Monte Cook on modularity


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 358 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Diffan wrote:

You know, I think it could be done as they say because they're distilling the game to its roots. What I take from this is that they are keeping the 4 core elements of the game and exanding from there. These core elements are: d20 engine, 6 stat ability scores, the simple action economy (standard, minor, move), and a class-based system. Each and every edition of D&D has had these elements w/ extreamly small changes. So it stands to reason they will remain the core concept of the game and add-on later aspects. No need for OA's unless u want them. No need for quickened spell unless you want them, no need for tactical movement (push, pull, slde) unless you want them.

There are probably going to be options for things you take or don't such as static bonuses feats if you opt-out of skill ranks, class features if you don't want feats, etc. Its plausable.

Well 1E did not have a d20 engine or an action economy. The d20 mechanic was used just as frequently or infrequently as any other dice and there was no action economy to speak of.


cibet44 wrote:
Diffan wrote:

You know, I think it could be done as they say because they're distilling the game to its roots. What I take from this is that they are keeping the 4 core elements of the game and exanding from there. These core elements are: d20 engine, 6 stat ability scores, the simple action economy (standard, minor, move), and a class-based system. Each and every edition of D&D has had these elements w/ extreamly small changes. So it stands to reason they will remain the core concept of the game and add-on later aspects. No need for OA's unless u want them. No need for quickened spell unless you want them, no need for tactical movement (push, pull, slde) unless you want them.

There are probably going to be options for things you take or don't such as static bonuses feats if you opt-out of skill ranks, class features if you don't want feats, etc. Its plausable.

Well 1E did not have a d20 engine or an action economy. The d20 mechanic was used just as frequently or infrequently as any other dice and there was no action economy to speak of.

I admit that I assumed these aspects were there since I have jever played 1e, BECMI, et. But the assumption is based on wht a player could accomplish on their turn such as move and attack, move and cast a spell, double move. Even if they weren't codified, they might have still been present.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Raevhen wrote:

"I live for moments when I tell people that I'm going to do something and they're reaction is, "that's impossible.""

- Monte Cook via Facebook today

I don't know what people are saying elsewhere, but I know my reaction (and it seems others here share it) isn't "that's impossible", but more "that's not a good idea - it will make things confusing and annoying to play with people using different rules at the same table, and/or to find a table with the rules you like, and to write and read adventures." Just because something is possible, doesn't make it a good idea.


Diffan, from your posts here and elsewhere, from all appearances you are anti-choice, if anything. You seem to be taking a stance that everyone should be playing at the same exact level of complexity. Why force anyone to do anything?

I think its great what they are trying to do, and if Monte Cook (who I respect very much) can pull it off, he should be sainted. A system like that would be amazing. Anything that improves our shared hobby in any way is great, and innovation should never be rejected just because you are a fan of something else.

If their concept works, and is popular, Paizo can then take it and apply it to PF/OGL - its a win-win.


Wait.......I know there is a clause in the CoC or forum rules for not attacking other companies or insulting them. But where was it.....?

*looks at the top of the page*

Ah, there it is AND its even in bold!!


The 'scabs' comment was definitely over-the-top. :(

The Exchange

I don't think anyone is anti-choice - and already in 4e you have the choice between the relatively simple Essentials character classes and the more complex earlier iterations. The issue is more, how do you introduce this modular, varying levels of choice approach with fundamentally increasing disparity between those who go for complexity and those who don't. After all, choices need to be made meaningful - including the choice to choose complexity. 4e is fundamentally well-balanced - much more so than 3e - and there is a tension between balance and this stated modular approach. If they can pull it off it would, indeed, be great. But Monte didn't pull it off last time he tried.


MarkusTay wrote:

Diffan, from your posts here and elsewhere, from all appearances you are anti-choice, if anything. You seem to be taking a stance that everyone should be playing at the same exact level of complexity. Why force anyone to do anything?

I think its great what they are trying to do, and if Monte Cook (who I respect very much) can pull it off, he should be sainted. A system like that would be amazing.

How, exactly, am I "anti-choice"? I distinctly remember stating that I enjoy both PF AND 4E. This is further illustrated by my vehement disagreement with picking ir choosing. I think Monte has his work cut out for him but at least I'm excited to see wbat they churn out.

