Flavour matters

[MerricB]

In amongst the changes that the D&D designers are making to 4e, I hope they remember that the "fluff" of D&D is actually quite important.

Flavour matters.

Now, this may seem rather stupid and obvious (and it may be) when you look at the arguments over the revealed changes on EN World, but I thought it'd be a good idea to look at one of the most mechanically sound books in late-3.5e, which got sunk by an ill-considered story surrounding it:

Magic of Incarnum

If you look at one of the other new system books of late 3.5e - Tome of Magic - you couldn't get a bigger difference in reaction. Tome of Magic is mechanically, a mess. My overall impression of the reaction on the boards to Tome of Magic was "great ideas, pity about the mechanics".

However, Magic of Incarnum has the other problem: great mechanics, but the story behind the system - drawing on the power of souls - didn't connect with many people. Heck, I don't really like it that much. And the alignment restrictions? Huh? Why are they there?

As a result, MoI didn't even get a chance to be looked at.

A new book gets looked at for story (flavour), and gets played repeatedly if it has good mechanics.

Honestly, most of the changes I'm seeing to the "story" of D&D really connect for me. Sure, it's not quite the "story" of previous editions... but that story changed several times anyway, depending on what edition it was.

However, for some core elements, if the "story" elements don't connect... watch out!

(That's my main fear with Tieflings being included; much like Warforged in Eberron. Or Gnomes.)

Cheers!

 

[helium3]

I think its weird that ENworld is telling me I'm the only person that has even looked at this thread.

You're absolutely correct that story matters, which is why the PHB needs to contain fluff. I'm not so sure that the flavor I've seen so far connects with me, but that's pretty typical for me and I'll likely give 4E a shot even if the "story" sucks.

MoI was pretty good, huh? Like everyone else, I just dismissed it out of hand.

 

[Sundragon2012]

IMO, the flavor of a game via its lore matters more than mechanics in an actual role-playing game. I'm not denigrating roll-players out there but I would think that those who are primarily into "kill the beast, take the loot, level up" as their primary mode of play don't likely have a horse in the race of the 4e lore debate. The lore create the flavor of the game. This is true of both the core game and individual settings.

I think that the lore of a game sets the tone of the game. Look at White Wolf games, they are filled with lore and atmosphere and really get it across what the game is about. I read quite a bit of WW materials and that material is often deep and thought provoking...way moreso than most of what I have seen in D&D. They have a specific flavor based on the lore provided.

I understand the passion for prior lore. I don't share it, but I understand it. There is a nostalgia to it and a sense of tradition attached to it that no new lore can touch precisely because it is new lore. However, I don't see why the change to the core lore makes 4e so unappealing to so many. Do that many people use these things as written that it will destroy your personal campaign if it is altered? What is the vested interest in maintaining the cosmological status quo? Does it matter that much whether an erinyes and a succubus are demons or devils or whatnot? Does Grazz't really impact enough campaigns to cause dread that he may be lost to the ranks of demonkind?

I have always seen D&D as a toolbox with some unique D&Disms that are sometimes useful like beholders, the Underdark, llithids, drow, etc. and sometimes IMO not-so-great such as the Great Wheel, alignment mechanics, vancian magic, the Blood War, etc. As a toolbox you keep the good and dump the rest.

I want D&D to be largely a transparent rule set that lends no flavor except the flavor of a heroic fantasy role-playing game. I have never DM'd D&D with the goal of being a D&D DM. I love D&D but my campaigns take place in settings with their own lore and flavor. D&D is the rules I use to create the stories and the adventures. I don't needs its assumptions crowding my settings with some D&D metaflavor.

I know my argument can be used against me as well. "If its just a toolbox, why not just keep the old lore and use it or not as you prefer?" Fair enough.

I think that the D&D reboot is a good thing. A lot of odd and self-contradictory material has been built up during the last 30yrs and it is IMO a good idea to revisit and surgically remove those things that are unnecessary and excessively complex for a non-setting specific game. D&D is going to be setting free in 4e. This requires a simplifiying of things IMO. The lore creates the flavor and if you want to change the flavor, you change the lore. For example, Planescape wouldn't be Planescape without Sigil, Factions and the Lady of Pain. These things are intrinsic to the flavor of a PS campaign.

With a change of the Great Wheel cosmology comes of clearing of the board and a new flavor to the game. There is no mechanical reality to alignment in 4e so, the alignment based planes have got to go. If they didn't they would bring with them the flavor of the previous editions of the game. With the changing of devils and demons comes another new flavor to the game. All of these changes are IMO good because I think D&D will start to look like something other than a weird artifact of Gygax's imaginings and more in step with broader fantasy tropes.

This is my rambling on flavor for now....its getting late and the later it gets, the more tired I become and then I become even more prone to directionless rambling.

Flavor matters greatly.



Sundragon

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Both of my thumbs point into the heavens regarding this thread.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

From what I have seen so far, I really love the new mechanics and changes to gameplay in 4th ed.
But the flavor so far has disappointed me.
I do not like Tieflings as a core race (PC1: "yep, daddy was a bearded devil and what is with you?" PC2"No, my parents were fine. Granny was a succubus." PC3 "Really, what was her name? Because my Mommy was a succubus too" PC4 -mumbling- "And I play a Dwarf, Son of Dwarfs... that is boring...DM, let me change my race, want to play a Tiefling. My Characters' Daddy will be a PIT FIEND").
And I hate what I have heard so far of the new Hell and Abyss setting.

I know that I can change what i want of the setting but nonetheless, my anticipation of 4th changed from Yeah to Maybe.

 

[Daztur]

Hmmmm, I don't much care for D&D flavor in general and tend to ignore it almost completely in the games I DM. What I care about is whether the mechanics are able to help me tell the stories that I want to tell. What I found with 3.5ed (and previous editions) was that there were a lot of inflexibilities and contradictions build into the system that made them hard to use in a lot of cases. It seems that 4ed is going fairly straight high magic with the mechanics, so I'll use 4ed for the high fantasy campaign I want to run next year and Harn or a heavily houseruled Conan d20 for low fantasy games.

In any case I don't see my players ever encountering a beholder, drow or D&D-style demon/evil.

 

[Wombat]

This is, in many ways, why I try to fit the rules to the setting rather than the setting to the rules.

Fluff does matter. It is the heart and soul of the game.

Do we really get together to game to move a piece of metal around on a board to determine whether one die roll correctly matches a predetermined number?

No.

We move our heroes forward into combat, relying on our skill, luck, and determination to slay foul beasts!

That is the difference between crunch and fluff.

Yes, you need good, solid crunch, something that will describe and put parameters around the actions you wish engage in, but without a context for those rules, all they are is a set of vague mathematical equations.

We come to the table to emulate Conan, King Arthur, Herakles, D'Artagnan, and James T. Kirk, not simply engage our minds in mathematical theory.

 

[mcrow]

The Flavor is what makes D&D, D&D.

That's why despite several editions of the rules D&D has always still felt like D&D. Hopefully they keep the flavor in 4E.

 

[Jhaelen]

Flavour IS important. It's the main reason I've always liked psionics. 3E finally had a sound and balanced system but I didn't like the flavour as much as in 2E. And don't even get me started on the mess that was 'Complete Psionic'. This totally killed psionics for me - because of the totally wrong flavour. That wasn't all I disliked about it, but it was the worst offender.

I really hope 4E psionics will be as flavorful as they once were.

 

[BryonD]

Yes, you need good, solid crunch, something that will describe and put parameters around the actions you wish engage in, but without a context for those rules, all they are is a set of vague mathematical equations.

We come to the table to emulate Conan, King Arthur, Herakles, D'Artagnan, and James T. Kirk, not simply engage our minds in mathematical theory.

Very true.

However, I think the OP shows exactly why WotC should be really really slow and careful trying to build fluff into the books. You might want King Arthur and I might want James T. Kirk. And yet they publish a book that assumes James Bond.

No matter which angle you take, you end up with a minority who really want that, and the book flops.

Yes, the story is most absolutely critical. But a book that ties to tell you what your story should be, or even just nudges you in a particular direction, is a negative.

Fluff should be kept in mind every step of the way. But instead of keeping it in mind in such a way that it controls the book, the opposite should be done. The books are best done when they are crunch heavy and built with the mindset of supporting the fluff that each group wants to bring to their game.

A popular campaign setting, or a one-off book built around an established cool idea, is a good thing. But keep the raw guts of the game as unrestrictive as possible.