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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6112629" data-attributes="member: 2067">I noted before that this is basically re-fluffing, just done to a larger degree thanks to 4e's iron-clad separation of story and gameplay. That is, the story you tell about the power doesn't affect at all how the power acts in play.Which is really deeply problematic for a lot of players.So while I think 5e can support that ("DMing styles" and independent math and all that), I think 5e also needs to demonstrate that it doesn't HAVE to be played like that. 4e frequently asked you not to think too hard about the story behind a particular game mechanic, and 5e can't rely on re-fluffing to bear the brunt of connecting the story to the mechanics. It's also important (for 4e fans) that 5e CAN play like that. That's mostly just about getting the math right under the hood, though. If the math works, then, much like in 4e, you can slap whatever description you want on it. But equally important, the description that the game assumes matches with the mechanics. And I think this is a distinct thing from "narrativism" or "protagonism" as I'd use the terms.This is flexible fluff. This is the same thing as turning fireballs green or having magic missiles appear as screaming skulls (things that have always been permissible), just taken up a few notches. And it can't be done recklessly, or assumed to be a good thing for all, because what one person sees as empty space they get to fill with anything they want, another just sees as empty space that they HAVE to fill, and that whatever they fill it with isn't going to matter anyway.</blockquote>

Verification