Dark Archive

As I said earlier, I think perhaps 5E will have more tools for conversion. It's much more likely that they are going to push digital further. With that probably comes a convertor for all the different versions of D&D. 1E and 2E probably get lumped together. 3E by itself. 4E by itself. You put in your ability scores, your level, your class, and your general role, and the convertor spits out a 5E version of your character. It won't be as good as a 5E built character, and that's the beauty. For the players who don't care enough about the mechanics or doesn't have the time to mess with 5E, he gets his character. For the players who wants to learn and tinker, he has to buy 5E. Eventually, the players will want to

This fills WotC's hope that all version of D&D are somewhat compatible, and that people would make the switch at some point.


Because you started this thread hostile toward this modular format, which would allow 'weekend gamers' to play alongside 'hardcore' gamers - something that has been difficult in the past.

@Aubrey the Malformed - I assume the DM will have to be the one who "knows all the rules", which is nothing different then we've had before. I also assume the the core system will be very basic (those basic rules non-invested gamers can use), and everything after that will be 'options' (similar to later 2e, but hopefully MUCH more consistent).

The tricky part will be to get everyone within a single playing group to agree to what to use, and what not to use - but once again, how is this any different then what I have experienced for the past 35+ years? Also, the choices made do not have to be universal - if 'Sam' just wants to use the 'Stealth stat' for his ability rolls, thats fine, but 'Suzy' might want the more complex system of individual skills for each ability for her Rogue. The only problem I see is people switching back-and-forth in order to get the best result, but we've always had min-maxers and its something that comes with the game, and something DMs have to learn to deal with.

Folks can use the "DM has final say" old-school method whilst deciding this, or the newer 'democractic' method of mutual consent (take a vote). I'm personally 'old school', but as I get younger (and newer) players in my groups, I find that they expect to have a say, which is fine. Everyone needs to change with the times... even the grognards.

The Exchange

No, the tricky part is designing a game whereby you can add complexity for those that want it, without causing issues of game balance for those that don't want it. Just saying "Oh, we won't do that" is simply house-ruling - and frankly anyone can write an unbalanced system that needs to be half-ignored or house-ruled in order to get it to work. That isn't what seems to be being offered, but instead a fully modular system where where choices are (a) meaningful, and (b) balanced. That's not the DM's job, it's the designer's. And it hasn't really been done before, least of all by Monte Cook.


MarkusTay wrote:
Because you started this thread hostile toward this modular format, which would allow 'weekend gamers' to play alongside 'hardcore' gamers - something that has been difficult in the past.

Actually, if you read it, I first questioned the difficulty a DM would face with such modular rules and all the variables therein. I also felt it might cause player-envy. I followed it up w/ my next post about how a player might be ok with the complexity level IF that's what they want. I then pondered more about the job of the DM in this style of modular gaming.

How those questions could be considered hostile is far beyond me. I don't advocate people drop Pathfinder for 4e or D&Dnext. I don't believe Paizo stile WotC customer base. I don't tell people Pathfinder is a crappy game for simulationist or that the game is horrendous. I can tell you that responses to 4E, its fan base, and WotC isn't as gracious.


We each cater to our own preferences when playing D&D, by choosing a version or set of game rules. So we already use the theoretical 5E to some degree by making a choice at the gaming table. The trick is to find a common ground to expand on when looking at the 1E, 2E, 3E, and 4E. Where I would prefer using 4E as the baseline and expanding on ideas from previous versions, others would prefer WOTC remove features found in 4E and going back to previous editions. But above all else, the most important aspect of a new edition is how to present it, and WOTC is already on a short leash.


@Aubrey - I am still not seeing how this was any different then late 2e, wherein more then half the rules were options. We can agree to disagree.

What 'weekend gamers' and 'hardcore gamers' want out of the game are two very different things, and thats how you balance it. Even if the 'Weekender' is "getting off easy" (having fewer things to keep track of, and build-up, which could lead to imbalance), the old-school simulationist is going to be getting all sorts of cool RP options, which is what they want out of the game. The balance doesn't have to be in combat - I think thats where 4e went very wrong.

