I agree that this was especially true of 4th ed fans (at least on RPG.net). People wanted to keep their favourite edition alive in the currently supported one. I understand that to a degree, but I can't empathize because 3rd ed burned me out so much that I hated D&D and 4th ed felt too combat-centric (a dangerous claim on the internet these days, I'm sorry). So I wasn't attached to any previous edition at all.

I've actually added stuff from other editions of D&D and D20 games (I'm testing an idea for armour as Damage Reduction, which my crew seems to like, and it's not breaking anything too badly) so I'd say it's pretty modular.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;914065I've actually added stuff from other editions of D&D and D20 games (I'm testing an idea for armour as Damage Reduction, which my crew seems to like, and it's not breaking anything too badly) so I'd say it's pretty modular.

Thanks. I was more interested in how much I could strip away and still have it be 5th edition in scope and feel to most players.

Quote from: Harlock;914073Thanks. I was more interested in how much I could strip away and still have it be 5th edition in scope and feel to most players.

Well, this is MY crew, and they're very easy going.

Quote from: Necrozius;913991Taking a look in the Dungeon Master's Guide you'll find several new options to change the way that the game works. Including stuff like:

- extra attributes, such as Honor and Sanity
- dice proficiency system (instead of a flat bonus, you roll a die)
- combat options (initiative variants such as side initiative and weapon speed factor)
- Plot Points (like bennies, hero points or fate points)
- Fear and horror rules
- rest variants (to change the feel to more gritty and perilous or more super heroic)
- ditching skills and just going with ability scores (with proficiencies based on your class, race and background choices)
- Grid combat rules
- spell points instead of spells/day

All of which can be used or not without changing the game's "balance".

I personally call mixing and matching all of these options quite modular, but I'm in the minority on the internet...

As is said above, what does "modular" mean.  To me modular means modules.  Package groupings of rules you can simply enable or disable.  Tell your players that you're using the "4e Module", at which point these 20 rules exceptions get swapped with these 20 rules exceptions.  Kind of like in GURPS 4 where the umpteen million widgets all have their own metadata tag matched to an icon, so the GM says a certain icon is good, off you go to chargen.

They have lots of optional rules, which means it's moddable, but not modular.  For example, there is no 3/3.5 combat module set of rules you can use to get back to the grid-based tactical combat of those editions (which is one of the set things they promised).

Instead, you got a lot of Spot Rules and Case Exceptions.

Now if WotC hadn't specifically stated that the game would be modular, in a way no other game had been, then people wouldn't have expected something different.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914076Now if WotC hadn't specifically stated that the game would be modular, in a way no other game had been, then people wouldn't have expected something different.

My impression is that is a side effect of the enthusiasm they exhibited when they ditched the idea that more is better that ruled 3e and 4e. They saw the incredible diversity of games developed by the OSR and that are based on classic D&D mechanics. And figured that it would be that much better if you purposely did it as a goal rather than the random of development model of the OSR that it would result in a truly modular D&D.

Whatever a person thinks of the OSR, you can't deny that it covers a lot of different variations of customization and complexity with classic D&D. You got Microlite74/75 Black Hack at one extreme. Blood & Treasure and Castle & Crusade have a lot of 3E lite baked in. ACKS has a detailed domain managed and mass combat system bolted on top of B/X D&D. So forth and so on.

I think 5e is modular enough and with classes like the Fighter-Battlemaster and other with the options they already detailed it straightforward to make it as simple or as complex as you want to be with D&D style mechanics.

The thing is, you can swap out a lot of things.  Don't like the new Saving Throw System?  Put in the one you like, from 3.x or earlier, or from one of the myriad of retroclones and heartbreakers.  Don't like the skill system, but like AD&D 2e's Secondary Skills, chop-chop!

It's modular in that you can take other D&D games, whether official or not, with minimal effort and changes necessary.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;914081The thing is, you can swap out a lot of things.  Don't like the new Saving Throw System?  Put in the one you like, from 3.x or earlier, or from one of the myriad of retroclones and heartbreakers.  Don't like the skill system, but like AD&D 2e's Secondary Skills, chop-chop!

It's modular in that you can take other D&D games, whether official or not, with minimal effort and changes necessary.

  Again, the distinction seems to be between 'modifiable' and 'modular' with the sense that the latter are provided in an explicit and supported sense. I think WotC put together a fairly robust system that you can tweak without too many obvious cascading effects, but they didn't provide more than a handful of things to plug in beyond the 'standards'.

