Pathfinder 1E WotC desperately needs to learn from Paizo and Privateer Press

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nonsense. My wife and I read many books every year (novels and nonfiction alike), as do/did both of our parents. Many people I know read for pleasure, and not just the academic-types.

That said, I do think reading is on the decline. I do know people who don't read at all. But to claim that people don't read for pleasure is simply ludicrous.

Pleasure reading is becoming more and more concentrated online and in periodicals. IOW, not actual books.

There are many reasons why more and more brick & mortar bookstores are diversifying their stock away from books, and declining book sales are one of them...something that, as a reader, bugs me.

I mean, I may eventually get an e-reader- I'm looking at a Sony one right now- but I'd only be buying it for specific purposes. For instance, my Mom is having more and more trouble with her eyes, and the Sony has the best magnification on the market- better than "large-type" books. For me, it may be a way for me to deal with certain things like sheet-music, schematics, and (someday) certain RPG books. Textbooks from CLE courses and grad-school programs would be another thing that might be better in pdf form than in hardcopy.

But the moment a type of media moves to entirely electronic form is the moment I abandon it. I dropped several gaming mags for doing that, and its looking like CDs may be next.

If books go...

 

[Nikosandros]

Your argument was pretty good till here.

My parents do. 2-3 books a week each. I do. 2-3 books a week.

Maybe we are in the minority, but we do exist. Numbers are lower, not non-existent.

Indeed. I read for pleasure, as do my parents, my uncles, aunts and cousins and basically all of my friends.

 

[Rechan]

Reading for pleasure is increasingly difficult when one is in grad school. I read so much, and then I read for gaming, and then I'm online regularly ... I don't want to LOOK at books any more!

My mother is addicted to downloadable audio books.

That's the only people I know in person that reads for pleasure.

 

[ggroy]

My family is probably more the norm, than the exception.

I'm the only one in my immediate family who regularly reads anything beyond the newspaper, or anything required by school or work. When I was growing up, I was the only one who regularly had any books on my shelves. Otherwise the house had very few books anywhere else.

 

[Snoweel]

If that's a problem, then wouldn't it equally be a problem that a lack of flavor will lead people to assume there's nothing there?[/i]

I don't think so. It's not a symmetrical situation; meaning the consequence of something isn't necessarily the opposite of the consequence of not something.

I mean, surely not including ecology stuff on monsters won't lead new players to assume monsters don't live a certain way. Especially given the ecology tid-bits scattered around for some monsters and PC races.

 

[Philosopher]

I don't think so. It's not a symmetrical situation; meaning the consequence of something isn't necessarily the opposite of the consequence of not something.

I mean, surely not including ecology stuff on monsters won't lead new players to assume monsters don't live a certain way. Especially given the ecology tid-bits scattered around for some monsters and PC races.

But it seems that the complaint is that including flavor would mean that some people would refuse to deviate from it. My point is that this is not a problem with any book, but with those people.

Besides, even if the situation were not symmetrical, the same problem would apply to 4e. The 4e MM says, for example, that "Hobgoblins live to make war." Are you (or Hussar, who I initially quoted) claiming that it's okay for some players to assume this must always be true, yet not okay for players to make assumptions about hobgoblin agriculture? Or is the claim that 4e still has too much flavor? (Although that last option would surely be much too extreme.)

 

[Snoweel]

But it seems that the complaint is that including flavor would mean that some people would refuse to deviate from it. My point is that this is not a problem with any book, but with those people.

Well of course you're right.

However "those people" are potentially a majority, especially given the way we (geeks) like to remain especially informed about things.

When starting a new game where some of the assumptions of the implied setting have changed, the DM has to state those changes outright or else the discovery that they have changed might become an unintended plot point for the players.

For a DM building the world as he goes, those assumptions might not change until the campaign is under way, at which point the DM has to essentially retcon the PCs' prior knowledge of them, which may also ruin any surprise for the players if those changes are integral to any mystery element of the story.

Then there's the case of a DM who just plain knows less about the implied setting than one or more of his players. This DM probably isn't even aware of how his setting deviates from the assumptions of the implied setting, which can lead to conflicts of expectation, as well as general confusion and disagreement.

I know some here have experienced this exact same problem in games set in established settings like Faerun or Greyhawk. In these cases, the DM assumes room to create his own details, unaware that he is overwriting canon, while a particularly knowledgable player knows all the canon and mistakenly thinks the differences are part of the story. Or worse, wastes a lot of time arguing or clarifying setting details with the DM.

Besides, even if the situation were not symmetrical, the same problem would apply to 4e. The 4e MM says, for example, that "Hobgoblins live to make war." Are you (or Hussar, who I initially quoted) claiming that it's okay for some players to assume this must always be true, yet not okay for players to make assumptions about hobgoblin agriculture? Or is the claim that 4e still has too much flavor? (Although that last option would surely be much too extreme.)

I think there needs to be some amount of assumed detail, in order to create that shared experience, as well as for expedience of world-building and conveying that setting to the players. Just my opinion of course.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

As for the 4e Monster Manuals and fluff.... WotC has (or had, I have not read Dragon since it went online) a remedy already in its arsenal, in the form of the Monster Ecology series. For fluff, they were a great idea, back in the day - even if rules wise they were sometimes not so great.