In my above example, Sam might have a '12' in his (theoretical) Stealth stat, but Suzy has an '8' in picking pockets and '15' in climbing walls. So Sam gets to keep track of less, and gets a less 'immersive' experience (which he didn't want anyway), and Suzy gets to have scores both higher and lower then Sam to do the same exact things, which is what she wants.

I used to work for a game company, back in the dinosaur days of RPGing, and it is possible to balance such a system, so long as you keep track of all the math (its just a numbers game, once you boil all the flavor out).

@Diffan - I haven't read the whole thread - just the first page. You can usually get a very good idea of whats going on, without having to dig through piles of mud-slinigng that way. Most folks just keep saying the same thing over and over anyway (which I am guilty of myself, elsewhere).

This is how I see it playing out - the group decides how much of the modular system they want to use. By 'group', I mean the simulationists and the DM - those 'weekenders' aren't going to really care - they just want to thwack stuff and get Phatt lewtz (which is FINE - to each his own). This decision doesn't effect the 'Weekeneder' at all, because he is going to just be using the 'fast & dirty' rules, regardless.

Everyone else will be able to choose from the buffet that is the group-excepted level of play. Because even amongst simulationists, you will have varying degrees of what people want to micro-manage.

The only problem I foresee is a group that insists everyone play at the same level, which would be a shame, since they'd be denying themselves a lot of fun by not having those other folks onboard (unless the group was very cohesive and select, in which case the modular approach wouldn't even apply to them - they would already have a consensus on what they were using, including house-rules)

Also, the guy (or gal) who isn't invested (yet) may see what others are doing with their characters, and want to start adding layers of 'realism' to their own, and eventually become more involved gamers, which is great for the hobby over-all. Right now the biggest wall stopping 'newbs' from joining P&P RPGs are the rules - they are daunting. If people can learn-as-they go, in little bites, without so much commitment, we'd be able to really grow this hobby once again.

D&D, in any form, has a greater ability to grow our hobby then all other companies combined, which in the long run is a win for us all. We should be applauding their efforts, even if we do not choose to use some or all of their products.


So who buys this modular 5E anyway?

Speaking as a current Pathfinder player and 3.5 supporter why do I buy it? I have the game my players and I like and we play it. I don't need plug in support for "4E like play" or "1E like play". We play 3.5/PF, that's it.

4E players? Why? Is there a big demand in the 4E community for modular support of other editions of D&D? It doesn't seem like there is but I'm no expert on the 4E community.

1E/2E players? Are current 1E/2E players pining for a new edition of D&D that allows plugin of their old characters? That seems really odd to me. If you are still playing 1E or 2E today I would venture a guess that you are not very open to new rule-sets.

OSR players? Unless 5E goes back to a fully open OGL model I can't imagine any OSR groups even coming near it.

If Pathfinder did not exist I could see WoTC wanting to unite the 3E/4E groups again but since they deliberately abandoned 3E, and Paizo took over that group pretty completely and successfully, who are they targeting with a modular 5E?


cibet wrote:
So who buys this modular 5E anyway?

Theoretically, it's for everyone you listed. The idea is that you could run any version of the game with a modular system.

You buy it because it has that "Dungeons & Dragons" banner across the top of it, and it can give you things like beholders and mind-flayers and everything else that WotC holds as IP that you can't get anywhere else, except through old books and pirated PDFs.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
cibet wrote:
So who buys this modular 5E anyway?

Theoretically, it's for everyone you listed. The idea is that you could run any version of the game with a modular system.

You buy it because it has that "Dungeons & Dragons" banner across the top of it, and it can give you things like beholders and mind-flayers and everything else that WotC holds as IP that you can't get anywhere else, except through old books and pirated PDFs.

I guess that's the idea on paper but doesn't the very existence of the disparate groups confirm that this won't work? If D&D players really care en masse about the "D&D" banner and Mind Flayers wouldn't they all be playing 4E already or nothing at all? The fact that Pathfinder is a raging success, and that OSR exists at all, and that 4E has been disappointing, pretty much proves that the D&D brand and IP are not a strong enough pull to bring and keep players in the "D&D" fold.


cibet44 wrote:

So who buys this modular 5E anyway?

