D&D 5E Do you Consider Flavor Text to be part of Raw?

[seregil]

I am pro-fluff. What I mean by that can be well illustrated by the power cards of 4E: the fluff what a pure tacked-on afterthought. One of my main gripes about 4E what that it lacked flavour: it was all about numbers. The powers were interchangeable and mathematically equivalent, the flavour text had no importance or impact. For me, what killed 4E was the feeling that game balanced trumped everything and anything that could not be quantified was ignored. The rules were all about the math of combat and the Role playing portion was ignored to the point where I no longer bothered reading what the power did because it didn't matter in any way. Even the name of the power was irrelevant.

Short version: I had no emotional attachment to anything because, in the end, the rules were so detached from the role playing experience that I could have been playing Warhammer for all the difference it made.

Contrast that with 1e,2e and even, to a lesser extent, 3E: I used to read the spells for the FUN of it. The various Bigby's spell, the uniqueness of druid spells etc.

There is more to it that what can be quantified. Qualification is important. Yes, spells/abilities/powers need to be clear for game purposes, but the description NEEDS to be there, to engage my imagination. Otherwise, we're not playing a RPG, we're playing a complicated board game. Risk, with a lot of added rules.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me, Flavor and Fluff are both separated from RAW, because I also keep all mechanics separated from RAW as well. I don't use RAW. I use RAI all the time. I look at what the mechanics and the fluff combined are trying to get across within the story of the game, and then make decisions based on that. What's nice about 5E is that the rules they've written are gentle enough that it is easy to interpret them in such a way that it makes complete sense when coupled with the flavor and the fluff. The Barkskin thread is a perfect example of that-- the somewhat ambiguous writing of the rule when coupled with what to me was a very obvious result of what the spell was supposed to do-- the two combined gave me a ruling on what the spell does that makes perfect sense to me and my table. Other people disagree with my interpretation, and that's fine. And I suspect it's because not everyone is like me and treats *everything* in the books as interpretation.

 

[Hussar]

See, the reason I brought up this thread was from [MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]althalis' thread about how closely do you follow RAW. I would never consider, say, "Orcs worship Gruumsh" to be even remotely part of RAW, so, when my orcs worship something else, I don't consider that a deviation from RAW.

I dunno. Maybe it's because in all the years I've gamed, I've never really bought into any published settings. Sure, I read this or that from a given setting and I might borrow or steal liberally, but, at the end of the day, I don't consider the flavour text of the game to be part of RAW. If I want happy orcs that get along well with elves and worship kittens and rainbows, that's completely up to my setting. But, even though I've run D&D campaigns with alien invasions, virtually no campaign ever using all standard races/classes, and whatnot, I would still consider the games I play to be anything other than D&D.

 

[DMZ2112]

Definitely lemon curry.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that I might think the fluff is not RAW, but until I communicate that information to someone else at the table, it is the default assumption. If I am the dungeon master, it is my job to communicate the fluff of my setting to the players, especially where it deviates from the RAW fluff. That can be a tall order, and not always as simple as providing the information to the players. I can write a ten-page setting overview for my players, but even if by some miracle it is exhaustive, they still have to read it.

On the flip side of the coin, if I am a player, it is my job to communicate my unique character fluff to my dungeon master and my fellow players, especially where it deviates from the RAW fluff. That is a far simpler task, but I run the risk of running afoul of other players' perception of the fluff and my dungeon master's rulings and having to compromise.

All in all it's a minefield. Fluff is absolutely RAW by default -- changing it requires a force of effort. But that does not mean the force of effort should not be employed, only that it must be appropriately managed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The problem, in a nutshell, is that I might think the fluff is not RAW, but until I communicate that information to someone else at the table, it is the default assumption. If I am the dungeon master, it is my job to communicate the fluff of my setting to the players, especially where it deviates from the RAW fluff. That can be a tall order, and not always as simple as providing the information to the players. I can write a ten-page setting overview for my players, but even if by some miracle it is exhaustive, they still have to read it.

