gimme back my narration

[Tigerbunny]

Add me to the chorus of those who Don't Get It. It has always, always been the case for me that one of my favorite parts of creating a character was making all the "stock parts" my own - figuring out what MY weapon looked like, how MY skill worked, what MY spells did and were called. In one game I'm in, we have a human-wolf crossbreed (elf) commando (rogue), an Underdark (purely fluff) Dragonborn ranger with "dragon fang" throwing blades (handaxes), and we recently had an elf wizard all of whose spells were flower-related. In another, I play a fox girl (half-elf) with a fallen angel living in her head (starlock).

I really wonder why people would play a game of imagination like this and then straitjacket themselves into someone else's ideas about what everything should look like.

 

[heirodule]

disclaimer: I haven't bought the 4e rules.

I have a question about that particular one.

1. does it work in a Silence spell, where you can't call out a name?

2. if you were fighting in complete darkness (does that still happen)? Would the glowing rune shed light and make the enemy a better target?

That's what bugs me about such flavor, is that it probably brings up a host of real-world interaction issues, but you're probably supposed to ignore them.

 

[Delta]

... I often am rebutted by those who feel tied to using the game they purchased as fully as they can or moving on to another system that suits them better. The more changes you have to make to enjoy a game, the less value the original game may intrinsically seem to have. It is certainly understandable.

That's probably the most concise way of putting it.

Disconnecting words-in-book from words-at-table is a bad, frustrating thing. Worst-case example would be darj's example of "a GM that didn't want to hear the name of the powers"; somehow winding up being prohibited from actually referencing the words in the rulebook would be so complicated and frustrating I couldn't conceivably deal with it.

So, the "disconnection" workaround fails to be a solution IMO. I'll just be looking for a game where the content matches what's in my head, simple as that.

 

[Scribble]

That's what bugs me about such flavor, is that it probably brings up a host of real-world interaction issues, but you're probably supposed to ignore them.

Eh I wouldn't say "supposed" to ignore them so much as you can if you want to, and the game will not penalize you for doing so. There's no reason you can't decide to not ignore them and have them have an effect, however.

I can see how this might bug some.

 

[Irda Ranger]

That's what bugs me about such flavor, is that it probably brings up a host of real-world interaction issues, but you're probably supposed to ignore them.

Yeah, this is my problem too. The "old school" spells were like Earth to Mud, where the rule was that you turned earth to mud. That could have effect on movement rates, and that's what it was usually used for, but you could also try to do "out of the box" thinking with the spell effect. In 4E the rule is the movement rate effect, and turning earth to mud is just fluff you can rewrite if you want.

That creates a lot of creative flexibility in some respects (nod to Tigerbunny), but I it think restricts creative flexibility in using the "fluff effects." There are always minor side effects which usually don't matter, but what if a DM rules that the light from Righteous Brand gave away your position on a moonless night? Could the player say "Hey, that's just fluff. I'll rewrite it so that there's no illuminating side effect." Further, if a player decides to use Righteous Brand as a light source (is it At Will? I don't have my books at work), can he? Or does the DM say "That's just fluff. The only effect is the effect it has in combat."

Finding "out of the box" ways to apply the rules is one of the fun things for me in D&D. I like using Earth to Mud to make it easier to dig up a treasure chest or combining Earth to Mud and Fireball to create a smooth 10x10 sheet of ceramic. I've used Wall of Stone's thickness for surface-area tradeoff to resurface a palace outer wall with a 1/4 inch thick sheet of Silver-veined Malachite.

Finding a new tactical power-combo just doesn't have the same appeal. As a matter of personal taste, obviously.

 

[cr0m]

Since someone asked, I've been playing D&D since AD&D. The other players in my group have been playing at least since 3e, some earlier. I've played less than ten sessions of 4e.

It's not that I can't ignore the descriptions of the powers. It's that the combination of:
1. Learning the powers
2. Connecting the names of the powers to their effects
3. Re-narrating the description of the powers

...is distracting the heck out of me.

I've got this power that does damage and gives an ally a bonus to hit, that I can use at-will as a standard action. That's a pretty big chunk of info to remember. And the name of it is "Righteous Brand". The name doesn't do a very good job of describing the effect unless you also reference the description in the book. Then you remember the ghostly symbol empowering your ally.

As a new 4e player, now I also have to remember which descriptions to ignore, my preferred way of imagining it ("my blow is so powerful that he's off balance and open to attack from my ally"), and the name of the power in question--which doesn't match the new description.

All the biting comments about how I need to be more creative aside, doesn't that seem like a lot of extra overhead?

Going a bit further, I suspect that the reason Wotc didn't omit descriptions is because unlike Cleave, Whirlwind Attack and earlier powers, the powers in 4e are much more abstract. These aren't cool variations on the melee attack. These are more like spells in earlier editions.

The point about ignoring or changing spell descriptions was arguably common in earlier editions is a good one. I don't know why re-imagining a magic missile as a bolt of fire is easier than re-imagining a warhammer branding a glowing symbol on some dude's face.