I think MarkusTay put it pretty well why someone would like a modular game. Also, Jerry makes a good case too as this game should be useful for any sort of rules (whether that means system rules or "feel", no one knows).

But I think MarkusTay isn't spot on with his outlook on 5E. One might believe the game is set, from the beginning, by the DM or Group what sort of game to run and stay that course. So a DM would want to run a simple game with simple "core" rules and it doesn't deviate from that. Yet due to what Monte specifically says here: "we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced." One can assume that he means that you can run your 1E Fighter character along side my 4E-style Mage with all the bells and whistles, and it'll be balanced. I'm not sure if I buy that, but I'm curious none the least.

As for why me, a 4E fan, would want to run this system? Because I love options, I love learning new systems, I love supporting Dungeons and Dragons, and I enjoy trying new stuff out. I will admit that I'll wait a lot longer to buy into the next Iteration of D&D this time around, giving it quite a while to open up, as it were. With 4E, I had delved into it right away and kept on going. With D&Dnext, I'll wait a cool 6 months before I open a book for it. I just have too much fun right now playing 4E and PF to put that sort of money into another RPG.


cibet wrote:

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

cibet wrote:
So who buys this modular 5E anyway?
Theoretically, it's for everyone you listed. The idea is that you could run any version of the game with a modular system.

You buy it because it has that "Dungeons & Dragons" banner across the top of it, and it can give you things like beholders and mind-flayers and everything else that WotC holds as IP that you can't get anywhere else, except through old books and pirated PDFs.

I guess that's the idea on paper but doesn't the very existence of the disparate groups confirm that this won't work? If D&D players really care en masse about the "D&D" banner and Mind Flayers wouldn't they all be playing 4E already or nothing at all? The fact that Pathfinder is a raging success, and that OSR exists at all, and that 4E has been disappointing, pretty much proves that the D&D brand and IP are not a strong enough pull to bring and keep players in the "D&D" fold.

It's the "nothing at all" part of your statement that's the problem. People are playing the versions of D&D they want to play, from OD&D to 4E. Those who aren't playing 4E are playing it with retroclones and Pathfinder because they can't do it with a WotC product.

If WotC produces a product that will let them play how they want while being supported by the official D&D publisher, a lot of them are going to buy 5E. That's the whole point of WotC's new edition.

Personally, if I decided to play 1E right now, I'd use my 1E books, and possibly a bit of the SRD (like skills and feats). But I'd have a hard time convincing my players to switch.

If 5E is what it's supposed to be, it'd be a lot easier to convince them. And we could play someone else's 3E game without changing books.


I'd buy that game because I don't really like any versions of D&D.

However, I dislike 3.5e and Pathfinder less than all other fantasy RPGs. If someone shows me something better than that, I am all for it. And the bar isn't really set that high. Being able to play a game as complex as 2nd Edition with based on the basic d20 system and it having decent official support would probably be all I want.


My personal feeling is that the RPG community took a wrong turn when they decided that the best way to solve the "problems" of the early editions was to come up with a rule for everything. I suppose it was probably inevitable, but the triumpth of the rules lawyers has led to the ascension of the power gamer. The ascension of the power gamer has led to the fruitless pursuit of the holy grail of "balance."

I liked it more when the game was a set of guidelines to follow instead of an encyclopedia of footnoted rules with a sea of errata "fixing" all the things that weren't done right the first time.

What I have seen is a steady erosion of creativity in these games. Back in the early days I would routinely make up magic items, spells, races and classes. Now in 4e I am pretty much stuck with the options in the online Character Builder. Even minor magic items become major issues between players and GMs.

I'd much prefer to see the new system give back some of the flexibility and stop trying to cram everyone into a pre-defined "role" or "class" or whatever.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


I liked it more when the game was a set of guidelines to follow instead of an encyclopedia of footnoted rules with a sea of errata "fixing" all the things that weren't done right the first time.

