2e.... more flavor than 3e?

[Storm Raven]

Really, some of the best flavor text in the various monster manuals in 3e are very nearly a cut and paste job from the 2e material on the same monster. The Slasrath in the 3e Fiend Folio is almost a word for word cut & paste from its 2e source, but the 3e version is shorter and without the in character account of the creature's creation in the laboratory of an Ultroloth.

You see, here's the problem with a lot of 2e "flavor" - for many people it is worthless. I don't need an account of the slasrath's creation in an ultoloth's laboratory, ultraloth's don't exist in my campaing and the slasrath has a wildly different origin. But in 2e, I have to decouple the slasrath from the "flavor" provided by the text and replace it with my own, and then I get players who assumed that the slasrath (or some other creature) has the same background, ecology, and other fluff as was printed in the books; in many cases persisting no matter how often I pointed out that the flavor material in the books was not applicable to the campaign.

3e monster books have ecology information and pure flavor text as a seeming afterthought to the rules and listing of abilities. Compare that to the incredibly detailed and much longer and much more in depth ecology information in the 2e monster manuals (especially the later PSMC books, and for the sake of allowing the 3e books light in their shallow grave, we'll keep 'Faces of Evil' out of this for the moment).

Useless fluff is just wasted paper and ink. The bulk of 2e's flavor was just wasted fluff. Give me rules to use the creatures with, and I'll fit them into the campaign. I don't need the very boring fluff of a second rate quasi-novelist. I need game rules. I can provide flavor all on my own.

 

[Ranger REG]

Useless fluff is just wasted paper and ink. The bulk of 2e's flavor was just wasted fluff. Give me rules to use the creatures with, and I'll fit them into the campaign. I don't need the very boring fluff of a second rate quasi-novelist. I need game rules. I can provide flavor all on my own.

I disagree that 2e's flavor was wasted fluff. They're very useful in fueling the imaginations of both DMs and players, which we sorely needed now since the only ones are more interested in crunch are the aging veterans, with no aid in recruiting more newbies into the game. 2e and fluff remind us that the game is not mechanical but dynamic and interactive. That's what roleplaying is about.

I go through my 3e products and they reads more like engineering student's textbooks than game books. They're great as toolkit but a toolkit is good for those who already know how to use them. We need to teach newbies how to be pen-n-paper gamers, but it will be difficult when videogames and mmorpgs are much easier to learn.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Useless fluff is just wasted paper and ink. The bulk of 2e's flavor was just wasted fluff. Give me rules to use the creatures with, and I'll fit them into the campaign. I don't need the very boring fluff of a second rate quasi-novelist. I need game rules. I can provide flavor all on my own.

I'd rather have the flavor there to help generate ideas. Whether you use it or not is up to you.

Could it just be a difference in writing styles? 3e has a very technical sound to it. 2e is more evocative of fantasy role-playing, IMO.

I work with Sovereign Press on writing for Dragonlance, and I think that what they generate for 3e is some of the best flavor out there (of course I'm biased). To me, you can have both good rules and good flavor. It isn't one or the other. I think if certain trends were to change, then we could have more 3e rules with 2e flavor. Necromancer Games, amongst others, has done well with 1st edition flavor for 3rd edition rules, so it can be done.

 

[Storm Raven]

I disagree that 2e's flavor was wasted fluff. They're very useful in fueling the imaginations of both DMs and players, which we sorely needed now since the only ones are more interested in crunch are the aging veterans, with no aid in recruiting more newbies into the game. 2e and fluff remind us that the game is not mechanical but dynamic and interactive. That's what roleplaying is about.

I'm not sure if the market reflects your ideas here. In 2e, flavor dominated, and TSR nearly went under (for a variety of reasons). Demand for D&D game books dipped during that era, despite many hard-core gamers' fond memories of the glittering purple prose and fluffy beauty of the text. When 3e came out, demand spiked, and a couple years of crunch filled books drove the market. Over the last year or two, WotC has been producing lots more "flavorful" books with less rules and more crunch, and everyhone is talking about how the TRPG market is crashing.

I go through my 3e products and they reads more like engineering student's textbooks than game books. They're great as toolkit but a toolkit is good for those who already know how to use them. We need to teach newbies how to be pen-n-paper gamers, but it will be difficult when videogames and mmorpgs are much easier to learn.

