What did Wizards learn from Essentials?

[hanez]

Concerning Fluff and Cruch

I play with two groups. Both groups I think pretty regular people, love fantasy, have kids, jobs, etc, like blowing stuff to smithereens and are not really sold on the whole Roleplaying thing, they prefer dungeons to aristocratic events in there D&D.

So, that being said. This is what I noticed happened as DM when you seperated the fluff.... they ignored it. It didnt "make it easier for them to reflluf". It didn't give them the freedom to make any type of fireball, and roleplay however they like unrestricted by the rules. WHat happened was they started playing like this - "I use my daily, it causes a burst of x damage". Thats it. No asking the DM for a description, no refluffing, sometimes we didnt even get the POWERS name!

So I am a BIG fan of fluff mixed in with the crunch.

I've had lots of players who wanted to refluff spells and powers prior to 4e, I even had a player who wanted to be an archer, but use the wizard class and make his spells "melee" based (spells would represent magical arrows). Thats fine, good DMs work with players, thats the fun of D&D talking and thinking about things. I know I hear on forums people gushing about their ability to "refluff" but my experience with 4e and watching other groups play 4e leads me to believe most 4e players want the fluff seperated so they can jump straight into the tactical combat and ignore even more of the roleplaying.

As a DM, I think the DM is a player too. And older abiities gave cues to the DM, to interpret, describe, adjudicate. The first time you cast a spell, you waited for the DM to describe what happened, and you learned how it worked in his game. Now when you use a power you say 2W burst 2, place your damage marker on a grid and roll the dice. DM pretty much just watches. Thats great for a tactical combat game, but not so great for an interesting, fantastical story based game.

Just My 2 cents

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Concerning Fluff and Cruch

I play with two groups. Both groups I think pretty regular people, love fantasy, have kids, jobs, etc, like blowing stuff to smithereens and are not really sold on the whole Roleplaying thing, they prefer dungeons to aristocratic events in there D&D.

So, that being said. This is what I noticed happened as DM when you seperated the fluff.... they ignored it. It didnt "make it easier for them to reflluf". It didn't give them the freedom to make any type of fireball, and roleplay however they like unrestricted by the rules. WHat happened was they started playing like this - "I use my daily, it causes a burst of x damage". Thats it. No asking the DM for a description, no refluffing, sometimes we didnt even get the POWERS name!

Are they stil enjoying the game? Are you?

So I am a BIG fan of fluff mixed in with the crunch.

What will it add to the above groups play?

I've had lots of players who wanted to refluff spells and powers prior to 4e, I even had a player who wanted to be an archer, but use the wizard class and make his spells "melee" based (spells would represent magical arrows). Thats fine, good DMs work with players, thats the fun of D&D talking and thinking about things. I know I hear on forums people gushing about their ability to "refluff" but my experience with 4e and watching other groups play 4e leads me to believe most 4e players want the fluff seperated so they can jump straight into the tactical combat and ignore even more of the roleplaying.

As a DM, I think the DM is a player too. And older abiities gave cues to the DM, to interpret, describe, adjudicate. The first time you cast a spell, you waited for the DM to describe what happened, and you learned how it worked in his game. Now when you use a power you say 2W burst 2, place your damage marker on a grid and roll the dice. DM pretty much just watches. Thats great for a tactical combat game, but not so great for an interesting, fantastical story based game.

Just My 2 cents

I get that you have a problem with 4eI am not sure what the initially mentioned group of players would get out of a fluffier version of the game.

 

[Dausuul]

Are they stil enjoying the game? Are you?

Having experienced this myself, I can say that I enjoy the game overall, but every time this happens (powers being used without even naming the power, let alone describing the intended action), it diminishes my enjoyment. I have much more fun as a DM when I can narrate the flow of combat without having to stop players and say, "What did you just do?" Sometimes I just give up and stop even trying to narrate until combat is over.

From the player side of the table, I try not to do the "announce damage and conditions without bothering to name the power that caused them" thing, but with all the fiddly effects flying around in 4E, it can be hard to remember. Sometimes I'm so focused on calculating damage totals and gaming out tactics that I forget to say where these numbers are coming from. And this is despite the fact that I make a point of designing characters to minimize number-crunching at the table (for instance, I'll go to some lengths to ensure that all of my attack powers have the same attack bonus).

