Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Irda Ranger]

In fact, it's possibly worse (for non-narrativists) -- it's a predetermined story, with the implied obligation that you pay back the players with their own "story points" in exchange for it. Non-narrativists will soooo not groove on that.

Indeed. The quid pro quo was exactly what made me say "Yuck" in the first place. My games are more about full & fair disclosure, and once the game is afoot quarter is neither asked for nor received (in either direction). If my PCs figure out a way to "cheat" their way to a quick & easy victory that's my problem and they've earned every point of XP.

To use the death trap example, my game would go more like this:

PC: I think we should investigate that Temple.
Crusty Tavern NPC: Arg, don't go there! Twas built by chaotic Gnomes; they build massive clockwork devices designed to tear a man apart sloooowly!
PC: We'll be careful.
(Me: Heh heh heh.)

If they beat the traps they get XP and a high-five. If not, 30 point buy. The "Narrative" part only comes in later when we're playing Soul Caliber and I say "Remember the time Diego tried to use his Aasimar's 1/week Holy Word on the Lich and stunned the whole party unconscious instead ... what a douche." And then Diego says "Hey, that's not as bad as the time Joe failed his Test of High Sorcery four times in a row ..."

Ah, good times.

 

[Greg K]

It's supposed to be used to enable specific kinds of challenges (commonly found in comics). A typical use would be something like a GM declaring that the PC's are automatically captured by the villain and placed in a 'foolproof' deathtrap.

To me the death trap is not a common use. It has never even come up in my own experiences. More common uses, in my experience are :

- Activating a character's complication like Spiderman's webshooter running out fluid or Aunt May being at the scene at an inopportune moment.

- Activating things like the grounding of electric powers (to answer a question brought up Irda earlier) which don't warrant a lmitation, but are just inherent to the fx of the power.

Of course, how fiat is used depends on the GM and the group.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

To me, using the OP's definitions, playing the game is all about flavor. All I ask of the mechanics is that they don't get in the way.

 

[Fenes]

Even when you pick mechanics first you often pick a sort of flavor for it. For 4E it was for example "team combat with defined, narrow roles in battle".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Even when you pick mechanics first you often pick a sort of flavor for it. For 4E it was for example "team combat with defined, narrow roles in battle".

I am still not convinced that Flavor First or Game First characterizes the 4E or previous approaches well, for matters like these.

Another example might be Martial Powers - sure, the mechanic on how powers work is not linked to the power source - everyone gets dailies, encounters and at-wills. But every instance of a power is designed in a way to suite the flavor of a martial character. There are no Close Burst 1 fireshroud for a Fighter, even if it would probably work fine for a Defender.

Maybe the deal is that it is, like many designs, an iterative cycle - you go from mechanics -> flavor -> mechanics -> flavor.

 

[Fenes]

Another example might be Martial Powers - sure, the mechanic on how powers work is not linked to the power source - everyone gets dailies, encounters and at-wills. But every instance of a power is designed in a way to suite the flavor of a martial character. There are no Close Burst 1 fireshroud for a Fighter, even if it would probably work fine for a Defender.

That doesn't really matter, fire damage or weapon damage is a flavor choice in 4E. You've got the mechanics - close burst X - and the the flavor is propped up (like sweeping blow or shift the battlefield f.e.).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That doesn't really matter, fire damage or weapon damage is a flavor choice in 4E. You've got the mechanics - close burst X - and the the flavor is propped up (like sweeping blow or shift the battlefield f.e.).

The power is also a mechanic that needed to be designed. I am not sure how it doesn't matter.

 

[Fenes]

The power is also a mechanic that needed to be designed. I am not sure how it doesn't matter.

4E seems to be designed with "Striker, defender, controller, leader" roles in mind. Any flavor - anything other than the mechanics for those functions - is entirely optional. It really doesn't seem to matter at all if a power does fire damage or weapon damage, all that matters is the numbers/mechanics.

You could take the wizard, and rewrite all the flavor to "fighter" with not too much trouble (replace fireball with a thrown flask of oil, close burst spells become "wind of steel" or whatever, movement hindering spells become "hobbling strike" and so on.)

To some degree - with the quasi-magical powers that compell enemies to act in a certain way - it is clearly visible. Those pwoers were needed for a function/role, and so were added to the class, period. No flavor or fluff concerns entered that decision.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But that is not what the system actually does. I think that is important.

I could also try to reflavor a 3E Vancian Wizard as a Fighter, or a Bo9S Swordsage as a Wizard, selecting the right spells and changing the flavor text. That doesn't mean that the system assumes the flavor is irrelevant, since you are ignoring the flavor part of the system in the first place.

 

[Fenes]

But that is not what the system actually does. I think that is important.

I could also try to reflavor a 3E Vancian Wizard as a Fighter, or a Bo9S Swordsage as a Wizard, selecting the right spells and changing the flavor text. That doesn't mean that the system assumes the flavor is irrelevant, since you are ignoring the flavor part of the system in the first place.

The system actually does that. As long as you have a striker in the party it doesn't matter what kind of flavor it has. All that counts are the mechanics.

Of course you can reflavor 3E classes too - but those, especially prestige classes, are usually build with a theme in mind, not a function. In 4E, the function comes first and foremost. It is even clearly stated that they made sure your character will function in its role no matter what you do. So, it really doesn't matter if you call your striker a warlock or rogue or ranger, or what mechanics you use for any of the three, as long as it's a striker.

Flavor is irrelevant for the mechanics - which is also seen by the lack of "antimagic field" and similar things that may only affect one sort of powers.