Mearls' Chicken or the Egg: Should Fluff Control Crunch, or the Other Way Around?

[rounser]

I will agree that 4e is not a wargame - it is an RPG.

An RPG which apes MMORPGs and M:tG for design direction. D&D is better and more "D&D" when it draws upon an important wargaming habit: attempting some sort of simulation of the topic at hand. Thus your RPG is arguably a regression from something done better decades ago.

 

[Pentius]

So we are discussing the Shifty power... not the fluff for the kobold or the situations you can engineer to support your interpretation of the power, but the actual power, it's text and what fluff it and it alone imparts to the kobold entry... independent of everyhting else... right?

No, you are trying to discuss the power independent of everything else. We are trying to discuss the power in its context. Neonchameleon's original claim was not that the power provides flavor if you strip it of all context, but that it provides flavor in context, where it can be applied to actual situations and compared to the powers other creatures have and to the powers kobolds don't have(ex: kobolds have Shifty, not Divine Challenge, because they are a race of shifty buggers, not holy crusaders).

No what you've done is shift goalposts, engineer specific situations where the Shifty power could possibly represent something sneaky being done, and quote text that is not in the actual power. Such as what you are doing below...

Shifting goalposts? I dunno. It seems to me like first you came out of the gate wanting to shift the goalpost from using the powers in context to stripping them of all context, and then again to stripped of all context and being used in a way that cannot possibly be interpreted more than one way. And then RC floated around a bit, reminding us that words, like, can't mean anything, man, because they mean everything(peace, brother).

So it would seem, from where I am sitting, that you are the one trying to shift goalposts, while any shifting we may be doing is just trying to shift them back to the starting point, that point being one where shifty is viewed as one piece of a larger MM and a larger game world, but at the same time, one piece that does indeed add to the whole.

 

[Bluenose]

An RPG which apes MMORPGs and M:tG for design direction. D&D is better and more "D&D" when it draws upon an important wargaming habit: attempting some sort of simulation of the topic at hand. Thus your RPG is arguably a regression from something done better decades ago.

So what is D&D simulating?

And, out of curiosity, do you think it's impossible for an MMORPG or a CCG to simulate their topic? I don't actually understand why you needed to bring them up, but apparently they're relevant.

 

[Pentius]

An RPG which apes MMORPGs and M:tG for design direction. D&D is better and more "D&D" when it draws upon an important wargaming habit: attempting some sort of simulation of the topic at hand. Thus your RPG is arguably a regression from something done better decades ago.

Older versions of D&D simulate fantasy worlds, while 4e more simulates fantasy stories. In older editions, Fighters don't kill half-demon spawns of Cain with their bare hands, because Fighters are mortal men, and half-demon spawns of Cain are much more powerful than mortal men. In 4e, the Fighter kills half-demon spawns of Cain with his bare hands, because that is how Beowulf killed Grendel, and that was awesome.

 

[rounser]

Tell me more of the vast simulation of early D&D, which was made of sentient jelly and big cockroaches that ate metal, and a storyline of "Ok so there's a dungeon with literally one room filled with every kind of mosnter, and an evil wizard did it.

Doesn't compete - your game has people healing by shouting at each other. And stupid "move the other guy's piece" like a boardgame, regardless of logic. And numerous other sins all gone over many, many times before. Your game has the problem, and no amount of rust monster bashing will help when your design team believes in designing rust that "gets better". It's a wash, game over, better luck next edition.

 

[Jhaelen]

Doesn't compete - your game has people healing by shouting at each other. And stupid "move the other guy's piece" like a boardgame, regardless of logic. And numerous other sins all gone over many, many times before.

Sins? I think the word you were looking for is 'virtues'.

Your game has the problem, and no amount of rust monster bashing will help when your design team believes in designing rust that "gets better". It's a wash, game over, better luck next edition.

Your, game, my game, ... yep, we're firmly in edition-warring territory by now!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Heh, Basic D&D anyone? How long was it before B/E actually had rules for swimming?

Nothing official until the RC I think. Not that such a thing is actually needed by a competent DM.

What kind of swimmming issue is it? If the problem is endurance then test CON. If fighting the pull of an undertow test STR. To reach a specific object in fast moving water test DEX.

Armor and other gear drag you down and increase the risk of drowning.

