Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1874171" data-attributes="member: 10201">Who's "we"? Seriously, that's exactly my point--that what a flavor-heavy game book brings to the table that a flavor-heavy work of fiction doesn't is that integration. Now, i acknowledge that, for the most part, AD&D2 didn't provide that integration either. But plenty of other games do.   Think of it like this: let's say, for the sake of argument, that you want a magic-item-creation system that is dependent on lots of macguffins, such as newt eyes and roc feathers and all that rot. Mechanically, would you rather have to come up with it given only the D&D3E PH and MM? Or start with something like the power components rules in Unearthed Arcana, or 101 Arcane Components, or the Hacklopedia of Beasts (which lists the useful bits for each creature)?   It's basically the exact same reason, but for a different flavor, as the inclusion of required spells for magic items in the existing D&D rules: the rules always said you needed to know a relevant/related spell, but gave no mechanical bits to match that. So D&D3E added those mechanical bits. Do you consider it "bad fantasy  fiction" cluttering up your game rules that each magic item specifies a spell or spells required to create it?    Thing is, there's already all sorts of flavor tied to the rules--i'm just suggesting that there could be a multiplicity of flavors, rather than only one.  And, to be clear, i'm not talking about fluff when i talk about flavorful rules--i'm talking about crunch. But i'm talking about the flavor of that crunch, and the degree to which it matches a given set of fluff (or doesn't). Does that make sense? Do you still disagree?</blockquote>

Verification