A Wrought Iron Fence Made of Tigers

[LostSoul]

Flavor inspired by the rules lets you show, not tell - the players may notice these customs, wonder about them, forget about them, and then later, when they have these kind of spells, have a flash of surprise when they realize the underlying pattern. And it will actually be the players realizing it - not just you telling them "you realize that those coins must have been to prevent scrying".

That's cool.

It's hard work to look at all the spells and come up with flavour like that. It's also only going to work once. And if you want to change your setting, the players will wonder why there aren't beads everywhere or secret touch handshakes. In other words, the rules define your setting.

Which is cool if that's what you want.

 

[Stalker0]

A lot of the discussion present here has mentioned a desire to have a more "setting oriented flavor" as compared to the generic, "any setting" flavor that is the core 4e.

To those people, have you all looked at the new forgotten realms books? You may find a lot of that specific flavor you are missing with the generic text.

 

[The_Gneech]

I dunno, I find the idea that 4E is "any setting flavored" very strange. If anything, it's way too much flavored for a specific setting -- one that has tieflings, eladrin, and dragonborn and even low-level characters go "flash-BANG!" That's half of what bugs me about it.

-The Gneech

 

[GlaziusF]

The "wrought iron fence made of tigers" is cited as a general reference to a specific example: having received a clue pointing to a location which Yahtzee is already aware exists, he is nonetheless prohibited from going there because Sir Hurf Of Durf needs to wander over into another screen and participate in a cutscene to apply basic principles of arithmetic and rudimentary deduction.

This is not somehow inherent in the combat engine, which is more concerned with beating things up and taking their stuff, as combat engines generally are. It does not presuppose impenetrable force fields and an inability to do basic math: that's all added in by the developers. You might call the game internally inconsistent -- after all, why should there be someplace you can arbitrarily walk or not walk? -- but it's not somehow that way because of the gameplay.

The real seminal example of this is a later entry in the Gabriel Knight series, which I'm surprised is not anywhere on that wiki. It is preserved here for posterity. Gabriel Knight is not an RPG and does not have a combat system but still makes the player do crazy, contradictory, and counterintuitive things to advance the plot.

The onus is on you, the adventure designer, not to put up the wrought-iron fence made of tigers in the first place.

 

[Remathilis]

I dunno, I find the idea that 4E is "any setting flavored" very strange. If anything, it's way too much flavored for a specific setting -- one that has tieflings, eladrin, and dragonborn and even low-level characters go "flash-BANG!" That's half of what bugs me about it.

-The Gneech

Which begs a separate discussion: How much should the core rules support "generic d20 Fantasy" and how much should it support "Dungeons & Dragons" brand fantasy?

Sure, 4e introduced eladrin and tieflings to the default assumptions. Much like how 3e introduced the barbarian and monk, or how 2e assumed specialty priests and bards, or 1e assumed humans and orcs can cross-breed, or how dwarves NEVER learned arcane arts (despite Norse myth to the contrary) and paladins ONLY served LG gods (and no other alignment had such champions) or how ALL rangers were good and could cast druid/arcane magic. You get my point.

D&D has never supported "generic" fantasy well, from spell slots to half-elves. Dragonborn and warlocks are the next evolution of "rule-inspired fluff" the game has given us. Frankly, its what keeps D&D seperate from games like GURPS fantasy or True d20, its unique IP and default assumptions.

and thats ok by me.

 

[Delta]

Sure, 4e introduced eladrin and tieflings to the default assumptions. Much like how 3e introduced the barbarian and monk, or how 2e assumed specialty priests and bards, or 1e assumed humans and orcs can cross-breed, or how dwarves NEVER learned arcane arts (despite Norse myth to the contrary) and paladins ONLY served LG gods (and no other alignment had such champions) or how ALL rangers were good and could cast druid/arcane magic.

You realize that all those items you mention 1E-3E were all in 1E, right? (Most PHB; barbarian UA; specialty priests in Greyhawk). Which goes to show how radically 4E has veered off from what many of us recognize as the D&D brand.

 

[The Little Raven]

You realize that all those items you mention 1E-3E were all in 1E, right? (Most PHB; barbarian UA; specialty priests in Greyhawk).

Being in an optional supplement does not make you part of the default assumptions.

 

[Remathilis]

You realize that all those items you mention 1E-3E were all in 1E, right? (Most PHB; barbarian UA; specialty priests in Greyhawk). Which goes to show how radically 4E has veered off from what many of us recognize as the D&D brand.

You realize Tieflings were in 2e, and warlocks and dragonborn in 3e, right?

 

[The Little Raven]

You realize Tieflings were in 2e, and warlocks and dragonborn in 3e, right?

And even if they were 100% new to 4e...

"If D&D has a tradition, its change, growth and expansion. If it didn't, we'd all just have STR INT and WIS." - Orcus

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You realize Tieflings were in 2e, and warlocks and dragonborn in 3e, right?

I'll give you warlocks, but dragonborn and ESPECIALLY Tieflings were both radically different. Tieflings share close to zero similarities, save their name.