Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Runestar]

I agree that ideally, I too can benefit from the best of both worlds.

Else, if you asked me to choose, I would opt for mechanics over flavour over time. My rationale is that it is much easier to come up with my own fluff for balanced mechanics, than have to rework poorly-designed mechanics to make them balanced. So it is really the lesser of 2 evils.

Funny on the rogue comment though. I thought it was the best designed class in 3e...

 

[Hussar]

This is a neat way to look at game design, but I don't think it's the source of the problem you describe. Like others up thread, I think flavor should come first but that a positive feedback loop between both is necessary to end up with a playable game.

Your problem though is primarily with PCs that were designed for a different campaign then the one they find themselves in. Or maybe your problem is more generally with class design that's not universally useful in all kinds of campaigns.

Not really. Campaigns change. What works at one point may not work at another. With inflexible, flavour first mechanics, you are stuck with what you started with. Granted, the Retraining rules from PHB 2 go a long way to helping here.

But, you mention the paladin being unhappy about leaving his mount behind. Now, here's another textbook example of what I'm talking about. In earlier editions, you had to quest to get your mount. Great, fantastic flavour - the chosen of the gods goes out to secure his trusty steed.

Then came play at the table. What does the rest of the group do while Mr. Paladin goes out to get this mount? It's the Decker problem from Shadowrun all over again. (well, actually predating the decker issue by quite some time really ) And, after Mr. Paladin gets his steed, what does he do with it? Most adventures don't allow for horseback riding. Unless you happen to be doing outdoor adventures in fairly clear terrain, horses are pretty much useless.

3e helped a bit here by making the mount summonable, but, again, it was keeping the flavour without sitting down and looking at the game first. Mounts in D&D, by and large, are rarely used. Other than for traveling from A to B, you don't see them too often. How many PC's took Mounted Combat in your campaigns? I think I saw it once, maybe. Why? Because the vast majority of adventures are not mount friendly.

A game first approach would think, "ok, what do adventuring PARTIES (not individual PC's) do? What does a paladin need to help him do that and act within the party? Would a mount help? Is a mount a good idea for a fairly major ability for the class?"

If the answer is no, then the mount is simply not added and you go with something else.

 

[Cadfan]

Ah, I see the problem. I took to heart Dragon articles like "101 Uses for a 10' Pole". If a player finds a clever way to use a 10' pole (or copper shoe spikes) I always allow it. I don't make them spend finite feats or skill points on something that burning a couple hours on an A-Team Build-Anything Montage can handle.

Then superhero roleplaying may not be for you.

In comic books, gadgets are intrinsic to the character. Green Lantern has his ring, and Batman has his utility belt. Batman never gives his utility belt to Green Lantern, and if he did, he'd get it back by the end of the episode.

Superhero RPGs generally mimic this genre convention. If you want your character to have a bunch of gadgets, then you're making your character into a gadgeteer style hero, and you have to pay the appropriate points. Your objection is valid in terms of personal preference, but in terms of judging the RPG its kind of like a superhero roleplayer coming to D&D, and being shocked that loot is a crucial part of character strength. Different genre, different conventions.

Although some RPGs might have a "McGuyver" style power that lets you ad hoc create one shot gadgets that augment your character. But you'd pay for the ability to create the gadget, rather than pay for the gadget itself.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In comic books, gadgets are intrinsic to the character. Green Lantern has his ring, and Batman has his utility belt. Batman never gives his utility belt to Green Lantern, and if he did, he'd get it back by the end of the episode.

But.....Villians can and do remove Batman's utility belt. And sometimes Bruce Wayne just doesn't have the old belt available. Likewise Green Lantern's ring can and is removed from time to time. The Atom's shrinking gear can not only be used by Ray Palmer, but can also be used by his ex-wife to commit murder.

In early Spider-Man stories, Spidey frequently defeats villians because he remembers his high school science. He grounds out Electro or vaccuums up Sandman.

You can quite easily play a superhero rpg by agreeing that, once you have defined the flavour of your powers, those definitions have real meaning within the game world.

In any event, what I am reading from Mallus is that the agreement at the table is to use the game powers (mechanics) to create a genre-appropriate story (flavour). Where the game powers could be read in a non-genre-appropriate way (such as the boomerang being "shot" through a 1-inch wide hole), "GM Fiat" rules in accordance to genre (flavour) over mechanics.