Question for the "it's easy to re-imagine stuff" crowd: do you narrate your powers differently each time, or re-write them once and use that instead of the standard description? Also, are there any powers that you've struggled to re-imagine?

edit

 

[Scribble]

Yeah, this is my problem too. The "old school" spells were like Earth to Mud, where the rule was that you turned earth to mud. That could have effect on movement rates, and that's what it was usually used for, but you could also try to do "out of the box" thinking with the spell effect. In 4E the rule is the movement rate effect, and turning earth to mud is just fluff you can rewrite if you want.

That creates a lot of creative flexibility in some respects (nod to Tigerbunny), but I it think restricts creative flexibility in using the "fluff effects." There are always minor side effects which usually don't matter, but what if a DM rules that the light from Righteous Brand gave away your position on a moonless night? Could the player say "Hey, that's just fluff. I'll rewrite it so that there's no illuminating side effect."

Sure... Were I the DM in this case, if the player wanted to rewrite the fluff before he used the effect, that's just fine. But no "take backsies..."

Further, if a player decides to use Righteous Brand as a light source (is it At Will? I don't have my books at work), can he? Or does the DM say "That's just fluff. The only effect is the effect it has in combat."

DM's ruling things has always been an issue in any game. I would rule if they wanted to use a light shedding power to shed light, then so be it.

Finding "out of the box" ways to apply the rules is one of the fun things for me in D&D. I like using Earth to Mud to make it easier to dig up a treasure chest or combining Earth to Mud and Fireball to create a smooth 10x10 sheet of ceramic. I've used Wall of Stone's thickness for surface-area tradeoff to resurface a palace outer wall with a 1/4 inch thick sheet of Silver-veined Malachite.

None of these abilities are taken away in the new game... In fact it kind of encourages (say yes) the DM to allow creative ideas.

 

[Umbran]

You know what I call it when products have features that make it harder to use them the way I want to? Freaking annoying.

You know what they call gaming products that don't do enough to grip the imagination of new users? Remaindered.

I think the OP's complaint is fair. 4E would be improved without all the over-the-top fluff text. Much improved.

If they gave you a book with no flavor text, you'd make up your own flavor. If they give you a book with flavor text, you'd make up your own flavor. As one who re-flavors on a regular basis, I am unconvinced that they're making it notably more difficult.

I am convinced that having some flavor text is a definite plus for a new gamer, who isn't really sure how all this stuff works yet. As I understand it, most people become more creative when they have some starting framework, rather than working on a completely blank slate. Those of us who have been gaming for a long time have our own internal frameworks, but new folks haven't developed them yet.

So, given the above - I'll accept that leaving the flavor out would be an improvement for you. No further argument there. If WotC can sell enough products to you to make a tidy profit, that'd be great. But otherwise, I think we have to accept the occasional compromise between presentations for new and experienced gamers.

So, the critique is fair, to a point. But so is my statement. Given that a rewrite isn't in the offing in the near future, there's only so much gain to be found in railing against faults - they aren't going to be implementing your feedback any time soon. You have a choice of spending your energy in noting the negative, or in finding a constructive path of thought.

There's only so long one should spend on complaining about the fact that you have lemons rather than oranges. At some point, it is useful to switch to thinking about lemonade.

 

[cr0m]

Umbran, your posts in this thread are really condescending. How about engaging with me and the other posters who are having a problem with a game that you enjoy, and helping us out, instead of calling us deluded or lazy?

edit: to be fair, I didn't specifically ask for help in the OP. My bad. So it's explicit: I play 4e but I'm having a problem with the narration. Anyone else had this problem? Any suggestions?

 

[Kishin]

You know what I call it when products have features that make it harder to use them the way I want to? Freaking annoying. Sure, I can "exercise" my computer skills by finding the tools to strip the DRM from AAC files, but I'd rather just buy from the Amazon MP3 store than iTunes.

I think the OP's complaint is fair. 4E would be improved without all the over-the-top fluff text. Much improved.

I fail to see how making up your own flavor where flavor text is completely absent is so much more ideal/different than saying "I'm going to ignore all the flavor text here and just do what I want." If you were going to have to do that anyway in a situation where flavor text wasn't pre-existing, what makes the latter scenario so much worse? It's not like you were an explorer who set for some undiscovered country, only to find someone else's flag in the ground when you got there.

Your example isn't really fitting, at all. In it, you were planning on listening to the recording, and DRM was both not a part of the plan, and an actual functioning element you'd have to remove. If you could just say "No DRM" and mystically go on as if it wasn't there, that'd be closer to the situation, IMO. The flavor text is completely ignorable: Heck, you can imagine a blank page overlay of it as you're reading, even. The only reasoning I can think of is the mere idea of its presence is bothersome to you, which I think is a little silly.

As a new 4e player, now I also have to remember which descriptions to ignore, my preferred way of imagining it ("my blow is so powerful that he's off balance and open to attack from my ally"), and the name of the power in question--which doesn't match the new description.

All the biting comments about how I need to be more creative aside, doesn't that seem like a lot of extra overhead?

Honestly? Not to me. That's a pretty low processing power function for my brain RPGwise, as its just a name and a visual effect of my choosing. I guess that's why I'm having trouble grasping it. I'm not trying to impugn other people here, but I really just can't follow how 'I shoot radiant lasers' becoming 'I shoot blue fire' (quick example using Lance of Faith) is hard on the imagination.