The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: SteerpikeIsn't this almost like how FATE is used in its various offspring games?

I don't think so. FATE is based on a certain set of core rules, yes, but each offspring game is essentially a distinct thing; there aren't lots of optional things you can bolt on. Using Dresden Files magic in Diaspora is strictly do-it-yourself hacking venture, for example. Fate Core takes a bit more flexible of an approach, but they go for the approach I advocated-- a solid set of core rules plus a hacking guide, rather than trying to mix and match a bunch of prefab rules systems.

Quote from: LordVreegNo, No, No.
Again.

Yes, yes, yes. Again.

How are you supposed to even distinguish the two systems if they take the exact same inputs?

If you add a weapon type, then any creature that has a resistance to that weapon type in the advanced game is going to have different resistances in the basic game, and of course the weapon itself will be listed as two different types depending on the game variant. If you have a different method for calculating initiative, it's probably going to take different inputs which you have to note-- and if you want to pre-calculate the non-rolled part of it for convenience, like D&D does, you'll have to put down both values. If you have fighting as a unit rules, then monsters that tend to swarm will probably want to make use of these rules, so you'll need some optional text in their description that notes this. If your base system doesn't take size into account but you have an optional system that does, then you'll need to include a "Size" stat that is useless to people that aren't using it. And so on.

Or, more realistically, you won't bother with all this crap, and then it's not optional anymore. :grin:

No, one can easily use the same input numbers and just have different formula to go with them.
It's pretty easy.  Like initiative.  Round-based or continuous can use the same basic stat, they just have different rulesets that use the same stat.  I have used the same weapon list for decades, but it is robust enough to be able to work with dozens of advanced permutations. 
I had STN and CND as major stats always.  That's Strength Needed and Coordination needed for a weapon.  They were part since the beginning, back in 83.  in the first advance, for every 4 points of ST or CD above or below them, there was a bonus to hit or speed. 
Please note.  No more stats needed in the beginning.  Just derived stats in the advanced version.
ANd this went on and on with one and 2 handed rules, ready vs unready, Initiative bonus skill rules...
All without every needing more than one set of stats.

Quote from: sparkletwistIf you have a different method for calculating initiative, it's probably going to take different inputs which you have to note-- and if you want to pre-calculate the non-rolled part of it for convenience, like D&D does, you'll have to put down both values.

Not necessarily (OK, I see Vreeg just kinda beat me to this... ah well, I'll post it anyway).

Example:

Option 1 (standard) - Initiative is rolled once per combat

Option 2 (unpredictable combat) - Initiative is rolled once per round

Option 3 (group initiative) - Initiative is rolled for each side in a combat, not each individual, by rolling once for each side and adding an averaged bonus

Option 4 (Holmes/non-random) - Initiative is static - the highest Initiative bonus acts first and so on to the lowest

Option 5 (OD&D/less random) - Roll 1d6+bonuses instead of 1d20+bonuses for Initiative

Option 6 (AD&D/medium random) - Roll 1d10+bonuses instead of 1d20+bonuses for Initiative

Option 7 (multiple choice) - Choose to roll a d20 or "take 10" on your Initiative

Option 8 (occasional re-roll) - Re-roll Initiative after 5 rounds

Option 9 (semidynamic) - Roll Initiative at the start of combat, and each round add a character's Initiative bonus to their score, so that those with high bonuses can "catch up" if they roll poorly

The above can sometimes be combined.

There you go - a whole ton of Initiative variants, none of them requiring any recalculation or multiple sets of stats.

Now, do I think they're going to implement their "mods" elegantly?  I doubt it.  But it's not impossible.  Is this what you mean by a hacking guide?

EDIT: Also... would it be that hard to include extra versions of some stats as needed in bestiaries?

Don't forget about the Group Initiative that is re-rolled each turn! That  system was used a lot when I played 2E.

Also, in previous editions, people who rolled the same initiative went simultaneously, unlike 3.5/4E where everyone has a unique place with ties being rolled off.

