Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Philosophy of 5e
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="Shaangor" data-source="post: 6321338" data-attributes="member: 96324"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shaangor, post: 6321338, 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Philosophy of 5e
Top