Adding Flavor to 3e- Your Methods, Solutions, Philosophies

[Belen]

While participating in the "what is 3e missing that other editions had" thread, I started to wonder what others do in their games that help provide flavor. Sometimes, it feels that the rules set is so overpowering and "balanced," that it becomes difficult to add flavor to spells, encounters etc.

For example, has anyone ever built a monster/NPC/trap that the players decided to tear down in order to find the "rules" that allowed you to build it? I know that I have had players who speculated during combat regarding what additional classes such and such had in order to do something.

For me, such speculations tend to suck the flavor out of encounters. I consider it just another way for players to figure out how to defeat an encounter based on their knowledge of rules, feats, and class abilities. It is a deadly and insidious form of meta-gaming.

Personally, I tend to create rules and abilities that do not always fit the players existing knowledge of the game. I keep these creations private so that the players cannot use rules knowledge to "win" or "beat" the GM. Although, this does lead to cries of "unfair" or "unbalanced."

Am I the only one who has come to believe that 3e "balance" means "balanced in favor of the players or PCs?"

The flavor abilities are never created to hose character abilities or defeat the party, instead, they are added to create a sense of mystery. In some cases, they are created in order to allow specific characters to shine by allowing certain character traits etc be the force that wins the encounter. Of course, no complaints are levied when that happens.

Personally, I have two types of players Gamists- the game should be balanced and encounters should run to code; Roleplayers- that was a fun and exciting encounter that we will remember.

So.....

How do you handle adding flavor to encounters etc?
How do you manage the differing types of gamers?
What are your philosophies?

 

[hong]

Personally, I have two types of players Gamists- everything must be balanced and fit within the framework of the rules or the world will end; Roleplayers- that was a fun and exciting encounter that we will remember.

Come back rolleyes smiley, all is forgiven.

 

[Liolel]

I add flavor by a non standard campaign setting, and a good deal of homebrew monsters. My campaign setting is a vast archipelago and I have a good deal of custom monsters and a custom class. This campaign hasn't started yet so I'm waiting to see how well it works.

 

[Henry]

What I usually tell my players is that speculating won't get them very far.

I'll sometimes put things in my games that make no sense to the players whatsoever - and I don't expect it to. Not every mystery has an immediate answer (I am a follower of Gygaxian thought on this concept). So if someone has abilities clearly outside their ostensible class-race makeup, or if they find an artifact or event that has no seeming answer, then there's a reason - but my players may never know what it is.

However, the players have to trust you to put together a fun game, and that you'll be objective and not shaft them intentionally. Without that trust, the GM is just another player, with no more authority than the players over the in-game circumstance and the game becomes a mundane and overly complex board game. If the players want the DM to follow a rigid code with no leeway, and do nothing but argue rules minutiae, then we might as well be playing the D&D miniatures game, instead of what we do play.

 

[Belen]

I add flavor by a non standard campaign setting, and a good deal of homebrew monsters. My campaign setting is a vast archipelago and I have a good deal of custom monsters and a custom class. This campaign hasn't started yet so I'm waiting to see how well it works.

We are on the same page there. I tend to create non-standard settings as well. The setting goes a long way towards making the story and the adventures unique and individual.

However, I also want to add flavor to the game.

 

[Flyspeck23]

For example, has anyone ever built a monster/NPC/trap that the players decided to tear down in order to find the "rules" that allowed you to build it? I know that I have had players who speculated during combat regarding what additional classes such and such had in order to do something.

For me, such speculations tend to suck the flavor out of encounters. I consider it just another way for players to figure out how to defeat an encounter based on their knowledge of rules, feats, and class abilities. It is a deadly and insidious form of meta-gaming.

I know that problem, but the sheer amount of material I'm using IMC makes any attemp to guess classes etc. somewhat futile, apart from the obvious (a paladin is a paladin is a paladin... unless he isn't, of course) - and that's the way it should be

How do you handle adding flavor to encounters etc?

