The Black Stain Objection

[Kazyan]

I'm in a sour mood, so I'm going to throw away my limited reputation on the forum.

Foreward: I make a distinction between 'optimizer' and 'roleplayer' here. There are general terms for very general statements about the way different types of people play D&D 3.5; not everything I say will apply to everyone in a category. Conclusions I draw are general, not universal, conclusions.


---

This forum's optimization culture is odd. Powerful characters? All for it! Restraint with respect to cheese and TO? Increasingly vestigial. Sometimes people don't like it, and we get sentiments about optimizers not caring about fluff. The response is usually referencing the tried-and-true Stormwind Fallacy, even if it's not an exact fit for the argument. Still, it makes the optimization culture relatively safe from pure munchkinry. After all, we still have fluff.

But still, it's curious. Do we care as much about fluff as we do optimization? If we do, we certainly don't talk about it; like 90%-ish of the threads on this forum are exclusively mechanical discussions. This seems to suggest that optimizers don't care nearly as much about fluff, and lets it languish. Which is why we bring up a peculiar talking point when mechanical theorycrafting gets so "out there" that it's hard to justify from an in-universe perspective: you can just refluff things.

Sounds convincing enough. You can substitute the fluff given by the book with whatever you want, and it would be just as valid, right? Well...kind of. You lose something by doing this, because basically, a mechanical choice and its fluff are interrelated. A Dragonborn of Bahamut has -2 to Dexterity because they're awkward in a brand new body, not because a +2 Con/-2 Dex template justifies its own existence.

"But you can't know what the authors intended. Maybe they wanted to make a template with those mechanics." Doesn't matter. The mechanics and the fluff are written so that they support each other; the fluff is the "why" for the mechanics, even if it was created after the fact. Which means that, when you use the mechanics, you are supporting the fluff. How better to reinforce, in your gaming experience, that a Dragonborn is awkward than with a penalty to Dexterity?

When you refluff, you can certainly create a justification for your fluff-stripped mechanical choices. And that can definitely be valid. A problem occurs when refluffing does not actually explain what's going on. If you describe your Dragonborn Half-Minotaur Lolth-Touched Water Orc as a big ugly guy who just so happens to be able to lift 5 tons over his head, of course it might not sit well with pure roleplayers. You wonder what the big deal is; you're following the rules and you're roleplaying--what's the issue?

The complaint is that you're starting from the mechanics first, then creating the fluff around it, with disregard to the original fluff. If you're more of a roleplayerthan an optimizer (but are competent at both), you probably want to start with a character concept first, then find mechanics that let you play that concept without floundering.

Sure, but both approaches result in the same thing, don't they? Isn't the roleplayer just whining?

Not necessarily, because there are artifacts that result from both approaches. Take the melee monster above, who dips into Lion Spirit Totem Wolf Totem Barbarian and Dungeoncrasher Fighter. "Big guy who hits real good" Seems like it covers it, doesn't it? Except that Pounce is (Su), and you can't explain why it goes away in an AMF...or, often, why you can pounce in the first place. Pounce requires you to do a lot in 6 seconds, supernaturally fast. But apparently he hits real good, and that's enough. It's a minor disconnect, but it's there. Now, consider the roleplayer who wants to play a Sly Cooper knockoff. Off the top of my head, you can get the anthropomorphic racoon-ness by being a Quasilycanthrope of a Were-Racoon, and then you just go into rogue and wield a scythe or a sickle--the closest approximations to the cane. The artifacts here are the DR 10/silver--Sly is pretty tough in the later games, but there's nothing about silver being a bad thing--and some of the things a Rogue can't quite do. Doing a Rail Walk is a really high Balance check. So you have more disconnects.

What's the approach to resolving the disconnects?

On the "optimizer" side, you refluff some more.
On the "roleplayer" side, you ask to change the mechanics.

Okay, so now you've got two characters that are sound in fluff and mechanics. Sounds good. So why does the roleplayer feel like the optimizer still did something wrong?

Because the optimizer goes into the character creation minigame automatically disregarding fluff-as-written, and but the roleplayer will pick mechanics that let his concept work, changing them to homebrew only when they don't quite fit.

The optimizer does not respect fluff as written as much as the roleplayer respects RAW.

I have seldom met a player of D&D 3.5 that even tweaks mechanics to make them fit the attached fluff, but I have met a guy who says anyone who doesn't do a massive refluff of the entire pseudo-Medieval setting is playing the game wrong (and then inserts somewhat transparent caveats to that sentiment). He's a celebrity around here.


Just, the RAW perspective...discounts anything that isn't a straight-up rule; half the content of the rulebooks is equivalent to a black stain filling up a few pages to them...


The Black Stain Objection: If you roleplay a lot, chances are you still respect the rules as written. If you optimize a lot, chances are you stop caring about the fluff as written.

[eggynack]

Fluff isn't necessarily roleplaying though. Some optimizers care about fluff and roleplaying, and some optimizers care about roleplaying and not fluff, and some optimizers might care about fluff and not roleplaying, and some roleplayers probably care about fluff, and some probably don't. Your argument isn't necessarily a refutation of the stormwind fallacy as a result.

[Lord_Gareth]

I stopped caring about FaW well before I started optimizing. At first it was because I had my own ideas; then it was because I realized that WotC's fluff department is wretchedly incompetent. I reject your proposal, sir. REJECT IT. IN ALL CAPS. WITH COMICALLY OVERDONE YELLING TOTALLY OUT OF PROPORTION TO MY ACTUAL FEELINGS ON THE MATTER.

[Rubik]

One question: Why should I limit myself to the character archetypes the game designers came up with, and not those I can build using my own imagination?

[Löwenohr]

I think the focus on optimizers here has a lot to do with no one ever going to be able to agree on fluff.

While, at the same time, we can (mostly) agree on ridiculously overpowered stuff that fits within the rules.

[KillianHawkeye]

I feel like rejecting the fluff is not really related to optimizing or not optimizing. A willingness to refluff things improves one's options regardless of how much they optimize.

[AuraTwilight]

The Fluff As Written only matters if I used the settings the publishers intended. I don't. It has nothing to do with Optimizing. I just homebrew and have my own universes and stuff.

Also, fluff doesn't make the game unplayable like mechanics can, so mechanics tend to see a lot more tweaking.

[Slipperychicken]

like 90%-ish of the threads on this forum are exclusively mechanical discussions.

I think that's because most of the fluff is relatively easy to understand, since it wasn't written in legalese.

[Tommy2255]

Fluff isn't necessarily roleplaying though. Some optimizers care about fluff and roleplaying, and some optimizers care about roleplaying and not fluff, and some optimizers might care about fluff and not roleplaying, and some roleplayers probably care about fluff, and some probably don't. Your argument isn't necessarily a refutation of the stormwind fallacy as a result.

I think that's the key distinction here. Someone who want so build Sly the Fox isn't necessarily roleplaying very well. And someone who wants to play an ugly guy who can lift a truck isn't necessarily roleplaying poorly, even if it doesn't fit the fluff in the book (provided that it does fit the fluff of the world the campaign takes place in).

Also, respecting the rules as written is a good idea because, in order to play a functioning game, everyone needs to be on the same page about the basic mechanics of how the world works. Respecting the fluff as written is not only unimportant, but arguably a negative quality because the fluff as written is all but thrown out in many campaigns anyway, to be replaced by the world the DM wants to create. If you use the RAW in a homebrew setting, you're still recognizably playing D&D 3.5. If you use mostly homebrew mechanics in Faerun, not only does it end up not making much sense, but it also is hard to actually recognize as D&D 3.5.

[AmberVael]

...because I realized that WotC's fluff department is wretchedly incompetent.

Pretty much this.

"And now we will create a system in which you can channel the very essence of souls and bend them to your will!"
"Sounds great! What can they do with that?"
"Alright get this- they can make glowy blue faux magic items!"


But there's another element to it too. Much like creating a character in the first place, refluffing mechanics is a puzzle. "How can I explain these mechanics in another way? What would be both interesting and accurate, while changing their apparent nature completely?" It's fun to reinterpret.

Ultimately, I don't think anyone should cling to the default fluff. What weight or importance does it have? It is the system that makes the game work- and its you that makes the story work. A handful of fluff suggestions won't keep a coherent setting and story together, but you can readily make a brilliant game without them.

[OldTrees1]

What's the approach to resolving the disconnects?

On the "optimizer" side, you refluff some more.
On the "roleplayer" side, you ask to change the mechanics.

I would have phrased it as
On the "mechanic focus" side, you refluff some more.
On the "fluff focus" side, you ask to change the mechanics.

I agree with this salient point. When there is a disconnect people keep constant what they consider important and ask the DM if they can change the other aspect.

Take a rapier&dagger character concept. The player clearly envisions the character moving towards opponents with their two blades working in perfect harmony. They both take the Two Weapon Fighting feat. However there is a problem. If the enemy is more than 5ft away they only get to use one of their weapons against that foe.

The "mechanics focus" resolution would be to look for a mechanical solution to refluff (Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian for example).
The "fluff focus" resolution would be to look for a mechanic to change (the Two Weapon Fighting rules for example).

[NichG]

Certainly one can care, or not, about the fluff as written. I don't think thats a good distinguishing feature though, because you can (as posters have quickly done) argue that the fluff as written is just bad fluff (and to be fair, many people have argued that the mechanics as written are just bad mechanics - witness all the attempted caster fixes in the Homebrew forum).

A more general position would be to ask whether or not a particular viewpoint respects the idea that fluff can have teeth. A common example of this particular difference of view is whether or not you should be able to trip oozes. One argument is 'the RAW doesn't say oozes are immune to being tripped - we should just refluff tripping to be somehow pinning an enemy in place'; another argument is that the fluff that an ooze is an amorphous blob should be able to dictate adjustment of the mechanics to be consistent with the fluff.

If the Stormwind Fallacy states 'you don't have to pick sides between optimization and roleplay', that does not prevent someone from going ahead and picking a side anyhow (nor does it address how common that practice actually is). Anyone outright rejecting the possibility that fluff could trump explicitly written mechanics is 'picking a side' (as is anyone outright rejecting the possibility that mechanics might trump fluff in some cases). It's no longer an issue of a person having the ability to be good at two orthogonal things, but rather a question of prioritizing one part of the game over another. If there isn't balance in those priorities, then you'll have a situation where love of mechanics can damage roleplay, or love of roleplay can damage mechanics. A reasonable balance is arguably possible, but it can be a hard thing to achieve.

[OldTrees1]

A more general position would be to ask whether or not a particular viewpoint respects the idea that fluff can have teeth. A common example of this particular difference of view is whether or not you should be able to trip oozes. One argument is 'the RAW doesn't say oozes are immune to being tripped - we should just refluff tripping to be somehow pinning an enemy in place'; another argument is that the fluff that an ooze is an amorphous blob should be able to dictate adjustment of the mechanics to be consistent with the fluff.

I think this example (trip vs ooze) is a good example of how people are not strictly "mechanics trump" or "fluff trumps" but rather their position depends on the discrepancy in question.
(Of course people will have a tendency to favor a particular side a particular amount of the time depending on the individual)

[The Oni]

Generally I tend to go with the spirit of fluff as long as it doesn't violate the character concept I already have, yeah?

[eggynack]

A common example of this particular difference of view is whether or not you should be able to trip oozes. One argument is 'the RAW doesn't say oozes are immune to being tripped - we should just refluff tripping to be somehow pinning an enemy in place'; another argument is that the fluff that an ooze is an amorphous blob should be able to dictate adjustment of the mechanics to be consistent with the fluff.

Alternatively, you could just use the rules compendium. On page 145 it says, "You can’t trip... a creature that doesn’t rely on limbs for locomotion." That book is neat sometimes.

[OldTrees1]

Alternatively, you could just use the rules compendium. On page 145 it says, "You can’t trip... a creature that doesn’t rely on limbs for locomotion." That book is neat sometimes.

I am glad the particular discrepancy does not exist, however it is still a great hypothetical example.

[eggynack]

I am glad the particular discrepancy does not exist, however it is still a great hypothetical example.
Quite. I just remembered seeing that majig at some point, and then forgot about it until just now.

[HunterOfJello]

I think you're mixing several concepts together as part of your argument that should be separated and considered each on their own merit.

Separate Points:
1. Group A players start building a character by starting with a fluff based character idea (like copying Sly) and then using the mechanics to make that character work within the limits of the rules.
Group B players start building a character with a mechanics based concept (like an Anima Mage Aasimar) and then filling in the fluff around that character to make it work.

2. Players from Group A are more likely to ask for homebrew or rule changes that aren't RAI or RAW.
Players from Group B are more likely to set up fluff that ignores what was written in the books that was not rule based.

3. This forum doesn't really care about fluff.

4. Fluff in D&D supports mechanics. Mechanics in D&D support fluff.

5. Because fluff and mechanics are interrelated, changing the fluff effects the mechanics.

6. Mechanics can (or cannot) always be refluffed.

7. A large percentage of the threads on the forum are about mechanics. This is a result of the fact that optimizers don't care about fluff.





To Kazyan: If I have misunderstood any of your positions or arguments that you have brought up than I apologize and would be interested to hear your clarifications.

Note to everyone else: This is a listing of concepts that I think should be discussed separately with each one or two on their own. I am not stating opinions in this post other than that.

[EugeneVoid]

I will do my best to deconstruct what exactly what you say and whether I agree or disagree.


I'm in a sour mood, so I'm going to throw away my limited reputation on the forum.
Already I am of the notion that this is an attempt to elicit a response, but that is certainly just over analysis.


Foreward: I make a distinction between 'optimizer' and 'roleplayer' here. There are general terms for very general statements about the way different types of people play D&D 3.5; not everything I say will apply to everyone in a category. Conclusions I draw are general, not universal, conclusions.
This is your first mistake that there is a difference between roleplayers and optimizers. Many of us at the forum are both roleplayers and optimizers who enjoy making strong characters who tell a strong story. I understand however you made a distinction that many people do not fall into these categories.


---


This forum's optimization culture is odd. Powerful characters? All for it! Restraint with respect to cheese and TO? Increasingly vestigial. Sometimes people don't like it, and we get sentiments about optimizers not caring about fluff. The response is usually referencing the tried-and-true Stormwind Fallacy, even if it's not an exact fit for the argument.
Your example of people not agreeing with the forum's general ideology is not as common place as you would imagine. The Stormwind fallacy is exactly fitting much of the time. People usually come to the forum to learn how to make a decent character not learn how to give their character a story. Also, remember that TO is exactly that: Theoretical Optimization.


Still, it makes the optimization culture relatively safe from pure munchkinry. After all, we still have fluff.
Optimization is independent of fluff (usually).


But still, it's curious. Do we care as much about fluff as we do optimization? If we do, we certainly don't talk about it; like 90%-ish of the threads on this forum are exclusively mechanical discussions. This seems to suggest that optimizers don't care nearly as much about fluff, and lets it languish. Which is why we bring up a peculiar talking point when mechanical theorycrafting gets so "out there" that it's hard to justify from an in-universe perspective: you can just refluff things.
As stated previously, fluff is just a way to describe your character. Fluff often doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect the way everyone plays. There are no loopholes or cool mixtures out there, because not everyone wants to play the same thing. Sure a Halfling Master Thrower who tumbles and throws gargantuan scissor swords is cool, but does everyone want to play one? Theoretical Optimization is exactly not meant to be fluffed: it is theoretical.