The mechanics of M&M are wide-open not in defiance of flavour, but because the genre of flavour mandates that it be so.

IMHO, of course.


RC

 

[Cadfan]

You're not getting it.

Its not that these characters never lose their items. They lose them all the time! It creates dramatic tension, and then they get the item back. And its not like they never share items- they share them all the time! It mixes things up, and then they get the item back.

And sure, they utilize their surroundings and come up with plans and such.

But after Spiderman defeats the Green Goblin, he doesn't gank the Goblin's sled and start flying around. He could. There's no reason he couldn't. But he doesn't because it violates genre convention, which treats gadgets like they're part of the superhero. A detachable part, to be sure, but one which long term is part of who the character is.

Superhero RPGs adhere to that genre convention. As a result, they need different rules for gadgets and loot than you need in a fantasy RPG, where slaying the lich-king and stealing his sword is a key part of the story.

There are several ways gadgets get handled.

One time gadgets get handled like they do in comic books. They exist for an episode, then they go away.

Long term gadgets are part of the character's stats.

Sometimes, a propensity to create gadgets is an attribute that a character can purchase. This lets him create short term gadgets more easily.

Fantasy games often have a sort of Medieval McGuyver thing going on, where the party has a ten foot pole, a sack of sand, a waterskin, 50 feet of hempen rope, and a weasel- and with that they're going to slay a dragon in his own lair. That's not the sort of story that superhero games typically strive to embody.

 

[billd91]

The mechanics of M&M are wide-open not in defiance of flavour, but because the genre of flavour mandates that it be so.

IMHO, of course.


RC

Oh, I think you're absolutely right. The flexibility of the games designed around superhero gaming like Champions and Mutants and Masterminds is a result of looking for the best mechanics to emulate the astonishing variety of superheroes in a systematic way.

The flavor of a wide variety of comics is, essentially, anything goes. So the mechanics to get there have to be particularly flexible.

 

[Irda Ranger]

A game first approach would think, "ok, what do adventuring PARTIES (not individual PC's) do? What does a paladin need to help him do that and act within the party? Would a mount help? Is a mount a good idea for a fairly major ability for the class?"

No, that's "Campaign First" design. Most D&D campaigns don't involve sailing ships either, but a explicitly sea based campaign would be lousy for half of D&D's classes but make excellent use of classes like Pirate or Sea Witch.

Your problem really is with classes that narrowly designed to permit certain types of campaign environments. The Paladin could work perfectly from "game first" point of view if it assumes campaigns where mounts are (almost) always relevant and useful.

Then superhero roleplaying may not be for you.

I know; I don't even like most comic books. I haven't bothered with a Supers game since trying a Marvel game back in .... the late 80s? Maybe '91 ...

 

[billd91]

I am not that certain that "flavour first" was really how D&D began - D&D has its roots in war-gaming, and the Wizard seems more inspired by artillery pieces as by magic as it appears in most fantasy or history. (Magic Missile, Fireball? Most magic in fairy tales for example is a lot more subtle...)

In the case of D&D, the mechanics may have been there and the fantasy individual characters going on missions flavor put on them, but the mechanics were devised, originally, to model something and capture a certain flavor.
Historical wargames are all about capturing flavor.

 

[MerricB]

In the case of D&D, the mechanics may have been there and the fantasy individual characters going on missions flavor put on them, but the mechanics were devised, originally, to model something and capture a certain flavor.
Historical wargames are all about capturing flavor.

Without a doubt, the Fireball and Lightning Bolt spells were mechanics first. They just adapted the mechanics of the existing ballista/catapult rules they were using to allow a wizard to do something on the battlefield.

Cheers!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

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.

I'm not a fan of tacked on flavour and can smell it a mile away. I think to be done right, there needs to be a neat/elegant symbiosis between mechanic and flavour. Coming up with a cool mechanic and then shopping around for flavour to tie it to just seems backward in my opinion. At the same time, having a chosen "flavour" and then trying to match a mechanic to it is not always easy, elegant or even playable. I think in the end, one has to guide the other and vice versa.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise