Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jrowland" data-source="post: 6011992" data-attributes="member: 94389"><p>This is the endless thread that keeps changing focus...I love it, lol!</p><p></p><p>I once argued back in the days when 3e was released that fluff-cunch are not mutually exclusive, but rather they "inform" each other. Crazy Jerome mentioned a door: If the fluff says its is a strong door, the mechanics should reflect that. It works the other way too. If the mechanics make opening the door tough, it should be described as such. The Hit Point arguments often vacillate between fluff-crunch for this very reason. Neither point to each other in a satisfactory way.</p><p></p><p>I've always leaned towards Fluff being "dominant" in this tango. That is, start with the fluff, it should lead to the design of the mechanics. I like 4E, but I think it is a case of mechanics leading fluff, that is, the mechanics came first and the fluff is added later (I would add it relatively easier to re-fluff than re-crunch, and so 4E is ok if you do a lot of fluff "re-skinning", as most fans of 4E will tell you).</p><p></p><p>1E era stuff was fluff first. Gygax and gamers alike wanted a game to re-live the adventures of the likes of Frodo, the Grey Mouser, Conan, etc. The mechanics were attempts to make that happen...</p><p></p><p>I want to digress a bit here about simulationalism vs gamism here. It might be tempting to associate mechanics-first with gamism and fluff-first with simulationalism, but I think that would be wrong. 1E wasn't try to be "realistic" in the simulationist sense so much as it was trying to re-create those "unrealistic" fantasy stories. You can't simulate a fireball being cast by awizard, since the whole concept of fireball casting wizards is made-up. Gygax in AD&D did try some simulationism with melee combat, but his approach is more like the assumptions of wargames (statistics) rather than personal combat (discrete datum).</p><p></p><p>So I agree there needs to be a balance between fluff n crunch, but I think the "style" you are referring to is more aligned with the notion of fluff-first or mechanics-first.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jrowland, post: 6011992, member: 94389"] This is the endless thread that keeps changing focus...I love it, lol! I once argued back in the days when 3e was released that fluff-cunch are not mutually exclusive, but rather they "inform" each other. Crazy Jerome mentioned a door: If the fluff says its is a strong door, the mechanics should reflect that. It works the other way too. If the mechanics make opening the door tough, it should be described as such. The Hit Point arguments often vacillate between fluff-crunch for this very reason. Neither point to each other in a satisfactory way. I've always leaned towards Fluff being "dominant" in this tango. That is, start with the fluff, it should lead to the design of the mechanics. I like 4E, but I think it is a case of mechanics leading fluff, that is, the mechanics came first and the fluff is added later (I would add it relatively easier to re-fluff than re-crunch, and so 4E is ok if you do a lot of fluff "re-skinning", as most fans of 4E will tell you). 1E era stuff was fluff first. Gygax and gamers alike wanted a game to re-live the adventures of the likes of Frodo, the Grey Mouser, Conan, etc. The mechanics were attempts to make that happen... I want to digress a bit here about simulationalism vs gamism here. It might be tempting to associate mechanics-first with gamism and fluff-first with simulationalism, but I think that would be wrong. 1E wasn't try to be "realistic" in the simulationist sense so much as it was trying to re-create those "unrealistic" fantasy stories. You can't simulate a fireball being cast by awizard, since the whole concept of fireball casting wizards is made-up. Gygax in AD&D did try some simulationism with melee combat, but his approach is more like the assumptions of wargames (statistics) rather than personal combat (discrete datum). So I agree there needs to be a balance between fluff n crunch, but I think the "style" you are referring to is more aligned with the notion of fluff-first or mechanics-first. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top
