Mechanics vs. Flavor text

[Hairfoot]

It's the peril of polls, Thaniel. Everyone wants to see an option which describes their attitude perfectly, and claims bias if they don't.

I prefer mechanics over flavour. Flavour text is great for introduction (especially for new players), and helps to give classes etc a place in a fantasy setting. But flavour can be a strait-jacket, too.

Take the warlock, for example. The mechanics lend themselves to many interpretations and styles of inherently-magical characters, but it seems difficult to tear it away from the goth/vampire style it's given in CA. I have similar troubles with the monk: I like the mechanics, but I can't seem to de-orientalise it enough to create a character I'd enjoy playing.

It's very D&D, though. The game is built around archetypes, and the flavour defines them. There are other, "classless" sytems which suit ground-up character-bulding better.

 

[Terwox]

I very much like characters creating the way that their spell looks and describing it upon casting. A wave of tiny darts, a swarm of bees, or five little glowing balls are all little differences between casters that can make magic missile a bit more interesting.

It's hardly necessary, though. But, I can certainly do without an example for every spell.

 

[Drowbane]

I voted for some. The designer's fluff for something isn't always going to match what people are going to want to do with it. Psionics and Incarnum are both good examples of this. When it comes down to it, mechanics provide the "how" and the Players and/or DM provide the "what".

I have a Warforged Totemist who doesn't shape Magical-Beast Soulmelds... he alters aspects of his own body. His name is Nanite.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Having some is nice, and that is the way I voted, because I like examples.

However, my primary system is HERO where you get mechanics and decide on the fluff (special effects) yourself.

You buy a 10d6 attack - it could be a laser blaster, a firebolt spell, a mutant optic blast or ....
The mechanics are the same (with possible variation) but the fluff is up to you. It allows you to have a character fluff and style that the game designers had never even imagined, but is still completely legal.

I, for one, love the new druid thing. Some simple examples would be cool, but more of a "this is how this could work" than "this is what it has to be"

 

[Thaniel]

Having some is nice, and that is the way I voted, because I like examples.

However, my primary system is HERO where you get mechanics and decide on the fluff (special effects) yourself.

You buy a 10d6 attack - it could be a laser blaster, a firebolt spell, a mutant optic blast or ....
The mechanics are the same (with possible variation) but the fluff is up to you. It allows you to have a character fluff and style that the game designers had never even imagined, but is still completely legal.

I, for one, love the new druid thing. Some simple examples would be cool, but more of a "this is how this could work" than "this is what it has to be"

I've seen HERO, and yes, I was thinking something along those lines.

I keep thinking of a warforged druid with the new ability... Multiple form Transformer!

 

[Hussar]

Some is nice. But, like others have mentioned, far too many people take fluff as equal to mechanics. Look at the recent Knight thread. People cannot seem to divorce the class from its fluff in order to play it. While fluff is great, it has its place. IMO, fluff is best when describing campaign settings or things with no mechanical implications. Trying to tie fluff to mechanics leads to very poor mechanics.

But, it's nice to have a few lines in there just to give an example.

 

[Gold Roger]

I voted some fluff. I want that stuff to get inspiration, but I don't want to feel streightjacketed to that one description.

For example incarnum. The mechanics are great, but the fluff is pure blech, imho. Unborn souls are used but not damaged. Solid items formed out of that soulstuff (that still isn't damaged). Only now, that I reread it with total disregard for the fluff I realized how great it is. Thereafter I could create my own explanations based on some of the better fluff in the book.

Another example is the monk. Once you learn to disregard the purely pseudo-oriental flavor it has great potential on flavor, but many people feel streightjacketed to that one flavor (and in turn often even bann it).

Yes, pure crunch is dry and booring and I wouldn't enjoy the books if they didn't come with the fluff. But on PC abilities I don't want to feel like I can present them only one way. I want option in fluff as much as I want option in crunch.

 

[hexgrid]

Presenting something as pure unadulterated crunch is just dumb, and it does an active disservice to the game.

How so? This is the underlying philosophy of effect based systems like HERO, BeSM, and Mutants & Masterminds. Keeping the description separate from the effects gives GMs and players the ultimate flexibility to generate mechanics for whatever fluff they have in mind.

It's a lot more work, though.

 

[Tonguez]

MY homebreww magic system was a mechanics based system which allowed players (and DMs) to create spell effects and then apply a tradition (flavour) to it, The rational when creating the system was to ask why should a 1d10 fireball be any different to a 1d10 lightning bolt or hail of thorns? amd imdeed why can't I create a fireball using different mechanics?

SO a spell effect was defined by

Discipline, Range, Target, Duration, Force and Complexity

eg
Fireball
Discipline:Conjuration, RAnge:20ft, Target:10ft area, Duration:Instant, Force: = 1d6, Complexity:Simple
Tradition: Fire

Same Mechanics with Tradition: Magma = Magma blast
Same Mechanics with Tradition:Nature (Druid) = Hail of Thorns
Same Mechanics with Tradition: Weather = Lightning

Fireball III (different mechanic)
Discipline:Manipulation, RAnge:Short, Target:20ft area, Duration:Instant, Force: = 1d6, Complexity:Requires Material component - flame

Anyway
A spellcaster would choose 3 disciplines and a tradition with which to create all their spell effects so Miranda the Weather Witch might be

Disciplines: Manipulation, Clairsentience, Transformation Tradition:Weather

Miranda has the ability to manipulate air currents and atmospheric electricity (lightning) to create a number of effects including calling a lightning bolt from the sky.
She can feel the weather and so predict it and she can also use her sensitivity to electricity to detect the unseen and even read the emotions of others (empathy).
Mieanda also has the ability to transform herself, objects or other people into gaseous or windlike forms (whirlwinds).

 

[Land Outcast]

MY homebreww magic system...

Not to Hijack, but: care to share?

I'm deeply intrigued about spell-creation systems.