Part of me wants to see how a 3.x/PF game would play where you roll a 1d10+mod for initiative, initiative is rolled every turn, you can "take 5" rather than roll and people with the same initiative act at the same time. Seems like it would lead to a more dynamic encounter to me.

Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Don't forget about the Group Initiative that is re-rolled each turn! That  system was used a lot when I played 2E.

Also, in previous editions, people who rolled the same initiative went simultaneously, unlike 3.5/4E where everyone has a unique place with ties being rolled off.

Part of me wants to see how a 3.x/PF game would play where you roll a 1d10+mod for initiative, initiative is rolled every turn, you can "take 5" rather than roll and people with the same initiative act at the same time. Seems like it would lead to a more dynamic encounter to me.

Pretty much what I use in my simple d20 game (accis).
I use init rounds in that game, d10+ speed of weap or d6+ init of spell, and then minus Coordination adjustment.  Go in order. 

Quote from: LordVreegLike initiative.  Round-based or continuous can use the same basic stat, they just have different rulesets that use the same stat.

You're saying that you could take, for example, Dexterity, and have that govern initiative in both a round-based or continuous initiative system. And, yes, you could. However, that still has effects on everything else in the system that initiative touches-- the inputs to the initiative module as a whole are a lot more than just this one stat, and the ramifications of changing it are more far-reaching. A weapon whose main strength it that it is supposed to be quick will perform quite differently in a continuous initiative system compared to a round-based system-- the weapon either has to be rebalanced for each version, or encounters with enemies using that weapon will have to be. Weapons or other actions will need some kind of a "speed" stat for continuous initiative, which might be just wasted space in the round-based version. Spells and buffs will need to be given both round-based and tick-based durations, and one of these will be superfluous no matter which system you use. Really, any skill or ability that could be used in combat whose use can be abstracted to "one round" in the round-based version will probably want to have a distinct speed in the continuous version. Any spell, feat, or ability that grants extra actions is probably going to need two versions because of how different the action economy is. Abilities that grant a bonus to initiative itself will also have to be rebalanced, as something that gives a static bonus once is a lot more useful in a round-based system (without rerolls) than a continuous system. Abilities like "go first every round" or "your speed is 2 faster" don't even make sense in one of the two modules and will just need two entirely different versions. Modules also have to take other modules into account: a "combat styles" module will need versions of its combat mechanics for both round-based and continuous initiative. If it doesn't, anyone who wants it is stuck using whatever initiative system it is written for. So yeah. I posit this is not a thing you can simply independently plug in and expect everything else to just work.

Anyway, you can put together various sets of rules of your own, but that's really just you writing your house rules. That is, you have your own set of rules that you're playing and you don't have to actually care about anything your own gaming group doesn't care about. If you decide that you're using continuous initiative, you don't have to bother to figure out how to make round-based initiative work with any of your current stats or mechanics or other modules at all because nobody in your group cares about round-based initiative. However, if you're actually publishing an RPG, you don't have it so easy-- you have to make sure any new module you want to pop in interacts with everything else in a way that actually functions and you've provided the needed mechanics and stats and whatnot or someone somewhere is going to complain because that someone somewhere is actually using it. That rapidly turns into multiple variants of everything in a spiraling atrocity of geometric complexity, when what you really want (need, I dare say) in a published RPG is something that is coherent and functional and can be taught to new players.

Quote from: SteerpikeIs this what you mean by a hacking guide?

Sort of. My idea of a hacking guide is an explanation of the core system's mechanics and math and the designer's rationale, along with some suggestions for how those mechanics could be tweaked and what ramifications those tweaks have on the gameplay. Your little initiative hacks are pretty simple and could be in a hacking guide, certainly. The distinction between a "hacking guide" and a "modular game" to me is that the hacking guide is designed to help GMs and groups write their own unique house rules that exactly match the needs of their group, rather than trying to provide a bunch of pre-built modules that work "out of the box" and have to all work in concert with one another. Nothing in the hacking guide would have to be supported in any other printed material, because it's all essentially just house rules. More of a toolkit approach, I guess.

Quote from: SteerpikeAlso... would it be that hard to include extra versions of some stats as needed in bestiaries?

