Mearls' Chicken or the Egg: Should Fluff Control Crunch, or the Other Way Around?

[sciborg3]

In a well run game I don't the issue of control should come up. The gameworld and the events being driven by the participants should not conflict with the mechanics used to represent them.

What is happening in the campaign is in fact the game. Whatever rules are used to keep the wheels turning, the game should always take precedence.

Rules are a means to an end, not an end unto themselves. If a rule is no longer serving a purpose in the campaign throw it out or replace it.

Likewise, fluff is also subservient to the game. Aside from providing useful fodder with which we create games, fluff has no more importance than rules unless we intend on writing novels.

The best games feature crunch and fluff both serving thier purpose while staying out the way of everyones good time.

I think there's a danger to simply saying fluff is subservient - you end up with a dry system that has no feeling of inspiration. It works well for old players who have their own homebrews, but I remember being fascinated by the Manual of the Planes and the like far before I ever played.

People are drawn into a system because it allows them to approximate what is happening in their imaginations, which comes from the fluff. When fluff seems to promise something the crunch can't deliver, you have dissatisfaction. But if someone picking up the books feels no connection to the fluff (it is too general, or too bland) they are unlikely to feel any great need to play the game.

Fluff also sells the novels - something that helped TSR survive. I suspect more people will have read R.A. Salvatore's Drizz't novels than will ever play D&D in the future.

There is also the problem that new players will feel a distinction between fluff and the system - as in what the system portrays doesn't seem to mesh with their expectations of fantasy. I was looking through Primal Power today and for the life of me still am not sure what separates a Warden and a Druid in terms of fictional, not game related roles. Shaman is another one that seems to a Druid of a different cloth thematically.

I think there are many systems out there - D&D, PF, WoD, GURPS, and so on - and all of them have some fluff to go along with them, especially the more successful ones.

 

[rounser]

Likewise, fluff is also subservient to the game. Aside from providing useful fodder with which we create games, fluff has no more importance than rules unless we intend on writing novels.

In the case of D&D, I disagree almost entirely, and think that you're better off playing a game where this is true, such as Magic:The Gathering or chess. One of the main draws of D&D is that you're playing in a fantasy world, creating a fantasy world, believing in a fantasy world. Your prioritisation of gamist philosophy of design as being of more importance may injuriously compromise that, and is more suitable to designing a boardgame like Talisman or card game like poker. This misunderstanding of what D&D needs to deliver to it's audience, and getting the design priorities wrong, is potentially a major reason why D&D 4E has been so unpopular with much of the existing D&D audience.

The irony is that without evoking a semi-believable milieu within a D&D game, most of the reason to play D&D in the first place kind of disappears. If you can't believe in the world, or visualise any kind of logic or genre fidelity regarding what's happening there according to the rules, then you're better off with a game so abstract that it doesn't even tip it's cap to verisimilitude, because the suspension of disbelief is gone. You're better off reaching for the M:tG deck and using combinations of enchantments and monsters that make no logical sense. Because those who want to worldbuild obviously phoney worlds, playing with rules that map too often to "just because", is an even more niche audience than the one D&D already has.

 

[pemerton]

The 3e MM had more lore than the 4e one in almost every entry.

I don't agree with this. Unlike 2nd ed AD&D, I've read the 3E MM.

It tells me less about goblin history and hierarchies than does the 4e one. I don't recall it telling me more about orcs, ogres or giants (less history for the lattermost). It's entries on drow and spiders don't tell me anything about Lolth having once been a god of fate. In fact, the 3E MM has no mythic history that I recall - it engages the cosmology only by telling me the alignments of creatures and what planes they live on.

It may tell me a little more about what some creatures eat, or what terrain they prefer - I haven't done this sort of comparison - but at least for me that is not very important information. What do the creatures eat? Human-type food plus cannibilism for orcs etc, meat for carnivores, plants for herbivores, and generally that'll do (the issue of identifying creatures by the contents of their spore has never come up in any tracking situation I've GMed in 20 years). What terrain do they prefer? As a general rule, the terrain I want to put them in for my scenario! And where this does matter more than that - the chromatic dragons, underdark creatures, etc - the 4e MM tells me.

The 4e MM1 has a lot more in there than it appears on a superficial reading - you just need to know how to read it. Elements like shifty tell me how the monsters move and how to differentiate them in ways you just don't get in older monster manuals.

