Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5883329" data-attributes="member: 42582">I skip the flavour text in 4e too, but I don't know that I agree that the old-style is more evocative.This is why I don't find the old style especially evocative. Because it doesn't matter to resolution. To put it another way - they can make for an enjoyable read (like little mini-elements of a fantasy short story) but they don't make me feel especially excited about using them in a game.I agree with this about Rolemaster - but in my view part of what makes that detail come alive is that it does matter to resolution.In 4e, what especially matters to resolution is keywords, and for me these are what make a power come alive for me when I read it - based on the keywords, what is going on in the fiction when this power is used? (Sometimes it's details other than keywords - for example, if an area burst won't work on flying targets, that means that it works by changing the ground on which the targets are standing.)Rolemaster spells are like this, too - many of the descriptions are quite short by D&amp;D standards, but they use keywords that make a mechanically well-defined difference to action resolution.To put it another way - if a game element doesn't tell me how to make it's fictional colour matter to action resolution, the colour on its own isn't going to make me excited about the element in play.I certainly agree that this is one sort of procedure for play that can make these descriptions matter to action resolution. It wouldn't suit my own taste for it to be the only way that it is done, but it can be a useful part of the overall suite. Although in a game focused heavily on &quot;winning&quot; by pushing the mechanics to the limit every time (in D&amp;D you basically never want to roll with less than the best possible bonus) this sort of approach can also put a lot of pressure on the role of the GM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5883329, member: 42582"] I skip the flavour text in 4e too, but I don't know that I agree that the old-style is more evocative. This is why I don't find the old style especially evocative. Because it doesn't matter to resolution. To put it another way - they can make for an enjoyable read (like little mini-elements of a fantasy short story) but they don't make me feel especially excited about using them in a game. I agree with this about Rolemaster - but in my view part of what makes that detail come alive is that it [I]does[/I] matter to resolution. In 4e, what especially matters to resolution is [B]keywords[/B], and for me these are what make a power come alive for me when I read it - based on the keywords, what is going on in the fiction when this power is used? (Sometimes it's details other than keywords - for example, if an area burst won't work on flying targets, that means that it works by changing the [I]ground[/I] on which the targets are standing.) Rolemaster spells are like this, too - many of the descriptions are quite short by D&D standards, but they use keywords that make a mechanically well-defined difference to action resolution. To put it another way - if a game element doesn't tell me how to make it's fictional colour matter to action resolution, the colour on its own isn't going to make me excited about the element in play. I certainly agree that this is one sort of procedure for play that can make these descriptions matter to action resolution. It wouldn't suit my own taste for it to be the [I]only[/I] way that it is done, but it can be a useful part of the overall suite. Although in a game focused heavily on "winning" by pushing the mechanics to the limit every time (in D&D you basically [I]never[/I] want to roll with less than the best possible bonus) this sort of approach can also put a lot of pressure on the role of the GM. [/QUOTE]

Verification