I don't know if this is a thing...

[grimslade]

Blended fluff and crunch

The 4E presentation of powers with division between math and description is fantastic for digital tools and short hand reference at the table. It makes the tactical play flow a lot faster and translates easily to virtual table tops. I am surprised no one made a Crpg using 4E rules as the translation would be easier and it lends itself to the repetitive grind of a Crpg so easily.

The blended and narrative versions of powers cater to the reading of the rules as a book. The descriptive prose is much easier to digest than the repetitive stat block form. The only thing is that the descriptive prose gets shorn off once the rules are learned for speed of play. We may yearn for the 1E Fireball write up, but we still grabbed d6 and may have whispered, "boom".

D&D Next will be about selling books, physical, paper bound books. They need to be considered for readability. I hope they give nice blended spell descriptions that are evocative and with as few loopholes as possible. These books will be read and re-read many times. Try to make the experience as pleasant as possible. The crunch will be stripped out and the cold hard math and effect will be available on DDi anyways.

 

[mkill]

Assimilate
When you reach out and touch your opponent, tendrils emerge from your hands and assimilate the enemy like a Borg.
Attack: as melee touch attack + z condition.
​

I definitely want a strict separation between rules text and in-world description. First of all, it's faster if you need to look something up. Second, it avoids breaks in the game where the DM and player have a drawn-out discussion about the rules implication of "tendrils" vs. "shooting energy" (or whatever). Third, it makes reflavoring easy: If you want your sorceress to enchant your enemies with the scent of roses, rather than shooting tendrils, you can use the rules part and rewrite the fluff.

That said, the fluff part in 4E was often too anemic. They should have taken the time to write longer descriptions into powers, if only to make sitting down and reading the rulebooks a more rewarding experience.

Oh, and I kept the "melee touch attack" part. Rules should reference basic "LEGO bricks" where possible.

 

[Storminator]

I much prefer the 4e method. The interwoven text is much better for those days when you are home alone reading your D&D books, but the separated method is much better on game day.

I think 4e's problem is that there are simply too many powers, which is a consequence of how PCs gain powers in 4e. If most/all classes were Essentials style, with a small list of powers that you can start to activate multiple times, each power could get a little more love and better flavor text. Tho IMX, at the game table, each power gets its flavor text invoked once or twice. After that it's just effects. This was true in all previous editions as well. After coming up with a colorful description of hacking the orcs head off a time or two players devolve to "I swing my sword."

PS

 

[Dausuul]

I strongly agree. As I've said elsewhere, I think the whole idea of "fluff" and "crunch" as used today is bogus; there is no such distinction. There is just rules text of varying precision and detail.

Here's a little game you can play: Open up a pre-4E D&D rulebook, pick a spell, and ask a bunch of gamers to pick out the parts of the spell description that are fluff and the parts that are crunch. You'll find that each person comes up with different subsets. Some people will think that a 3E fireball melting gold and lead is fluff. Others will think it's crunch. Same thing for setting fire to combustibles. Some folks might point out that detonating with a low roar implies it can be detected with a Listen check, which would make the low roar crunch. The reality is that you can't mark a clear cutoff point, because there is none.

To take another example, some people say they like the 4E approach because it lets them "re-fluff" powers. So, suppose I re-fluff the 4E scorching burst to say that when I cast it, an ancient dragon swoops down out of the sky and blasts the area with fire, then flies away. It's still a burst 1 within 10 at-will power, doing 1d6 + Int damage, et cetera, so this should be a legitimate re-fluff, right? But if you let me do this, I will start using scorching burst to convince my foes that I have an ancient dragon at my beck and call. Suddenly a simple damage spell has become an extraordinarily powerful illusion. Combine it with a bit of showmanship, some planning, and a good Bluff check, and I can nullify half the encounters we face. It'll be cool and creative the first time I do it. By the twentieth, it'll just be a pain in the neck.

The solution, of course, is not to ban spell customization, but to drop the idea that some parts of the spell are Sacrosanct Crunch and other parts are Disposable Fluff. The 4E approach is not giving you permission to customize--you already had that! What it's trying to do is put some things off limits for customization. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to, say, increase the range of a spell while shrinking the area of effect. The DM would need to sign off on the change, of course, but the DM needs to sign off anyway in order to prevent abuses like the "ancient dragon illusion" I described above.