Sounds convincing enough. You can substitute the fluff given by the book with whatever you want, and it would be just as valid, right? Well...kind of. You lose something by doing this, because basically, a mechanical choice and its fluff are interrelated. A Dragonborn of Bahamut has -2 to Dexterity because they're awkward in a brand new body, not because a +2 Con/-2 Dex template justifies its own existence.
Then roleplay it or refluff it. You will inevitably have to explain why you are failing all those dex checks, so you choose one of the two. Honestly, it depends on the kind of player you are.


"But you can't know what the authors intended. Maybe they wanted to make a template with those mechanics." Doesn't matter. The mechanics and the fluff are written so that they support each other; the fluff is the "why" for the mechanics, even if it was created after the fact. Which means that, when you use the mechanics, you are supporting the fluff. How better to reinforce, in your gaming experience, that a Dragonborn is awkward than with a penalty to Dexterity?
Once again, this is up to the player to determine exactly what the character is. Is it really awkwardness in his new body? Or is it a leg deformity? Fluff is subject to change. Choosing strong mechanical choices allows you to actually perform what it is you want your character to do.


When you refluff, you can certainly create a justification for your fluff-stripped mechanical choices. And that can definitely be valid. A problem occurs when refluffing does not actually explain what's going on. If you describe your Dragonborn Half-Minotaur Lolth-Touched Water Orc as a big ugly guy who just so happens to be able to lift 5 tons over his head, of course it might not sit well with pure roleplayers. You wonder what the big deal is; you're following the rules and you're roleplaying--what's the issue?
What's wrong with the big guy who can lift 5 tons over his head? He's got super-strength, because of [Insert Player Preference]. I think you are confusing lack-luster roleplayers with optimizers. As in the Stormwind Fallacy, optimization and roleplaying is not in the least related (maybe a little). Really, how you fluff your character depends on you and your group.


The complaint is that you're starting from the mechanics first, then creating the fluff around it, with disregard to the original fluff. If you're more of a roleplayerthan an optimizer (but are competent at both), you probably want to start with a character concept first, then find mechanics that let you play that concept without floundering.
Disregarding fluff is exactly what many people do, is that what you are complaining about? What I imagine my character as is what he is, screw anyone who tells me otherwise.

Ex: I was wondering how to build a fun to play melee character using cores and completes without any magic. I decided to make a thrower with quick draw to switch between range and melee. Then I decided to mix in bear warrior and hulking hurler. A cooltastic concept is in my head.
Next, I fluff my character into a Bane-like character who drugs up, becomes huge and smacks things while also being capable of lifting trees and boulders and throwing them.
Then, I flesh out the rest of my build.
Would it be possible to create a character with the exact fluff using Wizard's fluff? Yes.
It would require diving through Dragon to acquire the Rage drugs and not utilizing Bear Warrior (as you turn into a bear right?), thus missing a huge amount of strength and damaging my overall concept.


Sure, but both approaches result in the same thing, don't they? Isn't the roleplayer just whining?
Yes.


Not necessarily, because there are artifacts that result from both approaches. Take the melee monster above, who dips into Lion Spirit Totem Wolf Totem Barbarian and Dungeoncrasher Fighter. "Big guy who hits real good" Seems like it covers it, doesn't it? Except that Pounce is (Su), and you can't explain why it goes away in an AMF...or, often, why you can pounce in the first place. Pounce requires you to do a lot in 6 seconds, supernaturally fast. But apparently he hits real good, and that's enough. It's a minor disconnect, but it's there.
Maybe he strikes so fiercely that his charge deals "4x" damage. Maybe his power stop working in an AMF. Maybe they discover that his ancestor great-grandfather guides his blows, but he cannot do this in an AMF. Really, this is about a bad fluffer.


Now, consider the roleplayer who wants to play a Sly Cooper knockoff. Off the top of my head, you can get the anthropomorphic racoon-ness by being a Quasilycanthrope of a Were-Racoon, and then you just go into rogue and wield a scythe or a sickle--the closest approximations to the cane. The artifacts here are the DR 10/silver--Sly is pretty tough in the later games, but there's nothing about silver being a bad thing--and some of the things a Rogue can't quite do. Doing a Rail Walk is a really high Balance check. So you have more disconnects.
As I've said before, you can ignore pre-written fluff to make a character that fits and does what you imagine better.


What's the approach to resolving the disconnects?

On the "optimizer" side, you refluff some more.
On the "roleplayer" side, you ask to change the mechanics.
Still differentiating between the two I see?
Your point is relating that the "optimizer" can refluff not changing the actual gameplay of the game to create a better story for the game.
And, a "roleplayer" can ask a DM to homebrew things for his character, so that his character concept would work.

I suppose both are valid solutions though one requires a great bit more effort from the DM.


Okay, so now you've got two characters that are sound in fluff and mechanics. Sounds good. So why does the roleplayer feel like the optimizer still did something wrong?

Because the optimizer goes into the character creation minigame automatically disregarding fluff-as-written, and but the roleplayer will pick mechanics that let his concept work, changing them to homebrew only when they don't quite fit.
Now you've got one character that is sound in mechanics with potentially some errors in their fluff (Woops, forgot that Pounce was SU) and a character who could potentially break the game, because it doesn't work (Woops, I gave the class 9th level spells by 14th level).

Let me edit your quote real quick:
Because the optimizer goes into the character creation minigame automatically disregarding fluff-as-written, so as to create a decent character with minimal hassle so as to create a fitting character to his ideology. And, the roleplayer will attempt to choose mechanics that let his concept work, changing them to homebrew only when they don't quite fit.


The optimizer does not respect fluff as written as much as the roleplayer respects RAW.
This is something that I must agree with however.


I have seldom met a player of D&D 3.5 that even tweaks mechanics to make them fit the attached fluff, but I have met a guy who says anyone who doesn't do a massive refluff of the entire pseudo-Medieval setting is playing the game wrong (and then inserts somewhat transparent caveats to that sentiment). He's a celebrity around here.
I actually don't know who the celebrity is. (Tippy?) I think people prefer changing things that don't actually affect the way the game is played over things that could possibly create new problems with an already impossibly unbalanced game.




The Black Stain Objection: If you roleplay a lot, chances are you still respect the rules as written. If you optimize a lot, chances are you stop caring about the fluff as written.[/QUOTE]
:(

[HunterOfJello]

I actually don't know who the celebrity is. (Tippy?) I think people prefer changing things that don't actually affect the way the game is played over things that could possibly create new problems with an already impossibly unbalanced game.

:(

The "celebrity" is Tippy and it makes a lot of sense that posts like this would appear as a reaction to his setting. This thread will likely turn into a long set of rants and counter rants about Tippy, but I think it's worth pointing out why such strong reactions appear from people who read about his setting.

Assuming that there are three groups of people:
Group A = Creates character based off of fluff, then fills in with mechanics.
Group B = Creates a character based off of mechanics, then fills in with fluff
Group C = People who just like fun stuff/Don't know what's going on

Then a person who belongs to Group B will think that Tippy's setting (The Tippyverse) is pretty much the greatest thing ever, while a person from Group A will think of it as a horrible abomination.

This is because Tippy and his group took the rules and created an entire setting based purely off of them. They created their own massive setting of economics, politics, sociology, and more purely based off of the mechanical rules in the game.

Posts like the OP here will inevitably result from exposure to the Tippyverse while threads about how to expand and better implement Tippyverse, pre-Tippyverse, and post-Tippyverse settings will also result from people who have read up on it.

[Phelix-Mu]

My motives in playing are two (well three, but we are going to ignore my genius for wasting time):

1.) Creativity

2.) Fun

Now....

- Too much optimization: Optimizing can certainly be used to enhance some creativity, but excessive use of it, or use in the wrong context, can also certainly limit fun. Thus, optimization, like any tool, straddles a fine line separating it being constructive from it being destructive.

- Too much fluff adherence: Some of the fluff is not sterling, to say the least. Moreover, some of it really does limit both creativity and fun, or at least kind of prescribe a certain kosher brand of "the way things are." I don't much care for that.

- Refluffing, on the other hand, is a tool much like optimizing. Especially in the hands of a DM, refluffing can really help to break the expectations about the game in a way that can enhance interest in events and create an engaging narrative. As a player, being able to justify a bit of unusual concept with a bit of refluffing can help to broaden the possibilities, which can be nice. But, like any tool, refluffing can be overused, and reduce the game to a series of wish-fulfillment devices justifying whatever.

Anyway, the broader issue about RAW and whether it describes a stable society that could exist given a, let's say, timeline, is a totally different matter. As I said elsewhere, RAW is a stable construct (if a rather dysfunctional one at times). A stable construct is generally bad for a narrative, but it is good for a ruleset designed to allow a DM to create whatever narrative they want. A given DM may decide that the world has to evolve, while another rules that the Overgod or whatever has locked the world in its faux-medieval incarnation.

[Rubik]

Assuming that there are three groups of people:
Group A = Creates character based off of fluff, then fills in with mechanics.
Group B = Creates a character based off of mechanics, then fills in with fluff
Group C = People who just like fun stuff/Don't know what's going onI do both A and B. Sometimes I have a character concept that I want to play (A small, hybrid dragon raccoon-boy thing freed from the illithid breeding experiments as a baby, whose intended purpose was to release the elder evil Pandorym, but fights the compulsions programmed into him to live his own life. Sounds like a good reason to play a refluffed gem dragon Dragonwrought Kobold psion to me!), so I fill it out with class, race, feats, skills, and so on. Sometimes, I find a gaming mechanic that sounds fun (Artificer who buffs his allies with spell storing dye arrows and archery? Sign me up! Time to figure out what'd lead to such an unusual support style!) and design a character around it, including fluff.

They're nowhere near mutually exclusive. Not even close.

[Kazyan]

I'll respond to all relevant points so far in this thread; give me a short while to round them up. Though I do need to address EugeneVoid immediately: that first line does not mean "this is a troll post", it's me being snarky because I do not have high hopes for this thread.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'll respond to all relevant points so far in this thread; give me a short while to round them up. Though I do need to address EugeneVoid immediately: that first line does not mean "this is a troll post", it's me being snarky because I do not have high hopes for this thread.

On the contrary, I think it's an interesting point that you make. That I am not 100% in agreement is beside the point; there is definitely common ground worth exploring.

Optimization can and probably has derailed a large number of campaigns. Fluff or role playing focus, on the other hand, probably has less campaign detritus in its wake. I think this is probably just because the game assumes role play and allows for it, while the designers seem to have significantly underestimated the impact of the tendency to optimize would have on the game dynamic.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Quite the opposite, actually.

One guy I play with strictly adheres to the fluff of every class, as though it's part of the rules. This particular individual happens to have the least imagination and creativity in my gaming group, hence his stance on class fluff. He also happens to be very poor at optimization, usually sticking to a single-classed character, or sticking to one class aiming for one prestige class (Rogue/Assassin). This is anecdotal of course, but it's a very clear example of why someone would try adhering to the built-in fluff instead of trying to make up their own. His lack of creativity makes him bad at both fluff and mechanics.

Another guy I play with wanted to make a Draconic Human Hexblade/Talon of Tiamat shortly after the Draconomicon was printed. He wanted to try out stuff from a new book, so his character was a warrior witch doctor from an island-dwelling tribe of savages who were descended from a chromatic half-dragon. He threw away every bit of the built-in fluff of Hexblade, and used its mechanics to represent the fluff he wanted his character to have. It worked out perfectly, and he ended up with a very strong character relative to the rest of the party, considering a maximized clinging breath attack could kill an entire encounter in a single shot.

In your example of a Dragonborn Half-Minotaur Lolth-Touched Water Orc, the RAW doesn't work. Dragonborn have to be good aligned, and Lolth-Touched have to be CE. You would need to remove Dragonborn from that combination in order for it to work mechanically. For flavor, a Half-Minotaur Water Orc could have originally been from a barbarian tribe that worshiped animal spirits instead of deities and embodied certain traits of the animals, explaining two levels in Lion Spirit Whirling Frenzy Wolf Totem Barbarian. He fell victim to a Drow slaver raid and was forced to fight in their arenas, where he learned to crush his foes using brute strength, hence Dungeoncrasher Fighter levels. His many victories brought him sufficient fame that a high priestess purchased him as a personal bodyguard, and his service to the Spider Queen under his new matron gained him the blessing of the drow goddess. He could start with Str 40 if he puts an 18 there, which would give him a light load of up to 4,256 pounds since he's large size. Let's look at the Str score of a few more large size Lolth-Touched creatures, if they start with an 18:
Lolth-Touched Stone Giant: Str 40, large size; Lolth-Touched Frost Giant: Str 44, large size; Lolth-Touched Fire Giant: Str 46, large size.
This Half-Minotaur Water Orc has the strength of a giant, supernaturally improved by the Spider Queen's blessing. Many giants possess the feat Awesome Blow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#awesomeBlow), which is very similar to Knock-Back + Dungeoncrasher. Awesome Blow is just a really bad precursor that came with the base game, whereas the latter is a synergistic combination that benefits from the power creep that the game has suffered over the years. Or rather, it's benefited from generation after generation of big adventurers refining the art of smashing your opponent against the wall.

My point is, adhering to the built-in fluff is a telltale sign of a lack of creativity and imagination. Finding mechanics to fit your unique character concept, or designing a character's background around what mechanics you've included, shows ingenuity. Furthermore, compare a single-classed Fighter who was raised on a farm and learned to fight in the militia before becoming an adventurer, to the above optimized dungeoncrasher with the strength of a giant who was stolen from his tribe and enslaved by the drow only to become a champion of their high priestess and then promptly abandon them at the first opportunity, sowing enmity that's sure to catch up with him, which of these characters is more interesting if you only look at the flavor? Nobody gets to pick where they're from or what they've been through, so giving your character a background fraught with conflict and difficulty and old enemies is far more fitting for an adventurer who spends his life traveling and never wants to stay in the same place for long, versus the farm boy who learned to fight and decided to leave his home and family to become an adventurer, which is more believable?


As a final example, I'll repeat one that I've used in the past. The party of adventurers who risk their lives daily and have to depend on one another for survival are in need of an arcane spellcaster. They get a few applicants:
A half-orc with all three levels of half-orc paragon and the rest of his levels are sorcerer. His Str is higher than his Cha and he uses an orc double-axe whenever he happens to start his turn adjacent to an opponent. He loves to fight and he knows his magical talents will help him find work doing battle. The character has a dozen pages of backstory that nobody wants to bother reading, and he's played by a "true role player" who sticks to the class flavor like it's rules.
A Gray Elf Wizard/PrCs specialized in Conjuration, whose build looks like the examples from an optimization handbook. What little he says in-character is mostly just matter-of-fact statements, and his background consists of attending an elven academy for wizardry, a tour of duty in the elven military, and then becoming an adventurer.
The party of adventurers recruiting an arcane caster needs someone who's good at being an arcane caster. They're going to be depending on whomever they hire to pull their weight, not be a liability, and have the right spell at their disposal whenever the party needs it. Which of the above characters do you think this party of adventurers would want to hire, given the above in-character criteria?

[nedz]

Foreward: I make a distinction between 'optimizer' and 'roleplayer' here. There are general terms for very general statements about the way different types of people play D&D 3.5; not everything I say will apply to everyone in a category. Conclusions I draw are general, not universal, conclusions.
I could be wrong but this sounds like a reworking of the old Roll player V Role player argument. There are many types of player and this has defied all attempts to generalise completely.


