gimme back my narration

[Raven Crowking]

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.

This.

in one 3.House game

I love that term. 3.House. Why did I never think of that?!?!

You know what they call it when you have to repeatedly move weights around? Exercise.

Rather than consider it a problem, think of it as an opportunity to exercise your narration skills. Overcome the bias with how much cooler your narration is.

And here I thought 4e was supposed to be less work.....

(I kid. Changing fluff is half the fun of the game -- in any edition!)


RC

 

[Imaro]

Why are these concerns instead of positives?

Perhaps a more constructive answer would be to relate why you feel they are positives instead of concerns, I mean otherwise it doesn't really mean much.

 

[radferth]

My problem with the names/fluff of many 4e powers are twofold:

1) I don't like them (completely my problem).

2) Some of the fluff is oddly precise, and the power is named after the fluff, rather than the effect.

Using the Righteous Brand example (not entirely fair, as its one of the worst offenders), it doesn't just brand the enemy, it specifically brands him with a glowing rune. And the power is named after the glowing brand, not the fact that I am hitting the guy, or that it makes it easier for my ally to hit him. So when I reflavor the special effect, I am left with a non sequitur name.

Now in some ways this is an improvement over the overly-generic feat names in 3e. Improved unbalancing strike would also be a bad name (IMHO) for this power. This doesn't really hurt the game system; but I really wish they had put a bit more effort into the 4e fluff. Much of reads like rush job somebody did the night before it was due.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

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?

It depends usually something like a Spell or a Miracle has some set component on how it is used that I have re-fluffed, but how the character uses said component in each combat can alter.

For more mutable ones like Martial I never re-write it down and simply narrate it differently depending on the circumstance. For instance Twin Strike:

1: "I let loose a single arrow that shatters upon impacting the floor sending shards into the two orcs."

2: "I plunge a arrow into the eye of the orc then nock it and send it straight into another orc." (Very LoTR here).

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

*boggle*

From Basic on through 1E, 2E, both 3Es, and now 4E, I have always, as a DM and a player both, constantly reflavored descriptions of spells, powers, monsters, and magic items when I felt it was more appropriate for the campaign. And in all that time, through all the various groups I've played in, I've never once had anyone object after I explained why such changes were occasionally made, or have any trouble following as long as the mechanics remained the same.

Again, maybe it's just me and my players. But I can't even comprehend the notion of someone objecting to that sort of thing, as some of you have obviously come across. It's a game of imagination; I can't understand why people wouldn't apply that to what's in the book just as much as what goes on around the book.

I do know that it's not remotely a new thing to 4E, however, despite what some (utterly unnecessary) comments in this thread would have us believe.

 

[Cadfan]

Perhaps a more constructive answer would be to relate why you feel they are positives instead of concerns, I mean otherwise it doesn't really mean much.

Yes, I suppose it would be generous of me to refute an argument that hasn't been made.

I'm not that generous.

 

[Scribble]

My problem with the names/fluff of many 4e powers are twofold:

1) I don't like them (completely my problem).

2) Some of the fluff is oddly precise, and the power is named after the fluff, rather than the effect.

I think that's mainly a problem with the magic effects. They seem to have names that describe the flavor rather then what's happening gamewise.

The martial power ones seem to be pretty descriptive of the effect rather then the appearance though.

I don't think it's too much of a change though. I mean spells have always been flashy with names that describe the flavor rather then the rules.

 

[Zaukrie]

Can we rename this thread IRONY?

Too much fluff in the PHB. Not enough fluff in the MM.

I don't like the fluff, it has no actual effect on gameplay, yet it makes me like playing the game less.

I don't get either of those two at all. I am in the boggled group as to how this is a problem. Ignore the fluff 100% if you want.

And, it is significanlty easier to re-write fluff than to start from scratch. Research on creativity is very, very clear on this.

This is actually the first edition where I've read the italics, most of the time I ignored them.

 

[Mark]

I do know that it's not remotely a new thing to 4E, however, despite what some (utterly unnecessary) comments in this thread would have us believe.

Some disagree and seemingly find they are having to do a lot more adjusting with this ediition than they did, if they did (like you apparently did), in the past or with other games. Rather than insinuate that those people are lying, I think it behooves us to listen and give constructive assistance, whether that be with the new game or toward an alternate. I think it is a fair criticism to suggest someone wants to be able to utilize the majority, if not all, of the text of any games they purchase.

To that end, I'd like to get some concensus on the amount of flavor text embodied by the core rules of 4E. I know some feel that one book might have more than another but my poll speaks to the three core rule books in full.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...tively-whats-d-d-4th-edition-flavor-text.html

 

[Kishin]

Darn tootin'. But watch this:

Step 1: Learn new rules.
Step 2: Narrate their implementation.

vs.

Step 1: Learn new rules with flavor (this is more work).
Step 2: Try to figure out how the oddly disjointed flavor actually works in-game ("Can I summon just the brand but not as part of an attack? Is this detectable magic? How much light does this give off?").
Step 3: Unlearn flavor (another extra step?).
Step 4: Narrate their implementation.

That's the complaint. Further, reflavoring the entire ruleset is a lot of work. I think it's fair to point out how annoying it is.

I'm not surprised this is the complaint when Step 2 of the second method is "Completely overthink things."

Would you mull on or otherwise care about that stuff if you narrating the power normally? I can't see doing so.