Pathfinder 1E WotC desperately needs to learn from Paizo and Privateer Press

[Philosopher]

No I think you've misread (or misunderstood).

I may well have, but you're making it easy to do so.

If what I say is true, then that justifies the need for published campaign settings. That is, keeping setting information in the core books to a minimum necessitates more detailed settings for those who don't have time to flesh out the implied setting of the core books.

But that's not the argument you made. Here's what you said earlier (the bolded part is my own for emphasis):

I know some here have experienced this exact same problem in games set in established settings like Faerun or Greyhawk. In these cases, the DM assumes room to create his own details, unaware that he is overwriting canon, while a particularly knowledgable player knows all the canon and mistakenly thinks the differences are part of the story. Or worse, wastes a lot of time arguing or clarifying setting details with the DM.

You said that including flavor leads to problems in the game. Here you say that same problem (your word) applies to published campaign settings.

This comment is coming dangerously close to matching the language of edition bashing (cartoonishly emphasising 'bad' and 'fun'), so be careful.

I was describing how I understood your argument; I was not making such a comparison myself.

What I explicitly said was too much flavour text in the core books can crowd out a DM who wants to build his own setting. In particular, that excess setting detail can interfere with how the DM reveals his setting to his players, since the players come to the table with far more preconceptions that the DM is more likely to not be aware of.

And here is where you make that stronger claim. This is not an impediment to the game. In cases like this, I freely tell my players, "Oh, you guys would know that [for example] orcs tend to be peaceful pastoralists," when they encounter orcs on the trail. Good players take that in stride. Besides, the preconceptions that players might bring to the table go far beyond the "flavor" included in rulebooks. They include preconceptions gained from reading The Lord of the Rings about what elves should be like. They include preconceptions gained from living in the 21st century. ("Um, actually, your character would have no conception of a 'right to freedom of assembly'.") Despite this, we can and do play D&D just fine (and by this I mean "have fun", no matter what edition you play).

I never made that claim. Your argument falls down on this single assumption.

I know you never made that claim. In fact, I feel confident in stating that you do not believe that claim. I'm fairly certain that you do not think living in the 21st century is an impediment to playing D&D. I did not say that you made the claim. But the arguments you give would lead to that claim, and so I am claiming that there is a flaw in your argument. It's called a reductio ad absurdum.

WotC had to draw the line somewhere and I'm guessing their arbitrary line was informed by market research.

I see this claim tossed out a lot. WotC does something seemingly arbitrary, so they must be doing it due to market research. It's like the person who always says, "I meant to do that." Maybe so, but I remain skeptical without the evidence.

I don't think the social/economic/political climate surrounding 2e can be compared to 4e; it was a different time. Second edition, and indeed pen-and-paper RPGs in general, had less competition than 4e and were required to provide a broader range of entertainment. That included catering for gamers' pleasure-reading requirements.

I don't see what this has to do with the issue at all. 2e had lots of flavor text, yet the books were not too expensive. Could you explain what you mean further?

 

[Snoweel]

I may well have, but you're making it easy to do so.

No, I think you're crediting me with assumptions I'm not standing on. Of course I may be resting on assumptions neither of us are aware of. Welcome to humanity.

But that's not the argument you made. Here's what you said earlier (the bolded part is my own for emphasis):



You said that including flavor leads to problems in the game. Here you say that same problem (your word) applies to published campaign settings.

I think you see me making a statement of absolutes where I am intending to portray a grey area.

I am saying it is possible to both have too much fluff in the core books, as well as to have too little.

I tried to illustrate this by saying that while you and others in this thread feel there is not enough fluff in the core books, there are certainly others who feel there is too much. The inference being that WotC can't please everybody.

As little fluff as there is, I feel it does crowd out a DM's ability to build his own setting, to the point where I now start with canon and build from there. I genuinely believe it is impractical to overwrite canon too much, so the less canon in the core books the better.

However, I do like some fluff in the core books because then, instead of writing a setting guide, I can just say "If it's in D&D it's in the setting." I can then go on to say "But the differences are this, this and this" without having to scour the core books looking for all the ways that my setting might conflict with canon. The more fluff there is, the more I have to account for when world-building.

Basically I'm saying there is a happy medium.

And here is where you make that stronger claim. This is not an impediment to the game. In cases like this, I freely tell my players, "Oh, you guys would know that [for example] orcs tend to be peaceful pastoralists," when they encounter orcs on the trail. Good players take that in stride.

They certainly do. But you only know to tell the players "Orcs are different" because you know their expectations of orcs - and their expectations of orcs come from the core books (among other places).

The more core fluff there is, the more you need to be across it yourself, because your players probably will be. Herein lies the problem with more fluff. Some of us are just not interested in memorising a setting's canon beyond the merest bare bones. The fluff in the core books I'm happy with; the fluff from any 2nd edition setting, forget about it.

Besides, the preconceptions that players might bring to the table go far beyond the "flavor" included in rulebooks. They include preconceptions gained from reading The Lord of the Rings about what elves should be like. They include preconceptions gained from living in the 21st century. ("Um, actually, your character would have no conception of a 'right to freedom of assembly'.") Despite this, we can and do play D&D just fine (and by this I mean "have fun", no matter what edition you play).

Well this is all true but it's easy enough to say "All you know is what's in the core books (plus or minus what's on this A4 page)." That immediately does away with LotR and other IP, and innate Western cultural chauvenism is always going to be an issue if the culture of the setting departs from our own too much.

But if there were more fluff in the core books that A4 page becomes a 20 page setting bible that can be daunting for some DMs. I'm not interested in doing it, and about eight years ago I had over a hundred pages for my setting.

I know you never made that claim. In fact, I feel confident in stating that you do not believe that claim. I'm fairly certain that you do not think living in the 21st century is an impediment to playing D&D. I did not say that you made the claim. But the arguments you give would lead to that claim, and so I am claiming that there is a flaw in your argument. It's called a reductio ad absurdum.

I prefer the term 'hyperbole'.

Living in the 21st century is unavoidable (and really does limit players who are unaware of their cultural assumptions); establishing a baseline of more implied setting detail that the DM can meticulously sift through and parse in order to produce his own setting guide is definitely avoidable.

Some would say WotC have done it (avoided too much core fluff); others would say they haven't (the theoretical group who believes there is still too much fluff in the core books).

I see this claim tossed out a lot. WotC does something seemingly arbitrary, so they must be doing it due to market research.

Do you believe they're in business to make money?

It's like the person who always says, "I meant to do that." Maybe so, but I remain skeptical without the evidence.

The evidence is that there is a wealth of fluff in Open Grave, the Draconomicons and Dragon magazine.

If I, as a DM, don't want to stay current on all of that I can just tell my players "Only what's in books X, Y and Z." Sure the onus is then on the players to 'remember what to forget' but life can be brutal like that.

I don't see what this has to do with the issue at all. 2e had lots of flavor text, yet the books were not too expensive. Could you explain what you mean further?

I think 'too expensive' is an incredibly subjective term, is all.

 

[Rechan]

On the topic of flavor text for monsters in the MM, there's a question on the survey for the MM2 that asks if the flavor in the MM2 is too much, too little, or just right.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I really do not understand why there is so much argument about the fluff going on here. The way I see 4E is that is jsut offers plot points or interesting ideas for monsters and the more crunch books. EVen the fluff books like The Plane Below, offers things that can easily be used or ignored as the DM sees fit.

In the Plane Below, there are about a dozen locations.

If hte players want to go there, the DM can say It doesn't exist, it has changed, or you are there, as fits the campaign. In campaign settings like FR and The big E, things are different as players will bring more expectations to the table.

 

[SSquirrel]

I don't see what this has to do with the issue at all. 2e had lots of flavor text, yet the books were not too expensive. Could you explain what you mean further?

The 2 editions had entirely different layouts for one thing. I don't have a 2E PHB handy, but how many points smaller is that font than the 4E? I always disliked the Monster Ecology articles as I honestly didn't really care that much. I don't DM that often and when they would appear in Dragon they just felt like wasted space to me.

Personally I think the enhanced fluff of 2E was a reaction to people wanting more campaign settings and so they needed to write more fluff. There really isn't all that much more setting specific info in the 2E PHB than there is in the 4E. The Monster Manuals clearly.

3E was a counter-reaction to that and the core rulebooks became more dry and the number of campaign settings reduced to basically 2 prior to Eberron's release, and that was only if you played in the RPGA really. 4E refined that further, but has a more developed idea on how to handle campaign settings in a limited fashion w/o becoming over-invested in them. This way if any one setting falls on its face they can just shrug and resolve to make the next setting better.

 

[Philosopher]

No, I think you're crediting me with assumptions I'm not standing on. Of course I may be resting on assumptions neither of us are aware of. Welcome to humanity.

Yes, to err is human. But errors remain errors.

I think you see me making a statement of absolutes where I am intending to portray a grey area.

I am saying it is possible to both have too much fluff in the core books, as well as to have too little.

I tried to illustrate this by saying that while you and others in this thread feel there is not enough fluff in the core books, there are certainly others who feel there is too much. The inference being that WotC can't please everybody.

As little fluff as there is, I feel it does crowd out a DM's ability to build his own setting, to the point where I now start with canon and build from there. I genuinely believe it is impractical to overwrite canon too much, so the less canon in the core books the better.

However, I do like some fluff in the core books because then, instead of writing a setting guide, I can just say "If it's in D&D it's in the setting." I can then go on to say "But the differences are this, this and this" without having to scour the core books looking for all the ways that my setting might conflict with canon. The more fluff there is, the more I have to account for when world-building.

