Reasons for Fluff etc. (Perkins' blog)

[Chris_Nightwing]

My worry is that too much implied flavour will stifle the creativity of my players, confuse people when other settings are released and detract from making a more universal set of mechanics for fantasy roleplay. D&D has its inherent themes, and they're fine, but I really draw the line at naming the college that all Warmages go to, or providing magical traditions that are sufficiently complex that you can't just plug and play your own (which Noonan seemed to suggest).

I want good, solid mechanics that aren't caught up in fluff. Yes, there has to be some, but the sort of level we had in the 3.X PHB was fine for me. Even the 'Barbarians don't like Paladins' stuff made sense when you considered the archetypes, and you didn't have to roleplay it that way. However, there were seldom mechanics tied specifically to this 'background' information. I'd have been even happier if the suggested deities had moved to the DMG, since with the domain system it was extremely simple to create your own deities (and for players to do so as well as the DM).

So if there must be this sort of fluff, tied to specific mechanics, make it malleable and put it in the DMG, please.

 

[Thundershield]

Except most people don't have the same preference of D&D setting. Anything at all that you use in the core rules flavor-wise, even just the simple inclusion of certain classes, feats, races, spells, or whatnot in the PHB (like the inclusion of warlocks and tieflings, or the inclusion of bards or paladins or whatnot) carries some implication of setting that some people may disagree with.

But as long as the core rules include some reasonably generic/standard flavor text, they shouldn't conflict with too many peoples' tastes in fantasy settings. A majority of people will not object to dwarves being gruff and quarrelsome, for example, because it's fairly typical fantasy fare. It's not like the designers are going to include mention of extremely social, well-mannered, pacifist dwarves in the PHB, which would conflict with the majority of peoples' general expectations.

Regardless of a relatively small number of peoples' homebrews, many D&D settings have fairly similar concepts of 'dwarvishness' or 'wizardness' or 'druidness' etc., that won't be negatively impacted by the inclusion of standard flavor text in the PHB.

Indeed, even "core" material wasn't welcome in the setting inspired by Oriental Adventures. You don't have Paladins or Bards in feudal Japan (or Rokugan), and while that isn't the "classic" D&D setting, it's not that far off. Here it's just my example of a custom setting. Likewise, many didn't find the "named" spells to fit with their settings.

Ultimately, it's just fluff and as such it can be modified in any way you like. And let's not forget the beauty of D&D: It's modularity. If you don't like Tieflings being more abundant (which is relative, mind) in your campaign setting, just don't. If you don't like Warlock having to associate with dark powers but instead, just rename their abilities. "Baleful Utterance" could very easily become the celestial "Word of Unmaking", extracted from the Words of Creation much like the Utterance is part of the Dark Speech.

Seriously, if you're picky about your campaign setting you'd write several pages of house rules anyway, so why cry over the "core" material not fitting your setting 100%...

 

[Plane Sailing]

My worry is that too much implied flavour will stifle the creativity of my players, confuse people when other settings are released and detract from making a more universal set of mechanics for fantasy roleplay. D&D has its inherent themes, and they're fine, but I really draw the line at naming the college that all Warmages go to, or providing magical traditions that are sufficiently complex that you can't just plug and play your own (which Noonan seemed to suggest).

I've always found that implied flavour (or even explicit flavour!) is inspirational, and stimulates peoples creativity.

In the late 70's, D&D had pretty much nil setting and flavour, and when RQ appeared with maps and flavour and inspiring place names it made us say "hey, I *want* to play this! I *want* to adventure there!... and then having seen how it could be done in an inspiring way, we went on to create our own settings and flavour, predicated on the inspiring stuff we had already seen.

So it is all good to me. Even the things I don't particularly like will often inspire my friends and I to do better.

Cheers

 

[delericho]

As an established gamer, the less extraneous material I have to read through to play the game (and especially the less I have to carry to game sessions) the better. Fluff about a Points of Light setting I'm not using might be really interesting, but my back won't thank them for it. So, my ideal would see a set of core rulebooks that are nothing but the rules of the game and the truly essential descriptive fluff (we need to know what an Orc is and what it looks like; we don't need to know about the twelve tribes in the PoL setting), clearly presented and easy to reference. If that means the core books can be shortened without dropping any of the 'meat', all the better.

However...

Most people coming to the PHB aren't me. Most people trying to learn the game aren't "established gamers". And for them, an engaging visual presentation, and the insertion of inspiring fluff is an absolute must. Otherwise, there won't be any new gamers, and the hobby will die through simple attrition. (Besides, Wizards would be mad to cater only to gamers like me.)

Unfortunately, there can only be one PHB, so some sort of happy medium must be found. Personally, I felt that the 3.0 core rules were about right. The 3.5 DMG went a bit fluff-heavy when it included the Great Wheel planes, especially given that it omitted the DM's advice that was later found in the DMG2 - surely "how to run a great game" is better use of fluff text than "here are the core planes"?

It would appear that WotC have decided that, actually, a more fluff-heavy approach would be better. Well, fair enough - as long as they don't push it too far, then I'm not overly concerned.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, I'll say the same thing I said in a different thread.

The last thing I want, and the last thing D&D needs, is a core book that is nothing but mechanics. An insufficiency of flavor is more stifling to the imagination, IMO, than an excess of it, even if that flavor runs contrary to the tastes and intentions of the players.

The fluff is important, but it belongs in the descriptions, not in the handles. It's an issue of jargon.

Existing players . . . will gnash their teeth at having to pay for even a single inch of illustration, elaboration, examples, or flavor text.

Don't set up strawmen. That's not even remotely the counter proposal.

The designer does not have free reign to assign just any handle as the Muse inspires him-- not if he wants the rules to be clear, useful, and extensible.

Ideally, the handles chosen will be evocative both creatively and mechanically. Fighter is evocative mechanically. Necromancer is evocative creatively, with some mechanics implied.

Order of the Golden Wyvern is evocative almost entirely creatively and carries zero meaning. Is it a monastic order? A wizardly tradition? Is it perhaps its a compulsion?

"Perfect" design seeks the handle that is evocative creatively and mechanically. We players know it when we see it.

 

[GlassJaw]

We players know it when we see it.

Kind of like Chocolate Rain.

 

[thundershot]

Warlock is in the PHB? I thought WarLORD was the new base class for the PHB? Did I miss something?


Chris

 

[JamesM]

Ideally, the handles chosen will be evocative both creatively and mechanically. Fighter is evocative mechanically. Necromancer is evocative creatively, with some mechanics implied.

Order of the Golden Wyvern is evocative almost entirely creatively and carries zero meaning. Is it a monastic order? A wizardly tradition? Is it perhaps its a compulsion?

These are excellent and very useful distinctions. It'd be helpful if future discussions of this topic kept them in mind, because I think it'd clear up a lot of misconceptions all around.

 

[Jinete]

Going back to 3rd Edition for a moment, I don't think the warmage class was negatively impacted by the inclusion of Tarth Moorda, a warmage academy, in the class description (see Complete Arcane, page 12). In fact, I've used Tarth Moorda in my games because it's a cool adventure site. The 4th Edition "points of light" concept (discussed here) inspires adventures in a different way, by giving DMs the flexibility to build their campaigns on the fly and make sure that the heroes don't know what awaits them at the end of every road.

I've played a warmage, and I recall reading something about them studying in academies. I didn't like the concept, the DM said that as far as he was concerned I could create a background that had nothing to do with academies and that was that. Tarth Moorda I've never heard of.

And that is how I like my fluff. Easy to separate and with absolutely no impact on game mechanics and/or class abilities. That way I can just skip that part of the text. But if the "warmage edge" was named "the Tarth Moorda angle" or some such I would immediately be put off.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Personally I will use something like between 0%-5% of any fluff presented in my own campaign, but I realize that fluff is necessary to new players and DMs who have no idea that the game can be more that just a tactical wargame/boardgame. When I began playing, lo these many years ago, I had NOOOOO idea what was possible in regards to depth, flavor and color in a D&D campaign. The fluff is necessary for those just starting out and maybe for old hands who, upon seeing the new rules, want a little help seeing how these can be integrated into their campaigns.

I own a lot of D&D (WoTC and 3rd party) that I have never used but use as inspiration. Even fluff you don't use can spur creativity.



Sundragon