Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5721613" data-attributes="member: 27160">I find this discussion very interesting.  I am beginning to see a fascinating divide, I think.  On the subject of the "story fluff" (essentially world defining features that lay out the history and 'humanities' of the game world), we seem to have two groups:1) Those, like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (who I still can't xp) and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], who feel constrained or simply impeded by "bad fiction" given as descriptions, flavour information and setting exposition in the sourcebooks for a game, and2) those, like [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION], who feel that a game is only "half-presented" if there is no fleshing out of the setting, if a vivid and living model of the game world is not interwoven with the game mechanics.I find myself, for D&D, in the former group; I want the "story" to be something that emerges from play, not something dictated to me in the game rules and, while I agree that stories are an element of roleplaying games, I see no necessity for them to be elements of roleplaying rules.In other threads on previous WotC articles, however, I see a parallel dispute concerning the rigidity and precision of game rules.  Here the split is between:A) those who find that players cannot exercise "creativity" and come up with novel approaches to in-game problems unless the game rules are loosely worded, permissive of GM fiat and regarded as "suggestions" rather than rules, since rigid rules naturally limit the possibilities that are open, andB) those who find that rigid, precise rules give the players a clear model of what their character can achieve and, far from constraining creativity, elicit a kind of cleaner, more disciplined creativity that operates within the defined bounds rather than simply trying to break or stretch them.I may be wrong, but I phant'sy that I see those in group (1) as falling mainly in group (B) while those in group (2) fall mainly in group (A).  If so, that may be a very interesting observation.</blockquote>

Verification