Thats pretty much it. In calm water with no other mitigating circumstances assume an unencumbered adventurer can swim normally. Not everything a character attempts needs to be a dice fest.

 

[rounser]

"But but but 4e does it too!"

Also more bubble pipe.

No, 4E stands alone in a cascade of powers and rules that either make no sense in some cases, or in all cases. You cannot hide behind the usual 4E defender defence of "well, prior editions did this a bit, so it makes no difference when 4E turns up the breaking of suspension of disbelief to 11 and breaks the knob off.".

And the huge irony of you using the rust monster as an example is that Mearls wrote a perfect example of "mechanics first, simulation is for the birds" thinking by designing a rust monster that creates rust that gets better. Thank you for focusing the thread back on topic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So I suppose Imaro's hypothesis can be tested by taking the Shifty power and assigning it and it alone to a new creature type -- say something like a JitterJump FastQuick.

Knowing nothing more than the critter's name, does the addition of the Shifty power in and of itself provide the implication or explicit statement that this creature is sneaky and/or tricky?

If so then the power provides fluff to that effect. If not it doesn't.

Agreed.

Wait... how can mechanics both be divorced from fluff and give one fluff specific to a creature?

This is very much the logical disconnect that I am seeing in this discussion.

Ah yes, the "NO 4e IS JUST A BOARDGAME!" logic

Apart from the hyperbole, the power shifts the creature one square. That is all it does. It is not tied into the fluff in any way whatsoever. It is not dependent upon circumstances. It works the same if you pay close attention to a kobold, so it is not that they slip about when you are not looking. It works the same in harsh light or in darkness, so it is not that they hide in shadows.

That you feel that they are really sneaky and really good at hiding in shadows when you play doesn't in any way indicate that this arises from the mechanics, rather than from the group. And the discussion here is, specifically, whether or not the mechanics actually impart flavour independent of flavour imparted by the group.

That is not "NO 4e IS JUST A BOARDGAME!" logic, although you are welcome to blow bubbles out of your pipe, if that makes you feel better.

You can tell us as much as you want that the Shift ypower does not makle kobolds play as shifty slippery bastards in 4e, but you are - objectively! - wrong.

Objectively wrong, eh?

Thank you for your contribution.

No, 4E stands alone in a cascade of powers and rules that either make no sense in some cases, or in all cases. You cannot hide behind the usual 4E defender defence of "well, prior editions did this a bit, so it makes no difference when 4E turns up the breaking of suspension of disbelief to 11 and breaks the knob off.".

And the huge irony of you using the rust monster as an example is that Mearls wrote a perfect example of "mechanics first, simulation is for the birds" thinking by designing a rust monster that creates rust that gets better. Thank you for focusing the thread back on topic.

Agreed.

Also more bubble pipe.

I, personally, wouldn't be too proud of that. And, as it seems that you are trying to stir things up rather than discuss the topic, do not be surprised if I fail to respond to your future posts.


RC

 

[BryonD]

So what is D&D simulating?

Ultimately this is a pretty abstract question and the answer could be debated for months. (oh wait it has been...)

But, more importantly, imo, is that the question seems to make a fairly decent litmus test (at least for the extremes). People who find 3E/PF to their taste tend to see that question as asking "what are the details? what are the relative important aspects to me?" While people people who express distaste for 3E's approach consistently express the question as a challenge to the idea that D&D has ever simulated anything.

Clearly, for a lot of people out there RPGs have never been about simulation. And they played prior games (pre-4E D&D or other systems altogether) and played them in highly "gamist" manners, whether that term ever occurred to them or not. 4E comes along and plays directly into what they enjoy and they are thrilled.

One problem seems to be that older games could be played in a very "gamist" manner and different groups could be playing the exact same system a mile down the road in a very "simulationist" manner.

3E did gamist just fine. 4E does gamist a hell of a lot better. That is why there is no small number of former 3E players who have made it clear that they will never go back. What used to be "good enough" doesn't cut it any longer.

For people who we would now call "simulationist", the difference is that we already had the hell of a lot better game.

But if you don't accept that anyone else ever experienced "simulation", then that is fine. Time has proven that trying to explain it is wasted energy. It seems you either get it or you don't. But it isn't important. Play what you enjoy and just be aware there are preferences that are quite real and contribute significantly to where the preferences now exist.