Mechanics vs. Flavor text

[Thaniel]

This poll was prompted by the new druid shapeshifting variant in the PHB2. For those who aren't familiar, this ability gives several different 'shapes' that are only described in terms of mechanics. For instance, there's a Predator form, an Aerial form, etc. The flavor is up to the player in question (as to whether he wants his Predator form to look like a wolf, or a panther, or even a dinosaur or whatnot).

And it got me thinking whether people wanted more flavor text forcefed to them or if they would rather make up their own flavor with the given mechanics. I thought about spells as well. I just want to know the range, targets, and core mechanical effect. Let me tell you what it looks like.

What are people's thoughts on this?

 

[Land Outcast]

hum... I really really like the idea? sounds fair?

 

[Shemeska]

The poll is fundamentally flawed and borderline insulting.

Presenting something as pure unadulterated crunch is just dumb, and it does an active disservice to the game. The inclusion of flavor text, fluff, textual examples, etc shouldn't be taken as 'here's how it looks for those of you too lazy to make it up on your own', but rather as inspiration for how it might be done. Crunch without fluff is dry and uninspiring, and as such it's the only real serious problem I have with 3.x. Now with the PHB II material that defaults to crunch and nothing more it seems like backsliding at the very least.

I want lots of flavor text, I want well written and evocative flavor text, much more so than mechanics, but don't assume I don't create my own or that I stick religiously to the fluff that is presented.

 

[ThirdWizard]

So fireball should be fire damage III? Various demons should just be a bunch of stats with no description? Nah, I like flavor text.

 

[Thaniel]

So fireball should be fire damage III? Various demons should just be a bunch of stats with no description? Nah, I like flavor text.

Obviously monsters need flavor text. Monsters are not a collection of stats, at least I don't think they should be. I was speaking from an ability standpoint.

Take monks for instance. A monk's unarmed strike can be an elbow, head, knee, foot, fist, etc. It doesn't tell you how to make it look, therefore it opens itself up for lots of different variations and styles. And, I think a wizard's spells should look different from any other wizard's spells, though apprentices would start from a baseline set by their instructors.

I'm not saying there should be NO fluff (I myself voted for the middle option), but I want personal style to be discussed more in the books.

 

[Roadkill101]

I like fluff, give me plenty of description to get the creative juices flowing, even if the description is only an example.

 

[Jdvn1]

I like me a good mix. Sometimes they have good fluff ideas, but I don't hesitate to shake it up a bit.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The example was a druid changing into a "predator" so I thought it a logical outgrowth for monsters to be "strong humanoid" (orcs, bugbears, etc) or "small humanoid" (kobolds, goblins, etc) or whatever. Thing is, I could easily see an RPG taking this route, and while it would be a perfectly acceptable thing, I do think it clashes with what I personally want out of an RPG.

As for spells, I generally do have them be customized to the spellcaster to a degree. A magic missile as cast by a PC in my current game blinks in and out of existance several times as it flies forward until striking, for example. These are little twists that are fun and interesting.

But, at the same time I don't want to have to come up with stuff (or have the PCs come up with stuff) for everything, only the things that are important in the context of the current campaign, of which will shift from game to game. So, IMO it is best to just describe everything and let the players decide what they want to change and what they want to keep.

 

[Glyfair]

OI'm not saying there should be NO fluff (I myself voted for the middle option), but I want personal style to be discussed more in the books.

I think a better poll would gauge how much flavor you'd want with your "crunch."

I voted in the middle, but I tend towards the "allow me to add the fluff" option, as far as core rules go. Some things need a certain amount of flavor (especially campaign specific bits). Err on the side of minimal fluff, and allow me to add my own without having an assumed baseline.

 

[Odhanan]

The phrasing of the question is misleading. I thought that was a much broader subject than flavor lines for spells and abilities at first.

I voted "some". I like to read examples, but I like to come up with my own descriptions of spell effects as a DM or player. If a DM was to scowl at me because "that couldn't look this way, since book XX describes it that way" I'd be frustrated.

For instance, let's say I'm interested in playing a Totemist in a D&D game. If the DM insists that the powers have to look like they are described in Magic of Incarnum, I think I would play another character altogether.