With the multitude of (prestige) classes, spells, feats etc. there should be something for any occasion.
At least that's my answer if we're strictly talking rules...

How do you manage the differing types of gamers?

As stated above, for those trying to guess the "ingredients" of an enemy I'll use sources they don't know about until they stop doing this. (Granted, I'm still using these sources, but to a lesser degree...)

What are your philosophies?

Nontheistic, that's for sure

 

[Henry]

How do you handle adding flavor to encounters etc?
How do you manage the differing types of gamers?
What are your philosophies?

I need to get to the second half of your question - the specifics.

I add flavor in two ways. (1) I add in things and bits from third party supplements that I deny the players. This actually serves to make these things rarer and more interesting when they appear. I also (2) Create some things on the fly, and don't assign more solid rules to them until someone is in a position to know these things.

In (1), I ensure that the rules ARE there if I need them. In (2), it really adds the unknown - in some cases the fact that I don't know the whole story until it's time even makes it more interesting for the players.

I have a couple of "gamists" in my group - ones who get nitpicky if they don't understand every rule. However, in the end they trust me to make it fun and give them some of what they want - the chance to kick butt, or to get their hands on something neat. The others in the group don't mind so much if something is not excruciatingly detailed or perfect, as long as it's fun. As long as the players get what they ultimately want at least some of the time, then everyone stays happy.

Oh, one other thing - one thing that adds flavor to combats especially is having them in exciting places. On rickety bridges, on a rocking boat in a storm tossed sea, in the middle of springing death traps - something that gives the players a new mechanic to play with, and keeps them on their toes. Last game in my FR group was the first time they fought in a seriously underground environment - they're used to open areas, or simple rooms. They fought 6 darkmantles in a 10' wide corridor, FILLED WITH wagons and mules, and all sorts of narrows and twists and turns. Six Darkmantles (CR 1) befuddled a party of EIGHT seventh level characters, and severly damaged two of them. What should have been a cakewalk became an infuriating nightmare of blindfighting, hitting each other, missing, and dispelling. They won, of course, but it really took a lot out of them to do so. Darkness is fun, especially when only one character thought to use light spells to do something about it.

 

[Psion]

For example, has anyone ever built a monster/NPC/trap that the players decided to tear down in order to find the "rules" that allowed you to build it? I know that I have had players who speculated during combat regarding what additional classes such and such had in order to do something.

For me, such speculations tend to suck the flavor out of encounters. I consider it just another way for players to figure out how to defeat an encounter based on their knowledge of rules, feats, and class abilities. It is a deadly and insidious form of meta-gaming.[/b]

Gee, I don't find it that baneful. I find it beneficial when you challenge the self-security of player meta-knowledge. The moment that you introduce something that make players go "how'd he do that?" is the moment that you remind them that the 3 core books aren't the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

Personally, I tend to create rules and abilities that do not always fit the players existing knowledge of the game. I keep these creations private so that the players cannot use rules knowledge to "win" or "beat" the GM. Although, this does lead to cries of "unfair" or "unbalanced."

That's one way, but unless you have some rich, well-read players, there are more options out there than players can track; you can get help by using published off the wall products. And trust me, there are some off the wall products out there. Try something like the Quintessential Psion (mental parasites that crawl through the city, harvested by psions! Glowing psionic overminds! Fun fun fun!) Or Arcane Strife. Or Bastion's Spells & Magic. BoEM III.

PDFs also have the advantage that the players need not ever know what book you are using. Just print out any reference pages you are using and put them in an easy reference notebook. Of course, I guess this is possible via photocopy for print products.

 

[arwink]

My philosophies related to DnD are very simple:

A) Make sure everyone is having fun
B) Play to the games strengths, not its weaknesses.

Adding flavor has rarely been a big deal to me - although it largely comes down to changing the description of a spell effect, or replicating special abilities in new ways. The old trick of changing the visual so the PC's can't recognise it works wonders, and if game balance is a problem for the players its relatively easy to point out after the encounter that all you did was change the visuals. The spell/special ability/whatever that hit them is no more or less out of whack than spell X it was based off.