 

[Morrus]

I'd really like D&D Next to use both forms of presentation -- a flavorful description forming the bulk of the spell, and a 4e-style crunchy block at the end. For a rules-literal style of play (or for organised play), encourage dependance on the crunchy block for rulings, for a more story-telling style of play, encourage the DM to interpret the written description more liberally, using the crunch only as a guide.

Well, that's not both forms as I described them - that's the first form (fluff and rules separate). The other form is fluff and rules interwoven.

 

[TerraDave]

Following up on Dausuul, I don't know how "fluffy" spell descriptions, at least in AD&D or 3E, really are. They have always seemed somewhat dry, except for the implications of what the spell actually does. However they can also be somewhat convoluted and slow down game play. Here, I think 4E has the edge. But better written or more streamlined descriptions in the more traditional style would also work.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Vastly prefer the 3e version.

 

[Henry]

I remember a blog by Rob Schwalb, I think, making the same point, and a number of people deriding the idea on here (or maybe Circvs) but I think there's something to it, myself. Though it shouldn't make a difference, I do like the 3E version, because it is reminiscent of the 1E way, which in some cases so blurred the line between fluff and text people had internet cat-fights over what was fluff and what was rules.

 

[Libramarian]

You know I was reading the 4e Warlord class recently, and I was actually thinking "hmm this format isn't so bad".

But then you get some powers that are just...lame. Like it's obvious that the designer started with the mechanics part and then just slapped on the fluff afterwards.

It's THAT feeling that turns me off.

e.g.

Knight’s Move
Warlord Utility 2
With a sharp wave of your arm, you direct one of your allies to a more tactically advantageous position.

Really...?

Stir the Hornet’s Nest
Warlord Attack 25
“Have at thee, villain! Feel the sting of a thousand angry hornets.”

This is so bad.

I'm interested in the purported tactical combat module for Next, but the presentation needs a complete revamp.

Cut the number of powers WAY down (a lot of these seem pretty redundant...), and you know -- don't even bother with "fluff".

I've heard 4e players say that the powers "feel" better in play -- like the um...non-verbal meaning of the interactions is vivid and interesting? Like the combat *feels* dynamic, without needing dynamic verbal descriptions? You know what I mean? I could see that actually. Just concentrate on that. Make the tactical combat FEEL good, and forget about the cheesy fluff.

 

[dkyle]

To take another example, some people say they like the 4E approach because it lets them "re-fluff" powers. So, suppose I re-fluff the 4E scorching burst to say that when I cast it, an ancient dragon swoops down out of the sky and blasts the area with fire, then flies away. It's still a burst 1 within 10 at-will power, doing 1d6 + Int damage, et cetera, so this should be a legitimate re-fluff, right? But if you let me do this, I will start using scorching burst to convince my foes that I have an ancient dragon at my beck and call. Suddenly a simple damage spell has become an extraordinarily powerful illusion. Combine it with a bit of showmanship, some planning, and a good Bluff check, and I can nullify half the encounters we face. It'll be cool and creative the first time I do it. By the twentieth, it'll just be a pain in the neck.

If the re-fluffed Scorching Burst is having a mechanical effect other than what the stat-block says, it's not just re-fluffed anymore. It's a different power. In this case, one with a potentially convincing illusion associated with it.

An essential requirement for re-fluffing is that anything done using the re-fluffed ability must have been possible with the original. If that's not the case, then it's not just re-fluffing.

The solution, of course, is not to ban spell customization, but to drop the idea that some parts of the spell are Sacrosanct Crunch and other parts are Disposable Fluff. The 4E approach is not giving you permission to customize--you already had that! What it's trying to do is put some things off limits for customization. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to, say, increase the range of a spell while shrinking the area of effect. The DM would need to sign off on the change, of course, but the DM needs to sign off anyway in order to prevent abuses like the "ancient dragon illusion" I described above.

No, what's it's trying to do is make it clear what parts can be changed without really effecting the game (so the DM doesn't have to care about them changing, unless the new fluff simply don't fit into his campaign world), and what parts change the game, and require the DM to put on his game-designer hat if he wants to maintain the game balance of the game.

Increasing the range of a spell while shrinking the area of effect is a significant game design change. It is different than simple reflavoring.