Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What mess? And who is in it?

rounser is. The rest of the world, not so much.

If this were the case, the D&D IP would be worth little

The strong tie between crunch and fluff is not what makes D&D IP worth so much. The fluff on its own is what makes it powerful. Because it is inspiring for creating new stories.

Illithids as tentacled humanoids that read minds and eat brains are an interesting theme. But you could implement this theme in any game system.

But I agree with you that fluff is not irrelevant. It inspires us to create stories around it. It's why every D&D edition and many OGL "variant player handbooks" had at least an implied setting. It gives a starting point, a common frame of reference.

 

[rounser]

The rest of the world, not so much.

Because I'm the only person not to convert to the latest edition, and it's got no flavour issues whatsoever. None.

It's why every D&D edition and many OGL "variant player handbooks" had at least an implied setting. It gives a starting point, a common frame of reference.

And this time around, it happens to suck, IMO. Dragonborn warlords don't belong in the implied setting, and nor do eladrin or tieflings.

The new implied setting provides a common frame of "WTF?" for the rest of the world, which is the last thing the game needs.

D&D is not Warhammer 40K. You can't get away with eladrin the same way GW do eldar because D&D is a thousand worldbuilds, not one universe with everyone agreeing on the same flavour. It's just not thought through.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because I'm the only person not to convert to the latest edition, and it's got no flavour issues whatsoever. None.

Yes. It can be hard to be so alone. At least you don't get all "emo" on us like "You don't understand my feelings!"
But for someone not playing D&D 4 you can be found a lot discussing it. A lot more then you could be found discussing other games or editions.

Spoiler

Oh, you are certainly not the only one, but you are the one exaggerating the situation way too much. Of course, there are others. Hence the "not so much".

 

[rounser]

Yes. It can be hard to be so alone. At least you don't get all "emo" on us like "You don't understand my feelings!"

I wouldn't care if I was the only one expressing these sentiments. Millions fall for stupid causes or drink the kool aid all the time. Political and financial systems revolve around that fact.

Look at this thread - it's using my jargon, and a frame of reference I've been referring to. If you believe so much in social proof, might that not suggest I might have a point? Maybe, maybe not. I'm pretty sure my opinion has basis either way, and don't need to play the "hey, you have no friends and no-one agrees with you so shut up" game with the opposition.

But for someone not playing D&D 4 you can be found a lot discussing it. A lot more then you could be found discussing other games or editions.

Maybe because it's the latest edition of D&D? I don't need to play with dragonborn to have issues with their flavour, and discuss how that flavour is an important part of the game's appeal in the first place. Or be incredulous about the flavour design of the latest version of the world's most popular RPG.

 

[Fenes]

So far the new flavor doesn't appeal to me at all. That's a good thing, should we ever convert to D&D - most of it can be discarded without troubles since it's not tied at all to the system.
Still means the flavor I want is not supported well or at all.

 

[Mephistopheles]

There is, however, a practical difference between crunch and fluff. People are much more apt at filling a perceived gap in fluff than they are a perceived gap in crunch.

I'm not so sure about that; just about every campaign I've played in has had its fair share of house rules to go with it. I've also played with a few DMs who were prone to making things up as they went along and so long as they were consistent it wasn't a problem.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're categorizing.

This poweris X type of power therefore it will always have M, L, and P qualities.

Or the reverse: This power has M, L, and P qualities, therefore it is X type or power.

In some cases, categorizing is appropriate. This power has the qualities of electricity, therefore it is an electrical power. One might even say that the ability to categorize based on properties is a defining characteristic of systems with an "in world" logic.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

When the Wizard of Oz was encouraging the adventuring party to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, he wasn't worried about their heads exploding. He was worried about himself.

Exactly so.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So the answer to the question "why does it work this way in the game world" is "I don't know." I would think that would pretty much end the questions. Talking about the game table is an answer to another question AFAICT.

Which is, again, the hallmark of mechanics over simulation. Just as with hit points.

The question, of course, is how much "mechanics over simulation" does one want in an rpg? Like the reversed question (how much "simulation over mechanics" does one want in an rpg?), there is no "right" answer for all people. Heck, for most people (IME), there is no "right" answer that applies across all of their gaming experience.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

A right thing fulfills the purpose it sets out to fulfill.

The purpose of a game is to satisfy its players. The purpose of paying to watch a game is to be satisfied by watching it.

More players were satisfied with (you could even say "enjoyed") the new shot-clock-enabled basketball, and more people were satisfied by watching it.

Therefore, basketball with the shot clock is more right than basketball without the shot clock.

Ah, the argument that a McDonalds hamburger is objectively better than the one barbecued in your backyard.

"Newer is better" and "bandwagon is better" are both fallicious thinking.

RC