D&D 5E Legend Lore says 'story not rules' (3/4)

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, and I can see having more flavor than PHB1 powers generally did. They were usually obvious enough what the concept was, but its OK if there's some pizzazz to it. As for how people treat flavor text (is it defining narrative limitations of the spell/power or not) I think that's really up to the players.

As for other material's flavor. Yeah, there's such a vast number of ways to write and present that stuff, and such a big range of tastes and needs it is tough to say what is best. I think 4e varied a good bit. You had things like say Martial Power, which has no 'story' to it at all. It isn't void of flavor, each option is introduced and matched to some basic story ideas. The vast majority of the book is clearly crunch though. Then you have say Heroes of the Feywild which is built around the story of the place it presents character options for. It is considerably less crunch intensive, but it does still have a pretty good amount of good crunchy bits (coming as late in 4e as it does they aren't usually the most common options). The fluff is cool though, and the stuff pops, witches, skalds, satyrs, weird quests, fairy tales, etc. I mean I dunno. I liked most of the 4e books even though they had a wide range. Probably my least favorite is the DSG, the last 4e book I assume that we'll ever see. It has some OK options, even good ones, but I felt like it was stretched thin. They didn't really have enough to say that was new, there's already BEEN an underdark book for the DM, and there just weren't a vast number of cool player options left that needed doing. Still, it was well written.

Overall I just have a hard time really faulting 4e much for its fluffy bits. I think maybe it is a bit too polished, maybe it doesn't do as much storytelling as it could overall, even though it talks ABOUT stories. I dunno. It certainly isn't perfect, but I don't think it is inferior to the other editions overall. Anyway, DDN is welcome to create its own style in that sense, and if it draws heavily from 2e that won't hurt my feelings any. I can't even say a lot about 3.x in that regard as I've read little of it, but 2e I think was maybe the best written overall.

for me it isnt even a core book issue so much. The core books kind of have to be crunch heavy. I expect flavor in the supplementary releases. I want the support, and want it to focus more on the GM than the players (there are more players than GMs, but I honestly believe the most important player to inspire through the text is the GM---because he is the one who does the heavy lifting between sessions and if he isnt inspired it affects player perception of the game). I think the best thing the designers could do if they are trying to navigate the flavor issue and how to incorporate it, is to run a 2E game using then have the person running each session read one van richten guide book a week and chart how it affects his adventures (even if they played them back in the 90s, which they probably did, going back to this gives great contrast). I am not saying they should do something exactly in that style. Those are just examples of how a good balance of flavor to mechanics can improve play (for me they did at least).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I want that stuff to be implicit in the classification, keywords and such, not spelled out in a novella, to be honest. With the old "fluffy rules" approach you got guidelines too specific to a list of situations; I want the specification in system language to be giving me enough of a clear idea of how the thing works that I can actually work out for myself whether or not a wacky, non-standard use idea will work or not. Instead of leaving room for creativity by having partial rules, have the rules deal with classes and mechanisms so that alternative uses come as a natural extension of the way things work, not because the GM lets them work if s/he likes them.

Well I thini we come at things from a different perspective is all.

 

[FireLance]

Likewise, presenting a menu of powers caused some of my players to think more in terms of the powers and the battlemap than in what was happening inside the fiction of the game.

Interesting. I take it that the solution for such players in earlier editions was for them to avoid playing spellcasters?

 

[Pour]

I personally would agree with that, though I understand that some people consider that a step too far. Provided the text is clear, I don't mind the two being combined... Getting the specific terminology down that makes it understandable what "close", "localized", "location" or other such words actually mean would take some effort though. I'm not against obvious crunch, but neither am I against phrasing to make it feel less clinical.

I really do think both could work. Take a D&D adaptation of MtG's Firebolt:

Firebolt
A fiery missile caged in lightning erupts from your fingertips, trailing a crackling arc in its wake.
Area: One target
Range: Close (10ft or less)
Attack: Intelligence vs AC
Hit: 2d8 + Int fire damage (Ex); The target must make a fortitude save on its next turn or suffer 2d8 lightning damage.
Counter: < 2d8 + enemy Int cold

Firebolt is a popular spell in the arid reaches of the world, where the sun scorches like dragon's breath and the bolts from great desert tempests sting with a scorpion's speed. Wizards often focus this spell through a piece of crude glass made from a lightning strike. The infamous mage-thief Divgash often used firebolts against heavily-armored infidels, super-heating their metal protection and subsequently electrocuting them in it.

Divgashi Firebolt: The Divgashi Firebolt deals 1d8+Int fire damage against targets wearing metal armor. The target must make a fortitude save - caster Int on its next turn or suffer 3d8 lightning damage. Save for half.



* Somewhere in the books it would explain (Ex) = explosive, igniting surrounding objects and triggering explosives. Something like a sunbeam might not be, for instance.

** Also, somewhere it might be mentioned that spells can be countered if the effects are within range of the counterspell and it encompasses at least the same area. You would burn a spell as an immediate action or something, losing it for the day with no other effect then canceling out the other magic (in some cool, visual way).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Interesting. I take it that the solution for such players in earlier editions was for them to avoid playing spellcasters?

It's worth noting that spellcaster, in the game world, is actually reading books and selecting spells, just as the player is. At least, this is often the case (this is less clear with 3e spontaneous or innate casters, but is manifestly the case with wizards; the term "cleric" also denotes an academic connotation). And that pre-4e spells were described in a way that straddles the game rules with the character's knowledge (e.g. the spell name in the rulebook is what the character would actually call the spell).

