Mustrum_Ridcully said:
There is only one player in our group that owns them, and we never use them.
Well, this assumes everybody in your group can use English books without getting completely confused. Well, I just hope F&S gets a better translator than Amigo last time.
Mouseferatu said:
Even flavor I don't like can inspire ideas that I do. And there's no real difference between changing "bad flavor" and changing "no flavor." So, for me at least, I'd rather have the potential inspiration, and I'd rather have a PHB that at least tries to be an interesting read, rather than a textbook.
Generally, I'd agree. But with the PHB, at least for me, it's a different issue. Expansion books are added, so you can easily ignore the flavour, but the PHB is a groundwork.
While it is easy for me, as a DM, to say "get these names out of my game", I have the problem that I need the "bad flavour" as a reference, whenever I need to look up the exact description.
If I use something from a new book, I can easily pick up some stuff, type it into my PC, print it and put in our "big rules folder", as a DM-approved thing, while changing the name. But not so with the PHB, unless I want to rewrite the PHB.
So basically, it's a problem with my (and my group's) usual playstyle, but the point is: The core books are the only books, you usually use wholesale. And granted, it's easy enough to ignore stuff like deities, because they're in their own chapter - but this bugs me a bit, because the "bad flavour" is attached to a rules element, making it necessary to refer to that, whenever I use it. And unlike a other flavour elements (like a class name), it is even attached to an often referenced element - something like a manoeuvre, that is actively used.
I hope I could get my point across: It's not like I'm not buying 4E or will boycott it, I'm only a bit discontent, that the flavour is attached to a heavily referenced part of the rules, where the name is needed to identify the rules element (i.e. find it in the book).
Cheers, LT.
, -- N