This forum's optimization culture is odd. Powerful characters? All for it! Restraint with respect to cheese and TO? Increasingly vestigial. Sometimes people don't like it, and we get sentiments about optimizers not caring about fluff. The response is usually referencing the tried-and-true Stormwind Fallacy, even if it's not an exact fit for the argument. Still, it makes the optimization culture relatively safe from pure munchkinry. After all, we still have fluff.
IMHO Advice varies from full on high OP to something more suitable to the OP's requirements, if they can be gleaned. Most of the time though people surf in and ask crunchy questions — it would be a bit strange if we just gave fluff based answers.

Also fluff is much simpler than the rules, which for this game are quite complex. It is therefore natural that we spend more time talking about the crunchy parts of the game. Also we can only offer opinion on fluff, rules are something we can usually be a lot more positive about.

There is a great deal of home-brew, most of which occurs on another sub-forum but it does spill over — mainly in the form of attempts to balance 3.5. This is mainly crunch, because rules.

One dimension of the rules, one way of looking at them perhaps, is that they exist to simulate a world in which the fluff can be modelled. This is often quite a hard ask but does result in quite a bit of creativity.



The Black Stain Objection: If you roleplay a lot, chances are you still respect the rules as written. If you optimize a lot, chances are you stop caring about the fluff as written.

I've met many roleplayers who will hand wave the rules in order to get the effect they want. This could be called munchkinism, but often it's not done "to win", but for ease of effort in achieving the drama based result they want.

That said; I think that this point is a bottom up versus top down kind of thing. If I want, say, to build a necromancer then I am liable to look at the various widgets {Classes, Feats, Spells, etc,) to see what I can use to build my necromancer. Fitting them together in a haphazard way is unlikely to work in this system — you just end up with a low OP build which doesn't do what it says on the tin. The widgets may sound cool, but the result isn't.

This really comes down to a corollary of Stormwind: The build must model the desired character or you will not be able to roleplay the character well.

[Stegyre]

I stopped caring about FaW well before I started optimizing. At first it was because I had my own ideas; then it was because I realized that WotC's fluff department is wretchedly incompetent. I reject your proposal, sir. REJECT IT. IN ALL CAPS. WITH COMICALLY OVERDONE YELLING TOTALLY OUT OF PROPORTION TO MY ACTUAL FEELINGS ON THE MATTER.
Yeah, I'll add my own +1 to this. I refluff because WotC fluff so often is wretched. Moreover, I doubt WotC itself ever intended the fluff to be limiting, as testified to by the many (though often poorly thought-out) variants they propose.

How is the WotC fluff any better, or any more valid, than any other fluff? Particularly if one considers that role playing and fluff are both exercises in imagination, refluffing is very much within the spirit of D&D and of rpgs generally.

And this whole equation of refluffing with TO? Complete non-sequitur.

[TheIronGolem]

Others have already addressed most of your individual points, so I will just ask one question:


The Black Stain Objection: If you roleplay a lot, chances are you still respect the rules as written. If you optimize a lot, chances are you stop caring about the fluff as written.

Why, assuming we accept this statement as true, should we regard it as something negative about optimization?

[Phelix-Mu]

Others have already addressed most of your individual points, so I will just ask one question:


Why, assuming we accept this statement as true, should we regard it as something negative about optimization?

I think it might be because it can potentially create a dichotomy around a given table, or in the community at large (which seemed to be part of the OP's original complaint). Basically, I care about what you care about, but you don't care about what I care about.

However, I will note that said dichotomy may exist without this statement being true, and the dichotomy is probably not a terminal condition.

It may, however, irritate people, which, again, speaks to the OP's point.

[Vanitas]

The Black Stain Objection: If you roleplay a lot, chances are you still respect the rules as written. If you optimize a lot, chances are you stop caring about the fluff as written.
Wow, very well said. I agree completely.


Your argument isn't necessarily a refutation of the stormwind fallacy as a result.
Was it supposed to be one? :smallconfused:

[olentu]

Huh, you have way more faith in people's ability to create good (or even halfway decent sometimes) rules then I do.

[HaikenEdge]

I stopped caring about FaW well before I started optimizing. At first it was because I had my own ideas; then it was because I realized that WotC's fluff department is wretchedly incompetent. I reject your proposal, sir. REJECT IT. IN ALL CAPS. WITH COMICALLY OVERDONE YELLING TOTALLY OUT OF PROPORTION TO MY ACTUAL FEELINGS ON THE MATTER.

I have to agree with this as well. The WotC fluff often feels like it's written by people who don't read good (or even creative) literature, to a point where people I've played with and DM for would rather completely ignore the fluff as written in order to play interesting characters.

[eggynack]

Was it supposed to be one? :smallconfused:
I assume so. He talks about the fallacy somewhat in the post, and the thread is titled as an "objection". I concluded, quite reasonably I must assert, that the objection was to the stormwind fallacy. I may be mistaken, but what're ya gonna do?

[Dimers]

Optimization can and probably has derailed a large number of campaigns. Fluff or role playing focus, on the other hand, probably has less campaign detritus in its wake.

Disagree heartily! Any Mary-Sue DMPC (or PC similarly favored by a DM) benefits from fluff/flavor that overpower actual game mechanics to a horrible degree. The character is cool, so the game must be twisted to benefit them. As another variation on this problem, one woman I game with has very distinct ideas about what she wants her character to be able to do based on fluff, and she'll spend hours of usable game time arguing fine non-RAW distinctions with the GM to try to get that. She has more equanimity about being allowed to do things she doesn't think her character could, but mechanically can ... yet even that has caused problems, where she roleplays in a way that makes the game stall to avoid being called out on it.

[Phelix-Mu]

I have to agree with this as well. The WotC fluff often feels like it's written by people who don't read good (or even creative) literature, to a point where people I've played with and DM for would rather completely ignore the fluff as written in order to play interesting characters.

I think a salient point, however, can be made about how fluff can be followed/modified/replaced with much less impact on the game overall, unlike RAW, which is much harder to tinker with (not to mention so broke that no small tinkering will have noticeable effect).

I don't know that this is good or bad, but I think there is something to be said when the Optimizer gets to play with his toys (RAW) while breaking those of the Role Player (fluff), while the Role Player has their toys (fluff), but can't really break those of the Optimizer (RAW).

Again, not sure that this is good or bad, or even true. Just saying that there does seem to be a decent argument that it is a thing.

EDIT: To clarify my earlier point, both optimizing and fluff-focus, taken to extremes, are bad. However, just increasing optimization will lead to dysfunction at a table with varying op-levels. Role play focus really has to be at some extreme levels before the game explodes in quite the same way. I concede, however, that, long before dysfunction is reached, both tendencies will reduce fun.

[rexx1888]

i think that the reason fluff is not spoken about as much on this forum as optimisation because its difficult to talk about. For instance, if you want to discuss some specific decision or fluff that comes up in a game, you must provide context to that discussion or else it will degrade into a mess.

This inevitably falls into the pit of a bunch of people talking about their characters to other ppl that dont care. We all know that this isnt a good way to talk to people, and that no one but us has an actual connection to that fighter we built five years ago that kicked a Minotaur in the nuts. The fact is, a discussion about optimisation simply requires stating a premise and backing it up with evidence from a book, then someone else comes along and refutes with more evidence. Its an easier, simpler and shorter discussion.

Additionally, no one wants to be told how to play their own character. Not by the DM across from you, and not from a random forum member. It isnt that people find the fluff or Roleplay less important, its that it is simply a far more difficult discussion to have.

[HaikenEdge]

I think a salient point, however, can be made about how fluff can be followed/modified/replaced with much less impact on the game overall, unlike RAW, which is much harder to tinker with (not to mention so broke that no small tinkering will have noticeable effect).

I don't know that this is good or bad, but I think there is something to be said when the Optimizer gets to play with his toys (RAW) while breaking those of the Role Player (fluff), while the Role Player has their toys (fluff), but can't really break those of the Optimizer (RAW).

Again, not sure that this is good or bad, or even true. Just saying that there does seem to be a decent argument that it is a thing.

EDIT: To clarify my earlier point, both optimizing and fluff-focus, taken to extremes, are bad. However, just increasing optimization will lead to dysfunction at a table with varying op-levels. Role play focus really has to be at some extreme levels before the game explodes in quite the same way. I concede, however, that, long before dysfunction is reached, both tendencies will reduce fun.

Not sure how this addresses my post, which you quoted?

That aside, personally, I find good roleplay generally comes from people who have experience in writing, reading, watching TV and movies, etc, and I believe the fluff only exists so WotC can feel justified in charging consumers through the nose for their books.

[Dimers]

This is @Phelix_Mu's various well-worded posts.

I refluff vigorously and frequently, so it's clear which camp I belong in (despite not being GOOD as an optimizer :smallwink:)

My objection to RPers getting their toys to play with is that if it breaks The Rules, we're not playing the same game any more. That messes with the reasonable expectation I had when I sat down at the table. Somebody invites me over for Monopoly, I reject the very idea and laugh at them with a sneer on my face expect to play Monopoly; somebody says "Let's play Carcassone", I expect to follow Carcassone's rules; when I make time away from other important things for a game of D&D, I expect to play D&D. If the GM and group say "We're playing D&D except sometimes Rule of Cool beats Rule of PHB", I can work with that -- but nobody has said that to me yet IRL.

[Phelix-Mu]

Not sure how this addresses my post, which you quoted?

That aside, personally, I find good roleplay generally comes from people who have experience in writing, reading, watching TV and movies, etc, and I believe the fluff only exists so WotC can feel justified in charging consumers through the nose for their books.

Sorry if I missed the fine thread of the conversation with my quote. Darn internet medium! *shakes fist impotently*

I totally agree with how the business model does not seem to have worked in WotC's favor. That said, they were following on the heels of TSR, who had some good fluff, some bad fluff, and a whole ton of semi-usable rules, all resulting in an almost totally failed business.

However, this point in the discussion is years after the cessation of 3.5, on a forum dedicated to beating dead horses and elucidating ad nauseum (in all its glory). The RAW endures in a way that the fluff does not, but both are of highly dubious quality.

My conjecture is much as others have said. We can abandon fluff with little ramification, as long as it is kosher in context (around a given table or whatever). Abandoning RAW pretty much means we might as well play some other game, or move to the homebrew part of the forum, or the like.

Can someone pls state the Stormwind Fallacy for me? Like without a wiki link, if at all possible.

[Kazyan]

Fluff isn't necessarily roleplaying though. Some optimizers care about fluff and roleplaying, and some optimizers care about roleplaying and not fluff, and some optimizers might care about fluff and not roleplaying, and some roleplayers probably care about fluff, and some probably don't. Your argument isn't necessarily a refutation of the stormwind fallacy as a result.

This is a different angle on a classic complaint that Stormwind is not applicable to, not a direct refutation.


I stopped caring about FaW well before I started optimizing. At first it was because I had my own ideas; then it was because I realized that WotC's fluff department is wretchedly incompetent. I reject your proposal, sir. REJECT IT. IN ALL CAPS. WITH COMICALLY OVERDONE YELLING TOTALLY OUT OF PROPORTION TO MY ACTUAL FEELINGS ON THE MATTER.

Please spell out for me why this is relevant to my point. This is about what chronic optimization does to the player's respect for fluff; if you never had any respect for fluff to begin with, I can't tell how learning optimization affects your approaches now.


One question: Why should I limit myself to the character archetypes the game designers came up with, and not those I can build using my own imagination?

You shouldn't, provided that you acknowledge that you don't need to limit yourself to the mechanics the game designers came up with. Treating RAW as a sacred cow and then ditching fluff-as-written at the drop of a hat smacks of having your cake and eating it too.


I think the focus on optimizers here has a lot to do with no one ever going to be able to agree on fluff.

While, at the same time, we can (mostly) agree on ridiculously overpowered stuff that fits within the rules.

The RAW questions thread is in its 25th iteration. It's not 1239 pages of people agreeing with each other.


I feel like rejecting the fluff is not really related to optimizing or not optimizing. A willingness to refluff things improves one's options regardless of how much they optimize.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what point you're trying to refute here.


The Fluff As Written only matters if I used the settings the publishers intended. I don't. It has nothing to do with Optimizing. I just homebrew and have my own universes and stuff.

Also, fluff doesn't make the game unplayable like mechanics can, so mechanics tend to see a lot more tweaking.

Having a completely different reason for auto-dismissing fluff is beyond the scope of my argument. You're not who I'm addressing with this objection.


I think that's because most of the fluff is relatively easy to understand, since it wasn't written in legalese.

I think people complain more when the RAW isn't in legalese, actually, but this is kind of a sidenote.


I think that's the key distinction here. Someone who want so build Sly the Fox isn't necessarily roleplaying very well. And someone who wants to play an ugly guy who can lift a truck isn't necessarily roleplaying poorly, even if it doesn't fit the fluff in the book (provided that it does fit the fluff of the world the campaign takes place in).

Also, respecting the rules as written is a good idea because, in order to play a functioning game, everyone needs to be on the same page about the basic mechanics of how the world works. Respecting the fluff as written is not only unimportant, but arguably a negative quality because the fluff as written is all but thrown out in many campaigns anyway, to be replaced by the world the DM wants to create. If you use the RAW in a homebrew setting, you're still recognizably playing D&D 3.5. If you use mostly homebrew mechanics in Faerun, not only does it end up not making much sense, but it also is hard to actually recognize as D&D 3.5.

I'm not really talking about roleplay, I'm talking about fluff. Using the term "roleplayer" was a goof; I just used it because it had connotations that already existed. But you're talking about what the DM does, whereas I am addressing player behavior. It's completely at the DM's discretion as to how the game works, because that's that DMs are there for.


Pretty much this.

"And now we will create a system in which you can channel the very essence of souls and bend them to your will!"
"Sounds great! What can they do with that?"
"Alright get this- they can make glowy blue faux magic items!"


But there's another element to it too. Much like creating a character in the first place, refluffing mechanics is a puzzle. "How can I explain these mechanics in another way? What would be both interesting and accurate, while changing their apparent nature completely?" It's fun to reinterpret.

Ultimately, I don't think anyone should cling to the default fluff. What weight or importance does it have? It is the system that makes the game work- and its you that makes the story work. A handful of fluff suggestions won't keep a coherent setting and story together, but you can readily make a brilliant game without them.

I have no counterargument for this.


I think you're mixing several concepts together as part of your argument that should be separated and considered each on their own merit.

Basically, but you forgot "Kazyan is frustrated and needs a time out" in your list.


I will do my best to deconstruct what exactly what you say and whether I agree or disagree.

<stuff>

I can't figure out what to say to this that isn't a red herring.


The "celebrity" is Tippy and it makes a lot of sense that posts like this would appear as a reaction to his setting. This thread will likely turn into a long set of rants and counter rants about Tippy, but I think it's worth pointing out why such strong reactions appear from people who read about his setting.

[etc.]

Basically, I'm frustrated that the "take rules to logical conclusion" setting has cheerleaders, and the "take fluff to logical conclusion" settings, which basically at the ones that are already published, are unpopular--when both are valid approaches to the game.


I do both A and B. Sometimes I have a character concept that I want to play (A small, hybrid dragon raccoon-boy thing freed from the illithid breeding experiments as a baby, whose intended purpose was to release the elder evil Pandorym, but fights the compulsions programmed into him to live his own life. Sounds like a good reason to play a refluffed gem dragon Dragonwrought Kobold psion to me!), so I fill it out with class, race, feats, skills, and so on. Sometimes, I find a gaming mechanic that sounds fun (Artificer who buffs his allies with spell storing dye arrows and archery? Sign me up! Time to figure out what'd lead to such an unusual support style!) and design a character around it, including fluff.

They're nowhere near mutually exclusive. Not even close.

Noted. Things are more complex than my simplifying assumptions, apparently.


Quite the opposite, actually.

[thorough counterargument]

As a final example, I'll repeat one that I've used in the past.

Your counterargument wins, but I'll half-heartedly point out that your parting example is a derail. My argument has nothing to do with whether the PCs approve of your PC; don't try to steer it that way.


I could be wrong but this sounds like a reworking of the old Roll player V Role player argument. There are many types of player and this has defied all attempts to generalise completely.

*shrugs*


How is the WotC fluff any better, or any more valid, than any other fluff? Particularly if one considers that role playing and fluff are both exercises in imagination, refluffing is very much within the spirit of D&D and of rpgs generally.

And this whole equation of refluffing with TO? Complete non-sequitur.

The objection is not with deciding not to follow WotC fluff. The objection is with consciously rejecting...actually, this part sounds wrong every time I try to rephrase it. I'll just give you your brownie point and move on.

Refluffing does not imply TO. TO implies refluffing.


Why, assuming we accept this statement as true, should we regard it as something negative about optimization?

It points out that optimization actually does have an effect on how you fluff your characters, and frustrating misapplications of Stormwind attempt to deny it. If you accept it, then I can't stop you from continuing to optimize. It's not like I won't quit doing so, either.


---

I do not have the vigor or talent to argue an off-the-wall opinion well; I think I just skewered myself. Can you tell?

[HaikenEdge]

Can someone pls state the Stormwind Fallacy for me? Like without a wiki link, if at all possible.

Short version is, "Being an optimizer and a roleplayer is not mutually exclusive."

Succinct version is, "The amount a player optimizes a character has little relationship to how effectively they'll be able to roleplay said character; a good optimizer can be a great roleplayer, and a bad roleplayer can be a bad optimizer."

[Dimers]

(Haiken gave the response to the fallacy itself, which is more or less -- to quote kamikasei -- "the idea that building your character to be mechanically optimal means you're roleplaying poorly, or that building your character to be mechanically suboptimal means you're roleplaying well.")

[TheIronGolem]

Why, assuming we accept this statement as true, should we regard it as something negative about optimization?


It points out that optimization actually does have an effect on how you fluff your characters...
Yes, but you missed the point of my question: why is this a negative? I can accept for the sake of argument that optimization affects fluff, but you really haven't made a case that this effect is detrimental.

[Phelix-Mu]

Hmm. Interesting. While I generally see the sense in stating that fluff and crunch, and their various applications, are indeed independent aspects of the game (just as are rolling dice/checking tables and creatively saying what your character is doing), I'd be interested if we can prove that there isn't some dialectical give and take in the relationship.

Moreover, the part that I think is most interesting is that, in my experience, system mastery and good role playing both exist at a meta level with regards to RAW and FAW. Both RAW and FAW are quite silly at points, even to the point of prohibiting one from sticking too closely to their oft self-contradictory ways. The real talent is to stick close enough that it's still D&D and fun and avoiding the stinginess that tends to get labeled variously as munchkinry or power-gaming, or just not being any fun to play with.

I don't know if any firm analysis of the dynamic is possible, frankly. The truly relevant factors are mostly intangible; willingness to compromise, permissive DMing, time allowed for investing in a quality game, the general nature of the dynamic around a given table (lighthearted, serious, old friends, amateurs, casual gamers, etc). All of this is quite hard to quantify.

Yet I do find myself somewhat in Kazyan's court. Not quite sure why, yet.

[Telonius]

I have seldom met a player of D&D 3.5 that even tweaks mechanics to make them fit the attached fluff...

I'd disagree on this point. In one word: Monk. In three words: Monk, Paladin, Fighter. There are probably a dozen threads each week with various people's Monk, Paladin, and Fighter fixes. Most of them are trying to achieve what the fluff suggests each class is supposed to be able to do well: wuxia-ish combat, warrior of a holy cause, and person who's supposed to be the best at fighting.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'd disagree on this point. In one word: Monk. In three words: Monk, Paladin, Fighter. There are probably a dozen threads each week with various people's Monk, Paladin, and Fighter fixes. Most of them are trying to achieve what the fluff suggests each class is supposed to be able to do well: wuxia-ish combat, warrior of a holy cause, and person who's supposed to be the best at fighting.

To play devil's advocate, though, I think most of the threads dealing with addressing that fluff involve some variety of RAW acrobatics (especially for making a monk that can monk better than the monk). Meanwhile, given some RAW concept, we take the refluffing as a granted part of the optimization.

[Dimers]

I'd be interested if we can prove that there isn't some dialectical give and take in the relationship.

I don't know what "dialectical" actually means, but if I'm getting the gist right -- there unquestionably is a fluff influence on mechanics used and a mechanical influence on fluff used. I refuse to use my character's mechanically ensured ability to knock a gelatinous cube prone unless the game was supposed to be silly. And I check the results of die rolls before I describe the action I tried to take -- a roll of 19 with a modifier of +1, a roll of 10 with a modifier of +10 and a roll of 2 with a modifier of +18 get three very different descriptions. And then those descriptions guide how my character should feel/react, which influences which mechanical option I try next ...

[Phelix-Mu]

I don't know what "dialectical" actually means, but if I'm getting the gist right -- there unquestionably is a fluff influence on mechanics used and a mechanical influence on fluff used. I refuse to use my character's mechanically ensured ability to knock a gelatinous cube prone unless the game was supposed to be silly. And I check the results of die rolls before I describe the action I tried to take -- a roll of 19 with a modifier of +1, a roll of 10 with a modifier of +10 and a roll of 2 with a modifier of +18 get three very different descriptions. And then those descriptions guide how my character should feel/react, which influences which mechanical option I try next ...

Indeed, so, assuming your example can be generalized to be more broadly valid, the Stormwind Fallacy establishes only a limited extent to which bad A implies bad B, or bad A fails to imply bad B, or that any correlation exists (given A=optimization, B=role playing). A correlation may exist, it may not, but there is often a meaningful interaction between the one and the other (as per your example).

In short, I am trying to grapple with the normal use of the Stormwind Fallacy in argumentation, because, to my fresh eyes, it seems both very obvious, yet also of limited scope in usefulness.

[HaikenEdge]

My CO history is pretty rusty, but I think the Stormwind Fallacy was originally posted on the WotC CO boards, during a period where a lot of "roleplayers" were saying people who optimize couldn't roleplay, and that they themselves picked suboptimal builds because they were good "roleplayers".

[Dimers]

I don't know that I've ever seen a use for invoking the Fallacy aside from "Hey, fluff-oriented-person, stop trying to tell me I'm playing poorly".

It's strange that on this forum I have only witnessed RPers bashing optimizers and not vice versa. RP is often disregarded for the many reasons upthread, but optimizers here never say "If you roleplay really well then you must suck at character building!"

[Phelix-Mu]

My CO history is pretty rusty, but I think the Stormwind Fallacy was originally posted on the WotC CO boards, during a period where a lot of "roleplayers" were saying people who optimize couldn't roleplay, and that they themselves picked suboptimal builds because they were good "roleplayers".

Hmm. Interesting. Actually, I often appraise "good optimization" based on meeting intent, not overall power level. My best personal example of optimization was an int-based monk17/wiz1/abjchamp2 that went into epic levels. My intent was to not crush my fellow group members/the DM with my vastly superior system mastery by tossing some druid20 monster at the campaign that would have resulted in everyone having less fun.

