WoW and 4e - where's the beef?

[Fanaelialae]

What I don't understand, and never have, is why fluff is bad.

Take the rays of calming light. (I hate myself for what I type next, and I intend no snark). Why couldn't you do that in 3e?

I mean, I do get that you "overlap" with certain other things (like there are actually spells that do calm people down specifically). But why couldn't you re-fluff in 3e just like here?

Radiant powers do damage. There is that basic standard in the game. You've essentially "gone against" existing fluff by saying that the damage isn't really damage. That's fine, and more power to you. But, it's really not much different than doing the same in 3e, I'd say.


I still have yet to hear/read an explanation of why having no fluff is better than having fluff...fluff you can change.

In 3e, I would have had to either take a -4 on my attacks (dealing subdual damage) or take the metamagic feat that converts a spell to subdual without the penalty (but raises the spell's level). In either case I would have been mechanically punished for something that was purely for role play. I tried, years ago, to make this type of character under 3e and my DM at the time wouldn't allow it outside of the above options. I didn't want to be dead weight for the team, so I just made a basic cleric.

4e has a looser definition of hps. This means that I can define my attacks as taking away the enemy's fighting spirit rather than inflicting actual injury, without any problems. In addition, the game doesn't penalize you for trying to knock someone unconscious. The reskinnable nature of 4e's power system is one of my favorite elements, for this reason.

In 3e, it might have worked if the DM had allowed me to create a unique set of spells for my character that were calming rays of light (which he wasn't interested in doing). In 4e, I take the existing powers, reskin flavor, and go (and that same DM doesn't care).

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well to be fair D&D cleric's are based off the militant holy orders of the crusades. So playing a pacifist was never really part of that class. I myself hate they way d&d has made them into everyman of the clergy which is something they really are not meant to be but rather the warriors of the church more then the preachers

Actually, that has to do with our campaign setting, not the base assumptions of the PHB.

4e PHB pg 60, "Clerics are battle leaders who are invested with divine power". Clerics are still the exception rather than the rule among priests, and they still have a strong militant flavor.

That said, my dwarven cleric is in a "dawn of the world" setting. The world is still young and there are no established religious orders or gods. People worship the spirits of the world around them, and occasionally someone is so inspired by one of these spirits that they awaken to divine power.

Yeah, I admit that playing a pacifist was never a central element of the cleric class. Nonetheless, I've always wanted to play one and 4e's flexibility doesn't punish me for that.

Getting back to my original point, all I'm saying is that lack of flavor can be just as much a good thing to inspire role play as a bad thing, hindering it. It really just depends on the person (what inspires them).

 

[Fanaelialae]

Start the playing, yes, start the roleplaying, no. 4E definitely pushes Roll over Role as the first thing a new player experiences in the game.

So what is the purpose of pgs 18-24 (the Roleplaying section) of the PHB then?

I strongly disagree. I think 4e is very much about "freedom to make up your own fluff". I won't argue that that might make it harder for some to role play, but others (including new players that I've met over the years) love making up new stuff. It's unfortunate that it is better for some than others, but as the old adage says, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

[Piratecat]

Folks, please don't tell other people what they've said or what they think. That way lies madness.. and not the fun kind of madness with rolling eyes and tentacles.

I'll disagree with the assertion that 4e doesn't emphasize roleplaying. Just yesterday I ran across an interesting blog post from Mearls about that:
The Keep on the Gaming Lands: The Curse of the Absent Host

 

[Aberzanzorax]

In 3e, I would have had to either take a -4 on my attacks (dealing subdual damage) or take the metamagic feat that converts a spell to subdual without the penalty (but raises the spell's level). In either case I would have been mechanically punished for something that was purely for role play. I tried, years ago, to make this type of character under 3e and my DM at the time wouldn't allow it outside of the above options. I didn't want to be dead weight for the team, so I just made a basic cleric.

4e has a looser definition of hps. This means that I can define my attacks as taking away the enemy's fighting spirit rather than inflicting actual injury, without any problems. In addition, the game doesn't penalize you for trying to knock someone unconscious. The reskinnable nature of 4e's power system is one of my favorite elements, for this reason.

In 3e, it might have worked if the DM had allowed me to create a unique set of spells for my character that were calming rays of light (which he wasn't interested in doing). In 4e, I take the existing powers, reskin flavor, and go (and that same DM doesn't care).

Ah, gotcha.

So I was sort of on track? Because there were already rules that overrulled the fluff changes you wanted to make in 3e? (the -4 subdual).

Essentially, though, I don't see this as a "less fluff is better" argument so much as "3e had too many specific rules" and also "4e rules let the last hit be subdual damage".

