Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9096697" data-attributes="member: 7026594">Yeah, for my part I think it's really helpful in forestalling arguments and aiding comprehension if the rules text and fluff are able to be clearly delineated.  But that also doesn't mean that the statblocks are entirely devoid of, let's call it "implicit fluff", or background/flavor.  And it doesn't mean that the DM can't use the flavor for useful color, or make broad rulings based on it like "area effect flame attacks can light objects in the area on fire".  Or "you can't trip something which doesn't have legs".  Those are just more easily distinguishable as house rules which should be discussed to make sure everyone's on the same page.One of the examples Pemerton gave was the Deathlock Wight with its fear ability.  This ability is entirely rooted in the fluff- the thing reveals its horrid visage and scares people, pushing them back.  It's flavorful in a similar way to how classic D&D Mummies force a fear-based save vs. paralysis, which directly simulates something you'd see in the classic Universal monster movies of The Mummy- despite The Mummy being a slow, shambling monster, it would kill people in part because they'd be frozen in fear at the sight of it.Zaukrie's got a fair point too about the Warlock and Sorcerer in 4E.  Those were extremely flavorful classes in 4E, and the 5E versions are definitely a bit watered down and less unique.They certainly did, but by the time I was learning in the 80s OD&D was famous for being confusing and something newbies should avoid.  And it was famously run differently at nearly every table.  If you started with one group and had to move to another you would need to learn all their house rules.  Of which there would inevitably be many.  The idea of playing RAW wasn't even possible.  Within DIY wargaming culture this wasn't too problematic, but regular sci-fi and fantasy fans definitely struggled with it.My recollection from The Elusive Shift is that there were two main early groups- the wargamers and the non-wargamer sci-fi & fantasy fans.  And you're definitely right that it appealing to the non-wargamers really helped its growth and expansion, but don't dismiss the number or importance of the wargamers.  Remember that was a pretty substantial hobby market.  <a href="http://www.costik.com/spisins.html" target="_blank">As Greg Costikyan's piece about wargaming and TSR noted</a>, SPI alone was employing 40 people and publishing around 40 games a year with gross annual revenue of about two million dollars in the mid 70s (right around when Tim Kask became TSR's first full-time employee). The equivalent of a bit over eleven million today.I don't think it's necessarily great for the referee either.  A lot of referees, especially new ones, would like a little clearer guidance.I would say that it made it easier to ignore the fluff for the purposes of rules adjudication specifically.  The text made it clear what part was flavor and what part was rules, and this was a big aid to clarity.  Whether that means you're actually ignoring the fluff in other circumstances.... well, your mileage may vary, but that wasn't my experience at the tables I played at or ran.  I and some of my D&D buddies also played actual wargames as well, though, so maybe it came more naturally for us.  If we wanted a competitive, more mechanics-focused game, that's what wargames were for.  D&D and other roleplaying games were all about the flavor and fluff.  4E's writing approach mostly meant the rules were quicker and easier to parse and understand, so we had fewer debates or disagreements wasting table time.</blockquote>

Verification