Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Mallus]

For me, I don't see how the two can be divorced from each other.

Are you familiar with Champions or Mutants and Masterminds (both are effects-based point-buy superhero RPGs)? They are fine examples of systems which focus on providing mechanical frameworks for character abilities, with mere suggestions on how to define ("flavor") them in-game. For example, a ranged attack power could be a bolt of lightning from a hero's fingertips, a laser beam from his battlesuit, a fireball from his wand, a razor-edged boomerang, etc. They'd all be same mechanics-wise, outside of the modifiers you could choose to apply. The specific flavor would be up to the player to provide.

I have a Mutants and Masterminds character that's the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling; he can paralyze enemies using the secrets of "Ka-Wrestling", which tie of their seven souls into knots (a base power called Snare, which covers things like Spiderman's entangling webs or Iceman trapping someone in a block of ice), weaken their powers with a hold called the Khonsuplex (a base power called Drain), or use his super-secret "Cheops Drop" move that summons a pyramid out thin air and drops it on opponents (the area attack form of the Create Object power).

I could never have created this character without the ability to overlay my own "flavor" onto the game mechanics, and I'm fairly certain that I''ll never find a game which included flavor like this to start with.

 

[Cadfan]

Mallus- That brings up a really interesting point.

Mutants and Masterminds is mechanics-first (obviously this isn't a 100% truth, because it can't be, etc, etc, you get the idea). It provides generic abilities that you can mix and match to create whatever character you like.

But your character is very clearly a flavor-first creation. If you look at your character sans flavor, it doesn't make sense. With flavor, it works great.

I think that D&D class creation is more analogous to the reasoning that went into creating your character than the reasoning that went into designing the "create item" power. Its not 100%, but I think that's the direction the scales lean.

 

[Fenes]

The question is then: How open and flexible does a "mechanics first" system have to be? And how much should the flavor that was added be pushed in the system?

From what I gather, M&M offers more flexibility for character concepts than 4E. I also think 4E is pushing its flavor rather heavily on the game. I do think 4E would have been more accepted if it had focused more on flavor being optional, and the system itself been more flexible and variable.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The question is then: How open and flexible does a "mechanics first" system have to be? And how much should the flavor that was added be pushed in the system?

From what I gather, M&M offers more flexibility for character concepts than 4E. I also think 4E is pushing its flavor rather heavily on the game. I do think 4E would have been more accepted if it had focused more on flavor being optional, and the system itself been more flexible and variable.

I don't think so. I think it would have appealed to a different set of gamers, but probably not more. Especially for casual gamers or newbies, it is hard to figure out what to play. If you get a limitless set of mechanical options, it is hard to pick the ones you might like. It's even harder if you don't even have an idea on the flavor.

Ultimately, 4E tells you that you can use the powers as you see fit - the flavor text is a suggestion, but if for the life of it you can't believe Brutal Strike was a bone-shattering blow against that Ooze, you are free to describe it something else.

But it provides you with base assumptions on the flavor to guide you. The only think that is really "limiting" in options are the roles, and you can't just throw them away, since the entire power set of a class is balanced on its role assumptions.

 

[Mallus]

Mutants and Masterminds is mechanics-first (obviously this isn't a 100% truth, because it can't be, etc, etc, you get the idea). It provides generic abilities that you can mix and match to create whatever character you like.

The great thing about M&M2e is that it provides a sound (and easy to use) mechanical framework upon which to hang any number of character concepts. While any system can be broken, M&M2e is really pretty solid, especially when you consider how much freedom you have to model different types of heroes and abilities.

In that way the focus on mechanics allows for more and better flavor.

 

[Greg K]

The great thing about M&M2e is that it provides a sound (and easy to use) mechanical framework upon which to hang any number of character concepts. While any system can be broken, M&M2e is really pretty solid, especially when you consider how much freedom you have to model different types of heroes and abilities.

In that way the focus on mechanics allows for more and better flavor.

I am so waiting for both "Wizards and Warriors" and "Mecha and Manga".

 

[Mallus]

I am so waiting for both "Wizards and Warriors" and "Mecha and Manga".

Ooooh... those are the different genre-emulation source books for M&M2e, aren't they? I want them. Badly. My group kept talking about switching our current 3.5 homebrew campaign to the M&M rule set, but we never got around to working out the conversion guidelines.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Flavour First: The designer comes up with an idea first and then tries to create mechanics to best fit that idea.

Game First: The designer looks at how the game is being played at the table and creates mechanics to best facilitate that. Flavour is then added afterwards to justify the mechanics.

This is a neat way to look at game design, but I don't think it's the source of the problem you describe. Like others up thread, I think flavor should come first but that a positive feedback loop between both is necessary to end up with a playable game.

Your problem though is primarily with PCs that were designed for a different campaign then the one they find themselves in. Or maybe your problem is more generally with class design that's not universally useful in all kinds of campaigns.

After all, a Ranger in a borderlands orc-war campaign is going to be pretty bad ass. The Paladin though is going to be frustrated by always having to leave his horse and plate armor behind when it's time to spelunk or brachiate. Is that a problem with flavor first class design, or campaign design, or just a player-dm communications breakdown. I think it's the last one.

As a simple for-instance, I had to reengineer my character in my Iron Heroes group because I had designed him expecting more wilderness adventuring. Since we were all city, all the time it was frustrating that several of his feats and skills were never used. That was my fault for making a PC poorly made for the campaign, not the game's fault.

Is it possible to make a character that will be useful in every possible setting? Is it a good idea? Do they have a distinct flavor and character left if you do that? I think the answer to all three is: No.

We've had flavour first mechanics for the past thirty years. I think that's more than long enough of a kick at the cat. It's time to let game first rule the table. Find out what works at the table, what results in the most fun (yes, I'm going to use the "f" word here) and then design to that.

I disagree. We play D&D for its flavor. Throw that out and we might as well be playing chess or TF2. It's nice to have good rules, but the flavor must be right. When push comes to shove, flavor should win. Many people seem a lot more tolerant of minor rules inconsistency than flavor inconsistency. Just look at the thread on "Are Fighter Exploits Magic?". The rules must be well designed and support the flavor you're looking for.

Are you familiar with Champions or Mutants and Masterminds (both are effects-based point-buy superhero RPGs)? They are fine examples of systems which focus on providing mechanical frameworks for character abilities, with mere suggestions on how to define ("flavor") them in-game.

How does M&M handle flavor/rule conflicts? It seems to me that the flavor can either be anything or nothing, but not in between. If the rule say "Power A can do X, Y and Z, and is limited by 1 and 2." then only certain things (and maybe nothing!) can fit that description. Power Suits run out of fuel; electricity grounds when fire doesn't; boomerangs are slower than bullets; etc. When you're playing M&M (or any game where flavor is "tacked on" by the players) you need to decide ahead of time "Okay, when flavor and rule conflict (which is inevitable, even if rare), which wins?"

I say flavor wins, alway. What does M&M say? If it says "Rules win", then what's the point of your Cheops Drop Pyramid when it's only a pyramid "most of the time"?

My takeaway points are:
1. Great roleplaying needs great flavor, so flavor first. There's a reason The Lord of the Rings inspires more D&D campaigns than ... well, anything, or that the new Battlestar Gallactica is more likely to have RPG success than the 1970s version.
2. Fun times are helped by playable rules, so keep an eye on those; but they aren't the reason you play an RPG.
3. Make sure PCs are suited to the campaign. Paladins in Lankmar or Pirates in Mongolia just aren't good ideas.

 

[Mallus]

How does M&M handle flavor/rule conflicts?

I've honestly never seen one come up.

It seems to me that the flavor can either be anything or nothing, but not in between.

I don't know what this means.

If the rule say "Power A can do X, Y and Z, and is limited by 1 and 2." then only certain things (and maybe nothing!) can fit that description.

Can you give me some examples, because I'm not following you. Remember that powers are described as effects. Therefore, just about anything can describe them (using comic-book logic, at least). Therefore you can have an immobilizing power defined as tying someone up using "solid electricity", webbing them with artificial spider silk, rooting them in place with the psychedelic power of the Summer of Love, etc.

...Power Suits run out of fuel...

Only if you build them that way.

...electricity grounds when fire doesn't...

Only when it's convenient.

...boomerangs are slower than bullets...

Yes, but also irrelevant. A boomerang is as deadly (or non-deadly) as an arrow or a bullet or a plasma bolt in narrative space of a comic.

When you're playing M&M (or any game where flavor is "tacked on" by the players) you need to decide ahead of time "Okay, when flavor and rule conflict (which is inevitable, even if rare), which wins?"

Can you give me an example of what you're talking about?

What does M&M say? If it says "Rules win", then what's the point of your Cheops Drop Pyramid when it's only a pyramid "most of the time"?

Again, what do you mean by this? "Most of the time"???

 

[El Mahdi]

Are you familiar with Champions or Mutants and Masterminds (both are effects-based point-buy superhero RPGs)? They are fine examples of systems which focus on providing mechanical frameworks for character abilities, with mere suggestions on how to define ("flavor") them in-game. For example, a ranged attack power could be a bolt of lightning from a hero's fingertips, a laser beam from his battlesuit, a fireball from his wand, a razor-edged boomerang, etc. They'd all be same mechanics-wise, outside of the modifiers you could choose to apply. The specific flavor would be up to the player to provide.

I have a Mutants and Masterminds character that's the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling; he can paralyze enemies using the secrets of "Ka-Wrestling", which tie of their seven souls into knots (a base power called Snare, which covers things like Spiderman's entangling webs or Iceman trapping someone in a block of ice), weaken their powers with a hold called the Khonsuplex (a base power called Drain), or use his super-secret "Cheops Drop" move that summons a pyramid out thin air and drops it on opponents (the area attack form of the Create Object power).

I could never have created this character without the ability to overlay my own "flavor" onto the game mechanics, and I'm fairly certain that I''ll never find a game which included flavor like this to start with.

Yeah, I don't disagree at all. I was just trying to say, for me, a mechanic without any flavor (whether provided for you, or provided by you) is boring. A flavor without a mechanic to represent it, to me is just as boring. It's the combination of the two that makes it interesting. Sometimes the flavor will inspire a mechanic, sometimes the mechanic inspires the flavor, but they both have to be there for either to be complete (again, this is just my opinion and preference - but I freely admit I'm probably equal parts simulationist and storyteller - however, I like the story to make sense in my mind - rational suspension of disbelief).

I just can't have my chocolate without my peanut butter. Whichever one came first really doesn't matter to me.