  Now, I admit I may have unrealistic standards in this regard. My first post-D&D system was MERP, and I advanced from there to Rolemaster 2nd Edition--which, once you had a few Companions, was a case where you had enough options and modules to plug in expansions, alternatives, and replacements for almost every part of the system. Heck, I never got the chance to try, but I was interested in using RMCVI to run a version that would have pretty much obviated the majority of Arms Law and Character Law.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the meanings of modular and moddable.  To me it's more or less one and the same.  You take one chunk out, add another one in, maybe reshape a couple of sections needed to make it fit better, but at the end of the day, you've made it your own.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;914090My first post-D&D system was MERP, and I advanced from there to Rolemaster 2nd Edition--which, once you had a few Companions, was a case where you had enough options and modules to plug in expansions, alternatives, and replacements for almost every part of the system. Heck, I never got the chance to try, but I was interested in using RMCVI to run a version that would have pretty much obviated the majority of Arms Law and Character Law.

Uh oh, now we actually have some gaming experiences in common...

Quote from: CRKrueger;914076Now if WotC hadn't specifically stated that the game would be modular, in a way no other game had been, then people wouldn't have expected something different.

And this is where the game turned kinda ashy in my mouth. Running it a lot, it gave me nothing that I didn't already get elsewhere with other editions or other systems. When I saw them say that - my expectations were grossly incorrectly set at "Much lighter Fantasycraft" which to me is the standard for modular d20. Or at least something leaning in that direction.

I expected more - they delivered less. Thus far.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;914105I'm not entirely sure I understand the meanings of modular and moddable.  To me it's more or less one and the same.  You take one chunk out, add another one in, maybe reshape a couple of sections needed to make it fit better, but at the end of the day, you've made it your own.

In my design taxonomy it's like this:

Moddable means you take a portion of a mechanical piece as is, and reformulate it to your needs, but it might not change the entire thing. Example: You mod the Wizard class for a new archetype that does which is not covered by another Archetype. You're not fundamentally changing the Wizard class or the Archetype sub-systems, you're just modding something within it. 5e can do this decently (as Estar pointed out - you just do it with Archetypes, Backgrounds etc.)

Modular means you take a sub-system as is, and you remove it in lieu of an entirely new and different sub-system. This might change the feel of the system on a larger scale. Example: You don't like Vancian magic? Remove it. Plug in scaled Spellpoints magic system. OR plug in Spellpoints into the game to work alongside your Vancian system and have it represent some other "casting system" - etc. And of course you can mod the modules. 5e does not do this very well. It can definitely be done, but it will take a lot of work.

So, assuming I understand Tenbones, my armour and turning it into a DR mechanic, is modular?

A module would contain things like...
A formula to convert AC to AC with DR.
A list of common armors, monsters, etc with converted numbers that the GM could just plug and play.
A list of affected play mechanics and possible modifications to rebalance math or whatever.

If not, it's just a house rule.

Ask yourself, am I replacing an exception-based rule or am I replacing a system those exceptions are based on?

It may seem people are treating the definition of "module" as a little more strict with 5e.  Perhaps, but if so, it's because they told us themselves what to expect from their modules, and never released any.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;914135So, assuming I understand Tenbones, my armour and turning it into a DR mechanic, is modular?

Yeah that's how I'd classify it. CRKrueger's putting a finer point to it.

I'd like to say - I'm just using my own kinda taxonomy for the point of discussion. When it comes to designing systems I tend to look at Modules being the tentpole sub-systems that umbrellas all the smaller bits and pieces.

When I look at a system, as a GM, I'm always trying to consider what I like/don't like and if I had to change something I ask myself "what the real need and effort level required to do it." 5e requires *me* to do a lot of work. I can run it just fine as is, but for the kinds of games I run, I find it "underpowered" in terms of how much mechanical bang-for-the-buck I want in my fantasy games. I don't think it was designed for my particular tastes. I either want that shit to be sexy-slick and fast (Savage Worlds) or give me lots of levers and pulleys and modules that I can snap-out and snap-in to express the feel that I want (Fantasycraft) - with the caveat that no system is perfect.

This is why I marvel at the work they did in Fantasycraft. It really is what 3e should have been imo. I think it gets a tremendously bad rep because it seems ULTRA-fiddly, but that's because it has so many levers and buttons and dials and modules it gets crazy dense. Most people assume that you're intended to use *everything* all at once. You're not. You're supposed to pick the parts that work for your campaign and plug it in. Now I fully agree there's a lot to grok about it - but I think the hardest part is unlearning what you already knew about 3e. People make a lot of assumptions before they start reading it and miss the fine-print.

Anyhow - what I wanted in 5e was a much lighter version of FC.