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

[dkyle]

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"...

But if the summary ever omits actual mechanics, like yours does, then I have to read the full text to make sure I got everything, anyway, so nothing is really gained.

The other problem is that including both is just begging for accidental contradictions between them. It happens all the time with feats; the tables vs. the actual descriptions. With feats, we know we have to use the descriptions for the whole story. Seems like the same would happen with your suggested stat blocks.

 

[Mattachine]

I much prefer the first (standard 4e) format, since it is easier for me to reflavor, reskin, and refluff. Heck the 4e rules even suggest doing so.

Of course, either version can be easily reskinned, but the first, with the fluff separated, seems easier to do.

 

[Libramarian]

I find myself torn between both sides here.

I mean if the fluff is truly not supposed to matter at all, then yeah it's kind of asinine. So I say just get rid of it.

I'm not into refluffing. I would go so far as to discourage players from doing that. It seems to erode the communal game language and imagery for no practical purpose. The game should be fun enough in itself that the players don't feel a need to refluff for amusement. As a DM I want my players to look outward, not inward. Go get the treasure! Go save the village! Not navel-gazing about what their own character looks like.

I think there is an important relationship between fluff that is cool and fluff that immediately gives you ideas about how it could actually affect resolution. Form follows function. I want spells/abilities with that sort of fluff, sure.

I'm not sure exactly how it would work but I can imagine a game where there was sort of a sharp line between out of combat play and in combat mode, but that wouldn't bother me because both sides (or all 3 "pillars") were well-developed and fun.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

No, It would be more like "3 outo of 5 cars are blue" agaisnt "a car is neon blue, another is turquoise the other one is cyan one more is crimson and the last one is yellow, oh and the neon blue paint can cause allergies in some people and shines in the night, the turquoise one is extremely toxic and not eco-friendly at all, the crimson one is way more likelly to attract the attention of robbers and a psycological effect over it's driver that enhances aggressive behavior, the cyan is boring and will get you though of as a lame loser for riding a car that color and the yellow one will make some poeple more suceptible to get nauseated on board"

 

[seregil]

It does!

I'm talking about a tactical combat *module*.

To be clear: I absolutely do prefer the Pathfinder style spell description for most of the core game.

I'm on the level with your's and @Dausuul 's comments about fluff that sometimes isn't just fluff.

I enjoy spells that provoke player creativity in arguing for fluff-mechanic translation (e.g. "I stuff my ears with wax -- does that prevent me from hearing the sleep spell?"). I like that and I think the core game should encourage it to the extent that it can.

But I'm also interested in a version of the 4e pushy slidy grid-based tactical combat thing, if it were cut way down to its essential components.

I mean the 4e combat system really does not seem to be that complicated conceptually -- I think you could boil it down to a handful or a dozen or a score of mechanical moves, and then give those to the martial classes, and pin some of them to the core fluffy spells, to make the modular tactical combat system. And then you could invoke that for battles in a game that otherwise could feature lots of deeply fluffy DM judgement-requiring spell and ability usage out of combat. Or you could just invoke the tactical combat module for certain climactic combats.

I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point. The clear-cut stuff is easy. Fireball can be summed up in precise, quantitative terms. I don't like it but the 'essence' of the spell can fit into the 4e 'mechanics only' approach. At the very least, a spell card should contain this approach since the point of the card is to sum up the spell.

However, problems arise from the grey zones and the stuff that CANNOT be limited to mechanics only description. Suggestion, for example, can be used in combat (IIRC) but is, in implementation, very subject to Dm interpretation. Charm Person, in its classic form, CANNOT be used in combat and CANNOT be summed up in pure mechanical form.

THIS is where 4e went wrong. When they were unable to boil down a spell/power to pure quantitative mechanics, they simply abolished it. Thus reducing the game as a whole and making it something less than it was.

And, for me, this is where I draw the line. The rules should serve the narrative first and I refuse to give up non-combat, non-mechanical only abilities to bow to the 'clear and precise above all' combat system.

If WOTC creates a module that has all these issues, even if it not the default way, you still end up with something that is NOT DND and I would prefer WOTC spend its time and resources on DND.