Basically I'm saying there is a happy medium.

Look, I understand all of this. As I said, the position you hold seems to be a reasonable one. I was not criticizing your position, I was criticizing the argument you made about preconceptions. Do you understand the difference?

They certainly do. But you only know to tell the players "Orcs are different" because you know their expectations of orcs - and their expectations of orcs come from the core books (among other places).

True, but this wasn't the best example, then. I've run games in which the players' preconceptions come up in the middle of a session. They engage a course of action that reflects those preconceptions. I point this out to them, let them readjust their decisions, and we move on. That's all it takes. It's really not that big of a deal.

Well this is all true but it's easy enough to say "All you know is what's in the core books (plus or minus what's on this A4 page)." That immediately does away with LotR and other IP, and innate Western cultural chauvenism is always going to be an issue if the culture of the setting departs from our own too much.

But if there were more fluff in the core books that A4 page becomes a 20 page setting bible that can be daunting for some DMs. I'm not interested in doing it, and about eight years ago I had over a hundred pages for my setting.

Okay, let's stop for a moment here. I'm not disagreeing with the position you hold, as I stated above. But the reasons you give here don't work.

Let's say it's true that if I want to go against lots of established flavor, I need to write up a 20 page document in order to let the players know what to expect in my campaign. If the players really need all that information before we can start playing, then what happens if there is no flavor? I'd have to give them everything myself, wouldn't I? That would go beyond your hypothetical 20 pages.

Now, of course, this is ludicrous. As we both know, I don't need to give that much information just to start a campaign (although I could if I wanted to). Rather, I can just give them a basic overview, and fill them in as we play the campaign. But if that's true, then the starting point (the claim you make at the start of the previous paragraph) is not true. I don't need to write up pages and pages of flavor. Just as I can tell players, "Don't assume that things are the same as Lord of the Rings," I can also tell my players, "Don't assume that things are always the same as what's in the core books. If at some point in the campaign, you (as the player) makes an assumption that your character would know to be false, I'll point it out." Simple.

I repeat, this is not a challenge to your claim about a "happy medium". Of course different people have different preferences about that. It's a challenge to your argument that player preconceptions is a reason to include less flavor. Maybe less flavor is better, I'm just saying that this argument does not establish that.

I prefer the term 'hyperbole'.

Hyperbole is making an exaggerated claim. I was not exaggerating. I was drawing an implication, as I've explained above. I am not saying that you believe something you didn't state, and I'm not saying that you assumed something you didn't state. I'm saying that if you follow the logic of what you did state, you end up with a ludicrous conclusion. Therefore, what you stated (about preconceptions, not about anything else) is faulty.

Further, I really don't know why you keep coming back to this argument. If you really believe that it's all about personal preference, why do you keep trying to show that less flavor is better?

Do you believe they're in business to make money?

Of course they are. But do you believe they're fully rational pure money-makers that exist in a completely context-free environment? That they're in business to make money can be taken for granted. What goes on in any business is rather complex; they are many factors, from the profit motive to intra-company politics, that influence what a company does. All I was saying is that tossing out "market research" does not mean we can't critique what they do (or don't do).

 

[Marius Delphus]

The 2 editions had entirely different layouts for one thing. I don't have a 2E PHB handy, but how many points smaller is that font than the 4E?

I seem to recall that the 2E PHB was Palatino 8/10. The 4E PHB appears to weigh in with Mentor at 9.75/13. If I'm right, this means the text is over 20% larger and the leading is 30% taller.

Of course, font size isn't everything.

 

[Hussar]

No, I scoff at the idea that it was time sink for anywhere near as many teenagers as it is now, and I scoff at the idea that the number of geeky distractions in the 80s was anywhere near what it is now. It's just absurd that anybody is even disputing this.

What percentage of homes in the 80s had personal computers? What percentage of homes had gaming consoles? And how about now?

A better question would be "What percentage of homes with geeky children had computers".

And, honestly, between the Commodore 64 and Vic 20 and the Atari console, I think you'd be pretty surprised how common it was to have video games at home. Speaking for myself, every single friend I had had at least an Atari or Intellivision in the house. By the mid to late 80's, it would be pretty rare for a house not to have anything. Heck, my elementary school had Commodores and that was early 80's and my high school had IBM's by 1986.

Honestly, I don't think, as a percentage, it's changed all that much. just the level of computing power.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Honestly, I don't think, as a percentage, it's changed all that much. just the level of computing power.

I think the amount of things possible to do on he computer is a major factor to consider.

 

[Hussar]

Oh sure Dice4Hire. Of course, no internet back then to soak up loads of time either. But, I can't be the only one who would spend a bajillion hours on Pac Man, or various other games at home either. WHile there was less you could do, we certainly seemed to spend lots of time staring at piss poor sprites.