Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5305118" data-attributes="member: 51942">4e sacrifices basic plausibility systematically.  Fluff no longer matters; in fact, it's suggested that game effects be refluffed as appropriate.  In short, the rules aren't designed to be particularly consistent with the fluff, and it's acknowledged that you'll need to rethink fluff - whether it makes sense or not - in order to maintain the rules.The prone gelantinous cubes and grabbed swarms are perfect examples hereof.  It's entirely unclear how a 5 foot cube can be prone.  Certainly, if a cube were prone and unconscious, it's left to the imagination of the reader how a PC can walk through it.  Or, normally, when something's grabbed, a set of strong limbs suffices - yet, based on the thread earlier, apparently it's assumed heroes have quite a collection of tools handy at all time and the insight and knowledge of a swarm to be capable to grab it just as effectively with these improvised means.If there had not been a set of rules to determine whether the cube could be made prone or the swarm grabbed, any sane story-teller would have laughed at the idea.  And... that's pretty much what everybody did pre-4e.In 4e, they said, hey, you can always find some sort of explanation that works, mmmkay?  The problem with that line of reasoning is that it devalues the story and fluff of the game - after all, you're habitually using flimsy explanations not because they make sense at first thought but because you're trying to bend the in-game world to reach a preordained conclusion.Of all D&D editions I've played, 4e is clearly the most focused on making tactical combat interesting and fun, and equally clearly the least focused on being "informed by the genre it's supposed to try to emulate".  Whatever the fiction, the overuse of deus ex machina that refluffing requires is not considered good form.  Even if the incongruous explanations were made for further the plot, too many undermine the structure; and the arbitrary explanations we need aren't made for the plot but for the rules.Since this kind of argument often devolves into flamewar, consider that this particular flaw of 4e does not make it's strengths less attractive, nor that the game as a whole is therefore terrible.  I feel it is necessary to focus on the flaw because people all to often pretend it doesn't exist or that it is inevitable (implying that thus it's pointless to consider plausibility at all) or that non-combat rules aren't as prescriptive (which aren't the focus of the game and doesn't fix the combat rules in any way).  The parallels of these arguments with 4e's approach to fluff are ironic.In combat, 4e does not encourage consistent, plausible fluff.  If you want to make the best of the situation and avoid bringing ludicrous cases to the game table, the first step is identifying and accepting that issue.</blockquote>

Verification