Rule of 3: 10/31/2011

[DEFCON 1]

Actually... it sounds as though the real dispute here is not whether it's right or wrong to want more fluff or less fluff in a Monster Manual... but rather the motivations and intentions of the guy who wrote the article.

It's the use of the term 'story burden' that has gotten people all riled up... with some people putting much more emphasis on the negative tone and tenor of Rich Baker's decision to use it, as opposed to others thinking that Baker probably didn't mean much (if anything) by it.

And in this case, there's no right answer. Because it all comes down to what Rich Baker actually feels, and thus is nothing we're going to be able to ascertain just by arguing about it. We'd have to wait for Baker to clarify his remarks.

(Although if the past is any indication... most of these kinds of remarks never get clarified. And my personal guess is that it's because they are so inconsequential to the people who write them that they just don't really care if they get misinterpreted. Especially considering even the most clearly-written post will still get misinterpreted because some people just can't help but argue or find bogeymen under the bed, and think there's always a sinister truth behind every statement. (See Aberzanzorax's thread and link for details. LOL)

 

[Mark CMG]

Actually... it sounds as though the real dispute here is not whether it's right or wrong to want more fluff or less fluff in a Monster Manual... but rather the motivations and intentions of the guy who wrote the article.

It's the use of the term 'story burden' that has gotten people all riled up... with some people putting much more emphasis on the negative tone and tenor of Rich Baker's decision to use it, as opposed to others thinking that Baker probably didn't mean much (if anything) by it.

And in this case, there's no right answer. Because it all comes down to what Rich Baker actually feels, and thus is nothing we're going to be able to ascertain just by arguing about it. We'd have to wait for Baker to clarify his remarks.

(Although if the past is any indication... most of these kinds of remarks never get clarified. And my personal guess is that it's because they are so inconsequential to the people who write them that they just don't really care if they get misinterpreted. Especially considering even the most clearly-written post will still get misinterpreted because some people just can't help but argue or find bogeymen under the bed, and think there's always a sinister truth behind every statement. (See Aberzanzorax's thread and link for details. LOL)

The articles were meant to spur discussion about what the designers think based on what they write. Certainly, if it differs from what you believe they are thinking and writing, you have the option to either present a differing opinion or to try and discount what others believe. You might, however, want to reread that article to which Aberzanzorax linked. I'm not sure you quite understood how they feel.

Naturally, words are charged with meaning, it's why we have them. If, for instance, rather than using the unfortunately negative "story burden" he had said he realized they went too far in stripping context from creature descriptions and said they should re-examine the "story importance" of past descriptive text to bring back the "essential elements" rather than "essential truths" (I kinda let that one slide, but as long as we're still on the subject) it certainly would have had a much more positive tone. Hey, these guys get the big bucks to write articles to get us discussing their design of the next edition. It'd be a shame to disappoint them.

 

[Mark CMG]

Personally, I count that among the many things that drove me from adopting the 4e ruleset. But then again I typically downplay combat. The rapid-fire reliance on so many numbers disrupts my "willing suspension of disbelief".

I've seen that opinion expressed quite often. My friend [MENTION=6676736]Pentius[/MENTION] might give a very different view, if I have been reading our email exchanges correctly. I'll see if the "mention" can bring him round to clarify.

 

[Pentius]

Got your mention, Mark. I will go ahead and clarify. Now, obviously, if the rules being written that way doesn't work for you, it doesn't, and what I say won't change that, but maybe I can give a bit of insight as to why they do work for me.

Now me, I like my rules clear and clean, I don't mind my characters and monsters being categorized by combat role. That focus of the book on numbers and stat blocks actually helps my immersion, because everything is plain, transparent and easy to find. I know what my character(or my party, when I DM) can do, how to handle improvised actions, etc. What that comes down to is that at the table, time spent looking things up and interpreting things is minimal. The less time I spend with my head in a book, the more time I'm spending engaged in the actual game.