This is an easy thing to say. But it sucks for the DM who wants to use the monster module that came out after his version of the monster manual so it doesn't actually include that new monster stat in its stats and he now has to hunt down some errata, hoping that it even exists. It also sucks for the basic game player who spends money on a monster manual and finds too much page space taken up with superfluous stats used by various modules she doesn't play with, instead of by more monsters. It also sucks for the adventure path author is who is trying to balance an encounter when big monsters get a bonus for being big when the size module is in use, but a penalty for being ungainly and awkward when the combat style module is in use. And, in practice, it'll end up sucking most of all for the players who are now stuck with two different optional mechanics that are both garbage instead of one mechanic that has some chance of working well.

Look, I understand that a completely modular system is a really tempting idea and the idea is pretty cool. We really want it to work. But it's just a colossal mess.

Quote from: sparkletwistThe distinction between a "hacking guide" and a "modular game" to me is that the hacking guide is designed to help GMs and groups write their own unique house rules that exactly match the needs of their group, rather than trying to provide a bunch of pre-built modules that work "out of the box" and have to all work in concert with one another. Nothing in the hacking guide would have to be supported in any other printed material, because it's all essentially just house rules. More of a toolkit approach, I guess.

Personally I'd like to see both - a bunch of pre-fab, playtested variants where you combine various individual variant rules (so, like, the "Old School" mod of 5E would have XP awarded for gold, d6+bonuses Initiative, Death at 0, and random attribute generation, for example) and suggestions for house-ruling and other DIY stuff, with the former providing models or examples so that enterprising DMs can see what a heavily customized version of the game might look like.

I take your point on multiple stats - I think excessive use of a two-stats approach could be detrimental, certainly, and I'd prefer cleaner ways of modifying the game.

One way that a publisher could handle modules is to publish lines of adventures using particular sets of mods in place (so your Old School dungeon crawl line would assume all the Old School mods are in effect) and then include appendices in the back on conversion.

That said, I doubt this is what'll happen or what 5E will look like...

Quote from: Sparkletwist"So yeah. I posit this is not a thing you can simply independently plug in and expect everything else to just work."

Posit away.
Maybe you have trouble seeing how it can be done, and that's ok.  
Good thing no one just expects it to work.

In the initiative example you use, you just have to use the same language and you can use the same stat.  You can use the same speed stat for weapons and spells and actions, and the same duration stat as well, as long as you don't say things like "go first every round".  If a spell's duration is 10 seconds+ 2-16 seconds, it may last 21 seconds.  In a continuous system, that's 21 ticks.  In a round based system with 20 seconds per round, that means it lasts until the first tick of the second round (based on whatever tick it was cast in).  Just don't make stupid mistakes like abstracting things to 'One Round'.  Extra actions are simple, you just need to use the same terminology in describing the time period they happen in.
There is no reason you would need multiple stat sets. 
(surprise, I bolted continuous init onto AD&D at one point, back in the early 80s...not a new concept here).  

If you make one of the overriding design principles that the advanced modules do bolt on as independently as possible, you *DO* shrink your possibility horizon, but with the benefit of a modular system.  You don't expect them to work, you design them to work.  I do product design and management for a living, frankly, though the job has grown a lot.  But I won't waste your time or anyone else when you've made up your mind. You are correct about my lack of RPG publishing credentials and you are correct that the 30 years of Guildschool (and the other games and gaming) have been done for people playing the game, under 200 people in toto have played, though a lot more have gone over it.  Obviously, since you bring experience up as a reason I am wrong and you know better, you've published an RPG and have played longer and created systems that have been played by more people than I.  I have, however, in other fields brought products to market and been part of design and marketing plans and implementations for decades, though, so perhaps my poor experience could at least be considered.

Which is one of the reasons I went with the Modular system vs a HackHelper.  I look at this in terms of longevity in today's RPG world.  In terms of regaining market share, don't just write one set of rules, people are going to create houserules one way or another, might as well create sanctioned versions that sell more books and players in 2 different sides of the planet can both read and agree to use or not.  
It also allows a company or a licensee to write an adventure or setting piece, and refer back to official modular (official) rules.  It is better for tourney play, and in the world of online gaming, it better allows people from different areas to speak the same game language.