Essentials has helped some with all this, but not enough for my taste. The issue is that my desire as a player to contribute to defeating the enemy (by using the best tactics and dealing the most damage) conflicts with my desire to be immersed in the game world. This is always going to be the case to some extent, but I'd prefer that the tradeoff be less frequent and less severe. Having the "fluff" and "crunch*" be integrated would help with that, by reminding me what my character is doing each time I look at the power text.

Can't speak for Hanez, but that's my take.

[size=-2]*And I still maintain that in an RPG, concepts of "fluff" and "crunch" are bogus. There are only rules of varying precision and rigidity. If you "re-fluff" fireball into a spell that causes creatures to burn up from the inside, you have changed the spell in more than cosmetic ways. For example, it can now be used without giving away your position, but it cannot be used to signal allies from a distance. There's nothing wrong with making such a change, but there's nothing wrong with tweaking the area and damage values either--and the DM should sign off on the change in both cases.[/size]

I get that you have a problem with 4eI am not sure what the initially mentioned group of players would get out of a fluffier version of the game.

Well, since I like role-playing games better than abstract board games, I'd get to spend more time playing an RPG and less playing an abstract board game. It's not that I don't enjoy the board game, but I like D&D more.

 

[grimslade]

I am going to reply to the OP without stepping in the flaming mire of fluff to crunch ratios.
I hope what they learned from the Essentials line is that you should release a new edition with a playtested and focused release based on bringing new people to the game. A new edition is a new game, so everyone needs to be brought in as 'noobs'.
Start with a stable base and grow out and then up. I hope 5E will start with a lower level basic set and add parallel options to support it. After there has been some more playtesting for the next 'tier' release a next platform with parallel options.
When I say parallel options I mean differentiated rules sub-systems. You want wizards with different schools, there is an op for that. You want fighting styles for warriors and the martially minded, there is an op for that, too. The base should be clean, clear and strong. It will have to bear the weight of the game going forward. I see D&D becoming more like Monopoly, less rules innovation, more brand identity. This may be the last edition of D&D in more ways than one.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Having experienced this myself, I can say that I enjoy the game overall, but every time this happens (powers being used without even naming the power, let alone describing the intended action), it diminishes my enjoyment. I have much more fun as a DM when I can narrate the flow of combat without having to stop players and say, "What did you just do?" Sometimes I just give up and stop even trying to narrate until combat is over.

From the player side of the table, I try not to do the "announce damage and conditions without bothering to name the power that caused them" thing, but with all the fiddly effects flying around in 4E, it can be hard to remember.....

Well, since I like role-playing games better than abstract board games, I'd get to spend more time playing an RPG and less playing an abstract board game. It's not that I don't enjoy the board game, but I like D&D more.

Well i asked becase it seems to me that this is an example of clashing playstyles with the no narration crowd probably more casual style of players.

 

[Incenjucar]

And I still maintain that in an RPG, concepts of "fluff" and "crunch" are bogus. There are only rules of varying precision and rigidity. If you "re-fluff" fireball into a spell that causes creatures to burn up from the inside, you have changed the spell in more than cosmetic ways. For example, it can now be used without giving away your position, but it cannot be used to signal allies from a distance. There's nothing wrong with making such a change, but there's nothing wrong with tweaking the area and damage values either--and the DM should sign off on the change in both cases.

Ah, see, here is the beauty of fluff. The DM isn't expected to act on it, but CAN act on it. This can lead to really interesting twists to a scene without actually altering the balance of the game.

For example, in a game I play in, my character has a power called "Offering of Justice" which I've renamed to "Offering of Love." The actual power is basically just an automatically-applied attack that gives the target temp HP if it doesn't attack anything for a turn, or 2d10+mod radiant damage if they do attack. My character's "Offering of Love" actually takes the form of an Angel of Desire, with one gentle loving hand she reaches out with and one clawed hand held behind her back. Those who accept get angle cuddles and those who refuse get their heart clawed. The DM has, on occasion, made the decision to accept or refuse out of RP concerns more than sheer tactics, because a generic threat is very different from an Angel that Doesn't Take No for an Answer. The amount of banter this power this has created, between PCs and NPCs and so forth, has gone so far as to make it worth me painting a miniature for the power. The encounter power has become a minor character. If my PC ever trained out of that power, the angel would probably end up an NPC. Someone could very easily do something similar with the 4E Fireball, by saying it is actually a phoenix that pops into and out of existence. This might never come into play until one day the party runs into a foe who was once saved by a phoenix, or one who is trying to destroy a phoenix, and then a remarkable story element may well evolve from it.