<snip>

Where it fails is telling me why I should care about the monsters. And more recent monster manuals (especially Monster Vault and Threats to the Nentir Vale) are much better at this.

I agree with the first paragraph but not so much the second. At least for my game, the MM did a good job of telling me why I should care about the monsters, because for all of them that are more than just beasts it locates them within the mythic history and cosmology of the gameworld.

What I find interesting is just how much of the MV text is the MM text just re-edited and repackaged! And much of the additional text that goes beyond that I personally find neither here nor there.

 

[pemerton]

it's not short distance teleportation because it's not a teleportation ability. It's not a displacer like ability to just "appear" in other places because, er, that's not how the ability works. I suppose you could see it as innate speediness or masterful tactical genius, except the ability is called "Shifty," which is an actual word that means things.

<snip>

I also feel as if you think that, unless an ability outright explains precisely what it is, why it is, how it is, etc, etc, then you feel it's Not Fluffy. In other words, if fluff isn't used to describe fluff, it doesn't count. I overwhelmingly disagree - fluff can be implied and supplied by the mechanics.

In 4e I realized alot about different monsters by trying to take advantage of all of a monsters abilities, for example the Banshrae. They get advantages for moving a large amount on their turn, and the ability to shift after hitting with a melee attack as a minor. This and the words used in their powers "Melee Agility" "Mantid Dance" "Skirmish" all tell me that they are quick and are constantly moving in combat, which isn't just because I decided that, it is because that is what they can do. That is even before factoring in that they have a speed of 8.

Now you could say I was just inferring, or it was up to interpretation, but a move action is defined as you walking/running. If you fly or teleport or anything else the power has keywords that say so.

I agree with both these posts. The notion that in determining what a creature is or does you would ignore the words used to describe its abilities is bizarre to me.

And the importance of keywords to 4e powers and abilities is also often overlooked. How do I know that a fireball can set a building alight, but Come and Get It can't? Because only the former has the fire keyword and delivers fire damage.

since almost every creature can shift, are they being sneaky and deceptive when they do the same thing the kobold did...only with more of their action economy being used up?

There seems to be a contradiction here. If we describe what a kobold does when s/he shifts as being "sneaky" - or, given that it has nothing to do with Stealth, which has its own mechanical subsytem, let's say "tricky" instead - then surely by definition someone who has a harder time of it isn't being as tricky.

4e's descriptors and labels for monster abilities aren't quite as rich as HeroQuest attributes and keywords. But they're not empty, either.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In the case of D&D, I disagree almost entirely, and think that you're better off playing a game where this is true, such as Magic:The Gathering or chess. One of the main draws of D&D is that you're playing in a fantasy world, creating a fantasy world, believing in a fantasy world. Your prioritisation of gamist philosophy of design as being of more importance may injuriously compromise that, and is more suitable to designing a boardgame like Talisman or card game like poker. This misunderstanding of what D&D needs to deliver to it's audience, and getting the design priorities wrong, is potentially a major reason why D&D 4E has been so unpopular with much of the existing D&D audience.

The irony is that without evoking a semi-believable milieu within a D&D game, most of the reason to play D&D in the first place kind of disappears. If you can't believe in the world, or visualise any kind of logic or genre fidelity regarding what's happening there according to the rules, then you're better off with a game so abstract that it doesn't even tip it's cap to verisimilitude, because the suspension of disbelief is gone. You're better off reaching for the M:tG deck and using combinations of enchantments and monsters that make no logical sense. Because those who want to worldbuild obviously phoney worlds, playing with rules that map too often to "just because", is an even more niche audience than the one D&D already has.

I think you might be confusing fluff with the game itself. The world that the playing group builds together and develops is the game. The non rules portion of published material is the fluff.

If you have ever changed details such as the place of certain monsters/races in your game world then you also believe that fluff is subservient to the game.

 

[Imaro]

Shifting has a certain consistent meaning through every monster that uses it (and that's all of them given that shifting one square is an option for move actions). It means moving cautiously and guardedly. Just because this isn't made absolutely explicit in the ruleset (which is a valid criticism, I agree) doesn't mean that it isn't consistent and what the term means.

Yep it sure does and it does not mean deceptive or sneaky... which was my point.

