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

[Herremann the Wise]

While for me, interwoven is preferred in "the book" with a "summary" on DDI, I think there is a core difference here between players and play-styles that that 3e to 4e transition highlights.

Some people prefer an efficient effect where doing A produces B and possibly C. Compressing everything into hp damage, effect and possibly a keyword or two tells the story (or allows such players to tell their story).

Other people such as myself love the details and minutiae. A produces B. But (and the fireball spell here is a good example), you also need to consider D, E and F. I roll 7d6 fire damage. However: Was the "pea" blocked? Are there unattended objects in the blast range? Did other creatures in the vicinity hear the explosion and if so, what will they do? Did a PC critically fail and now they need to determine which of their worn items is affected? Is anything else in the blast range now on fire?

The first feels "cold" to me where as the second invites immersion and consequence. However, the second feeds the whole wizards get special things while fighters don't issue. And this becomes a vicious cycle. My point is that the issue here runs far deeper than whether fluff and cruch are interwoven or not; as important a "thing" as that still is.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[MoonSong]

Why do you hate cars?

'Cause I'm not allowed to own one...

But seriously any spell that is nothing but a glorififed mathematical formula for damage runs the risk of becoming bland. Open ended spells are extremely fun, and some spells are worth it being used on flavour alone. One of my favorite divine spells in 3.5 was Nimbus of Light, an awfully offensive spell judging by the math alone (Spend two standard actions, an attack roll and a Move action to cause 1d8 + x damage, were x is the number of rounds between casting and discharging and can never be over your caster level), however it's mundane utiity (use it as a torch substitute) and it's overall flavor make it extremely cool to use. Flavorfull spells please, not just bland crunch.

 

[LostSoul]

I am perplexed by the sentiment that "what goes on in the game world" "doesn't matter to resolution". I'm not saying it's wrong, it just feels alien to me.

For example, consider my imaginary example of the Light spell, above. It consists entirely of a description of what goes on in the game world, which is precisely why it matters to resolution.

If the object is knocked out of my hand, it goes dark. I can't drop it in a deep well to see what's at the bottom. If my hands are tied to the wall, I can't cast light on the thing in front of me because I have to touch it with my hands.

"What goes on in the game world" is precisely everything that matters to resolution in the kind of D&D I'd like to play. I understand that not everyone shares that desire.

Yeah, I share that desire. When I said that what's going on in the game world doesn't matter in action resolution, I meant that the way some rules are written so that what's happening in the game world doesn't have an influence on resolution.

For example, in 4E there's a power called Spinning Sweep. The "fluff" says that you sweep your leg through his and trip him. That has no effect on action resolution - if your foe has no legs, for example, he still falls "prone" on a successful attack roll. You can describe your PC's action in whatever way you want, the game doesn't care (much).

What I think is almost worse is when there appears to be a tie between the "fluff" and action resolution, but you're really just interacting with rules modules - you pick the rules that you want to apply and adjudicate those, the details of the fiction falling aside.

For example, you are grappling with a guy in full plate armour. You set up a pin so that his underarm is exposed. Your next action is to stab your dagger into his underarm where there's less armour. The rules don't care about this; you're attacking with a dagger so you roll against his AC and deal 1d4 damage.

 

[JamesonCourage]

'Cause I'm not allowed to own one...

I feel your pain.

But seriously any spell that is nothing but a glorififed mathematical formula for damage runs the risk of becoming bland. Open ended spells are extremely fun, and some spells are worth it being used on flavour alone. One of my favorite divine spells in 3.5 was Nimbus of Light, an awfully offensive spell judging by the math alone (Spend two standard actions, an attack roll and a Move action to cause 1d8 + x damage, were x is the number of rounds between casting and discharging and can never be over your caster level), however it's mundane utiity (use it as a torch substitute) and it's overall flavor make it extremely cool to use. Flavorfull spells please, not just bland crunch.

I get what you're saying here. Can't XP again yet.

Personally, I find both methods useful (separated flavor and combined flavor). I think presentation is very important for 5e, and I think a 3.5-like approach to feats is probably the best way to implement spells (line of flavor, then effect in a crunch-oriented, but non-clinically presented fashion). As always, play what you like

 

[YRUSirius]

Here's the "Does Format Matter?" blog entry by Robert Schwalb that was mentioned: Does Format Matter?

Note the pdf at the bottom for 4E spells and maneuvers in 3E formating.

I especially like the "Tide of Iron" fighter exploit on the second page. So much easier to understand after the first quick cursory reading. We'll see something like that in 5E, I tell ya.

-YRUSirius

 

[mkill]

A good example for reflavoring comes from the Feng Shui RPG.

There is a spell called "Blast", which is pretty much a template for all straightforward "I attack the darkness" type spells. It has a fixed attack roll and damage, and everything else is flavored by the player.

You can shoot lightning, ethereal razor blades, balls of molten lava, roses with thorns... anything really. There are about a dozen example effects.

The DM is encouraged to allow non-combat effects depending on the kind of blast. For example a lightning blast could be used to quickstart a car engine, a fire blast can set things on fire, ethereal razor blades go through windows etc.

The key here is that the DM should encourage and reward creative player ideas. It's not "cheating" if the PC shoots lightning into a car engine to get it running, it's just a quick solution that moves the story forward. That car will be destroyed in the ensuing car chase anyway.

 

[Libramarian]

A good example for reflavoring comes from the Feng Shui RPG.

There is a spell called "Blast", which is pretty much a template for all straightforward "I attack the darkness" type spells. It has a fixed attack roll and damage, and everything else is flavored by the player.

You can shoot lightning, ethereal razor blades, balls of molten lava, roses with thorns... anything really. There are about a dozen example effects.

The DM is encouraged to allow non-combat effects depending on the kind of blast. For example a lightning blast could be used to quickstart a car engine, a fire blast can set things on fire, ethereal razor blades go through windows etc.

The key here is that the DM should encourage and reward creative player ideas. It's not "cheating" if the PC shoots lightning into a car engine to get it running, it's just a quick solution that moves the story forward. That car will be destroyed in the ensuing car chase anyway.

By [MENTION=70707]dkyle[/MENTION]'s definition earlier, this isn't reflavoring. It's not reflavoring if you get any sort of advantage out of it.

 

[Ratskinner]

A good example for reflavoring comes from the Feng Shui RPG.

There is a spell called "Blast", which is pretty much a template for all straightforward "I attack the darkness" type spells. It has a fixed attack roll and damage, and everything else is flavored by the player.

You can shoot lightning, ethereal razor blades, balls of molten lava, roses with thorns... anything really. There are about a dozen example effects.
<snippage>

Whispering Vault beat Feng Shui to this concept by 3 years....I dunno if anything beat Whispering Vault.

I like the concept in general, but I don't think you'll get it to fly with D&D. Too many "iconic" things get tossed into the trash this way.

 

[am181d]

I only played 4e for a few months, and it was when the system was still new, but to my recollection, my group actually paid MORE attention to the fluff than they did in earlier editions. To the point where folks would actually read the text aloud before they used their ability.

My issue is always that I don't want fluff too tightly bound to the rules, as it harder to reskin.