Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 9629913" data-attributes="member: 59816">I personally liked the 4e practice of separating the rules from the fluff, specifically where they would write a purely fluff description of an ability, and then a purely mechanical description of the same ability underneath.I know 4e was controversial, but I'm not sure that (much) of it was because of this approach, but more other factors. At any rate, I maintain that I would love to see a version of D&amp;D that, rather than doing it exactly like 4e did (I was never very fond of the &quot;Power Cards&quot;, for example) but closer to 5e's approach, but with a major difference:You write long-form, &quot;natural language&quot; fluff-filled descriptions of what an ability/spell/feat does, including corner-cases, and straightforward &quot;This is what we intend for this&quot; discussions. THEN, you write a rules-heavy, SHORT FORM version in a standardized style that is designed to give you the most important &quot;meat&quot; of the ability. That most importantly can be easily copied onto a Character Sheet.If you're just reading the book, and not actively using the rules (to, say, make a character) you just skip over the rules-heavy short-form bit and read the long-form rule. Ditto if you're looking to understand corner-cases.Does that make any sense? Anyone hate that idea?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FitzTheRuke, post: 9629913, member: 59816"] I personally liked the 4e practice of separating the rules from the fluff, specifically where they would write a [I]purely fluff[/I] description of an ability, and then a [I]purely mechanical[/I] description of the same ability underneath. I know 4e was controversial, but I'm not sure that (much) of it was because of this approach, but more other factors. At any rate, I maintain that I would love to see a version of D&D that, rather than doing it exactly like 4e did (I was never very fond of the "Power Cards", for example) but closer to 5e's approach, but with a major difference: You write long-form, "natural language" fluff-filled descriptions of what an ability/spell/feat does, including corner-cases, and straightforward "This is what we intend for this" discussions. THEN, you write a rules-heavy, SHORT FORM version in a standardized style that is designed to give you the most important "meat" of the ability. That [I]most importantly[/I] can be easily copied onto a Character Sheet. If you're just reading the book, and not actively using the rules (to, say, make a character) you just skip over the rules-heavy short-form bit and read the long-form rule. Ditto if you're looking to understand corner-cases. Does that make any sense? Anyone hate that idea? [/QUOTE]

Verification