It can work; it would be an extremely smart business move, marketing move, and great for gamers.  It would have to be done carefully, and to your point, it might be difficult to do and could be screwed up.  
 

Quote from: LordVreegYou can use the same speed stat for weapons and spells and actions, and the same duration stat as well, as long as you don't say things like "go first every round".  If a spell's duration is 10 seconds+ 2-16 seconds, it may last 21 seconds.  In a continuous system, that's 21 ticks.  In a round based system with 20 seconds per round, that means it lasts until the first tick of the second round (based on whatever tick it was cast in).  Just don't make stupid mistakes like abstracting things to 'One Round'.

The entire point of using a round-based initiative system is seriously to be able to abstract things to one round. If you have to worry about sub-ticks of a round then you've got a weird hybrid system and you seriously might as well save yourself the headache and use a continuous initiative system. More generally speaking, advocating eliminating various complex problems by making the modules more similar isn't actually an argument in favor of modularity, it's an argument in favor of a single official way of doing things.

Quote from: LordVreegIf you make one of the overriding design principles that the advanced modules do bolt on as independently as possible, you *DO* shrink your possibility horizon, but with the benefit of a modular system.  You don't expect them to work, you design them to work.

Saying "design them to work" is a nice idea but it has no substance behind it. Getting down to substance, you say "designed to work" but then suggest a modular initiative system featuring a round-based initiative system that's just a clunky continuous initiative system in disguise. It's an obviously inferior module, because it tries way too hard to seamlessly integrate itself into a set of stats and game assumptions designed around a continuous initiative system, thus losing most of the simplicity or abstraction that round-based initiative is actually good for. Essentially, your example has proven my point.

Quote from: LordVreegIt also allows a company or a licensee to write an adventure or setting piece, and refer back to official modular (official) rules.  It is better for tourney play, and in the world of online gaming, it better allows people from different areas to speak the same game language.

No, having one unified official rule set helps people speak the same game language.

I might be the odd one out here but I think I disagree with both of you guys.  I don't care about speaking the same game language, or about unity, or about growing the hobby, or about whether certain designs are a good business move - lots of great business moves are great for companies and bad for consumers, after all.  All I care about is whether the books I'm being sold actually translate into more fun, a more interesting game.

(I also don't care that much about balance outside of war-games and the like - I recognize a certain degree of balancing is required for the game to even function, but it's not my first priority.  I mean, sure, I'd like all the level 3 spells to be balanced roughly in relation to one another and stuff like that, but they could do away with challenge ratings and expected treasure per level and I would not be fussed.)

Quote from: Elemental_Elf
A lot of things. I shall be brief as I am posting on my phone.

...

As usual E_E, I love almost every word you say.

I'm having a love/hate relationship with 5E right now.

My likes:
1) I really like the class designs; even the fighter "feels" like they get something.

2) I love the exploration systems. Having semi-codified front row, back row, middle row marching orders and exploration actions is really cool. I hope it spells good things for a future skill challenge system that doesn't suck like 4E's.

3) I like that spells feel reigned in (and if days were 16 rounds of combat on average, the Wizard doesn't vastly out-damage the fighter). I like the psudo-vancian preparation style.

My hates:
1) HP, HP, HP! It's rocket tag all the way through. Sure, I can house rule this, but I could also focus my energy on my own d20 system alt instead of modding 5E to the point of unrecognizability (is it coincidental or ironic that Google Chrome doesn't recognize "unrecognizability"?).

2) HP. Also HP.

3) Non-proficient saving throw scaling. So, your non-proficient saves will fall behind a caster's DCs eventually, of no fault of your own. You might start off with a 40% save rate (+0 vs. DC 13) and could end as badly as 5% save rate (+0 vs. DC 19). Granted, I haven't seen what the save DCs on level 20 monsters are, but if a level 20 PC can't be used as an enemy, then I have another complaint.

4) Player character design is not mirrored in monster design at all. 4E abstracted this. 3E was basically level = CR (as bad as that worked out). A hobgoblin is a CR 1/2 but is basically a 2nd level Fighter ... okay ...

5) Basically the whole scaling system. I recognize what bounded accuracy is trying to do, but I thought the minion rules of 4E, or even a different take on aid another or group attacks, could work well enough for high level characters fighting low level enemies. I guess the simulationist crowd won out with an orc's an orc's always an orc.

Quote from: Sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreeg
You can use the same speed stat for weapons and spells and actions, and the same duration stat as well, as long as you don't say things like "go first every round".  If a spell's duration is 10 seconds+ 2-16 seconds, it may last 21 seconds.  In a continuous system, that's 21 ticks.  In a round based system with 20 seconds per round, that means it lasts until the first tick of the second round (based on whatever tick it was cast in).  Just don't make stupid mistakes like abstracting things to 'One Round'.

The entire point of using a round-based initiative system is seriously to be able to abstract things to one round. If you have to worry about sub-ticks of a round then you've got a weird hybrid system and you seriously might as well save yourself the headache and use a continuous initiative system. More generally speaking, advocating eliminating various complex problems by making the modules more similar isn't actually an argument in favor of modularity, it's an argument in favor of a single official way of doing things.

Saying something is an argument in favor of something doesn't make it true.  The entire point of a round-based initiative system could be being able to have a re-starting point for rolling initiative in combat, that's probably why they are also called combat rounds.  And those sub-ticks you don't like were called segments in many games.  Like D&D.  So we really aren't introducing anything 'weird'.  Funny that EE and I were just talking about it a few pages ago.
And in terms of the cost/benefit of modularity, I've mentioned that there is a shrinkage of the possibilities if one is to gain the benefits of modularity already.  Because there are benefits and drawbacks to the idea.  That's a conversation,  just restating the 'cost' side of the equation in every paragraph is not an argument in favor of anything.  I completely agree that in some cases, making a game modular could have a cost in terms of options for the upgraded rules.  There are just advantages as well.

Quote from: Sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreeg
If you make one of the overriding design principles that the advanced modules do bolt on as independently as possible, you *DO* shrink your possibility horizon, but with the benefit of a modular system.  You don't expect them to work, you design them to work.

Saying "design them to work" is a nice idea but it has no substance behind it. Getting down to substance, you say "designed to work" but then suggest a modular initiative system featuring a round-based initiative system that's just a clunky continuous initiative system in disguise. It's an obviously inferior module, because it tries way too hard to seamlessly integrate itself into a set of stats and game assumptions designed around a continuous initiative system, thus losing most of the simplicity or abstraction that round-based initiative is actually good for. Essentially, your example has proven my point.

Again, restating your opinion and then claiming that proves your point does little, save maybe the opposite.  Nor is stating an opinion any more substantial, since you were worrying about that.
IN actuality, as opposed to vacuous opinion, I was able to use the speeds by segment of spells in AD&D and the speed factors of the weapons found there to create my first version of the continuous system I am talking about.  Go pick up the AD&D rulebook, you'll find those stats there.  And somehow, me being able to able to use those numbers in a continuous system did not infringe on AD&D being a completely round-based system.  If you want to say AD&D is not round based, or is clunky or inferior, please, be my guest.  Opinions are, as above, matter of course and welcome.
I've done this exact thing before, taking a round-based system and bolted the continuous advanced module to it without making AD&D a clunky continuous initiative system in disguise. The 'substance' behind my design principles is actuality.  (and hey, it might not have been perfect, which is why I kept improving them, and used it later in my own systems.  But the origin of my continuous system was bolting it right onto AD&D using the casting time and weapon speeds)

Quote from: Sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreeg
It also allows a company or a licensee to write an adventure or setting piece, and refer back to official modular (official) rules.  It is better for tourney play, and in the world of online gaming, it better allows people from different areas to speak the same game language.

No, having one unified official rule set helps people speak the same game language

You're right in the comment above, but that was not the comparison in discussion.  (are those goalposts heavy?)
You left this out, let me help you.

