Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Greg K]

I think it's only a problem if the DM and players are not on the same page prior to character generation or the player ignores the campaign guidelines. The problem, in my experience, is usually a) the player made a character prior to learning about the DMs setting; b) the player made a character and ignored the setting/campaign guidelines; or c) the DM had either no setting in mind or so vague an idea that players just create characters on their own and then show up.

If the DM has a setting, then the player needs to work within the setting. However, the DM (or group if the setting is group designed) should have worked out Favorite Enemies (by culture) and Paladin Codes (by deity).

As with Favorite Enemies and codes, the DM needs to preestablish the PrCs . They are optional and supposed to help define the setting. The designers, however, don't know what your homebrew is going to be. Therefore, the DM should be deciding which PrCs exist in the world before the game starts. For example, if there are no undead or aberrations (or they are extremely rare that they are not going to play a major role), PrCs based around them should not be included. Or, maybe a particular Prc is only found among a particular culture.


If, the DM has no setting or only a vague idea, the group needs to find another way to get on the same page before character generation- a group meeting or something (always a good idea even if the DM has a coherent setting). If players, can just show up with premade characters, there is a good chance of running into the problem the OP talked about. However, as I said, that is , imo, not a problem with the design, but with the lack of communication.

 

[Cadfan]

Ideally, its a dynamic equilibrium.

I think we've swung too far towards the mechanics, personally. D&D needs some sort of integrating architecture to unite certain aspects of gameplay- specfically, arcane magic. The Golden Wyvern school and whatnot would have accomplished that, but it died a horrible death at the hands of people who mostly aren't playing 4e anyways.

Lots of other areas of D&D have this sort of flavor/mechanical unity. The Warlock, for example. Why is there a warlock track that gives you teleportation, invisibility, and mental control? Well, because it involves a pact with the Fey, see, and they're powerful at illusions and charm magic, and they have a connection to the Feywild, which is associated with teleportation magic. It doesn't make sense from a flavor-neutral perspective, of course. But it makes great sense from a flavor based perspective. The same is of course true of the other pacts: there's no flavor neutral explanation for an association of cold, madness, and prophecy, or fire and temporary hit points.

But the ways in which these things can be arranged is multiplied greatly when we integrate flavor and mechancs rather than keeping them separate.

I only wish that wizards had a similar system. Instead, their spells are just disparate and miscellaneous.

 

[TerraDave]

Its flavour first. But not, first, last, and everywhere in between.

The flavour is key to get design going. Say I wanted to do an RPG focused on WWI pilots...I probably need some ariel combat rules, and they should probably avoid helicopters, supersonic travel...etc. But given that, I will need mechanics so that the GM can throw some enemy planes at the players patrol, they can do their cool things in the sky, and nobody is pulling their hair out before it is all over.

This may require a lot abstraction and simplification, but the goal is still to achieve the desired flavour. So, if the idea is to be heroic...then complications in that system probly involve exciting manuevers...if it is to be grim and gritty...well then the players are going to need some back up charecters. But I think that is they basic way it should and does work. How well it is done is another story.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree that mechanics need to work well at the table. That's not the same as saying come up with mechanics first, then find flavour to justify them. The flavour should come first, but the mechanics should be tailored with an eye to actual play. If Paladins as written don't work in your game, tweak the mechanics to fit. For instance, if Det Evil is a problem, have it only detect massive, supernatural Evil, as in 1e-2e. That way slightly evil PCs won't ping, and there's no moral dilemma what to do with the evil commoner. If he Dets as Evil, he's either a demon, undead, evil high priest, or serial killer.

Exactly. The play of game mechanics is pretty pointless if you fail to capture the spirit of the game they are written for. The rules should serve the game and not the other way around. Here is an example of how the opposite is implemented:

At our last session playing KOTS we engaged a group of enemies near some water. One of the bad guys ran away to warn his allies. My cleric stopped him from getting very far but we both came within detection range of those allies as I dropped him. The allied group of enemies did nothing. There are many in game possibilities for this but the DM let me in on what happened after the session. Apparently the adventure says that the 2nd group will ignore the plight of the 1st group for whatever reason.

