I don't know if this is a thing...

[fba827]

while i completely appreciate the added immersion afforded by integrating the fluff into the mechanics, in actual game play I'd prefer the 4e style.

Reasons: 1) quicker to see on the fly as needed during game play 2) easier to reflavor if trying to do something different 3) the more straight-forward the mechanics, the less likely someone will have a differing interpretation (be it through 'creative writing' in the fluff causing a discrepancy or just someone misreading the fluff -- i know some people who just don't have the attention span... quick reference is better than requiring to read to get the info)

Having said all that, I do appreciate the other method and see its merits for guiding you through immersion and into the visual effects anytime you wanted to use it and would be fine with either. Just, if I had to pick, I would prefer the 'quick reference' style of 4e instead.

 

[Dausuul]

However they can also be somewhat convoluted and slow down game play. Here, I think 4E has the edge. But better written or more streamlined descriptions in the more traditional style would also work.

Oh, absolutely. A badly written spell description is badly written, and needs to be cleaned up. All editions have had plenty of bad writing! It should not be hard to read a spell description and know what the spell does and how it's supposed to work in play.

Moreover, there should be an understanding that the DM can be trusted to handle edge cases without specific guidance. Did 3E really need to call out "touch attack for shooting a fireball through a narrow opening?" If that rule weren't in there, some DMs would call for a touch attack, others would allow the spell to sail through without penalty, still others might impose a bonus on saving throws or simply say the spell isn't precise enough for such things; and none of these would cause the world to end.

 

[seregil]

You know I was reading the 4e Warlord class recently, and I was actually thinking "hmm this format isn't so bad".

But then you get some powers that are just...lame. Like it's obvious that the designer started with the mechanics part and then just slapped on the fluff afterwards.

It's THAT feeling that turns me off.

e.g.
Really...?

This is so bad.

I'm interested in the purported tactical combat module for Next, but the presentation needs a complete revamp.

Cut the number of powers WAY down (a lot of these seem pretty redundant...), and you know -- don't even bother with "fluff".

I've heard 4e players say that the powers "feel" better in play -- like the um...non-verbal meaning of the interactions is vivid and interesting? Like the combat *feels* dynamic, without needing dynamic verbal descriptions? You know what I mean? I could see that actually. Just concentrate on that. Make the tactical combat FEEL good, and forget about the cheesy fluff.

If all you want is tactical battle, why are you playing DND at all? I mean, aren't there miniature games, by WOTC even, that would fit better?

Your approach doesn't take into account a basic problem with 4e's ruleset (and one I made earlier): not all spell effect can be described by math, bonuses or other quantitative descriptors.

Even battle spells are more than just math. Fireball is more than a mere Xd6 20' ka-boom. There's the heat, the sound, heck even the smell should at least be mentioned in the spell. Not to mention how it's cast, how the spell appears etc.

Ok, make spell cards that include only the crunch, but if there IS nothing else, then why in the hell do i even bother calling it a role-playing game? I might as well play Warhammer Fantasy battles with just independent characters and have done with it.

Come up with some background, maybe make it a bit interactive and then have at it on the battle map. I do it all the time when I play 40K. Why are the Blood Angels fighting other Space Marines? Oh, because so-and-so was corrupted by the Warp and the SM are under the effect of Warp Powers.

After this 30 second intro, we fight the battle and ignore the pretext we came up to justify two armies that are nominally on the same side fighting each other. We're playing a battle game and only really care about the crunch. In no way is 40K a roleplaying game.

I said earlier, this approach where fluff is absent or sorely lacking is de-evolving the game back to its Chainmail roots: a tactical combat game devoid of any rpg elements and THAT is definitely not a direction Gygax/Arneson would approve of since the entire POINT of DND was to add storytelling to the experience, including the combat part.

 

[Griego]

I suffered permanent damage trying to weed out the crunch from 3.5's wordy spell descriptions during play. Never again. Separate fluff from crunch, please.

 

[Ramen]

I've read 4E but haven't played it yet. But the idea of separation of game effect from the power description is nothing new to me.

I've played a lot of Hero System and the various powers and abilities have this format. You have a description of what it looks like and what it does and then a block of statistics telling how it affects the game rules.

However in Hero System that description matters since the system is a special effects driven system. Fire spells would set things on fire, water spells would make them wet, cobalt 13 spells would get you call from the EPA.

I don't have a problem with the separation of fluff from system effect but I will say that the fluff should matter. So a good block of flavor text should be there as a directive for adjudicating the the action.

If wizard A cast Lava Skin on himself and Wizard B cast Wicker Bonds to try to entangle him then I think it would be proper for a GM to reduce the affect of the Wicker Bonds spell.

Casting a spell like Wild Space to make the area a thick forest impeding movement shouldn't matter to a druid who can tip toe through the tulips or impassable jungle at the same rate of speed.

 

[Dausuul]

An essential requirement for re-fluffing is that anything done using the re-fluffed ability must have been possible with the original. If that's not the case, then it's not just re-fluffing.

