D&D 5E Do you Consider Flavor Text to be part of Raw?

[TerraDave]

Gruumsh might be a little specific but consider that orcs worship a god opposed to gnolls worshipping a demon lord and other races perhaps worshipping an archdevil. The names are irrelevant but the details influence the story of the races. No matter how cruel and savage orcs might be, they still have a sense of organized religion and faith in a higher being, opposed to gnolls who venerate a chaotic beast of supreme destruction.

Thats exactly what I don't need. The specific names and details of this power or that background element, you never know, I might use them. The basic concepts of the creatures, which predate any deistic links and is still largely independent of it, that I want. But turning originally obscure bits of background into some sociological theory that's supposed to really differentiate the races, no thanks.

 

[Jester David]

Thats exactly what I don't need. The specific names and details of this power or that background element, you never know, I might use them. The basic concepts of the creatures, which predate any deistic links and is still largely independent of it, that I want. But turning originally obscure bits of background into some sociological theory that's supposed to really differentiate the races, no thanks.

The proper names are handy because they give people an option: they can use the existing names or make their own, rather than having no option but to create a culture.

It also leads to shared language and assumptions.
If I, as a DM, tell my players that they see an encampment of gnolls up ahead that's all the explanation I need. If I say they see a group of flibbertigibbetlings then I need to explain. (Excluding settings like Dark Sun where the point is familiar things being unfamiliar.)
This established flavour gives players a consistent framework for the game and narrative. An experience DM's and a brand new DM's portrayal and concept of creatures like goblins and orcs should be comparable. There's less likely to be a cultural divide based on assumptions of the race from other media. An old school players might hear "orc" and assume twisted copies of elves spawned from the earth that cannot stand the light, while a newer player might hear "orc" and picture a race of shamanistic warriors from another dimension.
So any difference in portrayal is on purpose rather than accidental.

Mearls has also talked about the compartmentalization of rules. So the fighter character doesn't *need* to know the concentration rule, but it could be handy to know if fighting enemy wizards. Lore can be viewed the same way. You don't need to know of Gruumsh, but if fighting orcs and one only has a single eye, then someone who knows orc lore has a strategic advantage. So long as that lore is constant.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But if that character spent five years as a beholder slave in their backstory, and you haven't bothered to inform their player that your beholders are different than Monster Manual beholders, that's on you. Failure to provide an alternative is tacit acknowledgement of the RAW fluff.

Well, yeah... but who's really going to do that? What DM is going to create all-new fluff for beholders in his world, allow their player to be a captive by a beholder for five years as part of his backstory, and then just forget to mention the fluff for the game world? That's not worrying about default assumptions... that's just a DM who's had a major brain fart. LOL.

At that point, the DM should throw away whatever new fluff he created for beholders in his world, since according to the PC's backstory that didn't reference any of it, that "new" beholder never existed.

 

[ccooke]

I'll use anything pre-written that supports the story I want to tell. I'll happily use the existing fluff when it doesn't contradict something important in my story. Anything else will be twisted to fit or cut from the game.

 

[Scorpio616]

Pecking order

What the DM says
What the rules say
What the fluff says
What the Players think something says.

 

[ccooke]

Pecking order

Heh. At my table, I'll add one above all those things:

Assumptions or mistakes the players make that are better than anything I have prepared

What the DM says
What the rules say
What the fluff says
What the Players think something says.

 

[Eric V]

A good example is the phantasmal killer spell, the fluff says it taps into the nightmares of the creature, elves don't dream like most creatures they go through mental exercises while they trance, I doubt warforged will dream when we have rules for them. I would never ever for a second consider making either race immune to the spell phantasmal killer, because of that bit of fluff.

The mechanics are make a save or be frightened, so the only thing that makes you immune to this spell is being immune to the frightened condition.

Interesting...I wonder how many DMs will make Elves and Warforged immune to Phantasmal Killer?

 

[Uchawi]

I would rate it as the rules first, then fluff, and how the DM adjudicates it. Based on my experience 4E was the only edition that made a conscious decision to try to separate rules and fluff, and the rest of the editions it is much harder to separate the two, especially for spells. But the DM does have the final say within reason, as long as he or she is consistent.

 

[diaglo]

it is all guidelines

 

[The_Gneech]

Yeah, I'm going with lemon curry.

Flavor text is great, but for me it's something to look to if I don't have an immediately better idea. I reskin the heck outa stuff all the time ("You want to play a bugbear? Go for it. Build it mechanically like a half-orc...").

But if there's a question about how something works or what it's about, and the rules are vague, I look to the flavor text for rules-as-intended.

-The Gneech