|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:33PM
#31
|
|
|
Default flavor is fine. Mandatory flavor is not.
In other words:
Fluff? Yes please.
Mechanically enforced fluff? Let us handle that, but feel free to give options in a sidebar to inspire/guide us.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:36PM
#32
|
|
|
No one is really talking about removing the fluff. I agree with Lawolf in saying that I love fluff. In light doses, even mechanically interactive or mechanically restrictive fluff can be an enhancment to the game experience. The problem is that the questions of "what fluff should this particular race/class/phlebotinum have," "should this fluff be mechanically enforced," and "what is the best way to mechanically enforce this fluff" are individual campaign/setting questions and shouldn't be predetermined settings.
Without default settings your windows installlation wouldn't even boot up correctly. The same is true with a role playing game. It needs defaults.
Which is fine if we're talking about default fluff, but not if that default fluff is by default mechanically enforced.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:37PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
Without default settings your windows installlation wouldn't even boot up correctly. The same is true with a role playing game. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
How much yoga did you have to do to be able to reach that far?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:40PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Safe Mode is fine. No option to not boot directly into Metro is not.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:41PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I'm perfectly fine with traditional fluff. As long as the system has mechanics that support it.
So, you find "No Dwarf Wizards!" to be perfectly fine?
That would just be a default. It might be a very bad set of defaults for the core PHB, but since I could just ignore it wouldn't be a big deal. If I recal, pre-3e dwarves and arcane magic didn't mix all that well, but they got some great saving throws against magic.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:42PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Safe Mode is fine. No option to not boot directly into Metro is not.
Save mode is a set of defaults.
The core of D&D next should be like safe mode 
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:45PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
No one is really talking about removing the fluff. I agree with Lawolf in saying that I love fluff. In light doses, even mechanically interactive or mechanically restrictive fluff can be an enhancment to the game experience. The problem is that the questions of "what fluff should this particular race/class/phlebotinum have," "should this fluff be mechanically enforced," and "what is the best way to mechanically enforce this fluff" are individual campaign/setting questions and shouldn't be predetermined settings.
Without default settings your windows installlation wouldn't even boot up correctly. The same is true with a role playing game. It needs defaults.
Which is fine if we're talking about default fluff, but not if that default fluff is by default mechanically enforced.
I don't understand that comment. If you remove the fluff shouldn't the associated mecahnics go along with it?
I mean, if the default Paladin must follow his code of honor or lose his paladinhood then don't both go down the drain once you remove the code of honor?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:50PM
#38
|
|
|
No one is really talking about removing the fluff. I agree with Lawolf in saying that I love fluff. In light doses, even mechanically interactive or mechanically restrictive fluff can be an enhancment to the game experience. The problem is that the questions of "what fluff should this particular race/class/phlebotinum have," "should this fluff be mechanically enforced," and "what is the best way to mechanically enforce this fluff" are individual campaign/setting questions and shouldn't be predetermined settings.
Without default settings your windows installlation wouldn't even boot up correctly. The same is true with a role playing game. It needs defaults.
Which is fine if we're talking about default fluff, but not if that default fluff is by default mechanically enforced.
I don't understand that comment. If you remove the fluff shouldn't the associated mecahnics go along with it?
I'm glad you asked, because it very much does look like you misunderstood. Please recall that I said default fluff is fine, but having mechanical enforcement for that fluff being the default isn't. So the paladin's code of conduct is good fluff. However, the losing one's powers when it's violated is mechanical enforcement and is not cool.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:53PM
#39
|
|
|
If the Paladin in the default seting has a clearly defined code of honor to follow I'd be perfectly happy with that. It's just default role playing information and that's very valuable because it helps people understand the class from a role playing perspective.
DMgorgon, you are confusing destricption (aka fluff) with mechanics.
Under the paladin's description it can talk about how they receive power through worship to their god(s), how they follow their god(s) tenants, how they smite enemies of their god(s), how some donate 10% of their earnings to the church, and how it is rumored that some who fall out of the grace of their god are punished and may even have their powers revoked.
That is all mostly fluff though. The paladin should not have a mechanically enforced code of conduct. The paladin should not have mechanics to remove their powers when they stray off the given path. Someone who makes a paladin of the Raven Queen or a Lord of Chaos will not necessarily follow a code, pay a tithe, or even be subject to power removal. A paladin who gains divine power from worshipping himself will almost certainly not follow any of the descriptive fluff above.
As soon as you produce mechanics based on fluff, it restricts options for creativity. In a game about imaginary heroes that is simply bad form.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 2:21PM
#40
|
|
|
The "fluff" is what dictates mechanics.
You can't remove all the fluff without ending up with a bunch of empty container classes/races. In such a system, a player would say, "I'm making a forest dwarf wizard" and then reflavour No-name Class A and no-name Race D. The details of class A in PHB would simply be a bunch of non-descriptive mechanics and nothing more. Now, that might be what you want for D&D, but it isn't D&D. The system needs a set of default archetypes, otherwise people won't be able to relate to it.
I'm not really sure you know what you are talking about. Afterall I love savage worlds because I can "make up the fluff" without having mechanics being forced on me. Same with 4e. I rarely play a typical "from the book" concept so 4e gives me the freedom to play D&D my way, while still not interfering with doing things "your way".
Take V/S/M spellcasting components for example. 4e does not assume these at base. In 4e I am free to make a spellcaster who casts magic that appears more similar to Avatar's elemental bending, or LotR magic that just happens, or to Harry Potter style wand magic, or to The Dresden Files style magic. But 4e in no way prevents me from using the more traditional (and more obscure apparently) "jazz hands and jibber jabber" that was pre 4e spellcasting. You are free to fluff your wizard needing spell pouches full of bat guano, wigly fingers, and arcane mutterings while I am not. In 3e this was not the case though because they attached mechanics (jazz hands and jibber jabber) to fluff (how you cast your spells). It was basicially impossible to create a true to form representation of most fantasy spellcasters because most spellcasters in fantasy do not cast spells like a D&D wizard.
P.S. I think a forest dwarf wizard sounds awesome! Why would you (as the GM) want to stop your player from coming up with interesting RP possibilites that come from the forest dwarf wizard?
|
|
|
