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

[Imaro]

It does have a description (which is also a pun), namely, shifty. In combination with the rules text you cite - that to shift is to move carefully - plus the fact that kobolds do this more easily than normal (as a minor action) - we get the idea that by being tricky or deceptive or unexpected, they are able to move easily without misstep through a fierce battle.

Them doing it as a minor action could also be interpreted as more quickly as opposed to "easier". A quick definiton...

shift·y (sh

f

t

) adj. shift·i·er, shift·i·est 1. Having, displaying, or suggestive of deceitful character; evasive or untrustworthy.
2. Distinguished by frequent changes in direction..
3. Able to accomplish what is needed; resourceful.



Now the first definition supports your interpretation... but the second one easily supports the one I suggested as in moving and dodging quickly and carefully... and the last definition, well I guess a whole other interpretation could be given if that definition is used. This is why I feel this is at most a horrible way to impart flavor and fluff and at worst not really imparting anything. Give me a simple description, not an ambiguous single word.

I certainly arrived at this interpretation independently of the other posters on this thread, simply by reading the MM stat block in light of the rules. So there's at least a modest degree of non-collusive convergence on this interpretation.

Likewise for the brutishness of orcs.

You are not everyone, and there's been 2-4 other posters that have agreed on your interpretation. In contrast I originally ran the kobolds in my game as little quick buggers that darted around, but they didn't use deception or trickery to do it... because nothing in the mechanics shows them using trickery or deception on the PC's when they shift.

And just for good measure here are some more definitions...

shifty [ˈʃɪftɪ]
adj shiftier, shiftiest 1. given to evasions; artful
2. furtive in character or appearance
3. full of expedients; resourceful shiftily adv
shiftiness n

 

[Pheonix0114]

But for all that you are also ignoring the flavor that is already in their text.

"KOBOLDS REVERE DRAGONS and tend to dwell in and around
places where dragons are known to lair. They skulk in the
darkness, hiding from stronger foes and swarming to overwhelm
weaker ones. Kobolds are cowardly and usually flee
once bloodied unless a strong leader is present.
Kobolds like to set traps and ambushes. If they can’t get
their enemies to walk into a trap, they try to sneak up as close
as they can and then attack in a sudden rush."

More words that imply sneaking, trickery, and deceit.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I suppose you could see it as innate speediness or masterful tactical genius, except the ability is called "Shifty," which is an actual word that means things.

Now you could say I was just inferring, or it was up to interpretation, but a move action is defined as you walking/running. If you fly or teleport or anything else the power has keywords that say so.

I agree with both these posts. The notion that in determining what a creature is or does you would ignore the words used to describe its abilities is bizarre to me.

The problem here, as I see it, is that 4e is chock full of keywords that don't, apparently, mean what they mean in the dictionary. I can be "bloodied" by words, influence geniuses and programmed things to Come and Get It, push dragons or giants around, have square fireballs that avoid friendly figures, knock a snake prone, etc., etc.

Every time how a PC power is questioned as it related to common sense, the chorus is that the words don't necessarily mean what they mean in common usage.

It, therefore, seems strange that the response now would be ".....But these words have meaning in common usage!"

So do the others; you cannot have it both ways.

And that, IMHO, illustrates the problem (for me) with crunch-first design (or, if you prefer, as I do, "mechanics before meaning" game systems) in a nutshell. The mechanics don't necessarily represent anything. You cannot say that the words used to describe them have meaning, if the words used to describe them cannot (or, as we so often hear, should not) be used to adjudicate the action.

If the description is important, it has an effect on when the power applies. If the description has no effect on when the power applies, it isn't really important.

As always, play what you like. But, please don't tell me that the description is both important, and has no effect on when the power applies. You can have it one way, or the other, and you can (and should!) revel in the freedom that your choice affords you. But you cannot have it both ways.

In conclusion, the problem of mechanics-first design, when it is designed to be a role-playing game (where the meaning of those mechanics matters) is that you end up with a schizophrenic viewpoint where the words both matter and do not matter, and the best of luck to you to decide which is when, for neither the mechanics nor the fictional situation can tell you.

That can be truly freeing, if you want such a thing. It can seem like a right mess, if you do not.


RC

 

[Gentlegamer]

Based on the things I've read and understood--and again, if I'm wrong, let me know--it seems that E. Gary Gygax had Vancian style magic in mind as the "default magic system" for D&D since basically its inception. The concept of memorization, then "burning" the spell energy out of memory had been Gygax's personal "vision" for magic-use, and every rule mechanic that used, or touched on magic, was based on that paradigm.

But did Gygax's partiality to Vancian "fluff" control the mechanics of the system--or was Vancian simply a mechanic that "made sense" to him, and thus controlled the fluff that surrounded it?

Gary wrote about this in an early Dragon about the origins of D&D, as well in his Q&A threads. I'm sure the quotes can be dug up.