Quote from: VreegWhich is one of the reasons I went with the Modular system vs a HackHelper

The comparison was One unified system+ hacking guide vs. base system+ modular bolt-ons.  Both ideals have a single base ruleset, so at that level there is a common language if everyone agrees, in tourney play, in writing an adventure or playing online, to go with the basic rules only.  No advantage in terms of a Lingua Franca for basic rules.
The advantage of the modular part in this venue is that a person running a game can post that they are using X upgrade rules from the Social Advanced module in the game, and everyone can refer to the same rules.  A system allowing for the creation of houserules in one basement of one town will cause more confusion vs published optional rules that are available to every one.

Now, the Hacking Guide is more creative and has different advantages, but the marketing/designer side of me does not see these as mutually exclusive.  In fact, the Hacking Guide could explain the design process of how the base rules were gotten to and how the bolt-ons are created.  One does not preclude the other.  Ooops.  Steerpike said it already.

Quote from: SteepikePersonally I'd like to see both - a bunch of pre-fab, playtested variants where you combine various individual variant rules (so, like, the "Old School" mod of 5E would have XP awarded for gold, d6+bonuses Initiative, Death at 0, and random attribute generation, for example) and suggestions for house-ruling and other DIY stuff, with the former providing models or examples so that enterprising DMs can see what a heavily customized version of the game might look like.

yeah, this is a different way to say the exact same thing.

Later, gang.  

^_^

@Xeviat:

Likes:

1) Totally agree! Not just about the Fighter but all of the classes. It feels like they all have really cool options. Sure some of them are good, others less good but at least every class is getting the ability to make choices about their class and how their character fits into it. This is leagues above what 3.x did and cleaner than the way Unearthed Arcana/Pathfinder handle the idea of sub-classes.

2) I am dying to give the exploration rules a go. I started a PbP campaign recently and they will be in a situation where they need to use the system ASAP.

3) Agree on spells. They are powerful but a) rare and b) much less vague and broken than 3.x/Pathfinder. 16 rounds of combat is not that hard to accomplish, especially if you know that when designing a day's worth of encounters. The issue, as always, is going to be the "Whelp, the wizard is out of his good spells. Guess it is time to sleep now!" mentality. However, good/smart DMing should negate much of that.

Dislikes:

1) Combat is rocket tag. That IS a problem with the system. There will definitely need to be some kind of fix for this, especially for the tactical combat module. Nothing says "lame" quite like getting steamrolled on your first turn.

3) Don't forget the fact that there are 6 total saves now, rather than 3. Even if there were feat fixes for the problem, there is no way it can compensate for 4 non-progressing saves. There will definitely be an errata for this problem... Or a variant system tacked on to the DMG (there is a reason they are publishing this book last).

4) The monster math needs to be explained.

5) People *loathe* the idea that there are more than one statblock for a particular type of creature. Beyond the desire to have the "one true" stat block, the opinion always confounded me. Their opinion did win out but... I am hopeful WotC creates a whole horde of easily bolted on Templates that change up monsters and make them more interesting.

Quote from: Elemental ElfThe issue, as always, is going to be the "Whelp, the wizard is out of his good spells. Guess it is time to sleep now!" mentality.

Maybe I'm just odd, but this has never struck me as a problem.

If they're in a dungeon then finding and securing a place to rest is going to be hard enough, or they're going to have to get out and back to a secure location, all of which can be fun and interesting.

Quote from: LordVreegBecause there are benefits and drawbacks to the idea.  That's a conversation,  just restating the 'cost' side of the equation in every paragraph is not an argument in favor of anything.  I completely agree that in some cases, making a game modular could have a cost in terms of options for the upgraded rules.  There are just advantages as well.

Ok, yes, there is a balance, but the costs are many and the benefits are few. I'll explain more below.

Quote from: LordVreegI was able to use the speeds by segment of spells in AD&D and the speed factors of the weapons found there to create my first version of the continuous system I am talking about.  Go pick up the AD&D rulebook, you'll find those stats there.  And somehow, me being able to able to use those numbers in a continuous system did not infringe on AD&D being a completely round-based system.

