Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ty" data-source="post: 3929046" data-attributes="member: 16824">Re: the video game analogy.Yeah, those are fair critiques.&nbsp; I shouldn't have used shorthand, emphasized the shorthand, and not expected to get called out on it.&nbsp; Here's the longhand version:PHB 3.0 and 3.5 had fluff.&nbsp; 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 &quot;fluff.&quot;&nbsp; When I say migration, minor fluff is fine.&nbsp; It's like the pantheon of gods or the Melf's/Mordenkainen's/Bigby's tags to spells.&nbsp; They are easily &quot;unplugged&quot; from the rules without any real consequence.&nbsp; 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 &quot;fluff&quot; 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 &quot;histories&quot; for your campaign or to the presence of a Feywild, you narrow the game.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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&amp;D as it is published. Instead of adding onto the PH and DMG, we have to subtract out.&nbsp; It seems &quot;rigid&quot; to me.&nbsp; Part of that is because a new player expects that what is in the PHB will be standard across all games.&nbsp; That's not necessarily the case now.&nbsp; I applaud the idea of adding &quot;fluff&quot; but as a suggestion, do it in a sidebar for the players.&nbsp; Don't make it a core rule.&nbsp; Use it as a suggested background or whatever.How does this apply with video games?&nbsp; Video game stories are structured affairs.&nbsp; You can't deviate from the story set down by the designer.&nbsp; The base mechanics of most video games don't differ too much in all honesty.&nbsp; I can pick up any RPG and expect certain things.&nbsp; The &quot;particulars&quot; do vary across all games.&nbsp; NWN2 is different from the Baldur's Gate series, which differ significantly from Everquest or WoW.&nbsp; The particulars make each gaming experience unique.The stories, or fluff, however, are what differentiate the games the most.&nbsp; They're not too easy to work around in my brain or to transcend in terms of appealing to a mass audience.&nbsp; If for instance, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, or any other campaign were deigned to be the &quot;core&quot; fluff, it would cause issues.&nbsp; These are my less than shorthand explanations.Now, where did I put that bat...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ty, post: 3929046, member: 16824"] 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... [/QUOTE]

Verification