It's not a displacer effect because it doesn't have the teleportation keyword. This is hardly arbitrary. And teleporting has its own conditions (for instance you don't provoke Combat Challenges by teleporting - you vanish in the blink of an eye rather than take your eye off the fighter for a fraction to see where you are going). This is all consistent and coherent within 4e - it just isn't always made explicit.

Uhm, you know displacement isn't a teleportation power right? Now granted the instances I've seen have the illusion keyword so there is a case for the koolds power not being a displacement effect... though not based on anything you posted above... This still doesn't discount any of the other mundane reasons I posted which you have not addressed.

As apparently you do not play 4e, all I can say is that this mechanic makes Kobolds feel like slippery little buggers you can't pin down unless you are very good. They slip round any except specialist PCs as if there's no tomorrow and, at least as importantly, can all move both before and after they attack. Or dance into position for flanking better than almost anyone else of remotely comparable level. Or shift back, attack with their slings, and then take an entire normal move action to get away (possibly after having glue-potted you to the floor). This makes fighting Kobolds an excercise in trying to pin down the slippery little bastards.

Yeah, I do play 4e (Just refuse to run it now)... please don't assume. Second, IMO, it seems the "feel" of kobolds boils down to how good tactically your DM uses this ability vs. how good tactically the PC's can counter it as well as the description tehe DM uses when they move. Nothing in the description you gave above makes me think of sneaky and deceptive... quick and little, maybe. But then again it's all based on interpretation, like I said earlier.

However unless you have the right sort of mind to visualise that from reading stat blocks (I do) it's not immediately obvious. The 4e monster manuals would IMO be helped by a little two paragraph explanitory and tactical note by each set of monsters explaining how they are meant to work and a layman's guide to each tactical term (shifting being a favourite). The flavour is all there in buckets once the monsters hit the tabletop - but a lot of people would be helped by a decoder ring so they could see it in advance.

Or people could interpret it differently. They may need a decoder ring to get your exact interpretation of what being able to shift at will as a minor means but no, I think anybody figting against a kobold could iunterpret that power in numerous ways... all of which do not include sneaky or deceptive.

Edit: In 4e most of the time IMO the fluff controls the crunch. But in too many places the rules only tell you the crunch and assume that working backwards to the fluff is obvious. To some people (including me) it is. However I'm not everyone and clearer pathways would help a lot of people.

I just totally disagree with this... especially with how pervasive reskinning (as long as all the original rules are followed) has become.

 

[rounser]

I think you might be confusing fluff with the game itself. The world that the playing group builds together and develops is the game. The non rules portion of published material is the fluff.

That's a false dichotomy, and refers to definitions specific to you. Simple example is a D&D class, which has rules and archetypes mixed to create a whole. You'd be wrong to classify the paladin class as either all "fluff" or all "crunch", and D&D is full of such things, when it's designed right.

I am well aware that an FR setting book is mostly "fluff", but this thread is not about such an oversimplification. I think that shallow axioms such as "fluff bad, crunch good" lead to trouble anyway, because they trivialize a complex issue. It's like saying "eggs bad, flour good" when trying to make a cake. Sure, 2E arguably had too much setting material in books, and it didn't sell as well as "more crunchy" books, but again, shallow conclusions can be drawn from that. If you go the other way, lack of compelling worlds can cause people to drop the game entirely. I think Games Workshop "gets" this, as they spend many pages evoking a setting and identity for a bunch of toy soldiers. That approach may not work for D&D, as it's a fantasy world construction kit when designed right, but even more important since the action is even more imaginary.

If you have ever changed details such as the place of certain monsters/races in your game world then you also believe that fluff is subservient to the game.

Um, no. A lawful good ogre or an aquatic elf who lives on land is not what is at stake here, nor is it relevant. WOTC's 4E design believes in rules designs that don't map to anything you can point to even in a fantasy reality, for sake of convenience. That's a long way from deciding that a certain monster is outside it's listed terrain in the monster book, and the latter is justifiable anyway.

 

[Imaro]

I agree with both these posts. The notion that in determining what a creature is or does you would ignore the words used to describe its abilities is bizarre to me.

The problem is Shifty has no keywords... so at that point what do you draw on? Also, keywords aren't really used to differentiate mundane things... is their a "sneaky" keyword? A "quick" keyword? What keywords in the kobolds power tell us what is actually happening when it is used?

And the importance of keywords to 4e powers and abilities is also often overlooked. How do I know that a fireball can set a building alight, but Come and Get It can't? Because only the former has the fire keyword and delivers fire damage.

Again, what keywords do the mundane/martial actions use? Or is your argument just centered on the fact that it can't be a magical effect because of the missing keyword? If so I concede, however I came up with at least 3 mundane interpretations of the kobolds power... and no keywords are used to differentiate it.

There seems to be a contradiction here. If we describe what a kobold does when s/he shifts as being "sneaky" - or, given that it has nothing to do with Stealth, which has its own mechanical subsytem, let's say "tricky" instead - then surely by definition someone who has a harder time of it isn't being as tricky.

Why are we describing it that way... shifting is described as so in the PHB 1....

SHIFT
Moving through a fierce battle is dangerous; you must be careful to avoid a misstep that gives your foe a chance to strike a telling blow. The way you move safely when enemies are nearby is to shift.

Taking this excerpt on shifting makes it probable that kobolds are just very quick and very careful with how/where they move in combat, which paints a totally different picture than tricky and deceptive. What makes this interpretation wrong and the tricky and deceptive one correct?

4e's descriptors and labels for monster abilities aren't quite as rich as HeroQuest attributes and keywords. But they're not empty, either.

The kobold ability has no description/keywords/etc... so how does it inform anything about the fluff of kobolds in the game?

 

[Doug McCrae]

But did Gygax's partiality to Vancian "fluff" control the mechanics of the system--or was Vancian simply a mechanic that "made sense" to him, and thus controlled the fluff that surrounded it?

It was selected as a means to balance powerful magic.


The Dungeons & Dragons Magic System, Gary Gygax, Strategic Review #7 -

The four cardinal types of magic are those systems which require long conjuration with much paraphernalia as an adjunct (as used by Shakespeare in MACBETH or as typically written about by Robert E. Howard in his “Conan” yarns), the relatively short spoken spell (as in Finnish mythology or as found in the superb fantasy of Jack Vance), ultra-powerful (if not always correct) magic (typical of deCamp & Pratt in their classic “Harold Shea” stories), and the generally weak and relatively ineffectual magic (as found in J.R.R. Tolkien’s work). Now the use of magic in the game was one of the most appealing aspects, and given the game system it was fairly obvious that its employment could not be on the complicated and time consuming plane, any more than it could be made as a rather weak and ineffectual adjunct to swordplay if magic-users were to become a class of player character.

The basic assumption, then, was that D & D magic worked on a “Vancian” system and if used correctly would be a highly powerful and effective force.

...

Because the magic-using D & D player would have to be able to operate competitively with fellow players who relied on other forms of attack during the course of adventures, the already mentioned “Vancian” system was used as a basis, and spells of various sorts were carefully selected.

...

Magic-use was thereby to be powerful enough to enable its followers to compete with any other type of player-character, and yet the use of magic would not be so great as to make those using it overshadow all others.​

AD&D's Magic System:How and Why It Works, Gary Gygax, Dragon #7 -

Where should the magic power come from? Literature gave many possible answers, but most were unsuitable for a game, for they demanded that the spell-caster spend an inordinate amount of time preparing the spell. No viable adventurer character could be devised where a week or two of preliminary steps were demanded for the conjuration of some not particularly mighty spell. On the other hand, spell-casters could not be given license to broadcast magic whenever and wherever they chose.​

 

[pemerton]

shifting is described as so in the PHB 1....

SHIFT
Moving through a fierce battle is dangerous; you must be careful to avoid a misstep that gives your foe a chance to strike a telling blow. The way you move safely when enemies are nearby is to shift.

Taking this excerpt on shifting makes it probable that kobolds are just very quick and very careful with how/where they move in combat, which paints a totally different picture than tricky and deceptive.

<snip>

The kobold ability has no description

It does have a description (which is also a pun), namely, shifty. In combination with the rules text you cite - that to shift is to move carefully - plus the fact that kobolds do this more easily than normal (as a minor action) - we get the idea that by being tricky or deceptive or unexpected, they are able to move easily without misstep through a fierce battle.

I certainly arrived at this interpretation independently of the other posters on this thread, simply by reading the MM stat block in light of the rules. So there's at least a modest degree of non-collusive convergence on this interpretation.

Likewise for the brutishness of orcs.