Clear rules are probably more useful to a new gamer than any amount of "imagination firing flavor". Most people who come into D&D come into it with plenty of interests that provide them with flavorful ideas - fantasy movies, novels, computer games, and so on. They don't need quasi-authors providing snippets of fluff to play the game - they don't need to know the breeding cycle of the ankheg, they need to know what an ankheg can do, and how to resolve what is is doing.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'd rather have the flavor there to help generate ideas. Whether you use it or not is up to you.

The problem is that in many cases the flavor text drives player expectations, and gets in the way. I have had to tell numerous players that sorcerers are not descended from dragons in my campaigns for example. But I get the same questions over and over, sometimes from the same players - because they have developed an expectation that, for example, elves are woodsy nature lovers.

Could it just be a difference in writing styles? 3e has a very technical sound to it. 2e is more evocative of fantasy role-playing, IMO.

Most of 2e, to me, reads like a badly written piece of fantasy pulp. 3e tells me how the game works. I don't need to wade through poorly written pulp fiction to game, I need to know how things work. I can come up with the badly written pulp on my own, or borrow from well-written fantasy pulp.

I work with Sovereign Press on writing for Dragonlance, and I think that what they generate for 3e is some of the best flavor out there (of course I'm biased). To me, you can have both good rules and good flavor. It isn't one or the other. I think if certain trends were to change, then we could have more 3e rules with 2e flavor. Necromancer Games, amongst others, has done well with 1st edition flavor for 3rd edition rules, so it can be done.

Flavor can work in the context of a campaign setting, but the core books and baseline supplements are not setting material. They are rule books, and should be rule books first and foremost. Rules and flavor are not contradictory, but when you add flavor, you are taking up space that could have been used for rules - and the Monster Manual isn't the place to do that.

 

[Pants]

Sounds like your perspecitve is 2e>3e, and that is clouding your judgement here.

Actually, I don't really have a perspective, just curiousity.

(especially the later PSMC books, and for the sake of allowing the 3e books light in their shallow grave, we'll keep 'Faces of Evil' out of this for the moment).

Also considering that it's a campaign setting book and I'm talking about the 'generic' supplemental stuff ie Mein Elf or Complete Warrior styled stuff or whatnot.

 

[MarauderX]

Eventhough I don't think much of Eberron or FR, both kick waaay more than 2E, which drove me to give up the game for years. Glad to see a bunch of the flavor of the original D&D come back with 3E.

 

[Shemeska]

I disagree that 2e's flavor was wasted fluff. They're very useful in fueling the imaginations of both DMs and players, which we sorely needed now since the only ones are more interested in crunch are the aging veterans, with no aid in recruiting more newbies into the game. 2e and fluff remind us that the game is not mechanical but dynamic and interactive. That's what roleplaying is about.

Bingo.

Even if you don't use something as written, it can still be an idea mine to fuel your own stuff. I'm not likely to ever run Eberron or Scarred Lands, but some of their books have given some rather interesting ideas that are ripe to be ripped out, melted down and reworked because they inspire.

Stuff that inspires, stuff that generates ideas, stuff that brings you back to the game because it lights a fire in your mind... that is what will keep the hobby alive and continually growing. A book of dry, uninspired rules, and books of stat blocks leached of every ounce of flavor won't do that.

 

[Pants]

A book of dry, uninspired rules, and books of stat blocks leached of every ounce of flavor won't do that.

You're generalizing waaaaay too much.

Different strokes for different folks you know.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm not sure if the market reflects your ideas here. In 2e, flavor dominated, and TSR nearly went under (for a variety of reasons).

A variety of reasons, but not because of flavor, though they did try to rival Baskin-Robbin's 31 flavors.

Clear rules are probably more useful to a new gamer than any amount of "imagination firing flavor". Most people who come into D&D come into it with plenty of interests that provide them with flavorful ideas - fantasy movies, novels, computer games, and so on. They don't need quasi-authors providing snippets of fluff to play the game - they don't need to know the breeding cycle of the ankheg, they need to know what an ankheg can do, and how to resolve what is is doing.

I don't know if you mean to say "Clearly." I also don't know if most people who come into pen-n-paper D&D by way of other medium like CRPG, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But newbies do not want to be overwhelmed by rules, particularly newbie DMs. They just want to play, and they need to know how to play ... A ROLEPLAYING GAME. It's one thing to know the mechanical side, but you cannot neglect the interactive side of RPG.

Otherwise, they should just pick up HeroQuest dungeon boardgame, where the only interaction is just between players and not the outside "game" world.