modular RPG - update parts, not new edition?

[ACOS]

preface: I realize this is probably a complete non-starter for a plethora of reasons; I'm just trying to explore the thought space of what such a thing might look like.

Had a random thought about potential design strategy for a hypothetical rpg .... instead of pumping out a new edition every x years, what about the idea of building in modularity such that individual sub-systems and options could be updated/cycled out? that way you can "fix" or "improve" individual parts without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. the idea is continuity of player-base, making it easier for groups to update without disrupting the groups.

maybe you want to rework how the skill system works, or better codify the parameters of a particular class of powers, or whatever. then you only have to publish supplements -- "this new class book replaces *these* core classes" or some shit.

i guess the idea might have been inspired by the way GURPS treats magic -- while the default magic system sucks ass, they put out a whole book of new magic systems for plug-n-play.

haven't thought this through (hence random), so i'm not even sure about how to describe hypothetical examples. i'll post some as they come to me; hopefully i've given enough for some of y'all to work with. maybe if somebody can ask questions, that might get my brain working.

anyways, thoughts? like i said, i already accept that this probably can't work; but what might it look like if someone were to try?

[Trill]

The big, big, big Problem I can see with that, is that it makes your game a loose group of sub-games, instead of a cohesive whole. And for GURPS (that says "Just take our base mechanic and add modules for it") it runs the problem of not being as good as a game designed as a unit.
To paraphrase another person "GURPS does everything almost well".

Also: What happens with the core rule set? If your very basic rules are just the resolution mechanic, what happens when you want to change that?

[ACOS]

this echoes my initial thoughts. but i'm also not very good at hammering out rules from whole cloth, so there's that.
as for the base resolution mechanic ... my conclusion so far is that this is the one thing that'll have to be on the Final Destination course. you might be able to make subtle tweaks here and there, but that'd be it.

btw, side note: while i do certainly understand and appreciate the general view at gurps, i actually happen to really like it -- i can't really describe that other than it just seems to cater to my preferred style/mode of play, and resembles my own sensibilities in game design.

[Trill]

this echoes my initial thoughts. but i'm also not very good at hammering out rules from whole cloth, so there's that.

Have you read Frank's Game Design Chart?

[ACOS]

yes i have. while solid, i'm not sure i see how that fits in to the thing i'm getting at here.

[Trill]

Thing with the Game Design chart is that you set a goal at the beginning and then fit all the parts so that they produce that goal. With a modular game you have to make sure that

• A)all the parts originally fit together
  B)all the parts that you replace fit together with the others and
  C)that with that restriction you still manage to improve them

EDIT:
Oh, and another thing: How often do you think it happens that just one part has to be changed? Because it's far more likely that a lot of subsystems have to be changed at once. And what's easier: Changing those specific subsystems but fitting them to the rest, or just replacing it with a new edition?

[ACOS]

yes, i understand.
you seem to be answering a question i've already conceded; doesn't address the question at hand.

okay, here's an example: the current(ish) thread about crafting stealth mini-games:
one could redefine what d&d stealth skills do and how they work without having to redesign the whole skill system (let alone the whole edition).
the OP proposal is about designing a game from the ground up on the premise of being able to do things like that throughout the whole system.

[deaddmwalking]

In general, if you're designing an RPG, it makes sense to make a 'complete game'. The problem is, if you're an RPG publisher, you need people to keep giving you money, so adding new material to your game is kinda important to you.

If you had a modular design goal, there's really no benefit to you or your players for swapping things out. It's easy to say 'we're playing D&D 3.5'. It's relatively easy to say 'we're playing D&D 3.5 core only but each player can choose one supplement to include in the game that they can choose from'. It's pretty hard to say 'we're playing D&D 3.5, but we're using the Kaelik Stealth Rules and the K archery rules, and we're using the "magic as a skill" sub-system'.

If you're publishing content (like adventures) you have to work very hard to make it clear what version of the rules you're using.

It's much easier to design content with the assumption that everyone is using the same rules.

An edition change allows you to do that.

