Community

Jul 12, 2012 -- 12:42PM, Emerikol wrote:

I don't get why it bothers people if something is or is not a module.

I have a reason that you can probably get.  So far, we have seen no evidence that modules can alter something that is core.  Furthermore, quotes like these have started to pile up.

A rules module is an additional set of rules that can be laid on top of the core rules.

In general, we would like it if the vast majority of our character content worked with any rules module, so that players can just build their characters and then sit down to play. Likewise, we would like it if the DM could implement a rules module and not have to worry about how it interacts with the player character rules. This is why it's so important for us to develop a simple, streamlined and clean core rules system: it becomes the central translator for everything that appears in the game. If everything works with the core rules, the core rules make sure everything works together.

These quotes are not specific enough, but their language implies (when taken together) that modules cannot change the elements found in the core.  I believe they can, simply by saying "this rules replaces X core rule," but it remains to be seen if WotC will do that.  I was quick to dismiss concerns that modules wouldn't be able to alter the core rules after seeing that first quote.  However, the second quote seems to reinforce the notion that modules will not alter core.

If this is how WotC actually plans to handle modules, then they have screwed the pooch on the whole modularity concept, and the need for something to be supported in core becomes very real.

Jul 12, 2012 -- 1:04PM, Valien wrote:

Well said. Even though themes (and thus feats) are 'optional' (as in, 'not core'), I think it's safe to say most players will use them. There's too much prejudice against the proposed modularity in these forums.

It's not prejudice, so much as it is cynicism.

I realize people tend to cynicism.  I have also read those posts.  You would have to agree that if core could not be changed then we would all want it to be as simple as possible.  Still with the skill example.  Using skills is a change.  It changed the way I resolve certain situations from an ability score check to a skill check.  So to me that is changing core.  Maybe the devs do not consider it a change to core.  If they say core will not change at all then I'd have to say they can't believe skills are a change.

To me any change is a change.  Using feats or not using feats is a change.  Complex tactical module vs narrative module are very different.  They both can't be core.  The other will be a change.  

So I wouldn't worry about the devs lack of clarity on this.  They really can't even do modules unless some change is possible.  They may have some high standard concerning what change is or (better still) they've been thoughtless in answering a few questions.

A second form of modularity are the classes.  They are all modules.  As are the monsters.  DMs can include or exclude them from their campaigns at will.  So its not unreasonable to say that if you don't like the Vancian wizard you can drop it.  I'm also for pulling the flavor out of the classes and making them more abstract and pushing the flavor into other areas like themes and backgrounds.  That way you can play the Sorcerer mechanic with the studious scholarly theme.

 

Jul 12, 2012 -- 1:02PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jul 12, 2012 -- 12:42PM, Emerikol wrote:

I don't get why it bothers people if something is or is not a module.

I have a reason that you can probably get.  So far, we have seen no evidence that modules can alter something that is core.  Furthermore, quotes like these have started to pile up.

A rules module is an additional set of rules that can be laid on top of the core rules.

In general, we would like it if the vast majority of our character content worked with any rules module, so that players can just build their characters and then sit down to play. Likewise, we would like it if the DM could implement a rules module and not have to worry about how it interacts with the player character rules. This is why it's so important for us to develop a simple, streamlined and clean core rules system: it becomes the central translator for everything that appears in the game. If everything works with the core rules, the core rules make sure everything works together.

These quotes are not specific enough, but their language implies (when taken together) that modules cannot change the elements found in the core.  I believe they can, simply by saying "this rules replaces X core rule," but it remains to be seen if WotC will do that.  I was quick to dismiss concerns that modules wouldn't be able to alter the core rules after seeing that first quote.  However, the second quote seems to reinforce the notion that modules will not alter core.

If this is how WotC actually plans to handle modules, then they have screwed the pooch on the whole modularity concept, and the need for something to be supported in core becomes very real.

