Mearls' Chicken or the Egg: Should Fluff Control Crunch, or the Other Way Around?

[Imaro]

So, how exactly is the kobold shifting 5 feet (which is not a Move Action Shift - that's another beasty) as a free action being accomplished?

Or is it the fact that 4e doesn't lock you down into a single interpretation what you're complaining about? We know that it's not a teleport or illusion, since it lacks those key words. So, exactly how is this being accomplished?

Even ignoring everything else about the kobold description, how would you interpret making what is effectively some sort of dodge as a free action?

First... it's a minor action not a free action. Second because he is quicker more jittery and furtive than most creatures. And shifting is not dodging an attack since when you use it it's not an interrupt and thus has no effect on attacks made against you... but thanks for giving a wholly different interpretation on the power than I did.

 

[Nagol]

So I suppose Imaro's hypothesis can be tested by taking the Shifty power and assigning it and it alone to a new creature type -- say something like a JitterJump FastQuick.

Knowing nothing more than the critter's name, does the addition of the Shifty power in and of itself provide the implication or explicit statement that this creature is sneaky and/or tricky?

If so then the power provides fluff to that effect. If not it doesn't.

 

[Hussar]

So I suppose Imaro's hypothesis can be tested by taking the Shifty power and assigning it and it alone to a new creature type -- say something like a JitterJump FastQuick.

Knowing nothing more than the critter's name, does the addition of the Shifty power in and of itself provide the implication or explicit statement that this creature is sneaky and/or tricky?

If so then the power provides fluff to that effect. If not it doesn't.

No it doesn't.

Then again, 4e doesn't lock you into a single interpretation of any power by and large. Taking a given power, adding it to another creature, SHOULD result in a new interpretation. That's the whole point of having mechanics that are divorced from flavour.

Jitterjump Fastquick uses shifty because, well, he's fast and quick.

Kobold uses shifty because he's a sneaky bastard.

Funny how it works when you don't strip all the context away.

But, yup, Imaro is right. If you strip something completely out of its context and only look at that one thing, yup, it won't tell you a whole lot. 4e doesn't hold your hand and tell you what is going on. It presumes that the DM can make up his own mind how things work.

 

[Imaro]

No it doesn't.

Then again, 4e doesn't lock you into a single interpretation of any power by and large. Taking a given power, adding it to another creature, SHOULD result in a new interpretation. That's the whole point of having mechanics that are divorced from flavour.

Jitterjump Fastquick uses shifty because, well, he's fast and quick.

Kobold uses shifty because he's a sneaky bastard.

Funny how it works when you don't strip all the context away.

But, yup, Imaro is right. If you strip something completely out of its context and only look at that one thing, yup, it won't tell you a whole lot. 4e doesn't hold your hand and tell you what is going on. It presumes that the DM can make up his own mind how things work.

Wait... how can mechanics both be divorced from fluff and give one fluff specific to a creature?

Also honestly Hussar, I expected better than insulting and snide comments when it comes to people who want actual fluff as opposed to mechanics that they can twist and contort into their own fluff ( also known as creating it yourself.). I mean the funny thing is that up until this point there was no value judgements attributed to anything... but I guess now there is. Thanks.

 

[Nagol]

No it doesn't.

Then again, 4e doesn't lock you into a single interpretation of any power by and large. Taking a given power, adding it to another creature, SHOULD result in a new interpretation. That's the whole point of having mechanics that are divorced from flavour.

Jitterjump Fastquick uses shifty because, well, he's fast and quick.

Kobold uses shifty because he's a sneaky bastard.

Funny how it works when you don't strip all the context away.

But, yup, Imaro is right. If you strip something completely out of its context and only look at that one thing, yup, it won't tell you a whole lot. 4e doesn't hold your hand and tell you what is going on. It presumes that the DM can make up his own mind how things work.

OK. So if the Shifty power isn't providing fluff to the creature, it is probably providing a mechanical representation of the fluff expectation to the creatures (the other option is the power bears no relation to the fluff of the critter and is included just for the heck of it). In other words, because the designer wants the kobold to be sneaky and tricksy, the designer decides that the kobold has enough tricky moves to get around in combat where other critters can't consistently (i.e. without relying on page 42). The designer could have provided entirely different methods of being sneaky and tricksy and no doubt has in other portmanteau versions of the critter.

But because the mechanical representation of the power is separate from the fluff, looking just at the powers provided does not give the DM a sense of the fluff characteristics of the critter. Fluff becomes more important while simultaneously more discardable.

 

[Hussar]

OK. So if the Shifty power isn't providing fluff to the creature, it is probably providing a mechanical representation of the fluff expectation to the creatures (the other option is the power bears no relation to the fluff of the critter and is included just for the heck of it). In other words, because the designer wants the kobold to be sneaky and tricksy, the designer decides that the kobold has enough tricky moves to get around in combat where other critters can't consistently (i.e. without relying on page 42). The designer could have provided entirely different methods of being sneaky and tricksy and no doubt has in other portmanteau versions of the critter.