And the Monster Ecology idea works pretty much independently of edition. Grabbing a handful of critters that need a flavor infusion, possibly by theme, and putting the result in a monthly supplement would seem a workable compromise between fluff and crunch - and might allow customizing the flavor text of a critter based on setting. (Night hags in Eberron, as an example, are not the same as those in Forgettable Realms. Dragons in Birthright are by no means the same as in Greyhawk.)

The Auld Grump

 

[Philosopher]

Well of course you're right.

However "those people" are potentially a majority, especially given the way we (geeks) like to remain especially informed about things.

When starting a new game where some of the assumptions of the implied setting have changed, the DM has to state those changes outright or else the discovery that they have changed might become an unintended plot point for the players.

For a DM building the world as he goes, those assumptions might not change until the campaign is under way, at which point the DM has to essentially retcon the PCs' prior knowledge of them, which may also ruin any surprise for the players if those changes are integral to any mystery element of the story.

Then there's the case of a DM who just plain knows less about the implied setting than one or more of his players. This DM probably isn't even aware of how his setting deviates from the assumptions of the implied setting, which can lead to conflicts of expectation, as well as general confusion and disagreement.

I know some here have experienced this exact same problem in games set in established settings like Faerun or Greyhawk. In these cases, the DM assumes room to create his own details, unaware that he is overwriting canon, while a particularly knowledgable player knows all the canon and mistakenly thinks the differences are part of the story. Or worse, wastes a lot of time arguing or clarifying setting details with the DM.



I think there needs to be some amount of assumed detail, in order to create that shared experience, as well as for expedience of world-building and conveying that setting to the players. Just my opinion of course.

Hold on. If what you say is a serious concern, then that would undermine the whole point of having campaign settings.

At the end you acknowledge that some assumed details need to be in place. But the rest of your arguments imply a rather strong claim, that flavor text is a bad thing because it gets in the way of having fun. If you acknowledge that some flavor needs to be there, then you can't actually mean that stronger claim. The only question then that remains, then, is how much flavor to include. If that's the question, then issues about some players' inability to deviate from it is moot, and it's that issue (which I'm saying is now moot) that I was objecting to.

So if the question is indeed how much flavor to include, I'd say more should be there than what's found in the 4e books. Perhaps this is now in the territory of mere opinion. Perhaps not. The above argument for not including flavor, however, does not work. Likewise, the consideration of limited space does not establish the case against flavor either, for reasons I've mentioned earlier (that individual 2e books were no more prohibitive in cost than the current books).

 

[Snoweel]

Hold on. If what you say is a serious concern, then that would undermine the whole point of having campaign settings.

No I think you've misread (or misunderstood).

If what I say is true, then that justifies the need for published campaign settings. That is, keeping setting information in the core books to a minimum necessitates more detailed settings for those who don't have time to flesh out the implied setting of the core books.

At the end you acknowledge that some assumed details need to be in place. But the rest of your arguments imply a rather strong claim, that flavor text is a bad thing because it gets in the way of having fun.

This comment is coming dangerously close to matching the language of edition bashing (cartoonishly emphasising 'bad' and 'fun'), so be careful.

What I explicitly said was too much flavour text in the core books can crowd out a DM who wants to build his own setting. In particular, that excess setting detail can interfere with how the DM reveals his setting to his players, since the players come to the table with far more preconceptions that the DM is more likely to not be aware of.

If you acknowledge that some flavor needs to be there, then you can't actually mean that stronger claim.

I never made that claim. Your argument falls down on this single assumption.

The only question then that remains, then, is how much flavor to include.

I agree.

The thing is, there will always be one section of the community who aren't happy with how that question is answered, as we can see in this thread.

And if they were made happy (by including more flavour text) then you'd see more of the kind of problem I've been talking about. In fact, I'm sure certain groups are already encountering this problem even with the current (meagre) amount of implied setting information. WotC can't win on this one, though many of us would argue they've hit the right balance.

"You can please all of the people some of the time..."

If that's the question, then issues about some players' inability to deviate from it is moot, and it's that issue (which I'm saying is now moot) that I was objecting to.

Well it's not moot, because as I've just argued, the final decision is arbitrary. WotC had to draw the line somewhere and I'm guessing their arbitrary line was informed by market research.

So if the question is indeed how much flavor to include, I'd say more should be there than what's found in the 4e books. Perhaps this is now in the territory of mere opinion. Perhaps not.

Oh it's totally about opinion.

I'm not saying you're wrong; your preference is your preference, and a not insignificant amount of people share your gripe, according to this and some other threads.

But clearly a lot of people are satisfied with where WotC have drawn the line and I'm one of them. That doesn't mean I'm right, but maybe I'm closer to the middle of 'the market' than you. Hooray for being unremarkable.

The above argument for not including flavor, however, does not work.

I'm happy with how I've addressed it. You probably won't be.

Bear in mind though that there will certainly be somebody who thinks there is already too much fluff in the core books. It's just a matter of opinion.

Likewise, the consideration of limited space does not establish the case against flavor either, for reasons I've mentioned earlier (that individual 2e books were no more prohibitive in cost than the current books).

I don't think the social/economic/political climate surrounding 2e can be compared to 4e; it was a different time. Second edition, and indeed pen-and-paper RPGs in general, had less competition than 4e and were required to provide a broader range of entertainment. That included catering for gamers' pleasure-reading requirements.