AD&D had a pretty strange initiative system. It's really quite different from the initiative mechanic seen in most modern systems, which is actually what I was talking about when I said round-based--the weird AD&D approach to initiative went away with AD&D (probably because people realized it wasn't very good) and a cleaner abstracted round-based system without segments is what ended up being used in D&D 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions, as well as other d20 derivatives (e.g. Pathfinder) and many other popular RPGs like Fate, World of Darkness, and such. It's not just my opinion this was a step in the right direction.

But anyway, AD&D tried to adjudicate everything as happening simultaneously and had a bit of an obsession with precise sub-round timing and such; this means it essentially is a clunky continuous initiative system in disguise, so making it an actual continuous initiative system was probably the right move. So, yes, you actually did prove my point above. It's just that the weird and inferior hybrid round-based system I described wasn't the modification, but rather it happened to be the rules as written. That said, if you were an AD&D player, a situation where the rules as written are bad and don't work right should not be a huge surprise.

The thing is, the fact that you personally were able to make a new system of initiative for AD&D doesn't really say anything about the viability of modular design. It just says you wrote some house rules for AD&D and they seem to have worked. It doesn't say that you wrote a bunch of other bolt-on modules and made sure they all worked in concert with one another and published a bunch of material that supported all of those modules and kept the player base from fragmenting horribly, which is what WotC (or whoever) would have to do to make a "modular D&D." The set of things you personally had to accomplish is a lot smaller and not comparable to what a publisher trying to actually publish a modular RPG would have to accomplish. I would say what you were doing was actually more of the "hacking" that I advocated.

Quote from: LordVreeg(are those goalposts heavy?)

I'm saying the same thing as I have since the beginning of the thread. If you need clarification on that, then feel free to ask. Without the passive aggressive jabs.

Quote from: LordVreegThe comparison was One unified system+ hacking guide vs. base system+ modular bolt-ons.  Both ideals have a single base ruleset, so at that level there is a common language if everyone agrees, in tourney play, in writing an adventure or playing online, to go with the basic rules only.  No advantage in terms of a Lingua Franca for basic rules.

Well, if you're talking about a system that...
(1) Has a single set of core rules that are (more or less) the only thing that is supported in official published material
(2) Has optional hacks/modules that are essentially self-contained tweaks without an effort to incorporate their mechanics into other official material
... then that's what I'm talking about too. So that's where the goalposts are.

Otherwise, things fall apart fast. It's hard enough to balance the core math of a system, let alone trying to balance it when you are trying to make sure that multiple subsystems that work quite differently are all still going to produce sane numbers. It's not just I don't trust WotC to do it... if you have 15 non-mutually-exclusive modules that are all to be given official support, that's 32768 unique game variations that need to be considered, designed around, playtested, possibly have exceptions written up, and whatever, and nobody can handle that. The move that seems smartest both for marketing and for players, is to simply say "here is the one set of well-designed and well-tested official rules that we will support, and here is how the math works under the hood along with some fun ways to mix that up you might want to try at your own table, YMMV." A hacking guide!

For example, let's hypothesize a module that changes our battle grid from square-based to hex-based. If we're dealing with a single unified system plus a hacking guide, then squares are the official mechanic and that's that. The hacking guide might include some help for those that want to use hexes, like tables for converting distances and some suggestions how to reconcile the movement rules and maybe a couple of sample hex maps, but support for hex maps essentially ends there, officially. On the other hand, if "hex-based maps" is an official module, they've made a commitment to officially supporting it-- they'll have to publish hex maps along with square maps in map books, make sure that abilities and spells that deal with movement on the grid all work with a hex grid also, add any new stats or numbers that the new grid system requires to all official monster stat blocks, make sure that other modules work with both square and hex grids (this will get tricky if there's a different module that introduces facing rules but then assumes you can only face four directions...) and so on. The task is much bigger and everything is likely to explode into an overcomplicated and indeterminate mess.

Quote from: LordVreegIn fact, the Hacking Guide could explain the design process of how the base rules were gotten to and how the bolt-ons are created.

A hacking guide would be a great place to include some "bolt-on" mechanics as optional hacks, as long as there isn't an attempt to integrate them into the official core system, for the reasons listed above.