[ACOS]

hmmm ...
okay, let's look at MtG:
as the game has developed and expanded, they split off sets and established various formats. but it is essentially the same game.
I guess d&d 4e pretended to try to do that with Essentials; but that was an afterthought. same could probably said and concluded of early d&d with Basic and Advanced.

[deaddmwalking]

hmmm ...
okay, let's look at MtG:
as the game has developed and expanded, they split off sets and established various formats. but it is essentially the same game.
I guess d&d 4e pretended to try to do that with Essentials; but that was an afterthought. same could probably said and concluded of early d&d with Basic and Advanced.

There have been changes to the rules (remember Mana burn?). They also have formats that allow some subset of the total sets published. But generally speaking, it was a 'complete game'. They've added more and more content that generally fits within the context of the existing game. That can work, but Magic is also much more limited than a D&D game. No matter what the overarching meta-narrative about Gideon and his super-friends banding together to save the world from a destructive eldrazi invasion, you're still playing across the table from another player and trying to reduce his life-total from 20 to 0.

It's like Warhammer. They can add new models, new armies, etc, but the actual game hasn't changed much in 30 years. You still sit across the table and go to war with your opponent.

RPGs have to be more flexible since they don't have a defined objective. In M:tG you are trying to eliminate your opponent and there are a number of ways to do that, so the game stays 'fresh'. In an RPG, adding more 'stuff' can be good, but changing the underlying rules is pretty much as disruptive as if they changed how lands/mana worked in M:tG. Frank has a pretty convincing rant about how 'basic lands' were too basic and there's not enough room to make more interesting lands - but a change to a 'fundamental' like that would really be a major change to the play landscape.

In an RPG, there are very few rules that actually work as completely separate entities. A relatively minor change in one thing can have cascading effects on everything else. A change to how you handle 'death and dying' can have major impacts on weapons, attacks, class abilities, and spells - maybe even skills. That's one reason why making an RPG is really hard - once you identify a problem and you start making a change, everything else is subject to further evaluation and potential changes, with their own cascading impacts and further changes as well.

Making a system that works consistently with itself is very hard. Making it work consistently with numerous other potential variations is exponentially difficult.

For a concrete example, let's say I wanted a system where every time you were 'hit' you had to make a saving throw. If you failed, you took a 'hit' (and most characters have 3), but if you fail by 5 you take 2 hits and if you fail by 10 you take 3 hits - sounds pretty simple, right? I mean, you could see why someone might suggest something like that, right? But just pulling on that thread basically impacts every aspect of the game. How does Sneak Attack work? How does Fireball work? How does continuous damage (like acid) work? Is there any difference between weapons at all?

If you want a system that uses hit points (like D&D) and a system that used progressive saves versus incapacitation, you'd basically have to write two completely incompatible games. And if you're going to go through all that work, you have to ask why you should? It's easier if you pick which one you like and assume that there will be enough other people who find it works for them.

[ACOS]

well, fuck me.

seems the conclusion is "it would look like a giant pile of ass and fail". (though, i'm willing to consider observations to the contrary)
sure, i could nit pick at your examples; but not in a way that would meaningfully advance the conversation.


i just get so frustrated with player bases fracturing every time a new edition comes out. not to mention the issue of people trying to impose incompatible expectations from one edition to the other (in either direction).

gamin' ain't easy.

[Username17]

It seems like you're thinking about the expansion model of Shadowrun. You have the BBB that contains basic rules for character generation and chapters that cover combat, magic, matrix, and equipment. Then you have expansion books that are things like the Magic book and the Matrix book and the Cybertech book that introduce expanded character options for various types of characters and also expanded rules options for parts of the game system those characters might want to interact with.

So in the very first edition you had the Big Blue Book and then you had Street Samurai's Catalog that introduced new equipment but also introduced new rules that let you cram more cyberware into your body than the hard limits of the original book would let you do. And then you had the Grimoire that created a lot of extra kinds of magic users and gave additional advancement options to the magic users that already existed. And then you had Virtual Realities that radically overhauled the hacking system. And then you had the Rigger Black Book that changed the rules for heavy weapons and vehicles. And so on.

