Flavor in Rules Text

[Stormborn]

How much flavor do you like in your rules text? In other words, how should the rules text convey the feel of the setting?

Do you prefer:

1. No flavor text mixed with rules text. (SRD style)
2. Rules text preceed by descriptive or flavorful text (ie. Spell Compendium spell descriptions or Monsternomicon entry text)
3. Rules text written, in so far as it is possible, as if by someone in the setting.
4. Other

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm mostly a fan of #2.

But really I'd just like to see rules that reflect the flavor text, and flavor text that informs the rules.

 

[frankthedm]

#3 All the way.

 

[Shroomy]

I voted #2, because its the closest to my own opinion and its definitely what I want to see in a core rulebook. I'd give more leeway in splats, adventures, and magazine/online articles.

 

[Delta]

Voted "Other".

I don't like RPG flavor/rules to be treated as separate entities (so, not #2). I even more don't like in-character rules text (so, not #3 per OP).

 

[Griego]

Flavor text kept separate from the rules, and easily identifiable (different font, color, size, boxed, whatever). Having to wade through fluff while you're trying to figure out how a rule works slows down play immensely.

 

[resistor]

I mostly like fluff separate from rules text. However, I also like creatures having non-combat abilities, which might count as flavor mixed with rules.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I voted "Other".

I guess it depends on what you mean by "fluff." I don't like it when the rules tie you to a certain world or history, but I do not like flavor text totally separate from the rules either. It doesn't feel right to me; it makes the fluff feel like a cheap cardboard cutout propped up in front of some thing else.

But I also don't like reading the SRD or ignoring the fluff while reading the 4E books. It's so dry and removed from the game world. It's too abstract.

What I really like is when fluff is the rules. A spell like Earth to Mud might be an example, where the rule could read "You turn an open field of firm earth into a morass of mud." That's more evocative than some fluff text followed by "All creatures suffer -3 movement, save ends."

I appreciate what the 4E designers have attempted to do in the pursuit of clarity, but they're as fun to read as a math proof.

 

[howandwhy99]

I voted "Other".

I guess it depends on what you mean by "fluff." I don't like it when the rules tie you to a certain world or history, but I do not like flavor text totally separate from the rules either. It doesn't feel right to me; it makes the fluff feel like a cheap cardboard cutout propped up in front of some thing else.

But I also don't like reading the SRD or ignoring the fluff while reading the 4E books. It's so dry and removed from the game world. It's too abstract.

What I really like is when fluff is the rules. A spell like Earth to Mud might be an example, where the rule could read "You turn an open field of firm earth into a morass of mud." That's more evocative than some fluff text followed by "All creatures suffer -3 movement, save ends."

I appreciate what the 4E designers have attempted to do in the pursuit of clarity, but they're as fun to read as a math proof.

You're right. Fluff==Crunch. There is no difference. Rules are the description of the world.

 

[Wormwood]

4e nailed it perfectly, IMO.

Sufficient description for me to rely on when I'm lazy, yet not so intermingled with the rules that I can't substitute my own on the fly when I wish.