fact.   We have the fact.  People who can't see that fact just refuse to see it.   The devs have repeated themselves on it.

You might be surprised.  Feats, Skills, Backgrounds, Themes, Tactical Combat, Narrative Combat, Magic item creation if it exists, alignment, etc...  all modules.   

So yeah I think modules will be a significant majority.  But even if you think they won't be it is a red herring to debate that detail.   The main point here is that there are going to be tons of modules in the players handbook.




I think you are right and that it takes a certian level of cynisism to disagree, but to be fair, they have not expressedly said the the modules people around here are crying for WILL be in the source books. Unless I'm mistaken? Sure we'll have an alignment module, but what about the tactical combat one? have they EXPLICITLY said this?

Only a grumpus would assume they were openly testing it and developing it, but intended to hold it back for a future release, but I think you are perhaps misrepresenting the situation a BIT? 
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
I thought they were gonna have lots of Module styled optional rules, but I don't think it will be like that anymore.  Putting them in the DMG, for example, is not what I had in mind.  We'll see.



Why?  The DMG has always contained optional rules.  Such as the aging effects on ability scores or how to convert the game back & forth between Gamma World in my AD&D DMG.
Or essentially optional rules.  Like how to figure out where a thrown object lands if it misses the taget (also in my 1e DMG)
And I'm sure thatr there's plenty of examples in the 2e, 3x, & 4e DMGs. 

So why not have optional rules in the 5e DMG?


And modules have been around for ever, I don't know why they would use that term again.



Hmm.  How about because it's the term that best describes what/how they're building the next edition?
Just because those who came before applied the term to published adventure packs doesn't make modular rules any less modular....
I pretty much agree with Emerkol that we will see plenty of rules modules in the initial product release. However, I will notethat Mike said explicitly a few months ago (don't remember exactly where, might have been a podcast) that right now they are focused on the rules themselves and not on the eventual products and presentation. We don't even know for sure there will be the traditional three - PHB, DMG and MM - as the initial release. So at this point discussing what rules modules will be in the initial release is pure speculation, as the R&D folks themselves don't even know yet.


    I would wonder who is doing the misinterpreting myself.  Yelling and repeating a claim is frequently a sign the claim is wrong.



It's also frequently a event that occurs when you keep repeating yourself and people keep not getting it.   One common misconception going on around here is that the phb is core only.   The devs though have repeated over and over that this is not the case and that for most people modules are essential to playing the game.  This is not a debate about some theory.  This is a debate about a fact.   We have the fact.  People who can't see that fact just refuse to see it.   The devs have repeated themselves on it.

You might be surprised.  Feats, Skills, Backgrounds, Themes, Tactical Combat, Narrative Combat, Magic item creation if it exists, alignment, etc...  all modules.  


     But how are these modules instead of chapters of core?
     A module is something we can take or leave, or use a third or 4th option.  A feat is a module because we have a choice of dozens, but feats are not, because just about everybody will be using feats.

     But how are these modules instead of chapters of core?
     A module is something we can take or leave, or use a third or 4th option.  A feat is a module because we have a choice of dozens, but feats are not, because just about everybody will be using feats.



First of all.  Feats are optional.  The game is designed to work without them.  Same for skills.   I imagine there will be several sets of skill lists that cater to different tastes.   Same for feats.  If they have daily powers for fighters I'm sure those powers will be accessed via feats.  So those particular feats may reside in a module.  I would think that there are going to be a variety of modules that deal with feats specifically.

There will also be tactical/narrative combat modules.  Possibly alignment/reputation/and honor modules.   There will likely be a Castles/Strongholds/Hideout/Followers module.   There will be several HD/healing modules.  

The first book is going to be full of - choose this or choose that or that.   Thats the whole point of the design philosophy of 5e.   You can't build what you want to play unless they give you the building blocks.  They have specifically said numerous times that that is their intent.   You can build 1e,2e,3e,4e playstyle wise.   What's even better is you can build your own unique combination of those styles and have a new 5e that suits you precisely.



 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

  
  

     But how are these modules instead of chapters of core?
     A module is something we can take or leave, or use a third or 4th option.  A feat is a module because we have a choice of dozens, but feats are not, because just about everybody will be using feats.



First of all.  Feats are optional. 


   So is breathing.


The game is designed to work without them.  Same for skills.


     But is it designed to work well without them?  We know players.  They are going to go for that +1 advantage, and getting so balanced so there is not a +1 is close to impossible.  I believe you have already said that you expect few to play core, which seems to be an acknowledgment that the game does not work well without these "optional" parts.

  I imagine there will be several sets of skill lists that cater to different tastes.


     Now why do you imagine that?  Each such list is just extra work.


  If they have daily powers for fighters I'm sure those powers will be accessed via feats.


    Again, why?  It seems better to do that as a class power where warrior has dailies and fighter does not [or vice versa.  We also have the problem that dailies are routinely much stronger than feats, making for balance problems.

  So those particular feats may reside in a module.  I would think that there are going to be a variety of modules that deal with feats specifically.


     Which would mean we have to deal with the game flaw of searching thru several books to find the feat you are interested in, and probably the game flaw of duplication.

