Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7665840" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>That's not really that different from my experience. I remember my old group going through the PH1 for the first time, and being excited by what the powers could do - particularly fighter and rogue powers, for obvious reasons. A bunch of hobbyist can look through even a dry, technical manual and have those kinds of reactions.</p><p></p><p>And, sure, there was flavor stuff in 4e. It drops hints about Nerath and Arkhosia and so forth. It has sidebars about what the power sources represent and stuff like that. On balance, though, it didn't compromise being a decent reference book to be a better read.</p><p></p><p> I appreciated the readability approach in Storyteller, even as I was frustrated by the lack of adequate indexes and crunch. I liked having good rules I could fairly easily look up in 4e - and the best of the bad lot of Essentials core books was the pure-reference Compendium - but I didn't ever read /everything/ in any of them, because they don't have that readability. Both styles are perfectly valid and have their good and bad qualities. </p><p></p><p> Personally, I found E-fluff mostly just redundant filler, a large-type re-iteration of the italic fluff in each power description. But, yes one stereotypical failing of RPGs is to give a great fluff-text description of something, or put in a cool illo of the same thing, and then have the mechanics completely fail to live up to it. </p><p></p><p>I don't think you can count on getting fluff and crunch into perfect alignment (for one thing, because necessarily natural-language fluff can always be interpreted in a variety of ways), so instead, you can explicitly let one or the other 'win' and put more emphasis on getting that aspect right. 4e put mechanics first in it's design priorities, so it had clear, balanced, playable mechanics that made it plain what each game element accomplished in play. It left the 'fluff' sketchy, weak, and not always matching up that well, but invited the user to substitute something from his own imagination, instead. There have been games - Storyteller, again, is an example I'm familiar with - that go ahead and put the fluff first and just broadly paint the mechanics, figuring you'll go with what you want, and the mechanics are just a temporary crutch that should work badly, so you'll have an incentive to learn to do without them ("bad rules make good games"). </p><p></p><p>5e, since this is a 5e thread, really, does try to take a more middle-of-the-road approach. The DM is free to change the mechanics as he likes, but they're not officially subordinated to fluff, and re-skinning of fluff, even by players, still seems acceptable - if there's a flavor/mechanic disconnect the DM has the final say in resolving it. That may not be avoiding the problem entirely, but it at least gives permission for the DM to fix it as he thinks will best suit his group.</p><p></p><p></p><p> In that specific instance, there's no dilemma: the hardy Dwarf archetype precedes D&D, let alone 4e D&D. </p><p></p><p> I think it would be more accurate to say that D&D had traditionally mixed fluff and natural-language rules with mechanical jargon. A lot of the unfortunate complexity (complication), steep learning curve - and constant 'rules lawyer'ing of the early games came from that tendency.</p><p></p><p>But, yes separating fluff and mechanics and letting the fluff be modified to suit by the player was a striking innovation, for D&D (it had been done much more extensively in Champions! 27 years earlier, so was hardly new to the broader hobby). That approach (whatever game is using it) still doesn't necessarily put one 'first' in the character-creation process though. A player can pick mechanics based on preference or optimization, and then adjust or assign fluff in order to justify the results - or, he could choose the 'fluff' concept he's going for, and make choices that mechanically support the concept, modifying their fluff to match the concept if it doesn't already. It does put crunch first in resolution, though as always, the GM is inevitably free to rule or over-rule as he likes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7665840, member: 996"] That's not really that different from my experience. I remember my old group going through the PH1 for the first time, and being excited by what the powers could do - particularly fighter and rogue powers, for obvious reasons. A bunch of hobbyist can look through even a dry, technical manual and have those kinds of reactions. And, sure, there was flavor stuff in 4e. It drops hints about Nerath and Arkhosia and so forth. It has sidebars about what the power sources represent and stuff like that. On balance, though, it didn't compromise being a decent reference book to be a better read. I appreciated the readability approach in Storyteller, even as I was frustrated by the lack of adequate indexes and crunch. I liked having good rules I could fairly easily look up in 4e - and the best of the bad lot of Essentials core books was the pure-reference Compendium - but I didn't ever read /everything/ in any of them, because they don't have that readability. Both styles are perfectly valid and have their good and bad qualities. Personally, I found E-fluff mostly just redundant filler, a large-type re-iteration of the italic fluff in each power description. But, yes one stereotypical failing of RPGs is to give a great fluff-text description of something, or put in a cool illo of the same thing, and then have the mechanics completely fail to live up to it. I don't think you can count on getting fluff and crunch into perfect alignment (for one thing, because necessarily natural-language fluff can always be interpreted in a variety of ways), so instead, you can explicitly let one or the other 'win' and put more emphasis on getting that aspect right. 4e put mechanics first in it's design priorities, so it had clear, balanced, playable mechanics that made it plain what each game element accomplished in play. It left the 'fluff' sketchy, weak, and not always matching up that well, but invited the user to substitute something from his own imagination, instead. There have been games - Storyteller, again, is an example I'm familiar with - that go ahead and put the fluff first and just broadly paint the mechanics, figuring you'll go with what you want, and the mechanics are just a temporary crutch that should work badly, so you'll have an incentive to learn to do without them ("bad rules make good games"). 5e, since this is a 5e thread, really, does try to take a more middle-of-the-road approach. The DM is free to change the mechanics as he likes, but they're not officially subordinated to fluff, and re-skinning of fluff, even by players, still seems acceptable - if there's a flavor/mechanic disconnect the DM has the final say in resolving it. That may not be avoiding the problem entirely, but it at least gives permission for the DM to fix it as he thinks will best suit his group. In that specific instance, there's no dilemma: the hardy Dwarf archetype precedes D&D, let alone 4e D&D. I think it would be more accurate to say that D&D had traditionally mixed fluff and natural-language rules with mechanical jargon. A lot of the unfortunate complexity (complication), steep learning curve - and constant 'rules lawyer'ing of the early games came from that tendency. But, yes separating fluff and mechanics and letting the fluff be modified to suit by the player was a striking innovation, for D&D (it had been done much more extensively in Champions! 27 years earlier, so was hardly new to the broader hobby). That approach (whatever game is using it) still doesn't necessarily put one 'first' in the character-creation process though. A player can pick mechanics based on preference or optimization, and then adjust or assign fluff in order to justify the results - or, he could choose the 'fluff' concept he's going for, and make choices that mechanically support the concept, modifying their fluff to match the concept if it doesn't already. It does put crunch first in resolution, though as always, the GM is inevitably free to rule or over-rule as he likes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?
Top