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="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2123940" data-attributes="member: 18280">Actually, as a point of clarity, I argued that the rules allow you to do exactly what you did, and the claim that "you can't do that because there are no rules for that" is wrong.  I didn't argue that it was your point.  What I did argue related to your statements was that the claim that you "had done something that the rules did not let you do" (or words to that effect) was incorrect.  The rules do not prevent you from describing the results of rules application (low hp) however you desire.  Because you didn't change the mechanics to match your description, you did exactly what the current rules allow.Hong's attempt to refute the statement on the basis of whose previous statement it did or did not apply to should not be taken as evidence of anything.  Go back and check the posts, if you like.Obviously, this depends upon what you mean by "ruleset" and what you mean by "fluff".  For example, changing the height of elves means that you cannot use the Height/Weight tables provided in the Core Rules.  Is this a change to fluff or crunch?  Is this a change to the ruleset?  To me, this would be a change in the rules.The description of a monster is a matter of taste, and falls under what most people would call "fluff" -- assuming that changes to description do not change stat blocks.  Once you change stat blocks, we are back in the realm of "crunch" and rulesets.  Some of the information about monsters, such as where they are found, are probably considered "fluff" as well.As a person living in that world, though, understanding where monsters live, being able to tell what they are, and knowing how likely they are to be (say) monks probably wouldn't seem like "fluff" at all.  Because knowing these things affects a player's ability to succeed in the game, I question whether a player would necessarily consider that information "fluff."  If the player did consider it "fluff," I would also be interested in why.  Was it because the DM put together a world where it was impossible to predict things anyway?  Was it because the player hadn't put together the simple correlation between ability to predict what one is likely to encounter and the ability to plan for/survive those encounters?I am certain that we can well imagine a group who splits treasure evenly among the characters who participated simply because it's "part of the rules."  Others say, "It's stupid to consider that a rule, and it isn't the DM's job."  If you use it as a rule, it is part of the ruleset of the game...simply because it is used as a rule.  If you do not use it, it may be good advice, but it isn't a rule.  This decision changes the rules of the game. It doesn't change the rules so much that you say, "Now they are playing another game."  Nor do you look at two human skeletons and say, "One is human, and the other is not, because they are not exactly the same."  Many variations of bone structure, both great and small, can be made while still leaving a demonstrably human skeleton.  But these skeletons are not identical.  Likewise, many changes can be made to the ruleset while still leaving a game which is demonstrably D&D.  But these rulesets are not identical.The discussion at hand, initially whether or not the terms "fluff" and "crunch" are offensive, requires one to examine what is meant by "fluff" and "crunch," and to make some kind of determination as to what is meant by related terms, such as "rules" and "flavor text."  Or at least this is a requirement if one hopes to achieve any growth of perspective on the subject.At least one secondary claim which has arisen, that "fluff" and "crunch" are the best descriptors available for the matter at hand, again requires exactly that form of examination if one wants to discover the relative truth value of the claim. As far as physics go, you could certainly claim that some "fluff" alters other sciences, such as psychology or zoology.  From a real-world standpoint, though, these sciences are inseparably tied into physics.RC</blockquote>

Verification