Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5750002" data-attributes="member: 58197">That's why I included the caveat, &quot;as far as the actual game mechanics go.&quot; This is what I have observed as far as what fans of each game object to in the rules of the other. There are also more general, philosophical questions, which I touch on later in the post.I come at this from the point of view of somebody who runs 4E in preference to other editions, but has severe reservations about it. Early 4E saw the triumph of a philosophy I first saw creep into the game in 3E: the idea that &quot;fluff&quot; and &quot;crunch&quot; are separable, that you can focus on designing crunchy abstract rules and slap on some fluff afterward, and if the fluff kinda-sorta lines up with the crunch, it's all good. I blame Magic: The Gathering*.The reason I run 4E is that they did do a really bang-up job with those crunchy abstract rules, and the resulting &quot;skeleton&quot; is very strong. Earlier editions had such clunky rules and horrendous balance that when I try to go back to them after 4E, they drive me up the wall in short order. But I am dissatisfied with 4E's handling of the details of the game world. I find it deeply irritating to run a combat where the wizard announces something like, &quot;I deal 12 points of damage to these three stirges (pointing at minis), and they're immobilized until the end of my next turn,&quot; and I have to stop him and say, &quot;Dude, what did your character do?&quot;My hope is that 5E can use the lessons learned from building that strong rules skeleton, but bring the &quot;fluff&quot; back into prominence. In a different thread, I comment that the flavor text of fireball (glowing bead streaks to destination, detonates in burst of flame) carries a ton of implied rules: You can use it to set fire to a barn full of hay, or generate a flash of illumination in a dark place, or signal an ally from miles away by firing it into the night sky. Flavor text is rules text. 4E forgot that** and 5E should remember.[SIZE=-2]*No, actually, I really do blame Magic: The Gathering. The decision to put mechanics first and flavor second was one that the M:tG designers made many years ago, and it was right and necessary for that game. But that same idea seems to have bled over into WotC's RPG side, and in an RPG it's poison.**Although, as I said, this started in 3E. 3E tried to codify all those implied rules as actual rules, resulting in monstrous bloat. 4E's approach was to decide, &quot;We can't codify all those implied rules, so we're going to pretend they don't exist.&quot;[/SIZE]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 5750002, member: 58197"] That's why I included the caveat, "as far as the actual game mechanics go." This is what I have observed as far as what fans of each game object to in the [I]rules[/I] of the other. There are also more general, philosophical questions, which I touch on later in the post. I come at this from the point of view of somebody who runs 4E in preference to other editions, but has severe reservations about it. Early 4E saw the triumph of a philosophy I first saw creep into the game in 3E: the idea that "fluff" and "crunch" are separable, that you can focus on designing crunchy abstract rules and slap on some fluff afterward, and if the fluff kinda-sorta lines up with the crunch, it's all good. I blame Magic: The Gathering*. The reason I run 4E is that they did do a really bang-up job with those crunchy abstract rules, and the resulting "skeleton" is very strong. Earlier editions had such clunky rules and horrendous balance that when I try to go back to them after 4E, they drive me up the wall in short order. But I am dissatisfied with 4E's handling of the details of the game world. I find it deeply irritating to run a combat where the wizard announces something like, "I deal 12 points of damage to these three stirges (pointing at minis), and they're immobilized until the end of my next turn," and I have to stop him and say, "Dude, what did your character [I]do?[/I]" My hope is that 5E can use the lessons learned from building that strong rules skeleton, but bring the "fluff" back into prominence. In a different thread, I comment that the flavor text of [I]fireball[/I] (glowing bead streaks to destination, detonates in burst of flame) carries a ton of implied rules: You can use it to set fire to a barn full of hay, or generate a flash of illumination in a dark place, or signal an ally from miles away by firing it into the night sky. Flavor text [I]is[/I] rules text. 4E forgot that** and 5E should remember. [SIZE=-2]*No, actually, I really do blame Magic: The Gathering. The decision to put mechanics first and flavor second was one that the M:tG designers made many years ago, and it was right and necessary for that game. But that same idea seems to have bled over into WotC's RPG side, and in an RPG it's poison. **Although, as I said, this started in 3E. 3E tried to codify all those implied rules as actual rules, resulting in monstrous bloat. 4E's approach was to decide, "We can't codify all those implied rules, so we're going to pretend they don't exist." [/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification