Excerpt: Racial Benefits

[Mouseferatu]

Seriously? You people worry about an implied setting? Seriously?
This is your problem? That WotC gives you suggestions for the flavor text of your game, that you are under no compunction to accept whatsoever?
Good gravy.

Yeah, this.

I'll repeat my standard mantra. An RPG book should seek to inspire the imagination as much as--if not more than--it seeks to convey the mechanical rules. If I pick up an RPG book and it doesn't get my imagination rolling, if it doesn't inspire me to create a new character, envision a world or portion of a world, or contemplate a new campaign, that book has failed, no matter how solid the mechanics may be.

Even bad flavor is better than no flavor, since it can still spark better ideas. But mechanics on their own aren't inspiring. If I can't be bothered to read the book, I certainly won't get around to using mechanics from it.

The day D&D becomes a pure textbook... Well, I'm not going to make any sweeping proclamations about when/if I'll ever stop playing it, but I'd certainly at least consider it.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

The worry, albeit possibly unfounded, is that WotC will be TOO drawn into the fluff for the 4e setting, which will make transitioning into a different setting to be more difficult and irritable then neccisary.

So it doesn't seem, to you, that 4E is much better about not being restrictive than 3.x was?
...Lack of alignment emphasis, targeted cultural racial abilities or racial class preferences...
I guess they do have some silly names for Powers, but...seems unrelated....

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Even bad flavor is better than no flavor, since it can still spark better ideas.

I cannot disagree with this more.

A common statement on various RP servers on just about every MMORPG in existance is "bad RP is better then no RP." But the thing is, players aren't led to make their own ideas when they see bad fluff, they're just flat out turned off from it entirely.

So it doesn't seem, to you, that 4E is much better about not being restrictive than 3.x was?
...Lack of alignment emphasis, targeted cultural racial abilities or racial class preferences...
I guess they do have some silly names for Powers, but...seems unrelated....

I'm not even going to touch alignment, first of all, as that's another (and very LARGE) can of worms.

I don't know if 4E will be more or less restrictive then 3.x is. It doesn't matter if you like or hate the game, ALL of us are speculating, and none of us have any moral or cognitive high ground over one another simply through virtue of where we stand. That said, my speculation is this: I don't want the game to be really entwined with the fluff. It's for an admittedly selfish reason: I abhor the 4e fluff.

Will it be less restrictive? I don't know. Restrictions aren't always bad. Players need choices, and lots of them, but choices are meaningless without consequences. In fact, that's what a choice implies - that you're taking one thing while giving up something else. But I digress.

In the end, I'd just personally rather perfer it - strongly at that - if the 4e mechanics had little to do with the fluff. Instead, I'd like the mechanics to stand on their own, and for each setting to stand in its own, so that you can easily mingle the setting and mechanics, irregardless of the setting.

Oh, and was I the only one that didn't like spells like Bigby's Wanking Hand and the like? Not because of the spell itself, but because the characters and, indeed, most players, have no freaking clue who this "Bigby" fellow is, or why he had such a hand fetish.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I cannot disagree with this more.

A common statement on various RP servers on just about every MMORPG in existance is "bad RP is better then no RP." But the thing is, players aren't led to make their own ideas when they see bad fluff, they're just flat out turned off from it entirely.



I'm not even going to touch alignment, first of all, as that's another (and very LARGE) can of worms.

I don't know if 4E will be more or less restrictive then 3.x is. It doesn't matter if you like or hate the game, ALL of us are speculating, and none of us have any moral or cognitive high ground over one another simply through virtue of where we stand. That said, my speculation is this: I don't want the game to be really entwined with the fluff. It's for an admittedly selfish reason: I abhor the 4e fluff.

Will it be less restrictive? I don't know. Restrictions aren't always bad. Players need choices, and lots of them, but choices are meaningless without consequences. In fact, that's what a choice implies - that you're taking one thing while giving up something else. But I digress.

In the end, I'd just personally rather perfer it - strongly at that - if the 4e mechanics had little to do with the fluff. Instead, I'd like the mechanics to stand on their own, and for each setting to stand in its own, so that you can easily mingle the setting and mechanics, irregardless of the setting.

Oh, and was I the only one that didn't like spells like Bigby's Wanking Hand and the like? Not because of the spell itself, but because the characters and, indeed, most players, have no freaking clue who this "Bigby" fellow is, or why he had such a hand fetish.

I never liked the Vancian System. But spells like "Leomunds Secret Shelter", "Mordekainen's Magnificient Mension", "Mefl's Acid Arror", "Bigby's Grasphing Hand", those I liked. The mechanics showed an incredibly powerful (in the sense of scope and possibilities) magical system, and the names showed that it was all part of a bigger world. In my campaign, maybe there would eventually be a "Ridcullys Hunting Bolt" (not that I ever played a character with that name, but you'll get what I mean).

Off course, when the names didn't fit, I could easily ignore them. That's why I am a fan of fluff in the 4E Core Books, too. I didn't like the name "Golden Wyvern" (but mostly because I don't like the name Wyvern, either), but I still liked the idea that picking character abilities made the character also part of the implied setting.

I like it, because when it comes to describing a character, I like the characters mechanical abilities reflect the concept of the character. If I say my character is a good liar, I'd like my character to have a mechanical way to represent it.
Powers and Feats with fluff also support this. If my PC is supposed to be a graduate from the Unseen University, I might want to representing this with the Unseen University Graduate feat. (For easy fluff remove in settings without it, it might be better if the feat was called Unseen University Staff Mage feat instead).

 

[Torchlyte]

I disagree. As another poster pointed out, would you allow space marines in your D&D game to "maximize total player enjoyment?" If a player insisted on playing such a character, I would ask them why they cant have any fun playing something that's available in the world. If a player refuses to play anything other than a Dragonborn, I would posit that it's the player, not the DM that is being unreasonable.

Absolutely... but then you'd be playing a sci fi rpg, wouldn't you? In most cases, there would be a net negative impact if one player decided to be a space marine because it would hurt everyone else's verisimilitude. Once again, people are drifting back into stupid straw men... don't tell Mourn he's a bad debater when you're throwing out logical fallacies left and right.

No one has a problem with this when it is true.

The problems happen when its not true, but the DM says it anyways as a cover for just not liking tieflings. Then you get into conflict, because the DM is implicitly saying "I think your character idea is lame/nerdy/immature/munchkin, and would prefer you pretend to be something mature and grown-up, like a short hairy fat man with alcohol abuse problems. And I'm going to use my informal authority as the DM to force you to do it, too."

++

 

[hong]

... so! Who else here is banning halflings?

 

[abyssaldeath]

I don't see the problem with the fluff. When I played we never used the base campain setting. We always either used other printed campains or complete homebrew. As long as the DM tells all the players what setting the campain is in I don't see an issue.

DM: Hey, from now we aren't playing in Greyhawk.

Player: Ok. So what are we playing.

DM: Purplehawk.

Player: Purplehawk?

DM: Yep, Purplehawk. I made it up myself.

Player: Obviously...... You're wierd.

 

[Cadfan]

The thing about implied settings-

Its a really fine line. But frankly, a game with an implied setting is almost always better than one without.

Why?

Because implied settings justify crunch that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Look at the Tome of Magic. Sure, there were balance issues in it, but its almost universally loved for its flavor. Take the Shadowcaster. Its a spellcaster that has powers involving darkness, light, reflections, negative energy, counter-magic, cold, storms, and so on. Why do all of those things fit so well together? Because of an implied setting locale called the Plane of Shadow. Or take the Binder. Look at any random pact. They contain abilities which, if considered in isolation, don't make sense together. For example, mist, ranged touch attacks, and unlocking doors. Why? What does mist and unlocking doors have to do with each other? Not much without the implied setting, but thanks to the extensive backstory on that particular vestige, they go together amazingly well.

So... I kind of put implied setting in three categories.

1. Unimportant. This is of course the type that ENWorld cares about the most. Stuff like the name of deities. If you're going to have special abilities for priests who worship different types of gods, then you pretty much need a default name for that god. The game would be kind of obnoxious if each god was labeled in the PHB as "Deity of Valor- check with your DM for this deity's name." So a name gets slapped on. Easiest thing in the world to change, and honestly doesn't matter if you don't change it.

2. Good. This is fluff that ties together crunch in an interesting manner, but which doesn't clutter the game if you don't need it. See Binder pacts for reference. In 4e, this is stuff like the Eladrin connection to the Feywild. It justifies Eladrin having teleportation tricks. Teleportation tricks are cool, and this gives an explanation for why they belong to the Eladrin in particular, and thus the game is richer. But if you don't want the Feywild in your game, just say "Look, we're not using the Feywild (or any other planes). Eladrin can still teleport, all the magic stuff works, but there's no such place, ok?" Its lightly tied in, so its easy to reap its benefits without any harms.

3. Fluff that is appropriate in other games, but not in D&D. This would be your city maps, your kingdom names, that kind of thing. Stuff that ties your game down to a specific world, instead of a generic world with a couple of specific attributes like we have now. In certain other games this would be appropriate. In Feng Shui, its a game of Hong Kong cinema, so a map of Hong Kong is appropriate. The game would be lessened without it. But a map of Waterdeep in the PHB just gets in the way of D&D's goal, which is to be a relatively generic, modifiable fantasy game.

 

[jeffhartsell]

... so! Who else here is banning halflings?

I am going to not think about not banning them never.

 

[Lizard]

Even bad flavor is better than no flavor, since it can still spark better ideas. But mechanics on their own aren't inspiring. If I can't be bothered to read the book, I certainly won't get around to using mechanics from it.

I guess we differ here, as I tend to find mechanics inspiring. I'm going to guess you hated LBB Traveller and the Hero System...