To my mind, DnD does have a certain flavor to it already, and it's counter productive to try and go up against that using the rules. The scads of hit points, overloaded magic, wading through hordes of goblins with monolithic levels PC's are within the nature of the game, and I fully intend to play that to the hilt. My approach to the game is entirely the same as if I was writing a story to fit into a genre - there are certain things I'll do because it fits into a detective story just as there are several things I play because they fit nicely into DnD. If I didn't want to play in the DnD flavor, I'd use a different RPG system to do what I want to do. Possibly a D20 system, possibly not, but certainly not baseline DnD.

Edit: I have the advantage that I love baseline DnD, particularly 3e, and haven't really found any problem fitting my ideas in around the flavor of it. I rarely find myself frustrated by the rules, and I'm rarely in conflict with my players. Which goes back to philosophy a nicely.

 

[hong]

Here is a brand new monster I created for my campaign. It's based loosely on No-Face from Spirited Away.

=================
Devouring spirits are the undead slaves of a fiend of corruption. They live to eat, and are quite willing to devour any physical object they can cram down their gullets. They extort huge tolls from those they encounter, of which half is eaten and half contributed to the fiend’s hoard. No matter how much they eat, their hunger can never be satiated; that is the nature of their curse.

If a devouring spirit is reduced to 0 hit points, it transforms back to the creature it originally was (but remains dead). If a restoration, greater restoration or break enchantment is cast on a devouring spirit and it fails its save, the magic enslaving the creature is broken, and it is restored to its original state.



Devouring Spirit: CR 12; Large Undead (spirit); HD 16d12 (130 hp); Init +5; Spd 40 ft, climb 30 ft; AC 25 (touch 14, flat-footed 20); BAB +8; Grap +22; Atk +17 melee (2d6+15, bite); S/R 10 ft/10 ft; SA Improved grab, swallow whole, pounce, burst of speed; SQ DR 10/Britannian steel, SR 21, fast healing 5, turn resistance +4, resistances, undead traits; AL CE; SV Fort +5, Ref +10, Will +10; Str 30, Dex 20, Con —, Int 9, Wis 11, Cha 20.

Skills and Feats: Climb +25, Jump +25, Listen +21, Spot +21, Cleave, Improved Natural Attack (bite), Weapon Focus (bite), Power Attack.

SA — Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, the devouring spirit must hit a creature at least one size smaller than itself with its bite attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it succeeds, it establishes a hold and can attempt to swallow the opponent the next round.

SA — Swallow Whole (Ex): A devouring spirit can try to swallow a grabbed opponent by making a successful grapple check. Once inside the devouring spirit, the opponent takes one negative level per round unless a DC 23 Fort save is made. A new save is required each round inside the stomach. The Fort save DC to avoid negative levels becoming permanent level loss is similarly 23.

A swallowed creature can attempt to cut its way out by using a light slashing or piercing weapon to deal 25 points of damage to the devouring spirit’s stomach (AC 17). Once the creature exits, the spirit’s regenerative ability closes the hole; another swallowed opponent must cut its own way out.

SA — Pounce (Ex): A devouring spirit can make a full attack at the end of a charge.

SA — Burst of Speed (Su): A devouring spirit can haste itself for up to five rounds per day. Activating and deactivating this ability is a free action, and the use need not be consecutive rounds.

SQ — Resistances (Ex): Cold resistance 10, electricity resistance 10.


This thing was created entirely within the rules of the game. As far as I know, it breaks none of the guidelines for monster creation regarding skill points, feats, attack and save bonuses, etc; and yet, trying to reverse-engineer its abilities based on one encounter is going to be pretty hard. The position that the rules limit flavour is a furphy, an excuse used by DMs who either can't be bothered or don't want to learn the rules.