gimme back my narration

[Mallus]

I have a hard time believing that you can't figure out that everyone draws their personal line in the sand at a different place.

I'm not questioning the fact that people have different preferences, or offering criticisms of said preferences. You like what you like. That's cool.

What I was questioning --perhaps not very clearly-- was whether D&D worlds should rightly be though of as simulations, as "working worlds" (when it seems to me like they're better conceived of as fiction, or specifically, as the background for a certain kind of interactive fiction).

So, my personal answer to the above is, of course, "it's 'working out' perfectly in the editions/systems I choose to play, thanks".

To be fair, I was posting in response to a specific post be someone else. I most certainly wasn't offering a general criticism of people who prefer a specific edition.

 

[Mallus]

So much for your sig


Drat, ninja'd

My .sig's a line from an Andrew Bird song called "Fake Palindromes". I guess I should attribute it to him...

 

[Mallus]

It's not insurmountable to me. It's just really annoying.

Did you find things to be different in previous editions? I guess I come from a gaming background full of people who were inveterate flavor-changes and mechanics-modifiers. Doing those things were part and parcel of the D&D experience.

 

[Arnwyn]

I'm not questioning the fact that people have different preferences, or offering criticisms of said preferences. You like what you like. That's cool.

What I was questioning --perhaps not very clearly-- was whether D&D worlds should rightly be though of as simulations, as "working worlds" (when it seems to me like they're better conceived of as fiction, or specifically, as the background for a certain kind of interactive fiction).


To be fair, I was posting in response to a specific post be someone else. I most certainly wasn't offering a general criticism of people who prefer a specific edition.

And, to be fair, you only quoted from Irda Ranger...

As a roleplaying game with castles & kingdoms and NPCs I prefer to imagine that the underlying world the game takes place in is a "working" world...

...which is a wholly reasonable statement. One that seems to be close to how I feel.

D&D worlds "should rightly be thought of as simulations"? Who knows? I didn't see Irda Ranger say that. But, from what he's posted, it seems like a "working world" is working for him. I know it does for me, whether the world "should rightly be thought of as simulations" or not.

Back to 'line in the sand', and preferences (and he did say "prefer" in his quote).

What I was questioning --perhaps not very clearly--

But I agree - your lack of clarity is probably the big roadblock here.

 

[Mallus]

D&D worlds "should rightly be thought of as simulations"? Who knows? I didn't see Irda Ranger say that.

I thought the implication was pretty clear. But I could be wrong...

But, from what he's posted, it seems like a "working world" is working for him.

I should have simply asked "what goes into making a 'working world' for you? and "what part of that comes from the rules?"

- your lack of clarity is probably the big roadblock here.

Heh... wouldn't be the first time. Now to change the subject, did you notice my thoroughly clever reskinning of the 4e clerical godlaser?

 

[billd91]

Did you find things to be different in previous editions? I guess I come from a gaming background full of people who were inveterate flavor-changes and mechanics-modifiers. Doing those things were part and parcel of the D&D experience.

Yes, I did find things different in previous editions, including early 3.5. Descriptions of spells and things are much cleaner, more descriptive of things from a rule-perspective, rather than specific flavor perspective. I'm not sure that the Spell Compendium is the actual start of the practice in its current form, but it's the first source I've got that provides so much publisher flavor.

I won't say that all of the powers in 4e really have the problem to the same degree, though. Compare Time Stop, which uses the flavor text to explain why it's "Time Stop" and not "Speed me up for 2 extra actions", to Mass Fly's white motes of light swirling around and lifting my allies that just feel like an intrusion. Are we sitting on the motes of light like we're sitting on chairs? Do they give us away if we're flying around at night and trying to be stealthy? It's an annoyance to deal with in that case rather than an explanation of the power.

It's like there were varying standards of purple prose that the writers would use. Combust says, matter-of-factly, "You cause several foes to spontaneously burst into flame." And Ray of Enfeeblement says "You point three fingers at your foe, curling them like talons. Weird green mist streams from your enemy's flesh, carrying away its strength." Is that even a ray anymore? I can't tell. But I'm left telling my players they shouldn't just ignore the text, because it might be fairly important to how the spell accomplishes its rule effects... or it might be completely superfluous.

 

[GlaziusF]

But I'm left telling my players they shouldn't just ignore the text, because it might be fairly important to how the spell accomplishes its rule effects... or it might be completely superfluous.

It's always completely superfluous. If there's important mechanical information about spell targeting and effects, it shows up in the targeting and effects blocks and nowhere else.