Yes, do try and make the mechanical effects of abilities/powers/spells clear and well defined.

Yes, include a summary (when you can) of the mechanical effects of a spell.

Yes, do make the combat system simple and clean.

No, do not strip away anything that cannot conform to the mechanics of the combat system when what you are trying to remove helps the narrative.

I want a role playing game with a combat system, not a combat game with rpg elements.

 

[Dausuul]

But if the summary ever omits actual mechanics, like yours does, then I have to read the full text to make sure I got everything, anyway, so nothing is really gained.

On the contrary, Echohawk's solution works quite well for quick reference in play. Sure, if you've completely forgotten what the spell does, or if you're looking up an obscure detail, you have to read the description. But if you're just trying to remember if it's a touch attack or a regular attack, or whether it does 10 damage or 20, the summary has you covered. And the vast majority of the time, that's all one needs.

As a matter of fact, this would be damn handy, in 4E as well as previous editions. Before the Character Builder, I used to tot up the damage and attack bonus for each power and write them out on my sheet next to the power name. The Builder made me lazy, but I'm thinking I ought to start again; it's much faster than sorting through sheets full of power cards*.

[SIZE=-2]*Which aren't even alphabetized. For the love of Demogorgon, they can't bloody alphabetize them? This ain't rocket science, guys. If the language you're writing in can't sort a freakin' list with one line of code, dump it and come into the 21st century. Not everyone wants to snip up their character sheet into a zillion little scraps of paper. [/rant][/SIZE]

 

[Kaodi]

...

I was talking similar in a different sense. Not all spells are going to be different in game whether you describe them in the 3e or 4E way. However, even those spells which are not different in game will still affect you, the player, differently, even though they are ostensibly the exact same.

Also, I have to wonder why people are debating as if this reskinning thing is limited to 4E. I am pretty sure reskinning was encouraged as a way to keep descriptions fresh and exciting long before the advent of 4E. There are literally a million different ways you could describe magic missile, for instance, which are all functionally the same, except perhaps in ridiculously contrived circumstances. Like, for instance, " This Green Monster is immune to all attacks except for those made of the Colour Yellow. "

 

[GX.Sigma]

I believe the rules should exist only insomuch as they describe what happens in the imagined world. A game that describes a spell purely by stating how much damage it deals, then leaving the player to come up with an in-world explanation, is not the kind of game I want to play.

Fireball is fireball is fireball. You can ask your DM "can my fireball be blue?" and they'll either say ok, your character is smart enough to modify the formula, or no, the fireball spell was invented by mages and scholars 1000 years ago and the formula is too complicated for you to modify. You can ask your DM "can my fireball represent a giant dragon flying down and breathing fire?" and they'll say no, because that's not what fireball does. It fires a pea-sized bead of energy which explodes on impact.

Basically, the part that some people call "fluff" is the important part for me. I'm all in favor of a stat block for ingame reference, and the descriptions should definitely be as concise as possible, but they need to clearly describe what the spell does.

 

[Sunseeker]

I prefer fluff and math seperate. It's much easier to read and less frustrating. Not to mention it's often a lot shorter. People who care about the fluff will read it. People who don't won't no matter what.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Also, I have to wonder why people are debating as if this reskinning thing is limited to 4E. I am pretty sure reskinning was encouraged as a way to keep descriptions fresh and exciting long before the advent of 4E.

Yeah, 1e reskins hit points and saving throws. Also 3e feats are presented in the same way - fluff first, then crunch.

It's definitely a thing, I'm with Morrus on that. A previous poster mentioned Hero System, which is an interesting comparison, because skinning powers (the skins are called 'special effects') is a huge part of the game. Hero has quite a limited range of powers, there aren't that many basic attacks for example, and you're supposed to use skins to give them flavour and meaning within the game world. A 10d6 Energy Blast could be fire, or magic, or entropic energy, or an ionic bolt, or the Power Cosmic, or a dragon swooping down from the sky and breathing flames, or anything. If the dragon did have a powerful intimidatory effect however, you'd have to buy that as a separate power or ability. Pretty much anything that does anything useful in Hero, you have to pay points for it. There isn't the same culture in D&D.