I don't mind if the book is light on lines of fluff. If the ones it does have are potent and evocative, all the better. But, for example, the goblinoid fluff about hobgoblins possibly having bred goblins and bugbears, well, that's pretty cool. I like that. But it's entirely useless for my game. I run a homebrew world that has its own evocative and compelling goblinoid fluff(well, I like to think it's good, but I did write it, so I'm biased). So, any fluff about goblins in the monster manual is wasted on me. I value fluff in a monster book less than stats, because if I want to use a monster from the book, I'm probably going to use its stats, but whether I use its fluff is rather up in the air.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think that's a reasonable accusation to make.

<snip>

But any time you insist that your view is the only one that matters, and that anyone who feels differently "isn't a real D&D player" - or, in this case, "must not actually play 4E" - I think you are only hurting the discussion and undercutting any useful points you might actually make.

<snip>

I don't care for that sort of elitist attitude in rules debate, and I don't care for it here, either.

MrMyth, I didn't mean to run an elitist line, or to insist that only one view matters, or that anyone is or is not a "real D&D player", and if my post came across that way I apologise.

What does frustrate me in these discussions, and what I did want to contradict, is the claim that 4e's MM had no story elements, or fewer story elements than the 1st ed AD&D or 3E Monster Manuals. I just don't accept this. In the past I've seen the 3E/4e challenge taken for Aboleths, Goblins, Hags, Githyanki, Kobolds and Spiders (and maybe others I can't remember) and the claim of "no or fewer story elements in 4e" has not been borne out.

(In this very thread, even, it was said that the entry on the Bulette doesn't tell us what they eat, when in fact it tells us that they are landsharks, and heavily armoured predators!)

I have had the impression that most of these claims come from non-4e players, but certainly KM doesn't fit that description, and obviously neither do you.

I am also a bit frustrated that, from my point of view, WotC is taking 4e in a retrograde direction in various respects. The new format for powers, for example, includes useless story content prior to the power description, that either adds nothing to the power flavour text, or in some cases appears to contradict it. What is this adding to the game? I feel the same about the very wordy fiction accompanying the new monster format. There is at least one person (namely, me) who came to 4e in part because in its presentation of story elements like powers and monsters D&D had finally adopted the crisper style seen 20 and more years ago in games like Runequest, Rolemaster and Traveller.

But I'm glad that at least some 4e players like this new approach - it's an ill wind that blows no one no good, as they say! I'm happy enough to suck it up - I might just grumble a bit about along the way.

So anyway, apologies again. I really didn't intend to offend/upset as I obviously did.

 

[pemerton]

I phant'sy that I see those in group (1) as falling mainly in group (B) while those in group (2) fall mainly in group (A). If so, that may be a very interesting observation.

I think there is something in what you say (can't XP you yet either!).

For my part, I like rules that are clear in how they are meant to work and what they are meant to achieve.

In the case of a game like Rolemaster, with which I have most of my GMing experience, it's clear that the action resolution rules are meant to produce a rich experience in which the unfolding mechanics express the underlying causal logic of the gameworld. This makes it clear to me how to use them, and how - when they run out - I should supplement them: look for the nearest defined mechanic, and tweak it on the fly to produce an adequate model of the novel ingame situation.

In the case of 4e, I also find the rules pretty clear: they are meant to reliably provide an experience of heroic fantasy. Ingame processes are kept lose and flexible, subject to genre rather than mechanical constraints, but the mechanics are very tight in the way the set the outcomes, and the parameters within which the fictional path that leads to those outcomes can be narrated. (Come and Get It: very narrow parameters. Skill challenges: more flexible parameters, but the fiction must still fit with the outcome of a given skill check.)

4e is definitely an example of your B: tight rules that give players a clear sense of the outcomes their PCs can achieve. Genre is a constraint on narration.

Rolemaster's rules are not really an example of your A - they are not loose guidelines or GM fiat - but they work differently from 4e. Genre is a constraint on the mechanics, and narration is a function of mechanics (because mechanics model ingame processes).