But because the mechanical representation of the power is separate from the fluff, looking just at the powers provided does not give the DM a sense of the fluff characteristics of the critter. Fluff becomes more important while simultaneously more discardable.

I'd buy that. I don't think that Shifty, in and of itself, intrinsically defines the monster. The monster has Sneaky, because the monster is described as being sneaky. If the monster was quick, it would have Shifty because it's small and fast.

Compare the Quickling entry for an example of a very similar power to Shifty, albeit a more powerful encounter version.

Wait... how can mechanics both be divorced from fluff and give one fluff specific to a creature?

Also honestly Hussar, I expected better than insulting and snide comments when it comes to people who want actual fluff as opposed to mechanics that they can twist and contort into their own fluff ( also known as creating it yourself.). I mean the funny thing is that up until this point there was no value judgements attributed to anything... but I guess now there is. Thanks.

You're complaining that there is no fluff being presented so that the single power does not define the monster. My arguement is, you are expecting something that is simply not present in the design priorities of the game. They don't give you the fluff because the DM is expected to do it himself.

If you force fluff onto the monster, then every single Kobold works exactly the same. It could quite possibly be that one Kobold is sneaky, while the other one is quick. After all, what differentiates a Kobold Minion from a Skirmisher (other than HP of course)? Kobold Skirmishers have Mob Attack.

While Mob Attack contains no fluff, are you actually saying that a DM cannot come up with any flavour to match that ability? Or that the Kobold Slyblade's Sly Dodge is so opaque that it evokes nothing from you?

 

[Imaro]

You're complaining that there is no fluff being presented so that the single power does not define the monster. My arguement is, you are expecting something that is simply not present in the design priorities of the game. They don't give you the fluff because the DM is expected to do it himself.

If you force fluff onto the monster, then every single Kobold works exactly the same. It could quite possibly be that one Kobold is sneaky, while the other one is quick. After all, what differentiates a Kobold Minion from a Skirmisher (other than HP of course)? Kobold Skirmishers have Mob Attack.

While Mob Attack contains no fluff, are you actually saying that a DM cannot come up with any flavour to match that ability? Or that the Kobold Slyblade's Sly Dodge is so opaque that it evokes nothing from you?

*sigh* is that really what I'm saying? I was replying to a claim made by someone else that powers give fluff to creatures, with Shifty being used as a specific example... the funny thing is that it seems you are attributing that argument to me and then agreeing with my assesement that it doesn't do this.

 

[Hussar]

Have I gotten the arguments backwards again? Sigh. Damn, gotta start reading slower. My bad.

Although, I do think you've gone too far. The example of Shifty, in and of itself, might not provide a great deal of fluff, but, combined with the rest of the creature, does. Thus my comment about stripping things out of context.

Kobolds are Shifty because they're sneaky bastards. Or are they Sneaky Bastards because they are shifty. Meh, chicken and egg. The point is, kobolds are sneaky bastards that are shifty. Both sides synergize to make the whole package.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Kobolds are Shifty because they're sneaky bastards. Or are they Sneaky Bastards because they are shifty. Meh, chicken and egg. The point is, kobolds are sneaky bastards that are shifty. Both sides synergize to make the whole package.

This is a very true point that I predict will make absolutely no difference in the conversation. Because part of the disagreement is what exactly evokes "flavor" for the reader/game participant. For some of us, these synergies between different mechanical and fluff bits are the very heart of flavor. And liking these things, one begins looking for them, and thus this becomes a self-fufilling way of looking at game in play.

To the extent that someone leans, however, more towards the primacy of fluff, I think that it is equally self-fulfilling. You see this in its most extreme form in someone that likes a given class because of the fluff, despite the failure of the mechanics to support it, and often even in the face of mechanics that frustrate the stated fluff.

And despite RC's cute answer to my previous reply (and my how you guys have talked the last couple of days), I still maintain there is a difference in deliberately mutable fluff that becomes fixed over time versus mechanics that do the same. People don't make up house rules that then become fixed the same way that they sometimes make up fluff that then becomes fixed. House ruling is done in regards to an issue--a problem that needs solving, or something that is off in the mechanics (perhaps a mechanic defeating the primary fluff). It is nearly always a reaction.

Mutable fluff, however, is done that way usually because the participants at the table do not want to be locked down until the moment arrives to decide. The matching analogue in mechanics would be a game with minimal to no rules, where each rules was decided at the time it mattered. It would not be, "The swimming rules make no sense here. Let's change them." It would be, "Someone wants to swim. Let's make up rules for swimming." That might be fun as a theoretical exercise, but I don't know of any game that follows that pattern.

It is the difference between mechanics primacy where fluff is given as example, verus rules primacy where fluff is given as the default. That is precisely it, the difference between example and default. The fluff primacy point of view may prime a person to see the example as default. That would explain a lot, if so.

 

[Hussar]

"Someone wants to swim. Let's make up rules for swimming." That might be fun as a theoretical exercise, but I don't know of any game that follows that pattern.

Heh, Basic D&D anyone? How long was it before B/E actually had rules for swimming?