D&D General Maybe I was ALWAYs playing 4e... even in 2e

pemerton

Legend
Why can't you do both? Why can't you have features with strong flavour that is evocatively described so that it gets your imagination going and helps to contextualise the feature in the fiction and rules that actually let you effectively play the thing in the game?
Do you have a RPG in mind that exemplifies both?

I think there is a tension in design here, myself. "Flavour", or narrative-driven imagining, is liable to be disrupted by too much prominence of fiction that disrupts it, and so is best supported by a strong degree of curation - typically GM curation - that can help mitigate any such disruptions and keep what happens at the table at least broadly in line with what the description has evoked.

The GM-side of this - to continue my undead example - is to encourage "good roleplaying" by players who have had the GM describe a scary undead to them.

Conversely, the 4e-style approach, in which it is the actual play and resolution of things at the table that generates the imagined stuff, relies upon robust mechanics with non-curated outcomes to do its thing.

This is why I don't think it is easy to do both. I mean, maybe you'll get both from time-to-time, but I don't think it's easy to design to achieve both as consistent aspects of play.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vaalingrade

Legend
Why can't you do both? Why can't you have features with strong flavour that is evocatively described so that it gets your imagination going and helps to contextualise the feature in the fiction and rules that actually let you effectively play the thing in the game?
They did.

They also wrote the rules in a clear, non-ambiguous way.

their major misstep was doing it with D&D.
 

Do you have a RPG in mind that exemplifies both?

I think there is a tension in design here, myself. "Flavour", or narrative-driven imagining, is liable to be disrupted by too much prominence of fiction that disrupts it, and so is best supported by a strong degree of curation - typically GM curation - that can help mitigate any such disruptions and keep what happens at the table at least broadly in line with what the description has evoked.

The GM-side of this - to continue my undead example - is to encourage "good roleplaying" by players who have had the GM describe a scary undead to them.

Conversely, the 4e-style approach, in which it is the actual play and resolution of things at the table that generates the imagined stuff, relies upon robust mechanics with non-curated outcomes to do its thing.

This is why I don't think it is easy to do both. I mean, maybe you'll get both from time-to-time, but I don't think it's easy to design to achieve both as consistent aspects of play.
Sorry, I really didn't understand what your objection was. Most games at least try to do both. "Here's fluff, here are the rules to represent it." Sure, sometimes the fluff might be lacking, the rules might be lacking or the rules might not make sense with the fluff. But I don't see anything particular impossible or even super challenging in doing it well or at least decently.
 

teitan

Legend
I have always narrated hit point loss as near misses or slight hit to massive harm depending on the relative damage the PC took to their hit point total, even in 1e. STarfinder does this well with it's damage system but I tend to think of actual damage as being about 30% of the hit point total.
 



The mistake was underestimating how many D&D players were going to take change so personally they would spend over a decade on a smear campaign as revenge.
that plus the fact that other companies (and yes I understand that is how those companies made money) stoke those fires of the edition war to the point where here 10 years (and I bet 20 or 30) later people still spout out the nonsense talking points
 


Undrave

Legend
Why can't you do both? Why can't you have features with strong flavour that is evocatively described so that it gets your imagination going and helps to contextualise the feature in the fiction and rules that actually let you effectively play the thing in the game?

I know communicating primarily via rules clicks to some people. They see "Oh, this rule lets me do this, so in fiction it means that." But to a lot of people it simply doesn't work that way.
At some point you run into the limit of your page space. 4e had plenty of lore but that lore just wasn't in the middle of the damn rules.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
At some point you run into the limit of your page space. 4e had plenty of lore but that lore just wasn't in the middle of the damn rules.
Who among you lovely folks remembers Golden Wyvern Adept?

See, following from Bo9S (the same product where D&D players first learned that outright lies and comparison to D&D's unrequited crushes like anime and vidja games could sway people against good products), WotC previewed the new edition with a feat for wand casters that had flavor referencing an organization of wand-based casters; the Golden Wyvern School.

The wonderful folks who are now champions of D&D flavor obviously loved this and... no wait, they ripped it to shreds. They filled several 50+ pages threads on how this was the worst thing to ever happen to D&D and how WotC should NEVER put flavor text into rules. They demanded WotC learn this lesson and never do this again.

Then WotC published clean rules with flavor text in the italics or in the headers for Races and Classes.

At which point, those guys collectively shouted 'GOTCHA!' and pounced on them, tearing them to shreds for not having feats just chock full of flavor text.
 

Remove ads

Top