|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:06PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
The next person who claims "anyone can write fluff" best be prepared to provide evidence of theory New York Times bestseller status.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:10PM
#22
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
And now for a bit of personal opinion...
There are a few of us "old schoolers" (I use the term loosely because I enjoy all editions and playstyles for different reasons) who would rather house rule to match flavor than reflavor to match rules.
I often change the rules to fit the world I've created or make up a rule on the spot to cover the current situation, even if there's already an existing rule I don't happen to like.
That said, I hate math and don't want to have to do much of it during the actual session which means that the core math of the game needs to be solid so it can sit in the background.
So, there must be consideration of both solid math and solid flavor...as well as freedom to tinker with both.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:16PM
#23
|
|
|
Could the solid flavor of next be raspberry? I love raspberries 
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:18PM
#24
|
|
|
Very few people can make good fluff.
What constitutes 'good' fluff is subjective, as it revolves entirely around what one likes and dislikes. I think the 'fluff' of Lord of the Rings was boring and horrible, but other people think it was fantastic. Some people liked Firefly; I thought it sucked giant turkey ass.
A solid rules base is an objective measure, which is why it needs more work and effort. It doesn't matter how pretty the house is, if the foundation crumbles, you have nothing. The house is the fluff, the foundation is the mechanics, math, and ruleset.
Oh, man. I thought I was the only person on the planet who disliked LotR and Firefly.
Anyway, I think that both fluff and numers are important. Currently, however, the playtest should really focus on the rules of the system in order to balance things properly, and then fluff can follow as soon as we can all come to an agreement balance-wise. As it stands, I would not consider D&D Next due to its current rules alone, and I hope to contribute to the improvement of the system. Inversely, if the fluff is largely garbage, and I feel that Forgotten Realms, which seems to be the default setting, is in fact garbage, I can simply apply the game mechanics to a setting that I prefer.
Rules are codified and fluff is not, so rules need to come first. I am all for fluff in the future, however. If we were to establish a new setting from the ground up, I feel that fluff would be priority.
If I weren't already married ...
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:21PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
And now for a bit of personal opinion...
There are a few of us "old schoolers" (I use the term loosely because I enjoy all editions and playstyles for different reasons) who would rather house rule to match flavor than reflavor to match rules.
I often change the rules to fit the world I've created or make up a rule on the spot to cover the current situation, even if there's already an existing rule I don't happen to like.
*raise his hand* Me!
I was going to creat a monk who use a kuni with chain so I can disarm enemies, but then I realize
that the monk can't use chains. So I say screw the rules, I want my ninja monk.
Come to think of it. Will there be weapons that give advantage to disarm or trip like in 3.5e?
I kinda miss that.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:26PM
#26
|
|
|
Very few people can make good fluff.
What constitutes 'good' fluff is subjective, as it revolves entirely around what one likes and dislikes. I think the 'fluff' of Lord of the Rings was boring and horrible, but other people think it was fantastic. Some people liked Firefly; I thought it sucked giant turkey ass.
A solid rules base is an objective measure, which is why it needs more work and effort. It doesn't matter how pretty the house is, if the foundation crumbles, you have nothing. The house is the fluff, the foundation is the mechanics, math, and ruleset.
Oh, man. I thought I was the only person on the planet who disliked LotR and Firefly.
Anyway, I think that both fluff and numers are important. Currently, however, the playtest should really focus on the rules of the system in order to balance things properly, and then fluff can follow as soon as we can all come to an agreement balance-wise. As it stands, I would not consider D&D Next due to its current rules alone, and I hope to contribute to the improvement of the system. Inversely, if the fluff is largely garbage, and I feel that Forgotten Realms, which seems to be the default setting, is in fact garbage, I can simply apply the game mechanics to a setting that I prefer.
Rules are codified and fluff is not, so rules need to come first. I am all for fluff in the future, however. If we were to establish a new setting from the ground up, I feel that fluff would be priority.
If I weren't already married ...
I'd make a terrible spouse.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:30PM
#27
|
|
|
And now for a bit of personal opinion...
There are a few of us "old schoolers" (I use the term loosely because I enjoy all editions and playstyles for different reasons) who would rather house rule to match flavor than reflavor to match rules.
I often change the rules to fit the world I've created or make up a rule on the spot to cover the current situation, even if there's already an existing rule I don't happen to like.
That said, I hate math and don't want to have to do much of it during the actual session which means that the core math of the game needs to be solid so it can sit in the background.
So, there must be consideration of both solid math and solid flavor...as well as freedom to tinker with both.
THIS.
I prefer 2nd Edition AD&D. But I have played basic, 1E, 2E, 3.5, & 4E, and found all to be fun.
IF IT'S D&D, I'LL PLAY IT, NO MATTER THE EDITION.
Just roll some dice.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:56PM
#28
|
|
|
Will someone explain to me why they think the math in Next is broken? 4e? 3rd?
Tell me how a mathematician is supposed to be able to "balance" a cleric and thief who do two totally fifferent things. How much is a healing spell worth versus a lightning bolt? How much is disarm trap worth versus being able to swin g a sword for a lot of damage? How much is being able to hide from a group of 50 orcs worth versus being able to give an ally +2 to hit? How much is accuracy worth over the ability to fly over a trap?
Oh wait, I have the answer. It's all based on context. And since everyone out there seems to play a different style game...
I'm not saying balance shouldn't be used to make the game fun, keep obvious broken mechanics at bay, and allow for all players to feel a sense of self worth. But, there has to be a bit of common sense that says, "Hmm... Not sure the game can actually be balanced."
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 10:00PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
The next person who claims "anyone can write fluff" best be prepared to provide evidence of theory New York Times bestseller status.
Anyone can write fluff that works period. It's better to argue that not everyone can write "good" fluff.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 10:00PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Additionally the best roleplayers I have seen couldn't min/max a character.
I'm a good roleplayer.
I can also Mix/Max
So...do I not exist? 
|
|
|
