|
4 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2009 - 9:20AM
#1001
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
But then what's the difference between 'hostile because I hate dragonborn' and 'hostile because I'm scared of your runes, which are actually refluffed plate armor'?
There is no difference between the one and the other.
Because one is different then the other? Oh I see where you are ocming from. Should King George Hate Dragon born X because he is a dragon born and Dragon born Y because he is a reskinned human? This is the issue that arises because of taking an already existing fluff and changing it. As long as the player isnt going to complain becuase Georgie hates him too, I have no issue but when the player says "But im not a dragon born im a human see look at my mechanics!" That is getting around something.
 Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2009 - 9:25AM
#1002
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
As I stated before (in a portion of a post that wasn't quoted), the problem is that you've only "shown" that: Whether or not Appearance (and thus Fluff, according to your original post's reasoning) is a game mechanic is at the DM's discretion. Which doesn't change the status quo at all (I thought the majority of folks had agreed, many times already, that this was something that was up to individual DMs?). At this point I'm going to advocate the application of (the common modern restatement of) Occam's razor: "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred." Your theory is that the statement means two contradictory things: "[Appearances] have no real impact on the game," and "[Appearances] might have a real impact on the game." Mine is that the statement means what it says, and nothing more: "[Apperances] have no real impact on the game," and "[Appearances] might affect the way NPCs - or PCs - think about your character." I'm claiming mine as the simpler, because it fits with the conventions of the language better, and doesn't imply a contradiction. You are, of course, free to disagree. 
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2009 - 9:26AM
#1003
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
As I stated before (in a portion of a post that wasn't quoted), the problem is that you've only "shown" that:
Whether or not Appearance (and thus Fluff, according to your original post's reasoning) is a game mechanic is at the DM's discretion.
Which doesn't change the status quo at all (I thought the majority of folks had agreed, many times already, that this was something that was up to individual DMs?).
Isnt this entire arguement up to DM's disgression? I mean there really is no point of any of it any more.
Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2009 - 9:32AM
#1004
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
As I stated before (in a portion of a post that wasn't quoted), the problem is that you've only "shown" that:
Whether or not Appearance (and thus Fluff, according to your original post's reasoning) is a game mechanic is at the DM's discretion.
Which doesn't change the status quo at all (I thought the majority of folks had agreed, many times already, that this was something that was up to individual DMs?).
Isnt this entire arguement up to DM's disgression? I mean there really is no point of any of it any more.
I've almost forgotten what the point was. It seems like there are multiple arguments going on here. I'm just confused on why people think changing aperance of something is changing a mechanic.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2009 - 9:32AM
#1005
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2005
|
@Will: 2 things. First - that does NOT change what the rules are for a game. Yes, they should vary from table to table - it is all in the rulebooks. Some of what is proposed, however, is only allowed through use of chapter 11.
Pbn, for someone for whom linguistic meaning holds so much import I think you make two important false conflations:
1) You define "what is in the game books" as "the rules" simply because they are referred to as "rulebooks" - no wonder you are concerned about language being used to mould your thoughts! 2) You confuse the product with the game. The product D&D is something published by WotC; they own and control it legally and by right. The game D&D is something that we, the players, play. It is owned and controlled, in every meaningful sense, by us and us alone. Can WotC influence that by what they publish? Sure - but only if we let them. It's a symbiotic relationship - hopefully, it will continue to be so.
Second, to all - I've mentioned somewhere my concern, and about language being usurped and used to push agendas and alter thought. I've asked for a definition (from the rulebooks) for fluff. There is none. That makes me think - where did the terms fluff and crunch develop? Are they conveying any meaning that may try to alter thought. (NOTE - this thought deals with populations and demographics, NOT individuals) Consider the market (by age and gender) and what emotive effect each word has upon the listener. Draw your own conclusions, if you will.
Ooooh - the evilbadman is inventing words to trick the kiddies! What fun! Frankly, this sounds to me like conspiracy theory bollocks - the community of gamers came up with these terms, mainly through being composed in large part of maths and computing geeks.
and if you don't - the terrorists win.
For some value of 'terrorists' 
=======
Balesir
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2009 - 9:35AM
#1006
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
As I stated before (in a portion of a post that wasn't quoted), the problem is that you've only "shown" that:
Whether or not Appearance (and thus Fluff, according to your original post's reasoning) is a game mechanic is at the DM's discretion.
Which doesn't change the status quo at all (I thought the majority of folks had agreed, many times already, that this was something that was up to individual DMs?).
Isnt this entire arguement up to DM's disgression? I mean there really is no point of any of it any more.
I've almost forgotten what the point was. It seems like there are multiple arguments going on here. I'm just confused on why people think changing aperance of something is changing a mechanic.
Here is what im going to say, take it or leave it. Crunch Mechanics =/= Fluff Mechanics Like how you get bent out of shape with calling Fluff a Mechanic. I get bent out of Shape when you say Fluff isnt. Fluff can be a Mechanic "At DMs Disgression". But then again the game can be a game of spreadsheet compairision at DMs Disgression. or it can be Hell on earth for anyone trying to play At DMs disgression.
Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2009 - 9:38AM
#1007
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
Oh I see where you are ocming from. Should King George Hate Dragon born X because he is a dragon born and Dragon born Y because he is a reskinned human? This is the issue that arises because of taking an already existing fluff and changing it.
As long as the player isnt going to complain becuase Georgie hates him too, I have no issue but when the player says "But im not a dragon born im a human see look at my mechanics!" That is getting around something.
I agree. If a character is of a certain race for the purposes of the narrative, he should, in all regards, be that race for all purposes of the narrative. He should also be prepared to explain why he cannot, for example, breathe fire (although, "I just don't like to," might suffice in this case). One thing we have not been discussing is how to refluff responsibly. These are matters of etiquette, storytelling, and plain ol' personal opinion. Many of them are discussed in the DMG. As an example, Max and I can agree that fluff should not be absurd and ridiculous unless you are playing a game that is meant to be absurd and ridiculous. Inserting wildly inappropriate fluff for the setting is disruptive to the story and decreases the impact of the narrative and the versimilitude of the setting. Of course, we disagree on what is absurd and ridiculous, but such disagreements are inevitable. I also think a player should have a good reason or explanation for his fluff change. That's just my personal preference. If you're just going to say "Oh yeah? Well, MAGIC!" to explain everything then I have to wonder why you bothered in the first place. If you're going to specify that you are a dragonborn with human mechanics, you should have an interesting explanation for any inconsistencies that arise. Not because that is a rule. Just because it is an opportunity to make the story more interesting and you should never pass that up. There are more general rules for refluffing, I think, like no jumping in on the fly and saying, "I block the arrow with my monkey!" If you have not previously specified that your shield is actually a sentient monkey golem, don't spring that on your fellow players in the middle of an encounter. That's just rude.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2009 - 9:43AM
#1008
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I've almost forgotten what the point was. It seems like there are multiple arguments going on here. I'm just confused on why people think changing aperance of something is changing a mechanic.
I thought that was why he made reference to those quotations in the first place - to "show" that appearance was a mechanic. Unfortunately, the best to be mustered from that line of reasoning was that the question of whether or not appearance is a mechanic is also up to the DM. Yay for logic, and no progress!
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2009 - 10:11AM
#1009
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
Because one is different then the other?
Oh I see where you are ocming from. Should King George Hate Dragon born X because he is a dragon born and Dragon born Y because he is a reskinned human? This is the issue that arises because of taking an already existing fluff and changing it.
As long as the player isnt going to complain becuase Georgie hates him too, I have no issue but when the player says "But im not a dragon born im a human see look at my mechanics!" That is getting around something.
No, that's not what I meant... my point was that everything fluffy has an equal impact on the game. If I'm a Dragonborn, that will affect the game at the DM's discretion. If I have an animated monkey golem as a shield (brilliant, really) that's going to affect the game.
Which of the two people consider stranger depends on whether I'm in a country of Dragonborn, or in a country of Animated Monkey Golem wielding Artificers. It depends on the rest of the setting. No fluff is inherently wrong. The effect of fluff on gameplay depends on two things only: * DM's discretion, like EVERYTHING in the game. * The setting you are in. It's kinda unfair to rule out everything not desribed in the PHB as 'wrong fluff that would affect gameplay' while everything that is described is 'perfectly normal' when both depend fully on the setting and the DM's discretion.
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2009 - 10:43AM
#1010
|
|
|
But then what's the difference between 'hostile because I hate dragonborn' and 'hostile because I'm scared of your runes, which are actually refluffed plate armor'?
There is no difference between the one and the other.
Your confusing hostility do to superiority as in "I hate dragonborn because they're beneath me" and somebody whose intimidated by dragonborn so they only act hostile. The later person is not actually hostile but is so overcome with fear that they behave in an irrational mannor this person can usually be persuaded with a diplo check. While the former is not afraid he's hostile because he comes from privilage and the whole notion of treating Dragonborn a race of creatures his family has probably exploited for decades as an equal makes him sick. The first person IS hostile and the second person only acts hostile because they're afraid now do you see the difference
|
|
|
