Questionor wrote:Deliverator wrote: as long as play culture is such that games always advertise which modules they are or are not using (and as long as the combinatoric number of different module combos possible is small—say 1 of 3 combat modules, 1 of 2 social/interaction modules, 1 of 2 exploration modules for a total of 12), I think it'll be fine.
exactly! in fact it will be an improvement over the current way where there is no defined way to describe. I'm used to asking before rolling a character in 3.5:
what kind of combat we doing? full on map of 5 ft squares or just fuzzy/wing-it descriptions or somewhere in between.
Will there be a lot of social interaction and will it be a large part of the game or will skills like diplomacy be a waste?
Interesting point, although a larger problem (as Jenskot is often quick to point out; he is much more articulate than I in describing this issue) is simply inaccurate game descriptions at cons——which explicit modularity could really help address. I really like the tagging system we've developed for Recess, and this D&DNext idea is sort of like that.