D&D 5E Fluff and Mechanics in 5e

[Shemeska]

Write the fluff first and then write mechanics that simulate what's going on.

Amen.

 

[GreyICE]

I support a playable game. I've seen game systems that try and be the "most realistic gaming system possible" or simulate "every aspect of the world" and they tend to have serious issues. Serious, serious issues.

No D&D has really attempted to reconcile fluff with mechanics 100%, and 5E probably won't either. Sometimes the 'well in this particular case, the fluff doesn't make any sense' needs to step aside for 'we like the game to be playable.'

Classic example would be the fireball filling a volume equal to a 30' radius sphere, expanding down corridors, etc. if contained. Rather flavorful, yes, but hideously difficult to resolve. Each edition of D&D has sacrificed more and more of these in the interests of 'not breaking the game' and 'having spells that resolve without the need to use calculus.'

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why does marking work on mindless undead or constructs for that matter?

Using fluff to frame the mark as a challenge tells us something about how it works. A challenge tells me that a mindless or unintelligent opponent should be unaffected. Likewise, there is a language issue.

The problem is that even with fluff that describes how something works there is often no reason why it would work in a given situation that seemed at odds with the fluff description.

Ok so I 'marked' that pile of grey ooze. I just shouted a vile insult at a creature without so much as a brain stem much less the comprehension needed to understand that it was being challenged, yet it somehow knows that I just said something about its mother and decides to attack me?

Compelling action of this nature seems more like a magical or supernatural ability than anything else.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I don't know, I'm not quite seeing this. If a target got marked by the fighter and the paladin, couldn't it still work? The target is in a hard situation where he has to choose one or the other to focus his attention on, leaving the other to take advantage of their mark. Kind of makes sense really when you are outnumbered by trained and skillful opponents. A skilled target though might be able to target both the markers with an attack (even cleave might be made to suffice for such a situation) and thus defend against both of them. Just a thought.

In principle though I support a fluff first approach, supported by representative and flavourful mechanics. Sometimes though to be representative, the mechanics are going to be somewhat cumbersome some of the time.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Well the main reason you can't double mark is that early testing proved it to be stupid powerful and the designers killed it in the name of not wrecking the game (but that's faulty memory talking here). If you really wanted to double mark, it would be quite possible to develop the powers/feats/whatever needed to make double marking work. That would be quite flavorful since it would represent two characters developing the teamwork/skills/SOP needed to pull off a complicated team maneuver. I'm not going to go into details about the mechanics of it due to simply not wanting to (but I'm sure it can be done).

Also, hasn't D&D has always been designed with the intent of being a fun game first and a simulation second? While I never read the AD&D books, people have quoted a part of it saying as much. If you want "a fluff first approach, supported by representative and flavourful mechanics" in your game and don't mind rules that are "cumbersome some of the time", then you should totally check out GURPS. I never played it myself, but it seems to be build from the ground up to be like that. If switching systems is too much of a pain, but adding house rules isn't, then go buy the Codex Martailis, produced by our very own Galloglaich! It's the only melee weapons RPG combat system designed by a person who actually studies and practices melee combat!

 

[GreyICE]

Why does marking work on mindless undead or constructs for that matter?

Using fluff to frame the mark as a challenge tells us something about how it works. A challenge tells me that a mindless or unintelligent opponent should be unaffected. Likewise, there is a language issue.

The problem is that even with fluff that describes how something works there is often no reason why it would work in a given situation that seemed at odds with the fluff description.

Ok so I 'marked' that pile of grey ooze. I just shouted a vile insult at a creature without so much as a brain stem much less the comprehension needed to understand that it was being challenged, yet it somehow knows that I just said something about its mother and decides to attack me?

Compelling action of this nature seems more like a magical or supernatural ability than anything else.

God, again with the not reading the power.

"In combat it is dangerous to ignore the fighter."

Not "in combat, the fighter shouts taunts at you until you get really angry with him." It says "It is dangerous to ignore the fighter."

What does the mechanic do? If you stop paying attention to a fighter, you get hit with the pointy sword.

I don't see why 'not having a brain' would stop the fighter from hitting the mindless construct. It might make the mindless construct more likely to ignore the fighter (and thus much easier to hit), but that's up to the DM (you know, the guy behind the screen who decides things?).

There's no compulsion. There's just a guy with a very sharp sword who wants to stick it in your face, and if you don't pay attention to him he's going to do exactly that.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

..."In combat it is dangerous to ignore the fighter."...
What does the mechanic do? If you stop paying attention to a fighter, you get hit with the pointy sword.

I don't see why 'not having a brain' would stop the fighter from hitting the mindless construct. It might make the mindless construct more likely to ignore the fighter (and thus much easier to hit), but that's up to the DM...

There's no compulsion. There's just a guy with a very sharp sword who wants to stick it in your face, and if you don't pay attention to him he's going to do exactly that.

You are of course correct; although with a trimming of the escalated language as quoted above, it reads a little stronger.

Like a lot of things in 4e, the way the mechanics work is somewhat different to how they are occasionally "interpreted". And this is a problem that I think a closer meshing of fluff and mechanics could possibly solve. I'm not talking gurps or fastidious simulation here, just a walking along the believability path with the occasional nod of the head towards Pythagorus and others here and there along the way.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[ExploderWizard]

God, again with the not reading the power.

"In combat it is dangerous to ignore the fighter."

Not "in combat, the fighter shouts taunts at you until you get really angry with him." It says "It is dangerous to ignore the fighter."

What does the mechanic do? If you stop paying attention to a fighter, you get hit with the pointy sword.

I don't see why 'not having a brain' would stop the fighter from hitting the mindless construct. It might make the mindless construct more likely to ignore the fighter (and thus much easier to hit), but that's up to the DM (you know, the guy behind the screen who decides things?).

There's no compulsion. There's just a guy with a very sharp sword who wants to stick it in your face, and if you don't pay attention to him he's going to do exactly that.

Ok then there is no GOOD reason for two fighters not to be able to mark the same target.

Oh and by the way :

"In combat it is dangerous to ignore the fighter."

STILL doesn't tell us WHAT the fighter is doing since this ability has to purposefully declared and activated. Our dangerous fighter better remember to mark or we can safely ignore him.

 

[DEFCON 1]

STILL doesn't tell us WHAT the fighter is doing since this ability has to purposefully declared and activated. Our dangerous fighter better remember to mark or we can safely ignore him.

What?!? You mean the game expects us to actually ROLEPLAY what some things do?!? Oh, heaven forbid!!!

You know... I don't seem to recall the game spelling out in detail what actually is happening when our characters specifically make a Saving Throw versus Petrification in editions past. It said the effect didn't affect us, and we actually had to "roleplay" and "describe" what our bodies were doing when the save occurred.

You know... for all the complaints people had about 4E supposedly taking out the roleplay of D&D... there seems to be a lot of complaints about it when it asks you to take a basic description and then flesh it out with it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What?!? You mean the game expects us to actually ROLEPLAY what some things do?!? Oh, heaven forbid!!!

You know... I don't seem to recall the game spelling out in detail what actually is happening when our characters specifically make a Saving Throw versus Petrification in editions past. It said the effect didn't affect us, and we actually had to "roleplay" and "describe" what our bodies were doing when the save occurred.

You know... for all the complaints people had about 4E supposedly taking out the roleplay of D&D... there seems to be a lot of complaints about it when it asks you to take a basic description and then flesh it out with it.

It is amusing that "you just can't roleplay" seems to serve as the last ditch defense for mechanical operations that have no actual connection to what is happening in the game world, yet suggesting roleplay as the solution to something in lieu of a mechanical operation is some sort of heresey.

4E didn't remove the roleplay from D&D but it did throw it into the back seat and tell it to shut up.

 

[Morrus]

It is amusing that "you just can't roleplay" seems to serve as the last ditch defense for mechanical operations that have no actual connection to what is happening in the game world, yet suggesting roleplay as the solution to something in lieu of a mechanical operation is some sort of heresey.

4E didn't remove the roleplay from D&D but it did throw it into the back seat and tell it to shut up.

Yeah, "rewriting this power so it makes sense" is not "roleplaying" in my eyes. It's game design. And whether you want to do it or not is not a mark of a quality gamer.