So, in my opinion, it still comes back to you could refluff in either, but the crunch in 4e makes this more easily done than the crunch in 3e. Which means that more fluff in 4e would not have prevented this.

Am I missing something? I'm really not trying to be snarky, but I honestly don't get why a DM would allow a fluff change in 4e but not in 3e unless it was rules driven.

The only way I could see that would be if there were a tyrant dm who would only go with canon, and allow you to fill in the blanks. e.g. "It says RIGHT HERE that that this spell looks like beams of light. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT WRITE YOUR NAME, JIM DARKMAGIC!!!"

 

[Fanaelialae]

Ah, gotcha.

So I was sort of on track? Because there were already rules that overrulled the fluff changes you wanted to make in 3e? (the -4 subdual).

Essentially, though, I don't see this as a "less fluff is better" argument so much as "3e had too many specific rules" and also "4e rules let the last hit be subdual damage".

So, in my opinion, it still comes back to you could refluff in either, but the crunch in 4e makes this more easily done than the crunch in 3e. Which means that more fluff in 4e would not have prevented this.

Am I missing something? I'm really not trying to be snarky, but I honestly don't get why a DM would allow a fluff change in 4e but not in 3e unless it was rules driven.

The only way I could see that would be if there were a tyrant dm who would only go with canon, and allow you to fill in the blanks. e.g. "It says RIGHT HERE that that this spell looks like beams of light. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT WRITE YOUR NAME, JIM DARKMAGIC!!!"

Yes, it is definitely mechanically driven to a degree.

I think it also has to do with the simulationist approach of 3e. I don't think that that DM would have accepted "calming" as an acceptable source of damage in 3e, despite that he has no problems with it in 4th (he would have told me to cast the Calm spell and left it at that). I suppose in this case it's less that the power fluff is vague than that the hp fluff is vague?

Part of it is also that, for me, it's a harder for me to repurpose 3e Flame Strike (cylindrical tower half of fire and half holy) than it is a burst 1 that deals fire and radiant damage. The preconceived notion of what a (defined) Flame Strike is stifles my creative process a bit. I just feel that 4e leaves my imagination more freedom to wander. So, yeah, just a personal opinion but there it is.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying "less fluff is better". I'm saying, "less fluff is preferable to some".

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I think I understand now.

...and good point about better versus preferable to some.

-Aberzanzorax

 

[tylerthehobo]

Folks, please don't tell other people what they've said or what they think. That way lies madness.. and not the fun kind of madness with rolling eyes and tentacles.

I'll disagree with the assertion that 4e doesn't emphasize roleplaying. Just yesterday I ran across an interesting blog post from Mearls about that:
The Keep on the Gaming Lands: The Curse of the Absent Host

Good post, and thanks for sharing Mearls' post about RPing in 4e, Piratecat. Gave me another perspective on it. I'm still concerned that we're scenario-ing 4e away from rp-ing, but seeing how Mearls (and many of the posters here) approaches it gives me some hope.

 

[Spatula]

That assumption of yours is not what I said at all, please go back and read.

I don't understand what you were saying, then.

More and more people are playing video games than ever before, and in the RPG world they are being defined as what is fun.
<snip>
But can you also see how non-video game players who prefer the old definition of fun object to video games driving the direction of the game?

I read "in the RPG world, video games are being defined as what is fun" and "people who prefer the old definition of fun object to video games driving the direction of the game" as saying that video games' definition of fun is changing what is considered to be fun in RPGs. Apparently I'm misunderstanding something.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Actually, that has to do with our campaign setting, not the base assumptions of the PHB.

4e PHB pg 60, "Clerics are battle leaders who are invested with divine power". Clerics are still the exception rather than the rule among priests, and they still have a strong militant flavor.

That said, my dwarven cleric is in a "dawn of the world" setting. The world is still young and there are no established religious orders or gods. People worship the spirits of the world around them, and occasionally someone is so inspired by one of these spirits that they awaken to divine power.

Yeah, I admit that playing a pacifist was never a central element of the cleric class. Nonetheless, I've always wanted to play one and 4e's flexibility doesn't punish me for that.

Getting back to my original point, all I'm saying is that lack of flavor can be just as much a good thing to inspire role play as a bad thing, hindering it. It really just depends on the person (what inspires them).

Well you see you could always play one in 3.5 if you messed with fluff9 or any other edition I would guess. Take the wizard change fluff, pick non damaging spells...or take a cleric or a druid and pick non damaging spells. Or simply do like you have and change the fluff of the spells and like you are now and changing the spells themselves.

It always could have been done. It is just that is not what that class is ment for.