Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 4175077" data-attributes="member: 336">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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification