When did the terms "Fluff" "CoDzilla" "Crunch" "RAW" become part of the D&D lexicon? Those terms hadn't been coined when I was playing 2nd Edition AD&D; they show up in abundance today.
It seems that because the term "fluff" was invented, then there had to be a hard line drawn between the "fluff" and the "rules". Maybe the fluff should trump the rules when it makes sense.
I don't know about "fluff" and "crunch". They were certainly being used when I played 2e AD&D. I really noticed them after White Wolf broke out into popularity, as being very "fluff-heavy". But exactly when they debuted, I don't know.
RAW (Rules As Written) and RAI (Rules As Intended) have been around for years. I've never not encountered them.
CoDzilla is from 3.X, and refers to the extreme power of the Cleric and Druid, and how they could "stomp all over game balance like Godzilla stomps on Tokyo".
As far as a separation between fluff and crunch, this is a relatively new development. In 3.X at least, there was tacit support of refluffing, but it was all filtered through the DM, and often times the rules were directly linked to the fluff, making refluffing difficult without changing the mechanics themselves. This would then be houseruling, and that made some DMs uncomfortable (understandably, since 3.X was complex enough as it was, and some DMs were unwilling to upset what little balance was there by inplementing a potentially broken houserule).
4e offers a very stark separation between fluff and crunch. Rampant refluffing is not only easier due to disassociated mechanics, it is actively endorsed by the conception of the edition. DMs and players are expected to refluff things.
Whether this is a bug or a feature is up to the individual.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
As far as a separation between fluff and crunch, this is a relatively new development.
New for here maybe - lets see HERO as Champions came out in 1981 dont know if it was the very first but it was/is popular... Fantasy Hero (in 1985) had some interesting design your own magic system elements I rather liked a lot. Similarly the martial arts designing was kind of fun too. It has a system using package deals to allow the GM to influence what was otherwise a completely open character design system.
As far as a separation between fluff and crunch, this is a relatively new development.
New for here maybe - lets see HERO as Champions came out in 1981 dont know if it was the very first but it was/is popular...
"New for here" is exactly right. D&D (2008) was the first version of D&D to have game design elements newr than 1979, and to show any sign of having learned anything from three decades of experience.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
It doesn't matter whether or not they are subjective judgment calls. They are still not arbitrary.
ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/Adjective
1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
To be fair, though we may not agree with MP's reasons he still has them.
Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. But who are we kidding, the DM is an Arbiter. To say what he does is not arbitrary is an outright lie.
No, that's semantics. What an arbiter does is arbitration. The root is the same, the meaning is not.
It is arbitrary because you are not basing it off of any set value in the game you are just deciding on a personal whim that this costs more.
Again, to be fair it is based on a value in MP's game. I do not agree with the value or the decisions based on it but it's clear that, for whatever reason, MP has defined these parameters for his game.
I guess the best way to put it is that I do not think this decision was arbitrary, but I do believe the system upon which the decision was made is.
Advice for DMs: When you are ad lib or improve DMing don't self-edit yourself. Some of the most fun you'll ever have is by just going with whatever crazy thing crosses your mind based on what your players are doing.
Advice for Players: When your DM is ad libbing there are bound to be plot holes and inconsistencies that crop up. You'll all have a lot more fun if you just roll with it instead of nitpicking the details.
Advice for DMs: Always dangle a lot of plot hooks in front of you players. Anything they do not bite you can bring back and bite them later.
When considering a new house rule ask yourself the question "Will this make the game more fun?" Unless the answer is a resounding yes don't do it.
Advice for Players: Always tell the DM not just what you want to do but also what you are hoping to accomplish. No matter how logical the result is it will never happen if it simply never occurred to the DM.
"That's what my character would do" is not a valid excuse for being a disruptive ass at the table. Your right to have fun only extends to the point where it impedes the ability of others to do likewise.
As far as a separation between fluff and crunch, this is a relatively new development.
New for here maybe - lets see HERO as Champions came out in 1981 dont know if it was the very first but it was/is popular...
"New for here" is exactly right. D&D (2008) was the first version of D&D to have game design elements newr than 1979, and to show any sign of having learned anything from three decades of experience.
Yes pretty much catching up. But I would like to say the things I like about it the best include purified forms of things that were already strong elements of D&D.
Could we finally put this thread to rest? As far as I can tell this discussion has either gone roundabout, or has gone to madness already. Let's put it this way:
Original topic: - adventure economy and game intent builds NPCs to last 1 encounter only as the norm (except maybe for character companions), while allowing PCs to last throughout the adventure. In other words, one dies quickly, one dies slowly (perhaps slowly enough to actually find a way to live through the day and not die); to balance the game in that manner and have the same character creation or character play mechanics is... difficult to impossible, as far as I can tell.
Offshoot topic: - DM call (based on whatever factors come into play, including campaign world setting, plot, background story, etc. etc. etc.) determines various factors that can and do affect player characters. This includes item cost, so the discussion on the market value of coral weaponry relative to weaponry of other material composition is wholly subjective, even in official games such as LFR**. - the 100gp starting gold of a character is an abstraction in itself (see PHP p.210).
When you leave the safety of a city or other refuge for the wilderness and the unknown, you must be prepared. Being ready means you need protection, arms, and tools to see you through potential challenges, dangers, and hardships. An unprepared explorer all too often winds up injured or lost—or worse—so gear up for the hazards you expect on your adventures.
When you create a 1st-level character, you start with basic clothing and 100 gold pieces to spend on armor,weapons, and adventuring gear. This is an abstraction; your character probably doesn’t walk into a store oneday with a bag of coins—unless you just came into an inheritance or won a tournament of some sort. Rather, the items you start with, and any gold you have leftover, might come your way as gifts from family, gear used during military service, equipment issued by a patron, or even something you made yourself.
So if we're going by the rules and "default setting" (ignoring artwork), the game doesn't matter if that spear you got is a weapon made in your local village from coral or washed up debris, if you bought it from outsiders or made by the local blacksmith, if it's gold-plated and encrusted with (fake) jewgaws or plain, by default the whole is an abstraction, so it's up to the DM and player alike to see how that abstraction materializes within the game. If let's say it's a metal, jewel-encrusted spear that costs 100gp, if the player agrees then the DM can just give him a spear that's worth 100gp in the game, since it's easily translated as 5gp spear + 95gp that the player willingly refuses to use for buying equipment unless he sells the 5gp spear for 20gp (20% of 100gp, unless the merchants pay top dollar for his equipment, maybe a Diplomacy check to raise the selling price to 50% at most?)... either that, or the player agrees that the actual value of the weapon is only as written in the PHB (5gp) with all other implications being story-related or what not. Either way, as long as the group is having fun, that's alright.
If you ask me though, the default setting already dropped the concept of how material composition affects the item's market price or what not, because all of this stuff is more fluff than actual mechanics. The DM can set all magical items to 1gp or even 10cp and they'd all mechanically function as normal, save for the part where the players would sell off their magical items (but that's for another discussion). A spear will mechanically be a spear regardless if it's oak wood, mahogany wood, stone, brass, iron, coral, etc. where it actually matters: powers, feats, and magical enchantments.
The game generally ignores versimilitude issues like "blunt weapons should be more effective against skeletons than piercing weapons", "steel blades should be better than wooden blades", etc. because those are things that add too much unnecessary micromanagement (unless that's your thing).
I don't care about how versimilitude ruins this, but I LOVE the scene in Dragon Age where the hero stabs his weapon through his opponent's neck. It's cool and all when you use a spear or a sword, but try stabbing A FRIGGIN' MAUL through anyone's neck. Moment of awesome people
And with regards to coral weapon being valuable, it's likely because of the association that coral is used often as decoration for aquariums, even though as a material for jewelry you'd be hard-pressed to find someone selling them (and they're unlikely to have a higher market value than equally-furnished jewelry made of even semiprecious stones by themselves***). In terms of "realism", coral is, as mentioned, a poor material for weapons even in an atoll island-heavy campaign; assuming that the inhabitants "accidentally" created glass when beach sand melted from bonfires or inhabitants had coconut trees available, coco wood is the best, easily-obtained component for the shaft of a mundane spear, while the glass would be ideal for the tip (although sharpening the stick would do well too, and *maybe* a coral-tipped spear isn't too shabby, but it certainly doesn't increase the market value of the weapon, unless the DM explicitly states that it's valuable, due to the fragile nature of the material****).
** seriously, can anyone point to me where in the books or even the LFR documentation where equipment material composition in LFR is delineated? Because as far as I can tell, since Dark Sun Campaign Setting is also a legal source book, technically you *could* have Obsidian weaponry (magically reinforced, or what not) in LFR, if pictures are to be a basis for validity of material composition. *** unless we're talking about artisans and not just items by themselves **** heck, if I were to DM that, I might have the player get several coral tips for his spear if he spends 5gp for it, to make up for the fact that the tip's material is much more fragile than the shaft's... with zero cost for picking up and sharpening tips from the nearby surroundings during his travels (since there'd be no mechanical benefit or downside for such a weapon)
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
When did the terms "Fluff" "CoDzilla" "Crunch" "RAW" become part of the D&D lexicon? Those terms hadn't been coined when I was playing 2nd Edition AD&D; they show up in abundance today.
It seems that because the term "fluff" was invented, then there had to be a hard line drawn between the "fluff" and the "rules". Maybe the fluff should trump the rules when it makes sense.
I don't know about "fluff" and "crunch". They were certainly being used when I played 2e AD&D. I really noticed them after White Wolf broke out into popularity, as being very "fluff-heavy". But exactly when they debuted, I don't know.
Yes, the latest book/release that you don't like is a blatant attempt by Wizards of the Coast to make money off the fanbase. They all are. That's kinda the point of the Free Enterprise system, companies are in it to make money...
You can't! I tried... and the next night masked men came into my house and beat me until I burned up my ranger character sheet and rolled a scout. They told me... if I ever thought of making a non-essential character that they would kill mitsy..... OH GOD THEY ARE COMING BACK AND ARE FORCING ME TO BUY HEROES OF SHADOWS! SOMEONE STOP THEM PLEASE!
Your DM is your friend. He's not trying to screw with you, or dick you around. Play your character how your character would act. Accept that your character won't always be able to do what he's best at, but also know that as a goddamn HERO, he's gonna try to do his best at what he can do.
Roleplay your goddamn character, make the decisions he would make, and roll appropriately. Everything will be fine.
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
If you see me posting in a thread about editions or Essentials (that isn't simply a rules thread or similar) remind me that I'm trying to stay away from them. (My blood pressure will thank us both.)
When did the terms "Fluff" "CoDzilla" "Crunch" "RAW" become part of the D&D lexicon? Those terms hadn't been coined when I was playing 2nd Edition AD&D; they show up in abundance today.
It seems that because the term "fluff" was invented, then there had to be a hard line drawn between the "fluff" and the "rules".
In AD&D there was no particular line between 'fluff' and 'crunch.' But, in the 90s, the line was beginning to be drawn. In the 90s, there was a siesmic shift towards setting detail as the big selling point of RPGs. One aspect of that was an increasingly common, and comic, gap between what the setting material eloquently said about something, and how that something was modeled, mechanically. My guess is that the distinction between 'fluff' and 'crunch' came from discussing such things. Also, I seem to remember hearing 'crunch' a lot sooner than 'fluff.' 'Fluff' you have heard bandied about a lot more in the D&D community since 4e came out, because 4e has a distinct lack of fluff (it's not tied to a developing setting, and it's presented in a very systematic way), with what fluff there is visually segregated from 'crunch.'
'CoDzilla' was coined under 3e, to describe the capacity of Clerics and Druids to outperform iconic classes, like the fighter and rogue (some would argue, any and all other classes), in their own area of expertise, primarily by eschewing their traditional 'healer/buffer' role, and using their spells exclusively for their own benefit.
'RAW' (Rules As Written) is also a 3e artifact. There are a lot of argumentative discussions about rule interpretations. In 3e, which still had a lot of quite vague and inconsistent rules, they were long and vehement. One thing that often came up was the idea that there was one, true interpretation of the rules the 'Rules As Written,' which was valid. Forumites would try to 'win' such discussions by paint their own interpretations as RAW. The dogma of 'RAW' ignores the inherent ambiguity of the human language in which rules are actually written, and is, in fact, virtually worthless. RAW is less significant in 4e, where interpretations and updates come down from on high with some frequency.
Maybe the fluff should trump the rules when it makes sense.
No. Just no. If you feel there's a conflict between fluff and rules, mess with the fluff until you've eliminated the conflict to your satisfaction. It doesn't hurt to arbitrarily change fluff to match perconcieved notions or stylistic concerns, but messing with rules on the fly and inconsistently like that, not only hurts game balance, but it makes you seem less reasonable and worthy of DMing in the eyes of you players. Changing rules is fine - it's better than fine, realy, it's a great way to get just what you want out of a system - but it needs to be done advisedly, consistently, and up-front.
