How to deal with the simultaneous demand for and aversion to "flavor" in RPG books?

[lgburton]

I like flavor, I like crunch. Crunch is more transportable, but flavor is easier to read and gives me inspiration to create my own stuff. So I like both.

ditto, though not to the rest of your post. i really like having both - for example, lords of madness wasn't that "crunchy" compared to a lot of things, but i really enjoyed it because of the readable fluff. the crunch might have place in my game at some point, and the background fluff will need to be adapted.. but i really enjoyed the book, and that's what matters to me.

 

[Glyfair]

Generic material is derided as bland and boring, yet if one adds details, one gets shot down for making it harder to adapt to someone else's campaign. Flat, matter-of-fact descriptive text is deemed unevocative, yet one isn't "allowed" to use any sort of distinctive voice - at least if one wishes to avoid getting stomped all over for being less than crystal-clear. No setting and structure leaves users hanging, but any at all is apparently too much.

This is certainly an overstatement. Of course you are "allowed" to use a distinctive voice. However, at a certain point you are moving away from adding flavor and into being so specific that adapting is a lot of work.

For example, say you are writing an adventure that takes place in a town. Using generic names "inn," "tavern" or "mayor," makes it boring. Adding names and personalities (and of course, interactions between personalities) can make it perfectly interesting.

Past that, you start risking alienating an audience. If you add a culture to the town, you risk it not fitting into a campaign. The more you move away from the mainstream, the less likely it transport well. For example, if you start describing how the town is affected by the two suns beating down on it, and the monthly magic rainstorms, you probably won't get many people who will move this into their campaigns.

Also, the smaller the scope, the easier it is to adapt. A town can probably fit in most campaigns. When you specify a region, a GM has to find a region to fit it in. If you specify a country, then a GM has to either find a place to fit a country or find a country that's close to what you describe (again, the further you diverge from the mainstream, the less likely that this can happen).

If you want the biggest audience, your best bet is to describe everything you need to describe and flesh it out. Don't go too far away from the mainstream assumptions outside of what you are covering (you can make things odd in the town, but don't assume that the country has something odd about it).

 

[NewLifeForm]

Flavor vs. Setting

Once, long, long ago, there was an rpg setting called World of Darkness. It had a very distinct style and flavor, but each of it's books had only enough material to play the game and help the Storyteller (that's what it called GMs) create a modern gothic horror game.

Then it turned into a monster. Every element had it's own sourcebook. You couldn't tell your players how the Tremere came to be, because the players had bought THE TREMERE BOOKTM. You couldn't decide where your campaign was going because the supplements did it for you. The World of Darkness eventually spiraled out of control and was destroyed. And now it is reborn.

No thanks. not this time.

Flavor is...

"The Dwarves of the Hillsburg view business and trade as an art form, and any one who can sell to other Dwarves as quite the renaissance master..."

This is different from saying...

"All Dwarves care about is money. If your Dwarf character doesn't make money he is viewed as weak by all other Dwarves, no exception, so there!"

I am seriously waiting for the game that understands this. I'm writing my own homebrew based on several campaigns I've run in a world very different in appearence and personality from "standard" D&D, but I'll be damned if I don't have Elves, Dwarves, Wizards, Dragons and all the things that are staples of medieval fantasy. At the same time I never say that the Elves I've created are the only Elves. I give a reason why there are Elves and allow for the individual GM to create their own variants and stories about them.

Another example is Star Trek or Star Wars. Both are excellent and far from generic universes, each with it's own deffinitive elements. At the same time, built into the very fabric of each is the idea that there is more then you have seen. Other worlds, other ships and other stories are waiting to be told, though they are waiting to be told in a Star Trek or Star Wars manner.

NewLifeForm

 

[Aus_Snow]

[...] I realized it was not fluff I disdained, but bad, poorly written fluff.

So yeah. Bring on the fluff. If it's well written, interesting, and contributes to the game. Sadly, most isn't.

HTNOTH.

 

[ssampier]

ditto, though not to the rest of your post. i really like having both - for example, lords of madness wasn't that "crunchy" compared to a lot of things, but i really enjoyed it because of the readable fluff. the crunch might have place in my game at some point, and the background fluff will need to be adapted.. but i really enjoyed the book, and that's what matters to me.

What part did you disagree with? The part about the dwarves with eyepatches or the part about matching crunch to setting or fluff?

 

[Andor]

HTNOTH.

Heavily Thewed Norseman Organizes Tea House?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Heavily Thewed Norseman Organizes Tea House?

Now there's a disturbing thought.

 

[philreed]

I like to hide fluff inside the crunch. Makes for a tasty surprise.

 

[scourger]

I like to hide fluff inside the crunch. Makes for a tasty surprise.

And a great read, I find.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

Flavor (gaming) is like Flavor (cooking)

Too little is bland. Too much is overpowering.

All we want is "just right".