How do you feel about Fluff in your Crunch?

[Najo]

Ok, Golden Wyverns Adepts, Lightning Panther Strikes, Dragon Tail Cuts (if they really took them out then ignore)...

One camp is saying that these colorful naming conventions add to the rules. That they help improve the fantasy feel of the game. This camp likes these changes. They feel that the names are no big deal, and if you don't like them .. then change them.

The other camp feels these names infiringe of the feel of their campaigns. That this fluff built onto core game mechanics makes it hard to remove the feel of them from the game, and thus hurts the story and atmosphere of your game worlds.

So, where do each of you stand on this? Please take the poll above and let us know.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Had to vote the fourth. Ultimately, for my defense of the new gamer and the new edition, my feelings about it are selfish. I'm such a picky game omnivore that I -assume- I'll hate parts of a game while loving others before I ever pick it up, and I only ever play with my own group anyway.

I find "Golden Wyvern Adept relates to making 'holes' in your area spells" much less intrusive on my world-building efforts than the "Magic that doesn't come from the gods comes in the form of discreet and specific spells which the caster memorizes from texts written with special expensive inks, then forgets in their entirety upon casting", or "Warriors who live and work in the wilderness fight with two weapons" that 2e gave us.

My current thought for those feats? Tradition. When a wizard shows an aptitude for leaving blank spaces in spells with an area effect, he is commonly addressed by other wizards as a 'Golden Wyvern Adept'. No-one actually knows why save that it's always been that way, though prominent wizards and sages have long, rambling, contradictory explanations.

If the players care enough to have the PCs investigate, I'll make something up. Wizard magic always felt like "leftovers from those awesome wizards of legend' anyhow.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

It really doesn't bother me all that much. If that's the way they want to write it, that's fine. I care more about they way the game plays than the way the game reads. When we come to the table the names often don't matter anyway. The Golden Wyvern Adept would probably go something like this:

"I cast Fireball and leave a hole around Morax so he doesn't get burned by it."
"You have the feat to do that?"
"Yes, Golden Wyvern Adept. I took it last level."

Sure, you need to know that "Golden Wyvern Adept" is the right feat, which is little harder than knowing "Shape Spell", but people will learn it or have notes to remind them.

 

[Hussar]

Listen to Thornir, he is wise.

People complained endlessly that 3e's core books were bland and boring. Absolutely no flavour. Well, be careful what you wish for. You wanted flavor in your core books, now you got it in spades.

 

[OakwoodDM]

I voted the last one as well, because, quite honestly, it won't make a difference to me. If I like the game, I'll play and enjoy it regardless of the naming conventions.

As far as I'm concerned, there has always been fluff in my crunch (noting that my crunch started with 2nd Ed AD&D). If that's one of the things that has stayed the same, so be it.

 

[Wormwood]

People complained endlessly that 3e's core books were bland and boring. Absolutely no flavour. Well, be careful what you wish for. You wanted flavor in your core books, now you got it in spades.

*applause*

 

[D.Shaffer]

I really dont care, honestly.

If I like the name, I'll use it
If I DONT like the name, I'll jot it on my character sheet and describe it the way I want to.
No big loss either way as I'm mostly just going to be looking at the mechanics.

 

[Wombat]

If the fluff fits my particular world, I don't tend to have a problem with it; if it doesn't fit my world, it needs to go.

So far I am seeing a much more wuxia/anime/console game feel to these names for feats -- something I would never use in my games, as I tend more towards fantasy European. Thus the names would all have to go.

 

[Counterspin]

Umm, don't you have to change the rules to be house ruling something? This is, after all, a name issue. Referring to the act of renaming things as "Houseruling" seems overdramatic.

 

[Uzzy]

Keep Fluff for the Settings books. Seems pretty simple to me.