I am only going on what I was told, as I have not looked through the adventure. The game reason is simple- one linked running combat with both groups without a short rest would most likely result in a wipe, thus they are separate encounters. The flavor reason is non-existant because there really isn't one. This is prime example of the the GAME serving the RULES first. Because abilities are recharged on a "per encounter" mechanic which is a subjective unit of time, the behavior of the NPC's serves the mechanics first.

 

[Mallus]

The play of game mechanics is pretty pointless if you fail to capture the spirit of the game they are written for.

Doesn't this assume that the game has a single (or at least one predominant) "spirit"/theme to capture?

My experience with D&D over the years tells me that D&D doesn't have that.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Doesn't this assume that the game has a single (or at least one predominant) "spirit"/theme to capture?

My experience with D&D over the years tells me that D&D doesn't have that.

And that is the heart of all confusion. What that "spirit" is will vary from group to group. We have multiple editions that capture the spirit well for a lot of different groups.

 

[S'mon]

Doesn't this assume that the game has a single (or at least one predominant) "spirit"/theme to capture?

My experience with D&D over the years tells me that D&D doesn't have that.

Hmm. I guess it's possible to use D&D as a generic system like GURPS, but to me it has a strong inherent flavour, a mash-up of high fantasy, swords & sorcery, and '70s wargaming. With dungeons. And dragons.

 

[The Ghost]

Snip...

And this makes sense?

I could go on, but, I'll stop here. There are many more examples and I'm sure you can think of a few of your own. And, I'm also sure I'm going to be told that the above examples are not really problems with the game, but with the players. To me, these are GAME issues. Anytime the game forces this sort of thing on the players, this is a game issue.

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.

We'll see in a few years if things like second wind, or daily abilities, cause anywhere near the gaming anguish that paladins have.

What you have listed here are not problems with design philosophy but one of player expectations. I think that there is a larger question here that is not being asked - What do I want from the game? And then how does WotC best make that game? Mechanics first or flavor first?

 

[Andre]

While I agree that both good flavor and good mechanics are necessary to a good system, how one goes about designing that system makes a difference.

It seems to me that a flavour-first design is best for a "rulings-based" system, while mechanics-first works best for a "rules-based" system. Early versions of DnD tended to be rulings-based, as there were so many situations not covered by the rules. 3E and 4E tend to be much tighter designs, with more standardized mechanics, e.g., d20 + modifiers.

Each has its drawbacks. Flavor-first tends to put more responsibility on the GM's shoulders. This makes the game much more dependent on the quality and experience of the GM. Mechanics-first removes some of that responsibility, but potentially at the cost of everything feeling the same. A perfect example of the latter are the complaints that different classes have the same powers, just different flavor text.

An example of what I'm referring to: True Strike.

Mechanics-first. "You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target. Focus: A small wooden replica of an archery target."

Neat, simple, to the point. No question how it works in play. No real flavor, though. This could just as easily be a rule from a boardgame, or a card in MtG.

Flavor-first. "Closing your eyes, you attempt to shut out the distractions of the world around you. Navigating through the mists of the spellweave, you spy glimpses of past, future, and present. One such image is seared into your mind - an image of the world just seconds away. You snap out of the trance, knowing with certainty where your enemies will be. This power grants you a +20 bonus to your next attack, so long as it occurs within the timeframe of your vision."

(Kindly ignore cheesy text...)

This one's a bit trickier. You know how you gained the bonus, but by defining where the effect comes from, lots of questions come up. Are there any in-game consequences of closing your eyes? How long are you in the trance? Can you misinterpret the vision, actually gaining a penalty to your attack? Can you use this spell to gain other knowledge, for example, knowing that a comrade will be struck done shortly?

 

[Umbran]

It does not seem to me that the issues sighted in the OP arose because flavor came first. The order of operations is not what caused the problem - if you do the job right, which comes first is not relevant.

The thing we have to remember is that rpg game design is not like mechanical engineering, where you can go take some classes, and learn how it is done. There aren't any text books one can learn from. As time goes on, new designers learn from the mistakes of the old, so designs improve. Earlier editions have problems because one makes mistakes when innovating. And, there's mistakes in 4e, too, and we'll learn from them.