Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 3935648" data-attributes="member: 1003">I certainly think they are more important.&nbsp; For one thing, they're a lot harder to write. I can write fluff for hours at a stretch, but that's easy.&nbsp; Writing good rules is hard work, and often requires math I don't have the time or inclination to do.I've taken a look at the fluff, and some it's cool, some of it's boring or dumb (to me), but for the most part I don't care. I can re-write it.BUT, there's a curious intersection of the two.&nbsp; Certain fluff and rules are very intertwined; and in two different ways.Certain rules &quot;work&quot; because of fluff reasons.&nbsp; For example, 4E Dwarves get a +X to attack versus Giants because they were once enslaved by them.&nbsp; If you don't like slavery angle you either need to come up with a new explanation for the same ability, or replace it with a comparable one.&nbsp; This is (a little) inconvenient either way, and I can see why some people complain that this causes them work when WotC had to real incentive to make this change (&quot;Change for change's sake!&quot;).&nbsp; Rules on planar travel and the &quot;fluffy&quot; cosmology and godly realms are also examples of the close interconnection of fluff and rules.The other intersection (and the far more annoying one, to my mind) is where rules are given &quot;fluffy&quot; names, like &quot;Emerald Frost&quot; or &quot;Golden Wyvern Adept.&quot;&nbsp; People who object to this (because they don't like the name for fluffy reasons) object to either having to use the name in a &quot;rules&quot; discussion or going through the entire PHB and giving them all &quot;better&quot; names (whatever that means to that person).&nbsp; Even then, those &quot;better&quot; names are house rules only, and they'll still have to call it GWA on a board such as EN World for lack of a standardized and generic alternative.Of course, that above argument also applies to many things we already have in the game, such as the Class names.&nbsp; The names &quot;Paladin&quot; and &quot;Wizard&quot; are a bit fluffy.&nbsp; A more generic name for Wizard might be &quot;Arcane Controller&quot; or &quot;Arcane Generalist Spellcaster&quot; or &quot;Arcane Implement Spellcaster.&quot;&nbsp; But &quot;Wizard&quot; is established and people are used to it. So yeah, the fundamental rules are MORE important.&nbsp; But that doesn't make the rest UNimportant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 3935648, member: 1003"] I certainly think they are more important. For one thing, they're a lot harder to write. I can write fluff for hours at a stretch, but that's easy. Writing good rules is hard work, and often requires math I don't have the time or inclination to do. I've taken a look at the fluff, and some it's cool, some of it's boring or dumb (to me), but for the most part I don't care. I can re-write it. BUT, there's a curious intersection of the two. Certain fluff and rules are very intertwined; and in two different ways. Certain rules "work" because of fluff reasons. For example, 4E Dwarves get a +X to attack versus Giants because they were once enslaved by them. If you don't like slavery angle you either need to come up with a new explanation for the same ability, or replace it with a comparable one. This is (a little) inconvenient either way, and I can see why some people complain that this causes them work when WotC had to real incentive to make this change ("Change for change's sake!"). Rules on planar travel and the "fluffy" cosmology and godly realms are also examples of the close interconnection of fluff and rules. The other intersection (and the far more annoying one, to my mind) is where rules are given "fluffy" names, like "Emerald Frost" or "Golden Wyvern Adept." People who object to this (because they don't like the name for fluffy reasons) object to either having to use the name in a "rules" discussion or going through the entire PHB and giving them all "better" names (whatever that means to that person). Even then, those "better" names are house rules only, and they'll still have to call it GWA on a board such as EN World for lack of a standardized and generic alternative. Of course, that above argument also applies to many things we already have in the game, such as the Class names. The names "Paladin" and "Wizard" are a bit fluffy. A more generic name for Wizard might be "Arcane Controller" or "Arcane Generalist Spellcaster" or "Arcane Implement Spellcaster." But "Wizard" is established and people are used to it. So yeah, the fundamental rules are MORE important. But that doesn't make the rest UNimportant. [/QUOTE]

Verification