Well not me, I have spent thousands of hours running 1E/2E campaigns in the past and I can say definitively that the 3.0 rules and subsequently the 3.5 rules drastically decreased the amount of time our group spent arguing over vague guidelines and drastically increased the amount of fun we have playing the game. I don't know what kind of research or planning WoTC did when making 3.x but it seems like they were scrying on my group since the 80s, 3E just made the game so much better for us it was stunning. Luckily the Pathfinder rules are largely the same as 3.5, the changes in them are a wash, some I like some I don't.

I'm not sure what 5E will bring to the table (or why the table even needs it at this point) but I do know the public announcement that it is under development and subsequent discussion of it will only make it better, even if my group never uses it.


The facts are right, but that's an unusual way to put it.

If you want to get the license for 4th Edition, you had to agree that you wouldn't sell 3rd Ed. anymore. You'd still be legally allowed to do it, but then you break the contract for 4th Edition, in which you might have agreed on penalties if you willingly break that part.


cibet44 wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


I liked it more when the game was a set of guidelines to follow instead of an encyclopedia of footnoted rules with a sea of errata "fixing" all the things that weren't done right the first time.

Well not me, I have spent thousands of hours running 1E/2E campaigns in the past and I can say definitively that the 3.0 rules and subsequently the 3.5 rules drastically decreased the amount of time our group spent arguing over vague guidelines and drastically increased the amount of fun we have playing the game. I don't know what kind of research or planning WoTC did when making 3.x but it seems like they were scrying on my group since the 80s, 3E just made the game so much better for us it was stunning. Luckily the Pathfinder rules are largely the same as 3.5, the changes in them are a wash, some I like some I don't.

I'm not sure what 5E will bring to the table (or why the table even needs it at this point) but I do know the public announcement that it is under development and subsequent discussion of it will only make it better, even if my group never uses it.

I think you are missing my main point here. If you are playing in 4e, when is the last time you created a custom magic item and introduced it to the game? When is the last time you created a custom race (I still do that in PF, but not 4e). My GM requires our characters to be 'legit Character Builder builds' so if it's not in the Character Builder, we can't do it. I suspect that's the default mode of most 4e games.

I appreciate the addition of computers to the hobby, but I don't like where it has stifled creativity and uniqueness.

Some of the rules that have been added since the 70s are good, especially the tactical combat stuff which helps deterine cover, flanking, line of sight, etc. I like that. It's the "you want to do what? Are you crazy?" reaction to any suggestion of a new magic item, new race, new feat, new class etc. I think that's a shame, but that's in part because that's the sort of stuff I loved to do. It seems the more the rules have spread through the game, the more likely a GM is to avoid going outside those rules.

Just my thoughts. I'm sure 5e will continue that trend though...

Oh, and again I have to say that I feel truly blessed to have been in the groups I originally played this game in, and have been fortunate to play in even to this day. I could probably count on one hand the number of true "arguments" we've had in the game. Even today "Rule Zero" is the final arbiter and even if the player disagrees, there is a finality to that invocation and we move on.

Frog God Games

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
I personally think that a lot of this discussion of "compatibility" with earlier editions is wishful thinking. He's talking about the D&D "experience" feeling similar, not the game mechanics (that said, the D&D experience hasn't really changed much anyway for me irrespective of edition). So it'll "feel" like your favorite edition, but it'll still use 5e mechanics.

This.

We need to throw away thoughts of compatibility and look at the new D&D focusing on feel.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure, we can focus on feel. But Monte Cook is talking about mechanics.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Sure, we can focus on feel. But Monte Cook is talking about mechanics.

I am afraid that you are right.


Yora wrote:

The facts are right, but that's an unusual way to put it.

If you want to get the license for 4th Edition, you had to agree that you wouldn't sell 3rd Ed. anymore...

...and (as I recall) you had to pulp your existing unsold third edition material within 6 months. I pretty distinctly remember Paizo, Necromancer, and Goodman complaining about this requirement.


@Diffan (and anyone else who cares)

I realize my explanation was very simplistic, but I do 'get it'. I have a bad habit of rambling, and I am trying my hand at self-edit (no easy task, as you know me from elsewhere).

The idea is the groups will also be able to 'expand' what they want to use as time goes on, and more products are released, or, 'pull back' if things become overly complicated, and use less. In fact, sometimes the same group may want a different style of play ("Lets all bash some heads and get phatt Lewtz!") for single session or two, as a break from the monotony (I have seen entire sessions get bogged-down by a stage-hog RPer).

In the olden days, we used to have to roll up other characters for these 'one night jaunts' (usually using T&T rules), but wouldn't it be a hoot if we could choose to revert to a simpler style, just for an evening, with our already-developed PCs? Thats the real beauty of what the propose. Its not just modular to the players, its modular per session. You can play a completely different type of game when you are in-town, then when you are deep within a dungeon.

And I don't think they mean you will be able to use actual 1e or OD&D characters alongside 4e (I have no clue how they could accomplish that) - what I think they mean is that they will create one, coherent system, wherein each style of play can be emulated. Ergo, your OD&D Elf character class could cast Vancian-like magic alongside a 3e warlock, or a 4e 'Controller'. I have to admit, I am very curious to see how they manage to pull this off. I'm thinking an Essentials-style treatment of the 4e rules, for each edition, which recaptures a specific 'flavor' of D&D, but I could be way off base with that one.

Lets just see how much this 'emulation layer' bogs the game down, if at all. I know from computer experience, for a short while, Apples were able to run Windows software in 'Emulation Mode' faster then windows computers could (until the processor speeds caught up).


Scott Betts wrote:
Maybe they're approaching it like cars and transmissions? Straightforward and "hands-off" for those who aren't concerned about micromanaging their characters' mechanics. Versatile and manipulable for those who like to fine-tune their approach to a given challenge. I imagine we saw something like this in the more straightforward Essentials classes versus the more flexible pre-Essentials classes.

Fair enough, but to continue the analogy: People who fine-tune their approach to that extent do so because they're rewarded by superior performance -- which seems antithetical to the stated goal of balance.

I'm intrigued by what they're attempting, but remain skeptical they (or anyone) can pull it off.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts. Flag it and move on, please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Maybe they're approaching it like cars and transmissions? Straightforward and "hands-off" for those who aren't concerned about micromanaging their characters' mechanics. Versatile and manipulable for those who like to fine-tune their approach to a given challenge. I imagine we saw something like this in the more straightforward Essentials classes versus the more flexible pre-Essentials classes.

Fair enough, but to continue the analogy: People who fine-tune their approach to that extent do so because they're rewarded by superior performance -- which seems antithetical to the stated goal of balance.

I'm intrigued by what they're attempting, but remain skeptical they (or anyone) can pull it off.

While there certainly are people who know what they're doing and can enjoy a serious performance boost from driving manual transmission, pretty much everyone I know who prefers stick just likes "feeling in control". They may not be particularly good at it (and it stands to reason that a lot of people would perform worse in a manual transmission vehicle than an automatic transmission vehicle, even if they say they prefer manual), but it gives them a sense of hands-on control that they don't get with an automatic transmission.

It's not a perfect analogy, certainly, but I think that the people who are proficient enough with the system to eke a bit of mechanical superiority out of their character could probably do the same in just about any rules set.


I think there are ways to get the feel of different editions that maintain balance. Your basic game could just feature the Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard with all the rules of the game but with no options. Subsequent 'modules' could add more choices - feats, skills, powers, Warlocks whatever.

Let's take the Fighter as the (let's face it, easiest) example. A 3.5/PF fighter has masses of options for customisation. But, you can create a very simple, default character by taking certain feats. Say, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation, Toughness, maybe Power Attack. A fighter built like this is as viable as any other, they just aren't very flexible. They hit things and they hit them hard. That's it. Much like a First Ed Fighter. If all the bonuses are included straight into the class table, the player need never know that all of these choices were made for them. They pick up a character sheet that looks something like a PF stat block and go off to kill some monsters.

A second player who has a bit more time starts with a bare bones Fighter (without all the bonuses Basic Fighter has picked up) and uses the Feats module to become a TWF or Combat Maneuver specialist. They look more like a PF Fighter. The two are balanced, but one is more complicated and flexible. Throw in a bunch of tactical movement powers and they might be looking more 4E like.