Fluff is that delicious gray area between the story and the mechanics where the DM and the Players can bring some real narrative magic into the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It didnt "make it easier for them to reflluf". It didn't give them the freedom to make any type of fireball, and roleplay however they like unrestricted by the rules.

Well, it did, they were just free to choose not to do so...

WHat happened was they started playing like this - "I use my daily, it causes a burst of x damage". Thats it. No asking the DM for a description, no refluffing, sometimes we didnt even get the POWERS name!

Nod. I've seen that happen, particularly when a group is trying to 'speed up' or 'get through' a combat.

OTOH, I've seen some very creative power description, too, when the player was into it.

OTOOH, I've also seen some very tedious power description when the DM decided to give a bonus for 'good description.' :shudder:

So I am a BIG fan of fluff mixed in with the crunch.

Because it forces others to play the way you want them to?

That's fine. I know, it's a cardinal sin these days to want to get a group together to play in something like the same way, or to tell at least vaguely, the sort of story you envision as a DM. Choice of game /can/ be a tool to do that. You get very different players and attitudes if you run Castle Falkenstien than if you run BattleTech.

 

[Remathilis]

I thought tieflings could have any type of fiendish blood in their veins? It would make more sense if they had a trait depending on that type. Anger issues might work with demons.

They did in 2e and 3e, but 4e tieflings are purely devil, having made a pact with them long ago.

 

[hanez]

I get that you have a problem with 4eI am not sure what the initially mentioned group of players would get out of a fluffier version of the game.

Couple people mentioned this so I'll elaborate. I guess the confusion is I prefaced the beginning of my "rant" with describing my players as "not into roleplaying". Perhaps that might have been better written as "not predispoded to roleplay" they don't have arts degrees if you know what I mean.

What I'm trying to say is we played a more tactical combat style game and I as DM didn't resist it. I dove into 4e full bore. The rules pushed us a to be bit more tactical, we used the standard modules and they certainly were a mini extravaganza. But after a year, we were all pretty bored. Most of my player complaints could be summed up in two points 1 - All classes felt generic and 2 - the powers were boring. I think point two and some of point 1 is related to the fluff being seperated and how my players ignored the fluff (as many players did).

Also I think on some level they want to roleplay or at least be immersed in their characters. This desire is unspoken under the conscious level of wanting to be powerful and roast orcs, underneath that you want to be able to be immersed in the idea of your character. And its hard to be immersed when instead of thinking how cool it is to cast a mirror image, you are simply drawn to the rules that make it an AC boost and dont even notice you are making multiple images of yourself.

Mirror image is a perfect example for me because I remember casting it in previous editions. And every time I had no idea what exact mechanical effect it would have. Would my DM just hit the real me, would there be some way to track it, how would he DM work with this spell, would I put secret markers on a grid or something? In all that lack of knowledge, there was one thing I did know, I was casting a spell that made multiple images of me, and that was freaking awesome! Now compare that to the new description which can be summed up as "+6 to AC subtract 2 every time they miss". Its just not the same

 

[Sadras]

....And don't even get me started on the first Monster Manual, which was so utterly devoid of fluff I needed the 3.5 MM to describe the monsters in it!).

Exactly. As a DM I always return to the Monstrous Compendium of 2E for the necessary fluff (I recommend this if you can get a hold of it. It is 100% better than the 3.5E MM for fluff purposes for most monsters).
Sometimes I even change the 4E mechanics based on the fluff, add damage, add range, add conditions - I mean if you're getting slid 5 squares theres a good chance you gonna fall prone. Generally I look to prior editions for the height size and weight of monsters - funny how the Frost Giant has gotten shorter from 3.5E to 4E.