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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shaangor" data-source="post: 6321338" data-attributes="member: 96324">I agree with this. The fluff is separate but shouldn't be ignored. A lot of the people I know that dislike 4e always make comments to me that it's too much like a board game or an MMO, and I think that's partly because they have a hard time meshing the separated rules with the separated fluff (because they ignored it). The block of text style descriptions forces them to accept the fluff while scanning for the rules of the power. But this also means that the fluff often isn't left open for fluff-interpretation and instead ends up as a partial rules-interpretation for adjudicating uses of the power. "It says I create a fiery explosion, so that means everything combustible around me explodes as well right?" versus "The spell does fire damage to everything in a 25 foot square, so objects vulnerable to fire are damaged as well, right?" The latter is actually easier to adjudicate (for my group) because having Target: All objects/creatures and Keyword: Fire has an obvious, straightforward meaning, where as "fiery explosion" can be interpreted in numerous ways.This is a big issue for my group as well. My players enjoy having powers that tell them exactly what their options are and how to resolve in terms of game rules. Because of this, they can make informed strategic decisions in the face of an encounter. Separating the fluff means how they describe their character performing those actions is completely up to them, and that's empowering. But if their powers relied on factors only known by the DM, or only decidable by the DM, then they would fell much less so.</blockquote>

Verification