A fighter or rogue, etc. is not generally based around academic learning; they are either trained or learn from experience.

 

[frankthedm]

Where did you get the idea that they aren't going to develop 5e anymore?

Where did you get that notion? My words were "To me it looks like WOTC wised up, accepted there are people are happy with the editions they already know and trying to please them with 5E is just not worth the development effort for the little extra money it would garner." if that needs further clarification; i.e. I think WotC realized the effort to make rules modules for 5E that try to ape the spirit of other editions would not be worth the monumental development effort for the amount of people that would win over.

 

[Ratskinner]

Likewise, presenting a menu of powers caused some of my players to think more in terms of the powers and the battlemap than in what was happening inside the fiction of the game.

This is very much how most of the anti-4e OSR folks I know seem to feel. I think its a big part of what lead to the sentiment "feels like a boardgame" or "its a good tactical skirmish game, but...". I don't feel like the "menu" part was a problem for me personally. I felt all the fiddly bits drew me out of the fiction, but that was more the sheer weight of them and the slowness of the resolution. At least as far as I can tell that about myself....

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I want that stuff to be implicit in the classification, keywords and such, not spelled out in a novella, to be honest. With the old "fluffy rules" approach you got guidelines too specific to a list of situations; I want the specification in system language to be giving me enough of a clear idea of how the thing works that I can actually work out for myself whether or not a wacky, non-standard use idea will work or not. Instead of leaving room for creativity by having partial rules, have the rules deal with classes and mechanisms so that alternative uses come as a natural extension of the way things work, not because the GM lets them work if s/he likes them.

Yeah, this is a rather good explanation of why many of us want systematic rules. The odd thing about that is, Mike and Co come along with all this "Rulings not Rules" stuff, but that's not the proper axis to think about it. It is much more like Balesir says, you can have a VERY small amount of actual rules, but they can cover a very wide number of situations and give you a basic approach for all of them. The DM can then easily and quickly go on from that.

For instance the 4e fireball. Nothing talks about a blocked line of effect. There's no reason in 4e terms why a DM can't simply say "Oh, you didn't know about that wall of force there, well, your fireball explodes there!", etc. I mean its not like anything that could ever happen in some previous edition is ruled out somehow. General rules don't rule out specific things, they just give you a way to handle the average cases and a starting point for the rest.

 

[tuxgeo]

< massive snippage >
Having got to this point, I can see two different ways forward in my thinking. One is along the lines of @AbdulAlhazred upthread - that what is being offered is . . . < snipped even more >

The second is that suggested by TwoSix in the post I quoted - that they are going to revisit the way that backgrounds and specialties currently decompose into fiddly elements. Done well, this could produce something that is both light and lets colour matter.
< further massive snippage >

Take-away from pemerton's quote: Perhaps WotC is "going to revisit" the breakdown of backgrounds and specialties.

< massive snippage >
Or to bring it back to the article, if the way to make an "archer" is to add something called "archer" to a list of other things, then your design is probably botched. Archer is defined primarily by weapon use--with some slight implications for armor and skill and abilities to go with the concept. Make the abilities and weapons and skills rich and meaningful enough, then a "fighter" or similar class that picks a bow and those skills and abilities will be an archer--both mechanically and in concept.

Take-away from Crazy Jerome's quote: Put more weight into abilities and weapons and skills.

Combine those two thoughts to get this: stop using Backgrounds as being "the" way to get skills (aside from specific Skill Training feats). Instead, give every PC the effect of Skill Training in something that is universal to that class; in Basic this could be a bonus to all checks on a specific Ability, but in Standard it could be explicitly skill-based.

For example:
1. A "Basic" Fighter might get a class bonus to all Strength checks, whereas a "Standard" Fighter would get automatic training in Endurance and Swim, or Climb, or Jump, or Throw, or whatever is most usually based on Strength and/or Constitution.
2. A "Basic" Cleric might get a class bonus to all Wisdom checks, whereas a "Standard" Cleric would get automatic training in Knowledge (Religion) and Persuade, or Sense Motive, or whatever is most usually based on Wisdom and/or Charisma.

What I'm suggesting here is that a person learns and improves skills from pre-career training ("background"), and from career-training ("class"), and also from active pursuit of career ("specialty"); so spreading out the acquisition of abilities-to-do-things across several of the dial/hooks (is there such a thing as a "dial/hook" yet?) might make for a smoother or more adaptable way of providing abilities to PCs.

(Yes, I'm suggesting they should stop putting skills only in backgrounds.)

 

[FireLance]

It's worth noting that spellcaster, in the game world, is actually reading books and selecting spells, just as the player is. At least, this is often the case (this is less clear with 3e spontaneous or innate casters, but is manifestly the case with wizards; the term "cleric" also denotes an academic connotation). And that pre-4e spells were described in a way that straddles the game rules with the character's knowledge (e.g. the spell name in the rulebook is what the character would actually call the spell).

A fighter or rogue, etc. is not generally based around academic learning; they are either trained or learn from experience.

I was acually wondering whether it was the more fundamental problem of analysis paralysis, and not so much the issue of disassociation.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why the "pre-4e" qualifier was needed for the assertion that "spells were described in a way that straddles the game rules with the character's knowledge (e.g. the spell name in the rulebook is what the character would actually call the spell)", since that is also true for spells in 4e.