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

[tuxgeo]

My top-down overview of this issue concerns the intent of the gameplay, wherein we want to players to describe what their PCs are doing so the DM can tell them what the results of those actions are.

If we then hard-code the description into the game mechanics without also allowing the players the freedom to alter the descriptions, then the descriptions are always going to be the same each time a specific piece of game mechanics is used; and I think that this isn't the desired effect.

This reminds me of something posted on these boards a couple of years ago in a different thread, as follows:

One thing I've done for the past ten years or so is give a consistent "Plus One to any d20 roll if you adequately describe what you are doing." I've never required that players do this, but I have regularly prodded them after a close roll with "Do you want to go for the +1 description bonus?"

If the description is particularly entertaining to the group, I've been known to give a +2 or even grant an immediate success. This particularly helps keep the group interested when the rogue is off scouting alone--as he is highly motivated to give elaborate and amusing descriptions so he doesn't trigger any traps, alert the bad guys, make too much noise, etc.

For this reason, I think it should be possible for the players to know which parts of the game mechanics may be subjected to alteration and which may not; and to that end, some separation of the fluff from the crunch should at least be attempted, as a means of encouraging the players to be more descriptive -- so they don't feel constrained to use only the official description in the book.

 

[MoonSong]

I can see WotC has no choice but to alienate either you or me. I'd hate to be in their shoes!

Perhaps there is a way to please both, in a way. Just make the flavorfulmix of fluf and crunch the default, then in a table on the DMG or another module in an appendix put a list of mechanically balanced powers with a "fluff as needed/wished" advise, since a lot of powers in 4e are repeated version of each other just with different fluff that could save a lot of space, since refluffers and tactical players care not about a fluf-crunch integration and only about the crunchy bits I don't see any difference, those not caring about fluff at all no longer need to even ignore fluff as there is none to begin with, and the refluffers are 100% free from any default restriction, that also gives the designers free reign to design balanced mechanicall effects without caring to stamp them with token fluff. Meanwhile the rest of us get the colorfull descriptios we love and care about.

 

[Echohawk]

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.

I think I was suggesting that the written text could contain both fluff and rules, and the accompanying summary block would actually be an abbreviated version of the crunch. Something like:

Assimilate
When you reach out and touch your opponent, tendrils emerge from your hands and assimilate the enemy like a Borg, making the target dazed and causing 10 damage in the process. This requires a melee touch attack. The target may make a Wisdom save to avoid the daze effect. Creatures with a hivemind or creatures with more than one brain (e.g. ettins) take half damage from this attack and gain a +4 to the save.

Summary: Touch attack vs Dexterity, Damage 10 + dazed (Wis)

But maybe that's not that much different from "fluff and rules interwoven"...

 

[Dausuul]

As one of those arguing for integrated descriptions, one thing I should add: Good Editing Is Important. Here's a bit from 3E fireball:

A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. ... You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point.

This should look more like:

A glowing bead streaks from your hand toward a chosen spot. It explodes with a roar at that spot or when it hits a solid object, dealing 1d6 fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to creatures and unattended objects in the area.

And that's just off the top of my head. It could probably be trimmed further. Good writing is spare and tight, not bursting with adjectives and long words. If we didn't have such blathering, overwrought spell descriptions in earlier editions, I doubt anyone would ever have thought it was necessary to invent distinctions between "fluff" and "crunch."

 

[Blackwarder]

Or maybe, if you use a digital format, make each power/spell have a descriptive and crunchy flavor and the player can chose which one to read with a press of a finger...

Although, I still believe that divorcing the crunch from fluff is a bad idea.

Warder

 

[dkyle]

Then nothing can ever be re-fluffed, because even the most trivial change affects the potential uses of the spell.

Look, suppose I said I wanted scorching burst to have black fire instead of bright orange. That's a textbook example of what is typically meant by "re-fluffing." But now I can do things with it that weren't possible with the original! The old scorching burst is highly visible at night or in a dark cave. You have to be careful not to draw unwanted attention. The new version is far more stealth-friendly.

Now, is it still balanced in its new form? I would say so. The benefit is relatively minor, and there are drawbacks as well (I can't use it to signal allies from a distance). But at a glance, the ancient-dragon thing would appear to be the same way; it's just tweaking the appearance. I could slide that change past any number of 4E DMs, and they wouldn't realize what they'd agreed to until I started breaking the game with it. You can't know whether a change is balanced until you put on your game design hat and think about consequences, and 4E's approach does not save you from that.

But ultimately, you're not breaking the game, because there's no actual game to noticing powers, or using illusory dragons to intimidate enemies. You're trying to "break" a "game" that is entirely subject to DM discretion to begin with. If there aren't rules for it, then there's really no game being broken.

