I was reading through the DMG over the weekend and I thought:
“This is great! It has all these interesting options, people can make almost any type of game they want – right from the big 3 (PHB, MM, DMG).”
However, as I was heading to bed tonight I was thinking about a discussion on healing “modules” on these forums. A particular style of play could be created by selecting 2 of the healing options + lingering wounds options + long rest options. Sounds great. However, though these options are in the DMG, they are not presented as “modules.” And that, I think is a missed opportunity.
With a little more work WotC could have package these “options” into defined “modules” that could become a standard reference point for organized play, pick-up games, defining style preferences, etc. They frame work is all there, they just needed to connect the dots. For example, the DMG provides a section titled “Flavors of Fantasy” with subjects like “Heroic Fantasy, Sword & Sorcery, Intrigue, Wuxia, etc. If they had then created a guideline consisting of a list of rule options for each fantasy type we would have true “modules.” This would allow players and DMs to have a reference point for describing the types of games they want to run or play. It would allow organized play to have different styles with rules that everyone would know up front. Just one more small step and it could have been off the charts. It doesn’t really affect me (since I don’t do organized play or search for players or games), but I think it is a missed opportunity. Off course they could still create and issue such a guideline.
Yeah, I see what you're saying, and I tend to agree. That could have been cool.
Well there's always web articles and the DMG2.
But from the sounds of it they are going to be making a lot more setting type books than "splat" books, and they could actually have modules that "tune" the game to that setting in said book. That would be pretty cool.
bonethug0108 wrote:
Well the good news is people can still make(and post or tell their friends) modules. It's all in the book. I'm sure well see some popping up here sooner or later.
I think in time we are going to see a lot more detailed information on handling modular elements of the game. People are in a hurry to get a complete system more so in this edition than any other because for many of us we have been waiting for a new D&D for many years as we skipped 4e, or perhaps better to say 4e skipped us because it was such a rigidly focused system on a single playstyle that made it difficult to adapt and noteably offered little in the way of official support for alternative playstyles. 5e kind of offers hope for pretty much all playstyles but in the core game doesn't really cover them all, so a lot of people are waiting on the module/content that will breath life into their prefered playstyles. For example tactical style players are still waiting for an advanced tactical module and I think in time they will get it.
The hope was that it would be in the DMG but I honestly wasn't expecting that, the DMG is there to support the game as it is and offer options and options is not the same as modularity. Options are layers for existing rules, modules are likely to remove, replace and add new rules, so for example you might have a module that says, ignore hit points, here is an alternative way to deal with health which is different than optional rules on how to use existing hit point rules. Just an example but you get the idea. Modularity in a sense has always existed for all versions of D&D, we just called them house rules before because they where not "official" and "official" has become so important to players today which is so different from what it was back in the early years of D&D where playing official rules was basically NEVER done. I mean I played 1e and 2e for years and I never even heard of anyone who played only the official rules, the first question for the DM was always, "ok, so what are the house rules".
The DMG provides lots of modularity. I think what you want more than a "module" (which by definition is what each of the options actually is) is a "ruleset" that combines various modules into a named unit of various modules. The DMG isn't the best place for that as it'd consume a lot of space and rehash a lot of material meaning less information and actual modules would have been included. You'd also invariably have people arguing that one or another module shouldn't be in a ruleset because they don't like it or they don't feel it fits the "theme" of the ruleset. It's easier to just leave rulesets to forums, settings books/adventure paths, and other sources.
Grazel wrote:
While I agree in principle, I think they'd screw up in defining those modules. Only a small subset of people who want old school healing also want lingering wounds modules. Most old school healing people just want basic hit points that recover slowly using natural means. That is it. They would probably prefer HD be gone entirely but I suppose if HD could be used to reflect the playstyle then most could live with it.
I am also of the opinion that playstyles supported after the initial three books will likely get missed because everyone has left that felt like the game didn't support them. Essentials is a good example. Some people might have liked essentials but D&D was no longer on their mind. They were playing another game. I'm a prime example. I never head of essentials until I came on these boards after the announcement of 5e. I gave up on 4e about sixteen months in and basically never came back. If you desire for D&D to grow, hopefully the few modules they did provide will be enough to keep players around. I think if they'd skipped modules altogether then they'd have lost people.
I disagree with the OP, not with the spirit of things but in the execution, mainly because I think that what constitutes Heroic Fantasy for one group doesn't necceseraly means the same thing to other groups.
That being said, i imagine that down the road published settings, both by WotC and by 3pp, will have small modules description.
Warder
Emerikol wrote:
Warder17 wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
dave2008 wrote: