Fluff vs Crunch

[Irda Ranger]

Isn't the fundamental mechanical changes more important?

I certainly think they are more important. For one thing, they're a lot harder to write. I can write fluff for hours at a stretch, but that's easy. Writing good rules is hard work, and often requires math I don't have the time or inclination to do.

I've taken a look at the fluff, and some it's cool, some of it's boring or dumb (to me), but for the most part I don't care. I can re-write it.

BUT, there's a curious intersection of the two. Certain fluff and rules are very intertwined; and in two different ways.

Certain rules "work" because of fluff reasons. For example, 4E Dwarves get a +X to attack versus Giants because they were once enslaved by them. If you don't like slavery angle you either need to come up with a new explanation for the same ability, or replace it with a comparable one. This is (a little) inconvenient either way, and I can see why some people complain that this causes them work when WotC had to real incentive to make this change ("Change for change's sake!"). Rules on planar travel and the "fluffy" cosmology and godly realms are also examples of the close interconnection of fluff and rules.

The other intersection (and the far more annoying one, to my mind) is where rules are given "fluffy" names, like "Emerald Frost" or "Golden Wyvern Adept." People who object to this (because they don't like the name for fluffy reasons) object to either having to use the name in a "rules" discussion or going through the entire PHB and giving them all "better" names (whatever that means to that person). Even then, those "better" names are house rules only, and they'll still have to call it GWA on a board such as EN World for lack of a standardized and generic alternative.

Of course, that above argument also applies to many things we already have in the game, such as the Class names. The names "Paladin" and "Wizard" are a bit fluffy. A more generic name for Wizard might be "Arcane Controller" or "Arcane Generalist Spellcaster" or "Arcane Implement Spellcaster." But "Wizard" is established and people are used to it.

So yeah, the fundamental rules are MORE important. But that doesn't make the rest UNimportant.

 

[Agamon]

Certain rules "work" because of fluff reasons. For example, 4E Dwarves get a +X to attack versus Giants because they were once enslaved by them. If you don't like slavery angle you either need to come up with a new explanation for the same ability, or replace it with a comparable one. This is (a little) inconvenient either way, and I can see why some people complain that this causes them work when WotC had to real incentive to make this change ("Change for change's sake!"). Rules on planar travel and the "fluffy" cosmology and godly realms are also examples of the close interconnection of fluff and rules.

Okay, this I can understand. I, for one, hated that alignment was tied in with the rules of the game. It made it difficult to ignore or just use as a descriptor. In fact, this reason alone is why I'm more on the 'willing to try it' side than the other.

I think, though, with the races especially, that their fluff needs to tie in with the rules. Unless you want races that are only cosmetically different but are the same statistically. And at least they're giving some sort of reason for them. Things like level limits in older editions made no sense, except as a Chainmail carry over.

The other intersection (and the far more annoying one, to my mind) is where rules are given "fluffy" names, like "Emerald Frost" or "Golden Wyvern Adept." People who object to this (because they don't like the name for fluffy reasons) object to either having to use the name in a "rules" discussion or going through the entire PHB and giving them all "better" names (whatever that means to that person). Even then, those "better" names are house rules only, and they'll still have to call it GWA on a board such as EN World for lack of a standardized and generic alternative.

Of course, that above argument also applies to many things we already have in the game, such as the Class names. The names "Paladin" and "Wizard" are a bit fluffy. A more generic name for Wizard might be "Arcane Controller" or "Arcane Generalist Spellcaster" or "Arcane Implement Spellcaster." But "Wizard" is established and people are used to it.

See, and this is what doesn't really bug me much. Would I rather they use something more simple and generic? Sure. But my FR and homebrew games weren't ruined by the inclusion of Mordenkainen's name in front of spells in the PHB. My players knew Mordy was a Greyhawk dude and that his name was just dressing to be ignored. I don't see this as much different, let alone a deal breaker.

 

[PeelSeel2]

I agree with what the one poster said.

Anyone want to buy a boat?

 

[Irda Ranger]

See, and this is what doesn't really bug me much. Would I rather they use something more simple and generic? Sure. But my FR and homebrew games weren't ruined by the inclusion of Mordenkainen's name in front of spells in the PHB. My players knew Mordy was a Greyhawk dude and that his name was just dressing to be ignored. I don't see this as much different, let alone a deal breaker.

Really? Of the two, this bothers me more.

As others have pointed out, the use of the name Mordekainan is no inconvenience because it was immediately followed by something descriptive ("Mansion; Sword; etc."). Also, the only thing it makes you assume about your world is that someone, somewhere, at some point in history was named Mordekainan. That's a very light imposition.

GWA provides no guidance at all, and assumes 1) your campaign has both Gold and Wyverns, and 2) that Golden Wyvern is an acceptable name for that feat. What if in your campaign there are no Wyverns and Gold is the exclusive symbol of the Sun God Amon-Ra? That messes things up the way "Spellshaper Adept" (or equivalent) never does.

 

[PeterWeller]

Certain rules "work" because of fluff reasons. For example, 4E Dwarves get a +X to attack versus Giants because they were once enslaved by them. If you don't like slavery angle you either need to come up with a new explanation for the same ability, or replace it with a comparable one. This is (a little) inconvenient either way, and I can see why some people complain that this causes them work when WotC had to real incentive to make this change ("Change for change's sake!"). Rules on planar travel and the "fluffy" cosmology and godly realms are also examples of the close interconnection of fluff and rules.

Well, to be fair, Dwarves have always had a bonus to hit against Giants. 4E has just taken greater steps to explain why they have this bonus to hit. It seems like a lot of the surface fluff rewriting is along these lines, explicitly explaining why a race can do something and tying it into an implied shared backstory.

 

[PeterWeller]

GWA provides no guidance at all, and assumes 1) your campaign has both Gold and Wyverns, and 2) that Golden Wyvern is an acceptable name for that feat. What if in your campaign there are no Wyverns and Gold is the exclusive symbol of the Sun God Amon-Ra? That messes things up the way "Spellshaper Adept" (or equivalent) never does.

Don't get me wrong now, a descriptive name would be a lot more convenient, but GWA isn't forcing any fluff into your campaign. Just because it's the name of a feat in the PHB doesn't mean you have to go around calling it that. I didn't rename Bull Rush for my Dark Sun campaign just because that world doesn't have any bulls.

 

[Betote]

I certainly think they are more important. For one thing, they're a lot harder to write. I can write fluff for hours at a stretch, but that's easy. Writing good rules is hard work, and often requires math I don't have the time or inclination to do.

"Good" is the keyword here. I can write rules or fluff for hours. Writing good rules or fluff is the tricky part.

Fortunately, we don't need good fluff: just write us some critters to kill and take stuff from!

 

[Betote]

See, and this is what doesn't really bug me much. Would I rather they use something more simple and generic? Sure. But my FR and homebrew games weren't ruined by the inclusion of Mordenkainen's name in front of spells in the PHB. My players knew Mordy was a Greyhawk dude and that his name was just dressing to be ignored. I don't see this as much different, let alone a deal breaker.

Bigby's Crushing Hand is a hand that crushes. Melf's Acid Arrow is an arrow made of acid. Emerald Fungus Worshipper lets you... ehm...

 

[Cadfan]

Golden Wyvern Adept provides information. It tells you that the spell is about shaping a magical effect.

Really, everyone's complaining about the fluff because they aren't happy about the edition and they don't have much rules material to attack. Its not hard to tell. If someone JUST NOW noticed that halfling = kender, and is blaming it on 4e, they're looking for trouble.

 

[Agamon]

Are we assuming, by the way, that all of the feats have flowery non-descriptive names? If we are, I agree, that would be both annoying and confusing.

If it was just the one or two, I'm not sure it's too big of a problem.