gimme back my narration

[bagger245]

I am in the same boat as the original poster here. Yeah, sure we can reflavour or
completely disregard the fluff and just take the mechanics but the fact that its
written in print gives a certain mentality that it has to be followed. At least
when its played exactly by the book. Are you guys implying "take the mechanics,
throw away the fluff"?
I guess it needs time to get used to playing 4th ed.

 

[pemerton]

Are you guys implying "take the mechanics,
throw away the fluff"?

That's what the rulebook says:

Flavour Text: The next section of a power description gives a brief explanation of what the power does, sometime including information about what it looks or sounds like. . . You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like.

 

[Derro]

I think all of you fellows are spot on in some way.

Powers are a fine system but their presentation is far too dense to allow easy re-fluffing. That is a strength of the writing in 4e but also contributes to the opaqueness of the game.

I can't help but make the MtG card comparison. Many of those had a short story or quote that identified the card. In a CCG that's fun. In an RPG that's redundant. I mean, who's telling the story here anyway?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Powers are a fine system but their presentation is far too dense to allow easy re-fluffing.

Hmm. I strongly disagree... one thing I'm really enjoying about 4E is how easy it is to reflavour powers while retaining the mechanical effects.

-Hyp.

 

[That One Guy]

Hmm. I strongly disagree... one thing I'm really enjoying about 4E is how easy it is to reflavour powers while retaining the mechanical effects.

-Hyp.

This... but I'm not Hyp.

 

[Derro]

Hmm. I strongly disagree... one thing I'm really enjoying about 4E is how easy it is to reflavour powers while retaining the mechanical effects.

You are an experienced D&D player. Over the course of 4e most players will not be as experienced. The fluff that they are presented with becomes the canon of the game. I think much of the schism between editions of any game causes this. D&D, first of games, exacerbates this even more.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You are an experienced D&D player. Over the course of 4e most players will not be as experienced.

So, are you and your fellow players experienced or not? (or rather, cr0ms?)

I think it's not just experience at work here. It's also the question if people read this passage and get it.

Maybe 8 years of 3E or who-knows-how-many years of D&D overall has imprinted the idea that the flavor text of a spell or a power is always the default assumption and truth and only changed on rarest occasion? It is not so much as experienced players would sneer at the idea of changing fluff or would be overly surprised, it's just that they would do it only under rare circumstances.

But a new player might have a different view on this - the rules tell him the fluff can be exchanged. How does he react to this? Does he get it and change the fluff any time it works better differently? Or does he quickly forget this part and treats the fluff as unchangeable?

Does anyone of us experienced players know?

 

[Piratecat]

Pemerton quoted the relevant text. When the rules state explicitly that the fluff text is ephemeral and should be changed, I have no problems at all letting the players alter it to be whatever they want. The only thing that matters tactically is the actual result on the battlemap; everything else, including special effects, is up to the player or the DM.

 

[ExploderWizard]

While I do have my share of issues with 4E, the fluff description is not one of them. I do see how it could be seen as a strong influence on newer players though.

 

[Henry]

While I do have my share of issues with 4E, the fluff description is not one of them. I do see how it could be seen as a strong influence on newer players though.

I didn't like the fluff text on spells in 3.5e, either, but I understand their usefulness -- they're ONE way to flavor the special ability, as an example for DMs and players to follow, for new gamers or for the gamer who just doesn't have the urge to do it themselves.

Looking at "Acid Breath" from Spell Compendium last night for an upcoming game, who the hell wants to pop fireants into their mouth and breathe them out and have them become little acid drops? That sounds rather silly to me. I can see eating some dead ones, and breathing this encompassing gout of acid, or just a ritual where you crush them, they vanish in a blink, and then you shoot a blast of acid in a fan before you. Or just dispense with the fire ants totally and say a magic word and breathe acid (it's not like material components have a mechanical effect with a spell component pouch anyway). But the way it was described sounded silly to me, and it's canon for a host of 3.5 users -- but not me and my Psion/Wizard.