Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Mallus]

Hmm. I guess it's possible to use D&D as a generic system like GURPS, but to me it has a strong inherent flavour, a mash-up of high fantasy, swords & sorcery, and '70s wargaming. With dungeons. And dragons.

In my view, D&D arrives at being a generic system by virtue of being a mash-up of fantasy sub-genres. Individual campaign 'flavor' then becomes a matter of whatever the group/DM choices to accentuate.

I have a hard time picturing 'flavor-first D&D' since D&D is by definition, a big blend-in. Which is why I --currently-- prefer to focus to be on solid mechanics that I can "spice up" using whatever genre trappings I like.

 

[El Mahdi]

For me, I don't see how the two can be divorced from eachother. I feel good games and game systems use a combination of both. Flavor based can inspire interesting and new mechanics, mechanics can inspire interesting flavor descriptions. For me it's six of one, and a half dozen of the other.

 

[JeffB]

I fully agree. Flavor is what defines a roleplaying game for me. The mechanics are needed for an enjoyable game experience, but the flavor makes me pick the game up in the first place. The mechanics should offer a balanced and fun way to play the game defined by the flavor, and therefore should be done after the flavor is defined.

yep.

 

[Hussar]

See, to me, given the choice, I'd rather the designers said, "Ok, based on what we know, what works at the table"? Look at 3e. What made 3e a better system for those who chose it over 2e or 1e?

Was it better flavour? Or better mechanics?

Look at the changes going from 3e to 3.5 and you get an even better view of what I'm talking about. 2e Haste was a flavour first design. You get double your attacks, but, there is a slight chance that using this spell will kill you. Makes perfect sense from the point of view of flavour, but, at the table, it was problematic to say the least.

3e stripped out the chance of death and then lessened the effect - you got an extra partial action. But, again, this is trying to keep the flavour of 2e - Haste makes you incredibly super speedy. In 3.5, the designers realized that Haste was way too powerful - sorry, 5th level wizards don't really need to cast two spells per round - and nerfed it again.

The whole reason for all this was because the spell was designed without a view of the table. Polymorph is another perfect example. Incredibly flavourful spell - very archtypal, WAYYY overpowered as written.

Now, take a look at the Binder from Tome of Magic. Every vestige, regardless of flavour, source, or background, works identically. You get 5 (possibly 4) abilities, which, in 4e terms would be a single per-encounter ability, two or three at wills and a couple of buff abilities. Every level, every vestige works off the same premise. To make a new vestige, you simply look for a concept that isn't covered, and plug in the applicable effects.

Short, sweet, to the point, and, after you are done, you can cover it with whatever flavour you wish. Invent a new being like Ahazu from Paizo, and poof, you got yourself a new vestige.

 

[Starbuck_II]

See, to me, given the choice, I'd rather the designers said, "Ok, based on what we know, what works at the table"? Look at 3e. What made 3e a better system for those who chose it over 2e or 1e?

Was it better flavour? Or better mechanics?

Look at the changes going from 3e to 3.5 and you get an even better view of what I'm talking about. 2e Haste was a flavour first design. You get double your attacks, but, there is a slight chance that using this spell will kill you. Makes perfect sense from the point of view of flavour, but, at the table, it was problematic to say the least.

3e stripped out the chance of death and then lessened the effect - you got an extra partial action. But, again, this is trying to keep the flavour of 2e - Haste makes you incredibly super speedy. In 3.5, the designers realized that Haste was way too powerful - sorry, 5th level wizards don't really need to cast two spells per round - and nerfed it again.

The whole reason for all this was because the spell was designed without a view of the table. Polymorph is another perfect example. Incredibly flavourful spell - very archtypal, WAYYY overpowered as written.

Now, take a look at the Binder from Tome of Magic. Every vestige, regardless of flavour, source, or background, works identically. You get 5 (possibly 4) abilities, which, in 4e terms would be a single per-encounter ability, two or three at wills and a couple of buff abilities. Every level, every vestige works off the same premise. To make a new vestige, you simply look for a concept that isn't covered, and plug in the applicable effects.

Short, sweet, to the point, and, after you are done, you can cover it with whatever flavour you wish. Invent a new being like Ahazu from Paizo, and poof, you got yourself a new vestige.

Agreed, mechanics first can be important.

Look at Paladin/Monk in 3.5.
The multiclass restrictions are 100% flavor not balance reasons (designers even said they did to applease playtesters).

Really, 3.5 had a lot of flavor that made the mechaniocs suck.

 

[WayneLigon]

I understand what you're saying, but I think (1) and (3) are player problems, not game problems; they're in the same vein of

Patient: Doc, it hurts when I do this.
Doc: Then don't do that.

If you're in a campaign that's not going to feature a lot of demons, then don't take the Demon Killer PrC. If the rest of the party are grey-morals mercs, don't play a paladin.

(2) and (4) are problems, indeed.

 

[Hussar]

I would agree that 1 and 3 would be player problems except for one thing - rangers are a core class. This isn't some far out mechanic that never comes up. This is one of the base classes we're talking about. And, as far as PrC's go, Knight of the Chalice is hardly alone in having flavour first restrictions. IME, narrow focus PrC's either had their focus broadened enough to make them useful, or they languished in books, utterly forgotten about.

 

[Lanefan]

I think one needs to step back and reazlie that in a game that tries to be as diverse and to allow as many archetypes as D+D does, some of those archetypes simply will not work in conjunction with each other. Paladin and (known) Assassin in the same party? Not unless the circumstances are truly bizarre. But don't ban one or the other...let 'em fight it out if it happens!

