Raven Crowking
First Post
Tquirky said:
See, that's exactly it. There are all sorts of people who are "thumbs up" to the idea of a new edition, but don't like (all of) what they are reading about this one.
RC
Mike Mearls comments on design
- Thread starter Lenaianel
- Start date
See, that's exactly it. There are all sorts of people who are "thumbs up" to the idea of a new edition, but don't like (all of) what they are reading about this one.
RC
mhensley said:
A spell with a long forgotten wizard's name on it is alot different then plopping an entire order of magic users into your setting or having to explaing what a golden wyvern adept is.
Likewise, a list of deities as examples is easy to unplug and plug in a new list.
One of the considertions is 3rd party materials. If there is MORE fluff connected material that is renamed in the SRD, it makes it only harder for companies like Piazo to plug onto 4e.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I hate to single this out, but, well, it's something I just don't like to read anymore and I think that is actively damaging the quality of a post for me, even if it is undeserved.Ty said:
Don't "hide" behind using a shorthand like "video game" (or "anime"), or something like that.
Say what you think it's wrong, in as precise terms as possible to you. People use the term Video Game as a synonym for "inferior" or "something else I don't like much as the thing I really want". It is in danger of becoming a new variant of Godwyn's Law.
Saying "I don't like it" can't be discussed. It's subjective, it doesn't give anyone a way to react to it (aside maybe from undesirable personal attacks about lack of common sense, taste or mind). Using a "pseudo-synonym" like video game makes thinks even worse...
Instead of saying "Don't like it" explain why you don't like it. Others now have a chance of at least understanding the point and learning why they should care and be able to explain why the feel the same or why the feel different.
That said, return to your regularly scheduled thread.
Because I think I agree with your point in way, but I think one thing is important:
Neither rules nor fluff are ever really mandated, though there are degrees of "nearly-mandation". If you want to use a rule system, you're usually best off using all its rules, because changes might have unforseen circumstances.
If fluff really makes it into the rules and this fluff is used for "balance reasons", it becomes a problem. "Yes, you can become a Sword Ubermaster of Destruction, but keep in mind that people like him are hunted down by the Emerald Frost Wizards". That's bad "fluff", because you're trying to balance a mechanic with a story aspect. That won't work, because maybe the DM doesn't want to feel forced sending a hunting team behind his PCs all the time.
Naming a spell or a feat after a wizard or a wizardry tradition doesn't cause this kind of problem. Take away the name "Dark Serpent Adept" and rename it "Scry", and you won't destroy your game. It's not as if you just decided "No Power Attack and Metamagic feats in my 3.5 game!" It's "I call the Barbarian Class Berserker".
I am not saying it's not work to change fluff written into the rules. But it doesn't have unforseen side effects. You built your homebrew without an "Emerald Frost Academy", so you rename the feats and spells associated with it. You don't have Pelor in your campaign, but want to keep the Sun Domain? Write your own god with the domain!
Fifth Element
Legend
That's a remarkable leap of logic, by which I mean "That doesn't make sense."Ty said:
Does this mean that playing a DragonLance campaign (for example), and using its "Mandated Fluff", is the same as playing a video game? Please explain.
You seem to be complaining about "Mandated Fluff" in the PHB, but since such fluff is included in all campaign settings, it can't be inherently bad. You might argue it shouldn't be in the generic PHB. But what does the video game reference even mean?
Re: the video game analogy.
Yeah, those are fair critiques. I shouldn't have used shorthand, emphasized the shorthand, and not expected to get called out on it. Here's the longhand version:
PHB 3.0 and 3.5 had fluff. In saying fluff, I mean things that only add to the actual mechanics of the rule, feat, ability, spells, etc., in question without having to require a migration of the "fluff." When I say migration, minor fluff is fine. It's like the pantheon of gods or the Melf's/Mordenkainen's/Bigby's tags to spells. They are easily "unplugged" from the rules without any real consequence. Frankly, we very rarely use the Greyhawk pantheon and it was easily accomplished in the SRD to remove IP/fluff.
That being said, we don't know how much "fluff" is going to be incorporated into 4th Edition but from what I have seen, we have Eladrin, Dragonborn, Teiflings, some feats (possibly), and I don't even know about powers/paths/traits/whatever it's going to be named for nifty per/encounter abilities.
The point is that when you tie the core rules to certain "histories" for your campaign or to the presence of a Feywild, you narrow the game. You narrow it in terms that yes, I have to do significant work to clean up the core rules for adaptation to my own campaign/world. More work for me as a DM, more explanation of differences to new players (if we decided to add some), more yada yada as to why we don't quite play D&D as it is published.
Instead of adding onto the PH and DMG, we have to subtract out. It seems "rigid" to me. Part of that is because a new player expects that what is in the PHB will be standard across all games. That's not necessarily the case now. I applaud the idea of adding "fluff" but as a suggestion, do it in a sidebar for the players. Don't make it a core rule. Use it as a suggested background or whatever.
How does this apply with video games? Video game stories are structured affairs. You can't deviate from the story set down by the designer. The base mechanics of most video games don't differ too much in all honesty. I can pick up any RPG and expect certain things.
The "particulars" do vary across all games. NWN2 is different from the Baldur's Gate series, which differ significantly from Everquest or WoW. The particulars make each gaming experience unique.
The stories, or fluff, however, are what differentiate the games the most. They're not too easy to work around in my brain or to transcend in terms of appealing to a mass audience. If for instance, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, or any other campaign were deigned to be the "core" fluff, it would cause issues. These are my less than shorthand explanations.
Now, where did I put that bat...
Yeah, those are fair critiques. I shouldn't have used shorthand, emphasized the shorthand, and not expected to get called out on it. Here's the longhand version:
PHB 3.0 and 3.5 had fluff. In saying fluff, I mean things that only add to the actual mechanics of the rule, feat, ability, spells, etc., in question without having to require a migration of the "fluff." When I say migration, minor fluff is fine. It's like the pantheon of gods or the Melf's/Mordenkainen's/Bigby's tags to spells. They are easily "unplugged" from the rules without any real consequence. Frankly, we very rarely use the Greyhawk pantheon and it was easily accomplished in the SRD to remove IP/fluff.
That being said, we don't know how much "fluff" is going to be incorporated into 4th Edition but from what I have seen, we have Eladrin, Dragonborn, Teiflings, some feats (possibly), and I don't even know about powers/paths/traits/whatever it's going to be named for nifty per/encounter abilities.
The point is that when you tie the core rules to certain "histories" for your campaign or to the presence of a Feywild, you narrow the game. You narrow it in terms that yes, I have to do significant work to clean up the core rules for adaptation to my own campaign/world. More work for me as a DM, more explanation of differences to new players (if we decided to add some), more yada yada as to why we don't quite play D&D as it is published.
Instead of adding onto the PH and DMG, we have to subtract out. It seems "rigid" to me. Part of that is because a new player expects that what is in the PHB will be standard across all games. That's not necessarily the case now. I applaud the idea of adding "fluff" but as a suggestion, do it in a sidebar for the players. Don't make it a core rule. Use it as a suggested background or whatever.
How does this apply with video games? Video game stories are structured affairs. You can't deviate from the story set down by the designer. The base mechanics of most video games don't differ too much in all honesty. I can pick up any RPG and expect certain things.
The "particulars" do vary across all games. NWN2 is different from the Baldur's Gate series, which differ significantly from Everquest or WoW. The particulars make each gaming experience unique.
The stories, or fluff, however, are what differentiate the games the most. They're not too easy to work around in my brain or to transcend in terms of appealing to a mass audience. If for instance, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, or any other campaign were deigned to be the "core" fluff, it would cause issues. These are my less than shorthand explanations.
Now, where did I put that bat...
Last edited:
Doug McCrae
Legend
D&D has never ever been world neutral.
Vancian magic. Arcane/divine split. Very world specific. The vast majority of fictional worlds lack both.
1e PHB has the known planes, including the Great Wheel. Ah, that was an appendix you say. However Dimension Door and Astral Spell both refer to the astral plane and they're not in the appendix.
And the spell names. It's not just a matter of removing the "Bigby's" and "Mordenkainen's", oh no. A lot of Gary's spell names are very culture specific and the culture they reference ain't medieval. Telekinesis. Teleport. ESP. These are late C19/early C20 spiritualist terms. Mnemonic (1745), ventriloquism (1790), polymorph (1820).
Sticks to snakes. What if I don't want references to Christianity in my game? Druids. What if I don't want Celts in my medieval game? Monks. What if I don't want anime in my game?
D&D is positively dripping with references to places, events, religions and concepts. If I wanted to run a properly medieval European game I'd have to cut about 90% of the PHB.
And oh yeah. Page 37. Weapons table. Bohemian ear-spoon. WTF!!!? All our games gotta have Bohemia now!!?
Vancian magic. Arcane/divine split. Very world specific. The vast majority of fictional worlds lack both.
1e PHB has the known planes, including the Great Wheel. Ah, that was an appendix you say. However Dimension Door and Astral Spell both refer to the astral plane and they're not in the appendix.
And the spell names. It's not just a matter of removing the "Bigby's" and "Mordenkainen's", oh no. A lot of Gary's spell names are very culture specific and the culture they reference ain't medieval. Telekinesis. Teleport. ESP. These are late C19/early C20 spiritualist terms. Mnemonic (1745), ventriloquism (1790), polymorph (1820).
Sticks to snakes. What if I don't want references to Christianity in my game? Druids. What if I don't want Celts in my medieval game? Monks. What if I don't want anime in my game?
D&D is positively dripping with references to places, events, religions and concepts. If I wanted to run a properly medieval European game I'd have to cut about 90% of the PHB.
And oh yeah. Page 37. Weapons table. Bohemian ear-spoon. WTF!!!? All our games gotta have Bohemia now!!?
Doug McCrae
Legend
It's not an order, it's a style. Like a style of painting such as realism or impressionism. There are artists who are good at the style, it doesn't mean they necessarily learnt it from a formal organisation.Najo said:
There can be golden wyvern adepts without a Grand Order of the Golden Wyverns, just like there can be realists without a Grand Realist College.
Aaaand we hit reductio ad absurdum.
I assume the 90% includes swords... and axes... 'cuz you know technically, it's not a greatsword unless you're playing English middle ages based fantasy... it's technically a zwiehander.
I can't seem to find that bat now. Tquirky, did you steal mine?
I assume the 90% includes swords... and axes... 'cuz you know technically, it's not a greatsword unless you're playing English middle ages based fantasy... it's technically a zwiehander.
I can't seem to find that bat now. Tquirky, did you steal mine?
Similar Threads