I'll be very interested to see the playtest. The industry is big enough for more than one big player and I would love to see D&D back on top form. Not at the cost of Pathfinder, but I'm confident Paizo will be thriving for years yet.


Scott Betts wrote:

While there certainly are people who know what they're doing and can enjoy a serious performance boost from driving manual transmission, pretty much everyone I know who prefers stick just likes "feeling in control". They may not be particularly good at it (and it stands to reason that a lot of people would perform worse in a manual transmission vehicle than an automatic transmission vehicle, even if they say they prefer manual), but it gives them a sense of hands-on control that they don't get with an automatic transmission.

It's not a perfect analogy, certainly, but I think that the people who are proficient enough with the system to eke a bit of mechanical superiority out of their character could probably do the same in just about any rules set.

I really hope they pull it off.


bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

While there certainly are people who know what they're doing and can enjoy a serious performance boost from driving manual transmission, pretty much everyone I know who prefers stick just likes "feeling in control". They may not be particularly good at it (and it stands to reason that a lot of people would perform worse in a manual transmission vehicle than an automatic transmission vehicle, even if they say they prefer manual), but it gives them a sense of hands-on control that they don't get with an automatic transmission.

It's not a perfect analogy, certainly, but I think that the people who are proficient enough with the system to eke a bit of mechanical superiority out of their character could probably do the same in just about any rules set.

I really hope they pull it off.

I honestly don't think any group of people has a better shot. But I can't do much more than hope, either.


All I have to say is I HOPE they put out the 5e version of a Warlord. Its pure awesome! Same w/ a PF style summoner. That is all.


cibet44 wrote:

So who buys this modular 5E anyway?

Speaking as a current Pathfinder player and 3.5 supporter why do I buy it? I have the game my players and I like and we play it.

When's the last time you 3.5-loving players got together with some 4E-loving players?

That's essentially what Monte is promising. Not just that you can play "any edition", but do so at the same table. You don't have playgroups needing to agree on one edition or the other, you have more opportunities to pick up new players because they aren't playing an incompatible edition. It's not "The DM picks one set of rules and everyone abides by it", it's "everyone brings their own character creation rules and we somehow mix it all together." Heck, maybe one of your existing players might like to try some 4E or 1E stuff but wasn't willing to trade groups for the privledge, maybe now he doesn't have to choose.

Again, very implausible, maybe impossible, but that is the sell.


FoxBat_ wrote:
cibet44 wrote:

So who buys this modular 5E anyway?

Speaking as a current Pathfinder player and 3.5 supporter why do I buy it? I have the game my players and I like and we play it.

When's the last time you 3.5-loving players got together with some 4E-loving players?

That's essentially what Monte is promising. Not just that you can play "any edition", but do so at the same table. You don't have playgroups needing to agree on one edition or the other, you have more opportunities to pick up new players because they aren't playing an incompatible edition. It's not "The DM picks one set of rules and everyone abides by it", it's "everyone brings their own character creation rules and we somehow mix it all together." Heck, maybe one of your existing players might like to try some 4E or 1E stuff but wasn't willing to trade groups for the privledge, maybe now he doesn't have to choose.

Again, very implausible, maybe impossible, but that is the sell.

I guess, but again, if they were able to pull this off why didn't they do it with 4E? Was creating 4E some kind of prerequisite to creating this ultimate edition of D&D? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me.


I'm not a huge fan of any current iteration of D&D either. I'm enjoying Dragon Age right now, you might be interested in checking that out.

Yora wrote:

I'd buy that game because I don't really like any versions of D&D.

However, I dislike 3.5e and Pathfinder less than all other fantasy RPGs. If someone shows me something better than that, I am all for it. And the bar isn't really set that high. Being able to play a game as complex as 2nd Edition with based on the basic d20 system and it having decent official support would probably be all I want.


cibet44 wrote:
I guess, but again, if they were able to pull this off why didn't they do it with 4E? Was creating 4E some kind of prerequisite to creating this ultimate edition of D&D? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Because this time they promise to actually listen to the gamers who play the game.

Yeah, I know. But I can hope.

51 to 100 of 358 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Monte Cook on modularity All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.