You say your Scorching Burst looks like a dragon swooping out of the sky? I'd probably say OK, and as long as you used it like a Scorching Burst in the actual game (which in DnD, in all editions, is mostly the combat system), I'd be fine with it. You start saying it's an ancient dragon, I'd start objecting on grounds of pure flavor silliness, at that point (it's a burst 1 for minimal damage, after all). You start saying it's of sufficient realism that you can use it as an actual tool to intimidate people with "your dragon", and I'd start calling BS that a level 1 at-will should be capable of producing an illusion of that quality, or summoning an Epic level creature. I still didn't have to play "game designer" because it wasn't really a matter of any actual game mechanics, just the consistency and logic of the world.

The "crunch" is how the power relates to the actual game mechanics. The fluff is the rest. Could it be useful if the players are creative? Sure. But it's usefulness is ultimately rooted entirely in DM discretion.

Consider this: if a player asked, not as a matter of reflavoring or anything, to simply have a newly-hatched dragon follow his character around, sit on his shoulder like a parrot, etc., without having any in-combat (or other game mechanic) use, I'd probably say "OK, enjoy!". There wouldn't even be the need for them to reflavor stuff to have a little dragon with them. If they asked the same for an Ancient dragon, I'd probably say no, because that's just ridiculous. Again, not because of me playing game designer, but me playing world builder.

But it's lying! You just admitted as much. I didn't change any of the "crunch" text. If there were a power that was created from the beginning to be "Ancient dragon swoops down and breathes fire in a burst 1 for 1d6 + Int fire damage, then flies away," its rules text would be exactly identical with that of scorching burst.

It could have a stat-block that indicates that a summoned Ancient dragon appears, flys a given distance, does a blast 3, then disappears. It would be mechanically significant, because it could be vulnerable to OAs, interrupts, and readied actions, and might not always be able to target the area desired.

What 4E is really doing with its purported "fluff" versus "crunch" distinction is separating the "tactical combat game" part of 4E from the "role-playing game" part.

It's separating the "players can expect to work in a predictable, well-defined way" from the "stuff that might be useful, but only if the DM says it's OK".

Some folks like having the sharp distinction where "roll initiative" means "we're playing an abstract board game for the next 45 minutes." I have come to hate it. I want combat, exploration, and roleplaying to mesh together smoothly. D&D should be one game, not two.

I like a sharp distinction between the part of the game that's actually a game, and the part that's basically just "DM, may I?" There are plenty of RPGs with well defined non-combat rules. DnD really never has.

 

[Kaodi]

You could perhaps say this issue is similar to how " 3 out of 5 cars are blue " and " 60% of cars are blue " is not the same thing. Not where it counts, anyway, which is in your head.

 

[Blackwarder]

I think I was suggesting that the written text could contain both fluff and rules, and the accompanying summary block would actually be an abbreviated version of the crunch. Something like:

Assimilate
When you reach out and touch your opponent, tendrils emerge from your hands and assimilate the enemy like a Borg, making the target dazed and causing 10 damage in the process. This requires a melee touch attack. The target may make a Wisdom save to avoid the daze effect. Creatures with a hivemind or creatures with more than one brain (e.g. ettins) take half damage from this attack and gain a +4 to the save.

Summary: Touch attack vs Dexterity, Damage 10 + dazed (Wis)

But maybe that's not that much different from "fluff and rules interwoven"...

Actually, I wouldn't mind if the crunch summery would be added to the fluff and rules interwoven section as an addon.

Warder

 

[Dragonblade]

Crunch should be separate.

For one thing its annoying to look up a spell and hold up the entire game while you parse some flowery prose when all you need to know is how much damage you do and what type. It should be right up front, or even at the bottom in a summarized block.

Now if monster stat blocks are self-contained that helps, but invariably some monster or NPC spell caster has a spell you need to look up and adjudicate, and since you're the DM the whole game comes to a halt while you look it up.

It also leads to arguments at the table when a player's interpretation of the prose differs from the DM's interpretation of the prose and then another player will pipe in how you ruled a different spell in a different way and that should apply here and etc. Ugh, no thanks!

All of these time wasting arguments and book flipping went away in 4e. Not to say that 4e is perfect, I have my issues with it, but clarifying spell mechanics isn't one of them.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think that what you call loopholes, I might call creativity. I like the descriptions integral to the spells and find it enhances people's ability to come up with creative uses for things (which is, I note, not the same as game-breaking "loopholes" - which are easily dealt with at the table by a DM imx).

Cheers