Zweischneid said:
Well, I too have been blessed to have players and DM around from time to time with similar descriptive skills and I, in all probablity, will play 4e in either case. But knowing these people, I also know that evocing engaging stories is a tough skill that doesn't come naturally to everyone. For a game explicitly strifing to lower entry barriers to good gameplay I see it as rather inexplicable lacuna that it doesn't provide for these people.
I've similarly played with people who most definitly do not need help on how to play a figher or wizard effectively. And I've played with DMs who most definitly do not need help on how to create a challenging encounter or deciding what magic items are appropriate. Still, 4e provides for these incase you do need some pointers, as 4e is actively trying to be easily playable.
However, as creating 'fluff' is, at minimum, a skill that needs to be learned, and (judging from my convention experience) not the easiest for people out there to get right, it should be addressed somewhere.
If you have players/DMs who have difficulties in thinking tactically, 4e will cover you with PC-roles and Monters tactics.
If you have players/DMs who have difficulties gauging challenges and appropriatness of magic items, 4e will cover you with a very throughout system of level-based comparisons, which has been extensively play-tested.
If you have players/DMs who have difficulties creating engaging and evocative fluff, 4e suddenly leaves you out in the cold.
Neither of these above is likely needed for the 'experienced' or 'gifted' out there.
You know these are very good points. Let me start by saying, I have not seen the full rules, but from looking at the two preview books it seems to me that 4e will still have fluff to cover those things.
It just won't have fluff that creates a "combat mechanic-only" box of dealing with things. In other words. The fluff will be there but it won't force you to use only the combat mechanics to deal with situations. By doing this it allows a DM or player to use the fluff, without worrying too much about what balance aspects a change of fluff will have on mechanics.
If the monster stat block has a section on a
Dominate power, it means that the stat block is showing the DM what the creature can do in combat. And how that power is involved in a combat scenario. However, outside of combat the monster description might have some fluff or evocative description that gives the DM or players ideas of how the monster acts or thinks, but does not restrict them into thinking in combat terms.
So for example, the more descriptive text for the creature might have a small entry of how this creature loves to manipulate and corrupt mortals and uses it's guile and charms and X or Y rituals as a means to an end. All of these things are the "fluff" that is not constrained by combat mechanics. So you can have a Dominate Power (Combat Mechanic) that is used in combat, and you can have a Dominate Ritual (non-combat mechanic) that causes a long term change, or you can have a description of how the creature is able to corrupt because it is very good at convincing and insinuating and NPCs follow its lead (fluff with no mechanics).
Since I have not seen the full rules I can't say that this will be the way things are. However, just from the descriptive narrative I saw on the two preview books I can see how fluff can be injected into the game without having to have "rules" to manage it.
That said, you're succubus example quoted above puzzles me abit. If players struggle with breaking a domination and than, all of a sudden it lapses because the rules (or DM fiat) stipulates it must, won't the players feel even more cheated of their supposed protagonistic role in the adventure - if it expires whether the players act or not, why would the "Heroes" be needed in the first place?
If innovative input comes from the players (or the DM him/herself has a creative moment) putting forward a possiblity that is not covered in the MM (i.e. find the Mirror of Pelor, etc.), than the game (DM) should most certainly play along and make this idea a possible solution to the encounter, even if this wasn't to original intend.
And this is where the DM is the final arbiter of what will work for his game and game group. The feeling of accomplishment for the heroes needs to come from the narrative the DM provides for them, not from the rules.
If a game mechanic forces the DM to end a result that the DM wanted to continue, then it has wrested creative control away from him. If the DM is forced by the rules to use in-combat powers for out-of-combat situations it becomes harder to work some things out. Of course a good DM will ignore it and continue to use what he needs but it can become contrived and cumbersome. Players that know the rules might start asking how come effect A is still working when obviously the time limit has elapsed. Then the DM is "forced" to come up with alternate methods that might be unsatisfying because he is going "against the rules." However, if the rules are mute about a situation or are based on a fluff description rather than a "well defined" combat mechanic, he still has to come up with a method for how this works, but he does not need to fight against the rules to do so.
What I expect from an 'easy-to-learn-RPG' however are story-hooks and/or descriptive options to come with each monster (class ability, spell, etc..) as a gaming-help, that allow players/DMs to cover the times when that elusive creative spark just refuses to appear for one reason or another.
I agree. What I'll say is that we have not seen the entirety of the books. I hate the term "fluff" because it makes it seem like these evocative descriptions are just extraneous. I agree that these "evocacriptions" (my own coined term) are important to stimulating those creative juices. Right now we just do not know what "evocacriptions" we'll see in the monster manual. But from looking at just the two preview books I have a good feeling about this.