There is no particular reason that a game couldn't work this way. Indeed, games do work this way. And they are good or bad depending on how well things work before and after the publishing of various expansion materials.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

anyways, thoughts? like i said, i already accept that this probably can't work; but what might it look like if someone were to try?

I think the most profitable design space to explore here is something much more tightly limited than traditional RPGs. I can outright give you examples of various co-op boardgames that gain variety by the expedient of swapping out the modular pieces they were designer around -- Sentinels of the Multiverse, Aeon's End, Spirit Island all do this. SoTM even has expansions that tinker with the original rules of the game, and Aeon's End has a Legacy campaign version heading for general release.

But I'm not sure if that's at all along the lines of what you are looking for

[ACOS]

see, this seems reasonable. I assume that all these supplements are assumed to be optional? (don't play SR, so i don't know). seems much like in gurps, where there very much is the expectation that the gm is supposed to say something like "we're using Basic Set, Powers, and Action, no alien (dis)advantages", for example.

that being said, there was a point when SR decided to overhaul in to new editions. that point is what i'd like to see subverted. sure, you could rewrite/rework the Matrix book or Cybertech book once it's been thoroughly stressed in the wilds so as to make it better, and have the rest of the game not really notice. the real magic trick would be being able to rewrite the basic book without disrupting the supplements.

[Username17]

It seems like you're thinking about the expansion model of Shadowrun. You have the BBB that contains basic rules for character generation and chapters that cover combat, magic, matrix, and equipment. Then you have expansion books that are things like the Magic book and the Matrix book and the Cybertech book that introduce expanded character options for various types of characters and also expanded rules options for parts of the game system those characters might want to interact with.

So in the very first edition you had the Big Blue Book and then you had Street Samurai's Catalog that introduced new equipment but also introduced new rules that let you cram more cyberware into your body than the hard limits of the original book would let you do. And then you had the Grimoire that created a lot of extra kinds of magic users and gave additional advancement options to the magic users that already existed. And then you had Virtual Realities that radically overhauled the hacking system. And then you had the Rigger Black Book that changed the rules for heavy weapons and vehicles. And so on.

There is no particular reason that a game couldn't work this way. Indeed, games do work this way. And they are good or bad depending on how well things work before and after the publishing of various expansion materials.

-Username17

[ACOS]

anyways, thoughts? like i said, i already accept that this probably can't work; but what might it look like if someone were to try?

I think the most profitable design space to explore here is something much more tightly limited than traditional RPGs. I can outright give you examples of various co-op boardgames that gain variety by the expedient of swapping out the modular pieces they were designer around -- Sentinels of the Multiverse, Aeon's End, Spirit Island all do this. SoTM even has expansions that tinker with the original rules of the game, and Aeon's End has a Legacy campaign version heading for general release.

But I'm not sure if that's at all along the lines of what you are looking for

SotM is an interesting case (i'm unfamiliar with the others you mentioned) -- each deck has it's own set of self contained rules, with the only constant being the basic procedure and general function calls. there was even a villain or 2 that turned that upside down. and VotM complicated that even further. Yes, i very much like that.

Pandemic also tinkered a little with this with some of its expansions. though in a more limited way.

you might be right though -- the idea might be best implemented in something more focused than an rpg.

like i said - it was a random thought. figured i'd post it before i forgot about it and moved on without exploring it.

[ACOS]

and frank double posted 17 minutes apart.
i blame the board server.

[Josh_Kablack]

SotM is an interesting case (i'm unfamiliar with the others you mentioned) -- each deck has it's own set of self contained rules, with the only constant being the basic procedure and general function calls. there was even a villain or 2 that turned that upside down. and VotM complicated that even further. Yes, i very much like that.

Both of the others are also Co-ops which are similar to SotM -- at least in that there are overall rules and the flow of each game is similar, but each player gets a unique character with unique powers and each of the opponents has their own special mechanics.

While so far Spirit Island has only added new characters, new opponents and new function calls, my point about the Aeon's End Legacy version is that in addition to the new characters and opponents and cards, it also pulls a VotM / Oblivaeon type tweak where the scenario layers additional rules over top of the base game instead of just expanding it with a wider variety of content -- in this case added Legacy game-to-game carry over and content customization on top of the pre-existing game.

[OgreBattle]

Palladium Games does this, I'm not sure if it's on purpose but it be what they do

[Username17]

Palladium Games does this, I'm not sure if it's on purpose but it be what they do

In a sense, so did Dungeons and Dragons. I mean, obviously 5th edition isn't expanded upon at all, but if you go back to AD&D times when there was an actual release schedule, each book contained fairly major updates and changes to the core rules in addition to new content. Deities and Demigods, Oriental Adventures, and Unearthed Arcana were all presenting fairly major rewrites of the setting and the mechanics.

Flash forward to 3rd edition, and even the little magazine books like Sword and Fist had rules updates as well as simple power creep content. Heck, the 3.5 PHB does not have rules for "Swift Actions" - that entire part of the action economy was written into the game in the Miniatures Handbook.

4th Edition D&D is to date theonly edition of D&D where the expansion material explicitly could not contradict or expand the core rules. The only other RPG I can name that had this property was New World of Darkness. And I think it's very telling that both games were colossal failures.

-Username17

[kzt]

It seems like you're thinking about the expansion model of Shadowrun. You have the BBB that contains basic rules for character generation and chapters that cover combat, magic, matrix, and equipment. Then you have expansion books that are things like the Magic book and the Matrix book and the Cybertech book that introduce expanded character options for various types of characters and also expanded rules options for parts of the game system those characters might want to interact with.

So in the very first edition you had the Big Blue Book and then you had Street Samurai's Catalog that introduced new equipment but also introduced new rules that let you cram more cyberware into your body than the hard limits of the original book would let you do. And then you had the Grimoire that created a lot of extra kinds of magic users and gave additional advancement options to the magic users that already existed. And then you had Virtual Realities that radically overhauled the hacking system. And then you had the Rigger Black Book that changed the rules for heavy weapons and vehicles. And so on.

There is no particular reason that a game couldn't work this way. Indeed, games do work this way. And they are good or bad depending on how well things work before and after the publishing of various expansion materials.

-Username17

The problem this has is that the rules end up in various places. I once suggested that when they put out the magic book that it explicitly replace the core magic rules with the magic rules in that books (etc), so you had one place with all the rules for that topic. They thought that was a terrible idea.

[Username17]

For Shadowrun specifically, the magic chapter isn't all that long in the BBB. It's like 15k words. I guess it's probably a bit longer in 5th edition because being long winded and poorly edited is that edition's oeuvre. But the point is that reprinting literally every single rule and sentence from the magic chapter that you aren't replacing is not very burdensome. We're talking like 5k of words or less from the whole chapter, which is itself a very tiny addition to the book that would substantially increase clarity.

The Matrix book similarly refers to a chapter that's pretty self contained. It could and should simply contain everything not replaced from the original chapter. Because Shadowrun Matrix rules have always been incomprehensible gibberish, and rules inheritance is a big reason why.

Now other books aren't as clear cut as that. While the Cybertechnology book can and therefore should reprint and/or all the basic cyberware from the basic book - allowing you to fix crap like cyberlimbs instead of adding epicycles to the game with alternate better versions of cyberlimbs - it's also going to touch on things in the Combat chapter and the NPCs chapter and some of the other equipment from the BBB but not most of it. And so on and so on. Then you got books like the Rigger book, that are outright replacing only a few pages from a couple of chapters and mostly expanding on content in other directions.

So full chapter replacement has to be done on a case by case basis in modular expansion. And beyond that, for Shadowrun specifically I think there are really just three books that can profitably be done like that. The Magic Book, the Matrix Book, and eventually the Companion should obviously fully replace the character generation chapter. The rest are going to be more scattershot and won't be able to confidently state what chapters they should be replacing and thus shouldn't be replacing chapters at all. Indeed, things like the Mercenary book should probably contain some Magic and Matrix stuff and won't replace chapters in the basic book or the respective specialty books.

-Username17