I find RM harder to GM, because - especially at high levels - the gonzo possibilities of the genre put a heavy burden on the group (with the GM taking the lead) to come up with mechanics that will (i) be faithful to the genre, in the way they model the gameworld, and (ii) are practical and fun in play. I think RQ is probably a better example of this approach to play, because it keeps the scope of the game closer to the range of situations its mechanics can model out of the box.

For gonzo fantasy, I am finding the 4e approach works well. And I don't think it's a surprise that in some ways it draws so obviously on games like HeroWars/Quest, which also use a simple "otucomes first, narration second" approach to produce a mechanic that scales over the full range of action resolution for gonzo fantasy.

Anyway, you're certainly right that I'm not a big fan of loose mechanics that turn into GM fiat and ad hoc manipulation of the mechanics to fit, or to create, the story. Which is the vibe I get from your option A.

 

[Aeolius]

In the past I've seen the 3E/4e challenge taken for Aboleths, Goblins, Hags, Githyanki, Kobolds and Spiders (and maybe others I can't remember) and the claim of "no or fewer story elements in 4e" has not been borne out.

The 4e MM hag fewer hags than the 3e MM. That was another reason I was less than enamored with 4e. I wanted to test the new ruleset by fleshing out a campaign concept I had kept on the back-burner for years. Alas, the game needed greenhags, druids, and the awaken spell, none of which were in the 4e MM, PH, and DMG.

I am aware that those bits ended up in later books, but it was too late by that point. I am also aware that I could have converted those elements, but I tend to side on the side of laziness when it comes to the rules. It was easier simply to stick with 3.5e/Pathfinder, so that is what I did.

Granted, my approach to the rules is hardly the norm. I like to run my games "loosey goosey". Sometimes I start a game session with nothing but a handful of notes and a cold beer. I enjoy ad-libbing. Running a game on-the-fly yields all sorts of serendipitous surprises.

Also, I have not run a face-to-face game in nearly seventeen years. Since that point it's been play-by-post and chat-based games, for me, neither of which need be mored down in stats and numbers. I understand that, over the years, D&D has become more of a mindset, for me, and less of a checklist of dice to roll during combat.

I also recognize the hypocrisy I present, enjoying a bit of fluff in my monster books, yet rarely using 5% of the monsters in a given monster manual because none are applicable to the terrain where my game is set. I enjoy making up my own critters, but I tend to use existing critters as a base.

Remember the faerie dragon entry in the 1e MM2? It mentioned the lil' beasties' love of apple pies. That is the sort of memorable fluff I enjoy. The 1e MM mentioned that half-orcs could be of human, goblin, or hobgoblin stock. That bit of fluff could shape an entire campaign. While I find the 3.5e MM to be the best of the Monster Manuals to date, I'd still like to see a 5e MM written to resemble Arthur Spiderwick's Field Guide.

 

[LostSoul]

The 4e MM hag fewer hags than the 3e MM. That was another reason I was less than enamored with 4e. I wanted to test the new ruleset by fleshing out a campaign concept I had kept on the back-burner for years. Alas, the game needed greenhags, druids, and the awaken spell, none of which were in the 4e MM, PH, and DMG.

That's interesting. Why did the game need those specific mechanics in order for you to run that campaign?

 

[Aeolius]

That's interesting. Why did the game need those specific mechanics in order for you to run that campaign?

Nature of the Beast ; a campaign that takes rules governing animal companions, familiars, Awaken, reincarnation, and anthros then throws them into a blender.

 

[Kzach]

The 4e team made so many initial errors in layout, presentation, content, and especially marketing (among other things) that this seems nearly minor in comparison. Which is why I'm more than willing to take it at face value that they miscalculated.

I think it's harsh to say that they were errors. I feel they took risks, some bold, some not so bold, in order to expand the game and their understanding of the market. They learned what worked and what didn't work and that alone makes it not an error to have experimented.