Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7391224" data-attributes="member: 20564">Please, tell me what is the sole narrative interaction that can bring about the rules response of &quot;I do 12 bludgeoning damage&quot;.The rules are a level of abstraction, and as can can describe many things that fit within the abstraction layer.And MUST.What's color are magic missiles?&nbsp; They are just described as &quot;glowing darts of magical force&quot;.&nbsp; If I describe them as &quot;glowing green&quot; and someone else describes them as &quot;glowing red&quot;, which of us is doing it wrong?If there are no bears in a world, can I play a bear totem barbarian describing it as something in the world similar to a bear?If my DM reflavors tieflings for a race in her homebrew with the same mechanics but fit the setting better, is she not playing D&amp;D anymore?Really, let's take this a step back.&nbsp; Let's take away all description and fluff and play it like a wargame.&nbsp; The rules still work.&nbsp; Now create fluff around the mechanics, not knowing any previous fluff or feature names.&nbsp; Are they they same across the board because there's only one possible interpretation of what could cause that result in-game?&nbsp; No, not in the least.It's not what you are putting forth that the mechanics don't mean anything if you take away the fluff.&nbsp; It's that the rules are an abstraction to support a mechanical interpretation of the narrative, but because they are an abstraction there are multiple narratives that they can still describe.I reject that the game is harmed if my 12 bludgeoning damage comes from a two handed club, using the rules for the maul because there is no two-handed club on the equipment list.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7391224, member: 20564"] Please, tell me what is the sole narrative interaction that can bring about the rules response of "I do 12 bludgeoning damage". The rules are a level of abstraction, and as can can describe many things that fit within the abstraction layer. And MUST. What's color are magic missiles? They are just described as "glowing darts of magical force". If I describe them as "glowing green" and someone else describes them as "glowing red", which of us is doing it wrong? If there are no bears in a world, can I play a bear totem barbarian describing it as something in the world similar to a bear? If my DM reflavors tieflings for a race in her homebrew with the same mechanics but fit the setting better, is she not playing D&D anymore? Really, let's take this a step back. Let's take away all description and fluff and play it like a wargame. The rules still work. Now create fluff around the mechanics, not knowing any previous fluff or feature names. Are they they same across the board because there's only one possible interpretation of what could cause that result in-game? No, not in the least. It's not what you are putting forth that the mechanics don't mean anything if you take away the fluff. It's that the rules are an abstraction to support a mechanical interpretation of the narrative, but because they are an abstraction there are multiple narratives that they can still describe. I reject that the game is harmed if my 12 bludgeoning damage comes from a two handed club, using the rules for the maul because there is no two-handed club on the equipment list. [/QUOTE]

Verification