Heh heh. See... now for me, I would look at what you just wrote as the "default assumption" and immediately tell my players who are assuming that stuff "You're metagaming. What's written in the Monster Manual" (for example) "is nothing your character knows in this world, because your character never asked what is in this world. So stop it!"

For me, there are no default assumptions. If you as a player are assuming something based on what the books say or other stuff you have read or heard about, go right ahead-- but until your character actually learns or experiences it in the game world... be fully prepared for your assumptions to be found woefully incorrect. And if you're going to then complain about it... you can just go screw yourself.

 

[Jester David]

I will use the flavour to adjudicate rulings. It's a guide for the Rules as Intended.
As such, the flavour should match the mechanics and the mechanics should fit the flavour. The flavour is just as important as the mechanics as it describes what's actually happening in the game space opposed to just the results.

That said, I will change the flavour if I need to. But I also don't hesitate to change mechanics if I need to.

--edit--
I'm a firm believer that the story and narrative of RPGs is what's important. The story told by the mechanics interacting with and affecting the story told by the DM. Without the flavour of what is going on in the narrative, the game is just a miniature combat game. Without the mechanics, the game is just shared storytelling.

Being able to interact with the flavour text as if it were mechanically true is an important part of the experience. Fireballs start as a small marble sized bead that is hurled through the air and explodes on contact. Mechanically that does nothing, but in theory someone could jump in front of the fireball triggering it early. That's cool and not at all reflected in the rules or mechanics of "5d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius" but is consistent with the presented narrative.

The Flavour as Written (or FaW I guess) does not matter that much, so long as something replaces it and that something is consistent.

 

[Jester David]

See, the reason I brought up this thread was from [MENTION=50658]Remalthalis[/MENTION]' thread about how closely do you follow RAW. I would never consider, say, "Orcs worship Gruumsh" to be even remotely part of RAW, so, when my orcs worship something else, I don't consider that a deviation from RAW.

I dunno. Maybe it's because in all the years I've gamed, I've never really bought into any published settings. Sure, I read this or that from a given setting and I might borrow or steal liberally, but, at the end of the day, I don't consider the flavour text of the game to be part of RAW. If I want happy orcs that get along well with elves and worship kittens and rainbows, that's completely up to my setting. But, even though I've run D&D campaigns with alien invasions, virtually no campaign ever using all standard races/classes, and whatnot, I would still consider the games I play to be anything other than D&D.

Gruumsh might be a little specific but consider that orcs worship a god opposed to gnolls worshipping a demon lord and other races perhaps worshipping an archdevil. The names are irrelevant but the details influence the story of the races. No matter how cruel and savage orcs might be, they still have a sense of organized religion and faith in a higher being, opposed to gnolls who venerate a chaotic beast of supreme destruction.

 

[Umbran]

It is not so much a rule. More like a.... guideline

Flavor text is useful to help cover the intent of rules, when one must make a ruling on something the rules don't explicitly cover. They are useful, but I do not consider them binding.

 

[practicalm]

I can see the fluff helping players to have some better knowledge of the legends of the world they inhabit simply because they can't have experienced their lives as the characters (what bedtime stories, fables, folktales are told around the fires of the world) so the fluff helps players feel more connected to the world. But this can be wrong (just as folktales in the real world can be wrong).

So fluff helps players get into character but there's no reason the GM can't say well that thing that people think they know, that's lemon curry wrong.

 

[DMZ2112]

Heh heh. See... now for me, I would look at what you just wrote as the "default assumption" and immediately tell my players who are assuming that stuff "You're metagaming. What's written in the Monster Manual" (for example) "is nothing your character knows in this world, because your character never asked what is in this world. So stop it!"

Mixing player and character knowledge is an entirely separate issue. It's perfectly logical that a character that has never encountered a beholder is not going to know how best to take advantage of its cultural paranoia, and if that character's player tries to take advantage, you should stop them whether you have elected to change the nature of the beholder's personality or not.

But if that character spent five years as a beholder slave in their backstory, and you haven't bothered to inform their player that your beholders are different than Monster Manual beholders, that's on you. Failure to provide an alternative is tacit acknowledgement of the RAW fluff.