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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Like I said waaaaaaay upthread, both styles have their advantages and disadvantages.

IMHO, the greatest advantage of a fluff-first RPG design is it sets the parameters for the mechanics. This is especially beneficial when working with making an RPG based on someone else's IP. Most of the time, I'd rather play an RPG designed to fit a novel's (or movie's, or videogame's, etc.) fictionverse than a licensed edition variant RPG sourcebook for an extant game- sorry GURPS!

OTOH, a well-designed RPG system CAN be used to model a wide variety of genre styles- HERO, GURPS and M&M win here- even if they don't do everything well.

In addition, an inflexible mechanic may still suggest a certain kind of gameworld. The hoary class/level system does a poor job of modeling supers, but it does have a certain resonance with more stratified, quasi-Medieval settings. IMHO, of course.

Ditto alignment systems. They may feel out of place in a modern game, but when "divine" beings can walk the Earth, that "good" and "chaos" may have tangible, long lasting and concrete effects on all aspects of life doesn't seem so out of place.

 

[Gentlegamer]

OTOH, a well-designed RPG system CAN be used to model a wide variety of genre styles- HERO, GURPS and M&M win here- even if they don't do everything well.

The fore mentioned are not games in themselves, but kits to make your own game, in my opinion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The fore mentioned are not games in themselves, but kits to make your own game, in my opinion.

I can't speak to the origins of GURPS (other than that it grew out of The Fantasy Trip: In the Labyrinth), but both HERO and M&M grew out of simulating the broad and varied world of Superhero gaming, which, without being tied to a specific bit of IP, basically demands a flexible and robust system.

Over time, the designers (and players) realized their games could handle more than guys in capes & spandex, and released supplements to support those styles of games.

But their core audiences & bulk of their sales are still in superheroes.

 

[sciborg3]

Like I said waaaaaaay upthread, both styles have their advantages and disadvantages.

IMHO, the greatest advantage of a fluff-first RPG design is it sets the parameters for the mechanics.

In addition, an inflexible mechanic may still suggest a certain kind of gameworld. The hoary class/level system does a poor job of modeling supers, but it does have a certain resonance with more stratified, quasi-Medieval settings. IMHO, of course.

Ditto alignment systems. They may feel out of place in a modern game, but when "divine" beings can walk the Earth, that "good" and "chaos" may have tangible, long lasting and concrete effects on all aspects of life doesn't seem so out of place.

Yeah, I think a game where everyone is a mage (like, you know, heh, Mage) is different than one where people with different skill sets work together to achieve a goal, often times with violence (D&D).

When I look at the customer base's divergent needs, the more appreciative I become of both 4e and Pathfinder and the prior editions. Mage, Vampire, etc basically gives you the same class/race hanging out.

D&D has to make it feel like a balanced set of classes is equally contributing to the goal. The problem is that total balance starts, at some level, to feel illogical. How can a warrior or a thief without magic items compete with a caster that is supposed to fulfill the idea of the epic, spell slinging wizards?

Even in the D&D, setting based novels this never happens. There is no sword swing that destroys an army without magic, but a wizard could call down meteors to level a major city.

I personally can't suspend my disbelief to enjoy a game that is balanced but alters my expectation of the fantastic reality. YMMV of course.

 

[rounser]

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.

It also destroys suspension of disbelief and frees you from having to model a world with any sort of fidelity. Unfortunately, for an RPG like D&D, this is poison and removes much purpose to playing a fantasy RPG at all.

There's an article on the blogosphere about how going too far in sacrificing simulation for gamisms is un-wargamerly behaviour, and how the 4E designers in not understanding this have removed D&D much further from it's roots, to the game's detriment.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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!"

Oh for crying out loud.

Terms like shift, bloodied, slide, prone all have specific technical and mechanical meanings. These are terms of art and are the sort of thing that can be found on the back of the DM screen. Where a phrase has a specific meaning defined by 4e that meaning overrides the dictionary. Just like every other game. On the other hand where a phrase is not specifically defined by the rules it has its normal meaning.

So. If you see the word shift, you look it up on the back of the DM screen. It is there. It has a specific meaning in 4e and is a term of art. If you see the word shifty, you look it up on the back of the screen (or in the Rules Compendium) and find it is not there. It is therefore not a 4e term of art so it means what it means in the dictionary. And its mechanical representation in 4e is listed under its description.

How is this even slightly hard to understand? It's no different to a word like level in older editions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh for crying out loud.

Terms like shift, bloodied, slide, prone all have specific technical and mechanical meanings.

Obviously. But, equally obviously, so does the shift in "shifty". Which is, actually, a good way to describe this part of the debate.

If those terms have meaning within a general context, fine. If not, fine. If you expect to shift from one to another, as needs suit, that's shifty.

(And, while "level" has multiple meanings in all versions of D&D, none of those meanings is used incorrectly....not only in its game meaning, but by the dictionary as well.)



RC

 

[Pentius]

Alright, taking the bait.

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?

Yes. Having the ability to move both before and after a standard action attack opens their options to take advantage of a number of traps that a less mobile creature could not, including, but not limited to timed or lever operated gate/spike traps. Raise the gate/spikes, rush in, strike, rush out, lower the gate/spikes. It allows them to skulk in the darkness and set up ambushes by allowing them to move 2 squares in a turn(via 2 1-square shifts) without provoking the -5 penalty to Stealth any other creature would incur.

Does "Shifty" allow them to swarm over weaker opponents and hide from stronger ones?

Swarm weaker opponents? Yes. Move action to approach, minor to shift into any holes in their line up or even just around the sides, allowing the kobolds to more effectively and quickly surround foes. Hide from stronger ones? See stealth, above. Flee from stronger ones? Oh, my, yes. Have you ever tried to catch a fleeing kobold in 4e? I have. The little buggers can use the minor action shift to disengage and then use a double move to get further away. They can then keep using that extra square of movement to slowly gain ground.

Does it help them to sneak up and attack foes?

Again, stealth, above. Though it can also be used to pop out from behind cover, attack, and then return to cover, possibly using stealth again to become hidden.

Does it allow them to attack in a sudden rush?

Swarming foes? Yes. Getting flanking in the first round of combat? Often, yes.

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...

Oh yeah, it allows them to use a wide variety of tactics not available to other creatures, because the ability to make two separate moves in a round, while attacking(even if one of the moves is limited to one square) is huge.

I'm not even talking about tactics I had to invent myself, here. Most of this is directly in the MM, and the kobolds in the sample adventure in the DMG have a gate trap.

 

[Eridanis]

Let's keep the discussion civil, folks. Thanks.

 

[Nagol]

I think the designer should start with what it is they are trying to emulate -- the genre, feel, and expectations for the game.

After that, so long as the fluff and mechanics align, I'm good.

What really gets me is when the designers tell you what they're trying to accomplish -- say classical vampires in tha modern world, have the fluff describe how vampire are only harmed by a few well-known items like sunlight, stakes through the heart, and other supernatural entities. And the the mechanics are set such that gunshot criticals cause lethal damage and are ridiculously easy to achieve for player characters who want to be good with guns.

Suddenly, we have a world description and game expectation that doesn't survive the first encounter with the players.