Then nothing can ever be re-fluffed, because even the most trivial change affects the potential uses of the spell.

Look, suppose I said I wanted scorching burst to have black fire instead of bright orange. That's a textbook example of what is typically meant by "re-fluffing." But now I can do things with it that weren't possible with the original! The old scorching burst is highly visible at night or in a dark cave. You have to be careful not to draw unwanted attention. The new version is far more stealth-friendly.

Now, is it still balanced in its new form? I would say so. The benefit is relatively minor, and there are drawbacks as well (I can't use it to signal allies from a distance). But at a glance, the ancient-dragon thing would appear to be the same way; it's just tweaking the appearance. I could slide that change past any number of 4E DMs, and they wouldn't realize what they'd agreed to until I started breaking the game with it. You can't know whether a change is balanced until you put on your game design hat and think about consequences, and 4E's approach does not save you from that.

No, what's it's trying to do is make it clear what parts can be changed without really effecting the game (so the DM doesn't have to care about them changing, unless the new fluff simply don't fit into his campaign world), and what parts change the game, and require the DM to put on his game-designer hat if he wants to maintain the game balance of the game.

But it's lying! I didn't change any of the "crunch" text. If there were a power that was created from the beginning to be "Ancient dragon swoops down and breathes fire in a burst 1 for 1d6 + Int fire damage, then flies away," its statblock would be exactly identical with that of scorching burst.

What 4E is really doing with its purported "fluff" versus "crunch" distinction is separating the "tactical combat game" part of 4E from the "role-playing game" part. My ancient-dragon-burst spell has the exact same effect on tactical combat as traditional scorching burst. It's only when you step back and start to view the game world as an integrated whole, where monsters are living creatures instead of robotic battle drones, that ancient-dragon-burst becomes brokenly powerful.

Some folks like having the sharp distinction where "roll initiative" means "we're playing an abstract board game for the next 45 minutes." I have come to hate it. I want combat, exploration, and roleplaying to mesh together smoothly. D&D should be one game, not two.

 

[Morrus]

I suffered permanent damage trying to weed out the crunch from 3.5's wordy spell descriptions during play. Never again. Separate fluff from crunch, please.

I can see WotC has no choice but to alienate either you or me. I'd hate to be in their shoes!

 

[Libramarian]

Your approach doesn't take into account a basic problem with 4e's ruleset (and one I made earlier): not all spell effect can be described by math, bonuses or other quantitative descriptors.

It does!

I'm talking about a tactical combat *module*.

To be clear: I absolutely do prefer the Pathfinder style spell description for most of the core game.

I'm on the level with your's and @Dausuul 's comments about fluff that sometimes isn't just fluff.

I enjoy spells that provoke player creativity in arguing for fluff-mechanic translation (e.g. "I stuff my ears with wax -- does that prevent me from hearing the sleep spell?"). I like that and I think the core game should encourage it to the extent that it can.

But I'm also interested in a version of the 4e pushy slidy grid-based tactical combat thing, if it were cut way down to its essential components.

I mean the 4e combat system really does not seem to be that complicated conceptually -- I think you could boil it down to a handful or a dozen or a score of mechanical moves, and then give those to the martial classes, and pin some of them to the core fluffy spells, to make the modular tactical combat system. And then you could invoke that for battles in a game that otherwise could feature lots of deeply fluffy DM judgement-requiring spell and ability usage out of combat. Or you could just invoke the tactical combat module for certain climactic combats.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Your approach doesn't take into account a basic problem with 4e's ruleset (and one I made earlier): not all spell effect can be described by math, bonuses or other quantitative descriptors.

The solution of making many spell effects fit into parameters that didn't suit the fluff of the spell wasn't a good thing either. It seemed like everything was translated to damage as a universal effect.

The confusion spell used to do pretty much what one would expect. The spells victims would become confused and thus uncertain about what they would do during the duration of the spell. The 4E confusion power was a straight up 1 round domination effect with some psychic damage tacked on.

There is no confusion about it, you simply get to make the victim attack one of his/her own allies with an at-will ability. Its a great short duration dominate effect but it has all the confusion flavor of wet cardboard.

 

[Minigiant]

Moreover, there should be an understanding that the DM can be trusted to handle edge cases without specific guidance. Did 3E really need to call out "touch attack for shooting a fireball through a narrow opening?" If that rule weren't in there, some DMs would call for a touch attack, others would allow the spell to sail through without penalty, still others might impose a bonus on saving throws or simply say the spell isn't precise enough for such things; and none of these would cause the world to end.

Actually, some DMs can't be ttlrusted and can be just as bad as poor players causing some to choose foot-based voting. The worst thing ever is a rules lawyer DM. But that is another point and I hope that those who have never encountered a DM who only allows what is written and enforces every word written (that they feel like) never do.

I prefer the 4th version for the quick reverence and refluffing aspects. I can flip a page and quickly know which dice to rolls. I can quickly ignore given fluff to better match my witch whose spells manifest as birds instead of straight rays, glowing fingers, and circular explosions.