Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 5757835" data-attributes="member: 13107">Narrating effectsAs an example, 3/3.5E allow a psionicist to decide on the appearance of their powers, within limits.When put together my character sheet, and the longish (about 20) list of powers, I made up a descriptions for each.The other players thought it was a bit campy, and it didn't turn out to add much to the game.  I had a few moments of fun, but not so much the table as a whole.I imagine that, with some DM fiat, a psi-craft check might provide a small insight about a psion, based on the effect, but otherwise, the descriptions had no in-game effect.The detail was eventually dropped.  The cost of the extra detail just wasn't worth it.I think that most players accept the fluff text as given, and the notion that the fluff can be ignored, or changed, really isn't how a lot of folks play.  That is definitely an opinion, but, I just can't see too many tables going too far out of the sense of the written fluff.I imagine that a lot of folks, maybe, try to play within the fluff text, and limit their actions to what makes sense if the fluff text was prescriptive.  Those folks probably quickly come to understand that the fluff doesn't mean anything, and give up, or, the table actually make a decision to treat the fluff as more prescriptive than is normal for 4E.TomB</blockquote>