The first book is going to be full of - choose this or choose that or that.   Thats the whole point of the design philosophy of 5e.   You can't build what you want to play unless they give you the building blocks.  They have specifically said numerous times that that is their intent.   You can build 1e,2e,3e,4e playstyle wise.   What's even better is you can build your own unique combination of those styles and have a new 5e that suits you precisely.
 


          And where is the space for all this?  Remember, when you say modules, you are saying 2 or more, which means extra space, maybe lots of it.
@DavidArgall
Your argument is with the devs not me.  Almost all of what I've said above was taken from articles/blogs written by the devs.   You really need to read up if you want to know the direction of 5e.  

My assertions in my previous post ARE NOT MINE.  I am repeating the devs.   They have said more than once that there are going to be a good number of modules in the players handbook / dungeon masters guide.   They have said that themes are the methodology for adding flavorful mechanics to your class.   The class itself power wise remains unchanged whether it has the theme or not.   Themes are also defined as collections of feats.  Feats you could take or not take independently if you so desired.   

Everything in the previous paragraph is what THEY say.  NOT ME.  I am merely repeating their own comments.  So you can call them liars to their faces if you want but I'm taking them at their word until they prove otherwise.


On another note.  You do realize that right now there are people who prefer the redbox, also people who prefer 1e or 2e.  So there is a group they are targeting besides you.  Those people were left behind at 3e.  They want them back as well as the 3e people.   Some people want a very simple straightforwards game with far fewer options and a lot of improvisation.  

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I am amused. I'd also like to see this conversation to move towards modulez we want to see. I'll start! I want to see a survival horror, gritty, and stealth/infiltration. I know my brother wants whatever the dark sun module will be. Damaging magic +psionic? Also... I feel like my sig is rocking for this thread.



I've yet to see that happen though. Mainly I see the developers throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, and then ignoring feedback from all sides...


If you see evidence that they ignoring feedback, you WANT to see it.
In reality, they have said the following:
1) 4e fans were underservd in the first packet
2) They are working on giving players more options. Specifically fighters and rogues need some love
3) They are looking at ways to provide alternative casting styles for PCs
4) they need to work on the core mechanics for armor and healing

If this is "ignoring" feedback from all sides, I don't want to play  a game designed under a more open circumstance. The 4 points above are basically every thread on the front page of these forums on any given day.

We haven't seen a 2nd packet or a 3rd or a 4th. We don't know if they will deliver on these promises. However, it takes a lot of effort to convince ones self that they are IGNORING feedback and also see them mentioning the exact things I see everyone complaining about. I know we live in an age of hyperbole, but c'mon...



They are ignoring all of the feedback where all groups pretty much agree to giving the wizard and the fighter something like rogue schemes so they can get fighter 'powers' as a choice rather than a tax, and the wizard can choose their spell style between vancian and AEDU or spell points.

They aren't looking at ways for alternate casting styles, they are looking at different classes that cast in different ways, which means I can't have a wizard with an AEDU progression.

The armor and healing thing falls under the 5 minute rule. WotC have been play testing with the friends and family play test for months and they've been working on 5E since late 2010. In the first 5 minutes after release of the playtest people spotted the armor and healing math problems. That's called incompetence...

When I say they are ignoring feedback, I'm talking about when everyone comes to a consensus about giving the wizards and fighters a 'scheme' like Thiefs get. Then they come out a week later with an article that says no we aren't going to do it the way the majority of players want, we are going to feat tax the fighter and Thief, and screw over the wizard and maybe if your lucky you'll get AEDU in another class...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
@DavidArgall
Your argument is with the devs not me.  Almost all of what I've said above was taken from articles/blogs written by the devs.   You really need to read up if you want to know the direction of 5e.  

My assertions in my previous post ARE NOT MINE.  I am repeating the devs.   They have said more than once that there are going to be a good number of modules in the players handbook / dungeon masters guide.   They have said that themes are the methodology for adding flavorful mechanics to your class.   The class itself power wise remains unchanged whether it has the theme or not.   Themes are also defined as collections of feats.  Feats you could take or not take independently if you so desired.   

Everything in the previous paragraph is what THEY say.  NOT ME.  I am merely repeating their own comments.  So you can call them liars to their faces if you want but I'm taking them at their word until they prove otherwise.


On another note.  You do realize that right now there are people who prefer the redbox, also people who prefer 1e or 2e.  So there is a group they are targeting besides you.  Those people were left behind at 3e.  They want them back as well as the 3e people.   Some people want a very simple straightforwards game with far fewer options and a lot of improvisation.  

 



If they said that themes are just flavor and won't change the power level, then we know they are lying on that end. The slayer theme grants the fighter +3 DPR every round they miss, and they gain the cleave feat (it doesn't explicitly say its from the theme, but it says its a feat and themes are supposed to deliver feats) which further increases DPR.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

If they said that themes are just flavor and won't change the power level, then we know they are lying on that end. The slayer theme grants the fighter +3 DPR every round they miss, and they gain the cleave feat (it doesn't explicitly say its from the theme, but it says its a feat and themes are supposed to deliver feats) which further increases DPR.



Themes give you nothing in themselves.  They are groupings of feats.  Those feats are what give you things.  A fighter that chooses to not take themes will get some other balancing benefit that is simple and straightforward.  Think essentials fighter.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Sign In to post comments