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

[billd91]

I think assumptions about play changed - from the idea that a group (led by the GM) would make of this stuff what they wanted to, based on their familiarity with existing fantasy, myth and legend, to the idea that part of what was fun about the game was playing in an already-authored canonical setting. You can see the beginning of that change in AD&D, but it really emerges in the mid-80s (look at the different nature of the flavour text in Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures, for instance) and then grows over time.

Assumptions certainly did change, but not just about play, about the players. At some point, the publishers of D&D could no longer assume that the players were as steeped in the fantasy literature cited in the 1e DMG appendix as the designers and I think they realized that. They could no longer just assume everyone had read the same books. Some players were coming to D&D first rather than the literature first. D&D had to provide its own context more and more rather than refer to one out there due to fantasy cultural literacy.

 

[billd91]

[HI][/HI]

When I started this I was thinking more in terms of world flavour to be honest. Sure, fireballs are little missiles. Although, I find the idea of intercepting one to be more of an Internet thing. I mean, would you allow someone to intercept an arrow? What's the difference? To me that's just a theoretical that will not see play very much if at all.

Intercepting an arrow? Like monks deflecting or catching them or something? Inconceivable!

The idea of intercepting a fireball isn't that alien, but the issue was more along the lines of the fireball hitting a mirror or invisible barrier of some sort and being forced to explode early. I can think of at least one published adventure in which that could have occurred.

 

[Hussar]

I was mostly referring to 1st Edition. OD&D was pretty bare bones in all respects, not really being written for the uninitiated.

Even 1e doesn't really have a whole lot of flavour about monsters. I mean, you're looking at a couple of sentences, typically, at most for most monsters.

Dungeons and Dragons is a role playing game. The fluff is the point of the game. The mechanics are there to help you get back to role playing faster, they are not the point of the game. It doesn't matter if you're looking at percentage tables, THAC0, or rolling with advantage, the rules are nothing more than an arbitrary table top expression of your character's actions inside the game world.

So yes, the fluff that comes with class choice is more important than the mechanical features the class has. When you sit at my table to play a Warlock, I'm going to ask you what the name of the Patron you're making a deal with. If you were a Cleric before you became a Warlock, there's a good chance taking on a Master in exchange for power is going to piss off your God.

The character is more than a selection of mechanics, it's actually a role play character.

Sorry, there is no dichotomy here. Not using the flavor text in D&D and substituting your own does not make you less of a role player than someone who plays D&D strictly by the book.

If I answer that my patron for my Warlock is Bligfigolati, a demon I've made up whole cloth, am I still role playing or not? Because I'm sure not using the flavour text provided by D&D anymore.

 

[Hussar]

[HI][/HI]

Intercepting an arrow? Like monks deflecting or catching them or something? Inconceivable!

The idea of intercepting a fireball isn't that alien, but the issue was more along the lines of the fireball hitting a mirror or invisible barrier of some sort and being forced to explode early. I can think of at least one published adventure in which that could have occurred.

Yes, because that was the context of the conversation. Monk's catching or deflecting arrows as, of course, entirely the point of the discussion.

 

[pepticburrito]

If I answer that my patron for my Warlock is Bligfigolati, a demon I've made up whole cloth, am I still role playing or not? Because I'm sure not using the flavour text provided by D&D anymore.

By doing that, you've done the best possible thing. You've given the GM the ability to create the Patron of his choice. When it visits you, and it WILL visit you, make sure you address him as Master. He might be insulted if he isn't shown proper respect.

 

[pemerton]

Dungeons and Dragons is a role playing game. The fluff is the point of the game.

I think that's not necessarily true.

For instance, if someone said that the point of the game is to participate in the creation of a compelling episode of fantasy adventure, I'd find that pretty reasonable.

Or, if someone siad that the point of their D&D game is to beat the dungeon, I'd find that pretty reasonabl too.

In either case, the flavour text is a means to an end.

the rules are nothing more than an arbitrary table top expression of your character's actions inside the game world.

I don't think this is true either. Using the rules to build a PC isn't any sort of expression of that PC's actions inside the gameworld. It's building a character to play, not playing that character.

Most of the time, too, using an inspiration point doesn't correspond to anything that a PC is doing in the game. Nor does a fighter player spending an action point necessarily correspond to anything that the fighter is doing in the game - it opens up the opportunity to declare more actions, but I don't see that it is, itself, an action taken by the PC.

When you sit at my table to play a Warlock, I'm going to ask you what the name of the Patron you're making a deal with. If you were a Cleric before you became a Warlock, there's a good chance taking on a Master in exchange for power is going to piss off your God.

I guess that would be one way of doing it.

But nothing in the rulebooks says that Cleric/Warlock is not a permissible and functional multi-class choice. So another way of going would be to work out what is it about the god and the patron such that swearing an oath to the latter is not a problem for the former.

 

[Hussar]

By doing that, you've done the best possible thing. You've given the GM the ability to create the Patron of his choice. When it visits you, and it WILL visit you, make sure you address him as Master. He might be insulted if he isn't shown proper respect.

So you believe that fluff is completely irrelavent? After all, I have abandoned dnd fluff in favor of my own, so I'm certainly not following the flavour as written or intended.

 

[Jester David]

I never make a ruling based on flavor like height, weight, hair color, or whatever. I do however have traps that go off for only medium creatures or bigger, bridges that collapse if more than 3 medium creatures or 1 large creature cross it, tunnels only tiny creatures fit through, etc.

So to me those things you mentioned are pure fluff, but size category is crunch.

There's a ledge ten feet above the players. A dwarf, an elf, and a half-orc all have to jump and grab the edge of the ledge before the room they are in fills with lava.

All three creatures are the same size: medium. All occupy the same square in the game. But should the DC for the jump check be the same for all three? Remember that dwarves are 4'5'' with 6' reach and half-orc 6'6'' with 9'6'' reach.

 

[Paraxis]

There's a ledge ten feet above the players. A dwarf, an elf, and a half-orc all have to jump and grab the edge of the ledge before the room they are in fills with lava.

All three creatures are the same size: medium. All occupy the same square in the game. But should the DC for the jump check be the same for all three? Remember that dwarves are 4'5'' with 6' reach and half-orc 6'6'' with 9'6'' reach.

My gut call in a game without looking up rules, I would treat them all the same as medium creatures. Having the benefit of being able to look up rules for standing high jump now it looks like RAW height written on the sheet makes a difference. I try and play by the rules closely so I would go with what is written in there if I knew it ahead of time. Possibly quickly house rule it and treat them all as 6' tall with 3' reach so that there would not be a roll needed unless they had an absurdly low strength score.

I don't like penalizing characters for flavor things like dwarves being short or how some DM's treat half-orcs like second class citizens, in my worlds half-orcs go to the same fancy balls as the high elves with the same amount of ease or trouble.

 

[77IM]

Show me a group where the flavor text doesn't matter at all and I'll show you a group playing a miniatures war game or tactical skirmish game.

Or, consider this: What if all the flavor text were changed? What if a "sword" was a flexible segmented metal weapon with serrated edges? What if "orcs" were anthropomorphic armadillos and "dragons" were giant insectoids and "elves" were made of clear plastic? What if "wizards" cast "spells" by interfacing with a global satellite defense system that manipulates quantum foam to pull in "magic" effects from alternate realities? Would you still be playing D&D? I would argue that at some point, you would not be playing D&D any more. Even the most outrageous settings (Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer) were still chock-full of D&D flavor and fluff text, just with a twist.

So to some extent the flavor does matter, it's just a question of how much.