That said, there's been some restrictions that haven't made sense from either a flavour or mechanics perspective. Example is the 1e Ranger: they had to be Good, and no more than 3 could operate together. This has no mechanical impact, and flies in the face of flavour (why can't a mass murderer on the run learn woodscraft just as well as anyone else?). So, out said rules went around here, a long time ago.

Prestige classes were a disaster in all ways. 'Nuff said, except I'm glad someone else seems to think so too.

As for Thief/Rogue being useless sometimes...again, it comes back to the simple fact that not everyone is going to always be the perfect tool for every job. A good example is the 1e Illusionist, or any-e Illusionist, in an adventure that is all undead. Or a Druid in an adventure that is all underground. I don't see this as a design flaw in the slightest; just a logical reflection of reality. the flip side, of course, is there'll be times when the Illusionist (vs. dumb Orcs or Giants) and Druid (in an outdoors adventure) just rock. And Thieves can do much more than backstrike...just make sure your DM is giving you ExP for the locks you pick and the gold you steal.

A bigger design flaw would be a class that is useless *all* of the time. 1e's Monk was close to this at anything less than high level.

Hussar, it's interesting to note your take on Haste...you say it was "problematic" when it had a risk of killing you when used, but that was the whole point...it had a drawback that made it risky to use, and thus it wasn't used except in dire need, as designed. Take away that drawback and of course it becomes broken...but the solution is not to nerf it, but to put the drawback back in! Same is true of Polymorph...it only broke when the drawbacks were removed (that you could only poly. yourself, or for Poly-Other you had to make a system-shock roll and even then might truly become the creature you'd been turned into, and NOBODY would willingly undergo this).

So, I suppose what I'm saying is that the rules can be designed around the flavour, and should be where it makes sense. Don't design for "what happens at the table"...let the players figure that out, and design for "what happens in the game world".

Lanefan

 

[S'mon]

Re Haste & Polymorph Self - the original 1e designs were fine. Haste aged you and could kill you. It doubled attacks, but did not increase spellcasting rate. IMC only desperate NPCs used it. Polymorph gave you a creature's basic form, but no attacks or special abilities. They were then screwed up by 3e because of poor design - the designers lost sight of the 1e/2e limitations. No flavour issue.

Edit: Prestige Classes - a player IMC wanted to work towards being a dragon slayer.

Him:
"Will there be dragons?"

Me:
"Yes."

No problem.

A player of a Ranger IMC was chosing his favoured enemy.

Him:
"What threats are there in the area?"

Me:
"Goblinoids to the south, orcs to the north, humans to the west. I wouldn't choose aberrations if I were you."

No problem.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think one needs to step back and reazlie that in a game that tries to be as diverse and to allow as many archetypes as D+D does, some of those archetypes simply will not work in conjunction with each other. Paladin and (known) Assassin in the same party? Not unless the circumstances are truly bizarre. But don't ban one or the other...let 'em fight it out if it happens!

That said, there's been some restrictions that haven't made sense from either a flavour or mechanics perspective. Example is the 1e Ranger: they had to be Good, and no more than 3 could operate together. This has no mechanical impact, and flies in the face of flavour (why can't a mass murderer on the run learn woodscraft just as well as anyone else?). So, out said rules went around here, a long time ago.

Prestige classes were a disaster in all ways. 'Nuff said, except I'm glad someone else seems to think so too.

As for Thief/Rogue being useless sometimes...again, it comes back to the simple fact that not everyone is going to always be the perfect tool for every job. A good example is the 1e Illusionist, or any-e Illusionist, in an adventure that is all undead. Or a Druid in an adventure that is all underground. I don't see this as a design flaw in the slightest; just a logical reflection of reality. the flip side, of course, is there'll be times when the Illusionist (vs. dumb Orcs or Giants) and Druid (in an outdoors adventure) just rock. And Thieves can do much more than backstrike...just make sure your DM is giving you ExP for the locks you pick and the gold you steal.

A bigger design flaw would be a class that is useless *all* of the time. 1e's Monk was close to this at anything less than high level.

Hussar, it's interesting to note your take on Haste...you say it was "problematic" when it had a risk of killing you when used, but that was the whole point...it had a drawback that made it risky to use, and thus it wasn't used except in dire need, as designed. Take away that drawback and of course it becomes broken...but the solution is not to nerf it, but to put the drawback back in! Same is true of Polymorph...it only broke when the drawbacks were removed (that you could only poly. yourself, or for Poly-Other you had to make a system-shock roll and even then might truly become the creature you'd been turned into, and NOBODY would willingly undergo this).

So, I suppose what I'm saying is that the rules can be designed around the flavour, and should be where it makes sense. Don't design for "what happens at the table"...let the players figure that out, and design for "what happens in the game world".

Lanefan

Abilities that either work or cause a great negative effect (e.g. death) also have the tendency to be great for NPCs, terrible for PCs - off course, entirely for meta-game reasons. The PCs are in the spot-light the entire campaign, the NPC only for one session. No one is really attached to the NPC, so why not have him use an ability that is 20 % likely to kill him, or 80 % likely to double his power, allowing him to crush the PCs? No one will really care if the NPC dies.

If there is a chance that a possible, single action you can perform - like casting a spell - creates a powerful negative effect (like dying), it is always the "ultimate gamble" - but not in the "gamist" way, as in over-coming challenges due to smart play. It is just pure luck.

And maybe the "pure luck" part is the flavor-first part - some things are beyond the control of an individual. And the resulting mechanic is based on pure luck.

There could be other ways to create the flavor, though. For example, the power could be a "once-in-a-lifetime" or even a "martyr"-power. The player may decide to have his character use it once, and it will work (in-game due to incredible chance and luck), but the second time he uses it, it will kill him (possibly still giving him the benefit, to help his comrades, but in the end, the PC is dead).
You can shorten the time-frame between use for beneficial/deadly effect that is less likely.