voideternal wrote:thejeff wrote:I'm still curious what this game of Pathfinder with no fluff whatsoever looks like.
I imagine it to look like the Core Rulebook with every fluff-description of any kind of game mechanic keyword replaced with variable names.Instead of "Class" you would say "X1"
Instead of "Attack roll", you would say "Y3"
Instead of "AC", you would say, "B5"
Here's an example of a game:
GM: A, C3, C1, D4, P0 Q3?
A: Y3 15 *rolls d20* 28 O4.
GM: *rolls d20* M T13.
C3: Q8 *rolls d20* I5 D1. *rolls d6*
I would not call the above game Pathfinder. Heck, I would not call it a game, because there's no clear win state. Would you?
I could see, barely, running combats like that. I couldn't see running a game like that. There's stuff in between the combats - even if it's just dressing to set up the fights, but that's all fluff.
Edit: That's actually a little farther than I'd go. "Attack roll" and "AC" are mechanics terms. Those would be okay. But you wouldn't be wielding any particular kind of weapon or wearing any specific armor - though it would still have AC bonus, check penalty, weight and all the other mechanics definitions.
While I can respect that there are people that wouldn't mind a mechanics-only game, I'd be run out of the house if I ran a game like that. My wife has a degree in mathematics and she looked at this and told me that if I left out the story and descriptive elements she'd do unspeakable things to me, things that I cannot put on the message boards without a ban.
The fluff and rules are both important. The story is what we are playing for, I'd hope. The rules are how we get there. You need both otherwise you have results with no meaning, and a story with no decision-making ability.