He chose Vancian-style spellcasting because it permitted powerful, yet limited magic-use.

Each spell was likened to an arrow in the sheaf that is marked off when used, making the bookkeeping for magic simple, as opposed to a spell point system, the issues with which can be seen in almost every variety of psionics every version of D&D has ever had.

This extends to "charges" for magic items, which is also in Vance, and dovetails neatly with the goal of powerful, yet limited magic, that has easy bookkeeping.

The mechanics of the game informed the "fluff" that followed, for D&D, with respect to magic-use.

edit: Doug has the relevant quotes and sources above!

 

[Imaro]

But for all that you are also ignoring the flavor that is already in their text.

"KOBOLDS REVERE DRAGONS and tend to dwell in and around
places where dragons are known to lair. They skulk in the
darkness, hiding from stronger foes and swarming to overwhelm
weaker ones. Kobolds are cowardly and usually flee
once bloodied unless a strong leader is present.
Kobolds like to set traps and ambushes. If they can’t get
their enemies to walk into a trap, they try to sneak up as close
as they can and then attack in a sudden rush."

More words that imply sneaking, trickery, and deceit.

What does this have to do with whether or not flavor can be extracted from the ability "Shifty"? This is inferring that "Shifty" is meant to represent sneakiness and trickery from the provided flavor text... but the claim was the mechanic itself supplied fluff for the kobold, which I disagree with. In fact I would say the above comabt tactics that are presented in that fluff...

They skulk in the darkness, hiding from stronger foes and swarming to overwhelm weaker ones. Kobolds are cowardly and usually flee
once bloodied unless a strong leader is present. Kobolds like to set traps and ambushes. If they can’t get their enemies to walk into a trap, they try to sneak up as close as they can and then attack in a sudden rush.

are not well represented by the kobolds "Shifty" ability... does "Shifty" allow them to skulk in thedarkness or set traps and ambushes? Does "Shifty" allow them to swarm over weaker opponents and hide from stronger ones? Does it help them to sneak up and attack foes? Does it allow them to attack in a sudden rush? What exactly in that description of their tactics does "Shifty" even represent? Oh yeah, general trickery and sneakines in combat by shifting a single square...

 

[Imaro]

I suppose I will have to agree that if you utterly divorce the game from any amount of fluff or roleplaying it will look like a video game. Yes, if you literally ignore and go out of your way not to roleplay anything and if you purposefully ignore flavor text or tactics favored by abilities, it will all seem flavorless.

What I disagree with is the idea that this is something you have to do, or even will do. And I'd bet no small amount of money that if I played your edition of choice in the way you seem to think people play 4e, it, too, would seem like a boring, turgid, flavorless mess.

Say what??? So me disagreeing that "Shifty" expresses the fluff of a kobold well is now me saying 4e looks like a videogame? Dude what are you talking about? I disagreed with a single premise and now you're misrepresenting my position and statements... not cool.

 

[Imaro]

The entire argument is that kobolds don't have "fluff".

And I agree! Kobolds don't have fluff if you play them with literally zero roleplaying, as many people here seem to be saying you should!

On the other hand, shifty gives kobolds something unique - something that was absent in every other edition.

No that wasn't the argument I was participating in... please go back and re-read the thread.

Also as a side note... Having something unique does not in and of itself constitute a positive or gain by virtue of its uniqueness.

 

[Aus_Snow]

--snip--

In conclusion, the problem of mechanics-first design, when it is designed to be a role-playing game (where the meaning of those mechanics matters) is that you end up with a schizophrenic viewpoint where the words both matter and do not matter, and the best of luck to you to decide which is when, for neither the mechanics nor the fictional situation can tell you.

That can be truly freeing, if you want such a thing. It can seem like a right mess, if you do not.

I came here to post something along these lines, but this (and the rest, snipped as it was) says it so well, I'm not about to bother.

Good stuff.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Let's try to swing back over to the conversation about fluff first vs. crunch first design. I find that so much more interesting (and on topic) than "this edition did it better / worse."

Play what you like

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let's try to swing back over to the conversation about fluff first vs. crunch first design. I find that so much more interesting (and on topic) than "this edition did it better / worse."

I am not at all certain that you can separate our the design question from the results of the design. But, I agree, you can do it without claiming that one way is objectively better than the other.

Mechanics-first, as I noted, can be enormously freeing in terms of narration, but you cannot expect that the game will consistently tell you what fluff should affect actual play. Of course, the mechanics then become the constraining force.

OTOH, game-world-meaning first can be consistent in telling you what is important (in terms of when simulation and mechanics should be considered primary), but by necessity are also more constraining in terms of the game world's meaning, even as the mechanics allow more leeway.

You really just have to decide whether you want the mechanics or the game world to offer your constraints. Perfect role-playing games don't exist.

Play what you like

Always good advice.


RC