Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snoweel" data-source="post: 5046567" data-attributes="member: 4453">Right.My point is though, that we can't agree on where the error lies because we're human.I have been using my position to illustrate why some people are happy with the amount of fluff in the core books, and why preconceptions are a reason for that.Surely there's a tipping point (where the 'reality' of the setting deviates so much from preconceived assumptions of the implied core setting) where it really is 'that big of a deal'. Maybe not for you, but certainly for others.Mate, if they work for even one person (in this case, me) then they work. That's simple logic. I've stated repeatedly that my argument doesn't apply to everyone which is why some people aren't happy with the fluff of the core books.Then you'd probably have to write up some kind of campaign guide. Which is why I'm not a fan of 'no fluff' either. Yep.Not necessarily.I put it to you that not knowing something isn't the same as having erroneous knowledge about something.It's only simple if you expect your players to make you aware of all their assumptions. But humans don't convey our thoughts that way. In fact, we usually don't even consciously think that way. How do you expect to know a player's assumptions when she might not be fully aware of them herself? (See? Mixing up the gender. Everything I learned about political correctness I learned from WotC.)Player preconceptions is definitely a reason to include less flavour because it's an issue at least some of us have had to deal with. It might not be an issue for everyone (in fact I know it isn't because it's clearly not an issue for you) but for some of us it is and it has been in the past.I suggest it's one reason many people don't like to use published settings. But before you jump the gun I repeat it is only one reason. Even preconceptions of liberal democracy have been an issue at my table.To restate, I think too much fluff, and no fluff at all are both less than ideal in the core books. However, for different reasons. Only too much fluff raises the issue of player preconceptions. I think you're hearing something I'm not saying.I'm actually very careful with my logic and absolute statements and I don't see how you could have a problem with my argument unless you've missed a qualifier somewhere.The implication you're drawing doesn't fit. If I say some DMs will experience problems at the table due to player preconceptions caused by too much core fluff, that can't be reduced. Do you think I'm saying all DMs will experience that problem? Or do you think I'm also applying this argument o the problem of no fluff at all (which I believe is a different problem)?Or does your argument hinge on the subjective fact that because you've got no problem correcting your players' assumptions as they become an issue (notwithstanding the probability that neither you nor the player will even be made aware of all of the player's assumptions until long after they've become an issue, if at all) then no DM should have a problem with it?I'm not trying to show that less flavour is better; I've been saying that the right amount of flavour is better. That is, neither too much nor too little.You're the one who's been saying more flavour should suit everybody because the people who want less flavour can just ignore it. I disagree and I've explained why it's not that simple.No, you seemed to imply that they don't do market research. That or it doesn't inform their decisions.D&D isn't owned by gamers anymore, it's owned by shareholders. That says to me that standard business practices are used in the development, testing and marketing of the company's products.</blockquote>

Verification