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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jrowland" data-source="post: 6013264" data-attributes="member: 94389">Wow.I think I must ave left the opposite impression with my post. Seems people are arguing against me with arguments I agree with and I thought I articulated.When I say Fluff-first, I don't mean "Fluff is better than Mechanics in a hierarchy." I mean literally, start with fluff then work the mechanics.I also don't mean that it ends there. That is to say, once you have fluff ( I want a spell that shoots a small ball of fire that blossoms into an explosion that damages my foes) you move to mechanics (fire keyword, range, AoE, level, dmg, etc) then you check back with fluff, ie. rinse and repeat.So, I am sure there are countless examples of areas in 4E that were likely fluff first due to D&D legacy (fireball is a fire spell). But the unified leveling schema of AEDU presented in 4E is clearly a mechanics-first consideration. What fluff is there to unify the same AEDU gains for all classes? What fluff was there that lead to the development of AEDU? Its pure mechanics.Again, don't get me wrong here. AEDU is fine, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking there was a narrative that led to it development. That it was designed to fit that narrative. It wasn't. In that sense, AEDU in 4E is mechanics first, and why the fluff as to why everyone gets 1 encounter power at level 1 (ie why we all can only do 1 special maneuver before resting) is an add-on (left to the players and DM).All editions do some of this, its not an all-or-nothing prospect. I agree, tight mechanics are a must. But mechanics should be designed to support the fluff, ie the story/narrative, you are trying to create.So essentially, I agree, good mechanics are key, and tight specific (non-vague mechanics) are key, but the need to be designed with the purpose of supporting fluff.e.g. spellcasting mechanics to support the fluff of wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks. We start with the concept (fluff) of each class. Take a moment and ask yourself what is each of those in terms of pure fluff? Then ask does the mechanics presented in the playtest support that? I don't care how good the mechanics are, if they don't allow you to play the fluff you envision, the mechanics will appear flawed. I think sorcerer is a great case where fluff didn't match mechanics and thus the sorcerer was born. Wizard wasn't working for their vision of an arcane spellcaster. The vancian echanics didn't fit that vision (fluff), and so spontaneous mechanics are born.I've rambled, but this is all I mean. Fluff comes first, and mechanics are created to express that fluff in the game. You can create mechaincs first, then try and find a narrative that explains them. But looking at the boundry conditions (all or nothing), starting with fluff then designing mechanics (I want a fantasy game with x,y,z elements, let me make mechanics to express x,y,z) makes a hell of a lot more sense than (I have mechanics x,y,z...what sort of game does this give me? Can I make it work for a fantasy?)my 2 electrum (I ran on more than 2 cp)</blockquote>

Verification