<sub>I may be wading in foolishly where angels fear to tread, but I see some interesting points on this forum that cause me to wonder at what people expect/are afraid about from Next. I guess I have a more historical view of all this. I never thought in terms of rules modules in 1e or 2e but it was assumed, and backed up explicitly and implicitly by the core rulebooks, that DMs could pick and choose what they wanted to use and change things how they want. "Homebrew" was assumed, and the fact that different groups/DMs might interpret a rule differently was both obvious and accepted. Only tournament play needed to be anywhere near super-uniform. To switch play groups was to navigate differences, and that was ok (unless you were a stinker of a player or a tyrant DM). But there WAS a simple core that everyone could recognize and that everyone basically used (in fact, Basic D&D). Built on top was a lot of optional stuff that DMs and players largely invented and that they need not use unless they cared to (AD&D). But the core was important and explicitly stated as such by Gygax because it did allow for migration of players from game to game. Gygax didn't make it this way, I think, so much as he realized it WAS that way and should remain that way because that's what players and DMs wanted. That's how the game could remain viable and grow. Read through the 1e rulebooks and it's plain as day that this was an overriding concern.

Somehow in 3e and 4e (and perhaps in the switch from TSR to WOTC) more and more of these optional components became thought of as core rather than as advanced options built on top of the core. It became near impossible to separate anything out that one did not like or did not want to use because it was all entangled within the core. The options became bound up in "Official D&D" rather than being layers on top of "Advanced D&D." I'm starting to think Wizards needs to bring back the marketing tags Basic and Advanced and to do more to highlight what are Tournament rules to regain this synergy. Not that these basic and advanced versions don't exist in 4e in a way, but the names themselves mean something important and make things obvious to DMs and players in a way that apparently has been lost.

It seems to me that what we're playtesting now is Basic, not Advanced so much, but the playtest is probably testing both and I hope that Wizards releases a Basic set that clearly defines the line of demarcation. That will tell us what is core. I'll gladly buy my kids a red or blue box Basic Next just so I can see it...
To get back to what I was saying, I think what I and a lot of people miss is not so much 1e or 2e *play* but the 1e and 2e sensibility about the "rules" that *allowed for* that play. I think the designers realize this and are so far doing a good job of bringing that back. I also think most people will see what a huge benefit that will be once finished as their groups can still play something very much like 4e (and maybe improved) while yet picking up some old school stuff that they may find they love if they just try it out.

I like the post that mentioned more abstract terminology in classes and letting players fill in the fluff by themselves or using optional themes and backgrounds to do that. That seems spot on to me.. Seems like some folks think that all 1e wizards and fighters were the same because there weren't a score or more variations on the basic classes and tons of feats to add on top. The truth: people built their own themes and invented feats at the table during play. How else does anyone explain the "classes" we have coming into being? Where did the idea of feats come from? So, kudos to the idea of more abstraction. I was just looking at the 1e rulebooks again and was struck by this very thing -- it's not fluff that's missing from 4e but too constrictive fluff where there used to be abstraction brought to life at the table. Fluff was made in players' and DM's imaginations and then cemented at the table during play. Sometimes fluff you imagined didn't stick, but something else would take its place. This game is alive when played in an open manner.

Not that I advocate getting rid of fluff, but it should be minimalist and designed to open up imaginations, not imagine for us. I think this is very key to Next's success. Extra fluff should be in campaing setting materials for those who want it, particularly flavored to the campaign, rather than flavored in the core rules and then duplicated in the campaign settings. Nentir Vale duplicated in the Realms or anywhere else is not something I'm a fan of.

Anyway, I ramble. I have high hopes for Next and hope that everyone will give it at least an honest try...</sub>

Nothing so far.

The more nearly promising bits are:

Advantage/Disadvantage:  This builds on consolidating 3e's various 'loose dex bonus' conditions into a single, simple Combat Advantage modifier, I suppose it also builds on the popular re-roll ability the 4e elf got.  It's only really compelling if there aren't a lot of other modifiers, and there are already some... 

'Bounded Accuracy':  In a way, this is just the 4e treadmill turned off.  Instead of making 'false' progress by gaining attack and defense bonuses in near lock-step with the monsters, you remove all illusion of progress.  This should keep attack rolls (and saves) moderate, so there's always a decent chance to hit or miss - and, incidentally, making advantage/disadvantage have a very high impact.



That's really about it.   A couple of interesting bits that might have had some potential, if the core game had provided a solid foundation to expand upon.