As a point of personal pride, I also wrote a four-page backstory/starting 20 levels, a two-page description of the appearance and method of acquisition of all her custom items, and a very intricate story about how she came to die (the premise of the campaign was that everyone started out dead at level 20). I made her LG, and my anti-Lawful bias is quite strong, so sticking to that role play device, a hyper-intellectual paragon of law dedicated to making sure to do the most good for as many possible...that was a challenge. And one that was very enriching.

So, personally, I find what the Stormwind Fallacy states to be obvious. On the other hand, that same epic campaign eventually died because the optimization war between the players and the DM ended with the players more or less winning (and one of the players making a mistake so big that none of us knew a simple solution that wouldn't involve even more derailing).

EDIT: @dimers: On principle, never say something never happens on the internet.:smallwink:

[BrokenChord]

I am neither a celebrity around here, nor do I actually have the opinion described in the quoted post. That post was me saying that people such as Tippy tend to believe that way. I feel special for my quoted post being a point of discussion, but please be a little less vague in your opening post; being as I have no reputation here, I'd prefer not to start building a negative one.

That said, I agree with you entirely. And I still feel special for in a way being the namer of this. (I know you weren't actually referring to me negatively, either, again I's just like that distinction made more clear)

[OldTrees1]

I don't know that I've ever seen a use for invoking the Fallacy aside from "Hey, fluff-oriented-person, stop trying to tell me I'm playing poorly".

It's strange that on this forum I have only witnessed RPers bashing optimizers and not vice versa. RP is often disregarded for the many reasons upthread, but optimizers here never say "If you roleplay really well then you must suck at character building!"

Strange. I have often seen fallacies incorrectly invoked as a means of censorship on these forums.

Something like: "You have reasons to not play High OP Tier 1 characters? Fallacy alert."

[Seto]

If you describe your Dragonborn Half-Minotaur Lolth-Touched Water Orc as a big ugly guy who just so happens to be able to lift 5 tons over his head, of course it might not sit well with pure roleplayers. You wonder what the big deal is; you're following the rules and you're roleplaying--what's the issue?

The complaint is that you're starting from the mechanics first, then creating the fluff around it, with disregard to the original fluff. If you're more of a roleplayerthan an optimizer (but are competent at both), you probably want to start with a character concept first, then find mechanics that let you play that concept without floundering.

I agree with the OP, keeping in mind that it's a general view and not an universal one. But IMO this passage exemplifies the argument. If you really care about a character concept, you do not play a Dragonborn Half-Minotaur Lolth-Touched Water Orc. Ever. These words just take the concepts of verisimilitude and believability, turn them upside down and tear them apart. Any attempt at roleplay justification will be farfetched and stretch the very notion of "background". I don't know, it just... shocks me. (Yes, I fully understand that this is a singular opinion and some of you won't share it. I'm just explaining how I feel about this matter) Roleplay-wise, it's simply bad taste.
And yet everyday on this forum there's talk of this kind of character.

[Rubik]

I agree with the OP, keeping in mind that it's a general view and not an universal one. But IMO this passage exemplifies the argument. If you really care about a character concept, you do not play a Dragonborn Half-Minotaur Lolth-Touched Water Orc. Ever. These words just take the concepts of verisimilitude and believability, turn them upside down and tear them apart. Any attempt at roleplay justification will be farfetched and stretch the very notion of "background". I don't know, it just... shocks me. (Yes, I fully understand that this is a singular opinion and some of you won't share it. I'm just explaining how I feel about this matter) Roleplay-wise, it's simply bad taste.
And yet everyday on this forum there's talk of this kind of character.It's perfectly reasonable to play something like this, so long as it's on par with the power level of the group, so long as the fluff is decent. Note that refluffing is an option, so as long as your fluff matches the abilities you have, and the build and fluff fit with the campaign and the other players, it's honestly no problem whatsoever.

[Drachasor]

I do not see how optimizing, roleplaying, and refluffing have any direct relationship with each.

That said, optimizing a concept can be a great roleplaying aid -- since you are actually GOOD at what you say you are good at. Refluffing can also be a roleplaying aid as well.

I do think there's a bit too much focus on RAW at times. In the sense that deviating from that is sometimes viewed as a bad thing. Frankly, you need to house rule, and house ruling can do a lot to make classes and concepts viable without a lot of crazy shenanigans. Now, some people like crazy shenanigans and that's all fine and good. It seems poor form to insist such crazy shenanigans should be how things are done for a concept the game doesn't easily support (and there are many basic and valid concepts like this). In the games I have run, I normally find out what concepts people want to play and then work with them to adjust the rules if they only provide poor or cumbersome concept implementation. (Sadly, I never actually GET a DM that's nearly as understanding).

That said, RAW is a good starting point for discussions as it provides a clear baseline. FAW seems less important, so long as New Fluff still makes sense with the mechanics and game world.

[Seto]

@Rubik :

It is reasonable, and people should play it if they find it fun, but it's indicative of a taste more mechanics-oriented than roleplay-oriented. Your very argument "if it's on par with the power level of the group" is not a fluff argument that would make it justifiable, but a balance argument (though I agree with you : balance in a group IS crucial to make the game enjoyable). Sure, refluffing can be an option (but with all the boni and mali, I'd bet the justification still would be stretching believability).
From a roleplay perspective, the only universe in which I would be perfectly okay with it (or anything with more than two templates, really, but maybe that's just me being Draconian) is "Funny Bizarro World", where the base concept is that everyone's character is farfetched.

[unseenmage]

A friend of mine reads RPG books for fun. Designs his own for fun. He even contemplated game theory for a while (his degree is in Philosophy/Theology) until, as he put it, 'I had to stop when I started researching why we even have numbers in the first place.'

He helped me to understand that different systems have different purposes. Storyteller systems are designed for fluff. Other systems might be designed for crunch. Minimalist systems (everything is 2d6, only 3 stats) are largely immune to Optimization, but boring as heck for many players. Even the fluff guys.

Some people play RPGs for the game, others for the socialization, still others for the escapism. And that's all good. Finding a system that satisfies them all? Nearly impossible. And so we have a multitude of systems out there. Minimalist, simulationist, tactical, roleplay, storyteller etc etc etc.

I suggest to the OP that they go out and experience some other systems and some other communities of roleplayers. Don't fall into the trap of trying to make 3.x do what you want when it might not have been designed for it. There's likely a good fit for your style and preferences out there. You've just got to know what you want then go find it.

And yeah, that is going to take research. Hard work. Some soul-searching possibly even. But is any of that any more difficult than trying to fit the round peg that is D&D into the square hole you're aiming for? I honestly don't know. Everytime I get fed up with an aspect of D&D or its community I quit for a while. Go get lost in a video game somewhere and come back to it when my patience is restored. But that's just my experience I suppose.

[Drachasor]

I agree with the OP, keeping in mind that it's a general view and not an universal one. But IMO this passage exemplifies the argument. If you really care about a character concept, you do not play a Dragonborn Half-Minotaur Lolth-Touched Water Orc. Ever. These words just take the concepts of verisimilitude and believability, turn them upside down and tear them apart. Any attempt at roleplay justification will be farfetched and stretch the very notion of "background". I don't know, it just... shocks me. (Yes, I fully understand that this is a singular opinion and some of you won't share it. I'm just explaining how I feel about this matter) Roleplay-wise, it's simply bad taste.
And yet everyday on this forum there's talk of this kind of character.

I have to disagree. It's not hard to refluff the actual mechanics here into something reasonable.

I think the bigger issue is that it is going to be tricky to have balanced in most games. There are undoubtedly much more balanced ways to implement whatever concept you have with that character.

[NichG]

I would certainly like to see more discussion of fluff on these forums, so I'm all for any sort of introspection that can encourage that and increase the culture of regarding fluff as seriously as one regards mechanics.

Part of the problem is that its a lot harder to tell if you're doing fluff badly than if you're doing mechanics badly. Another part is that its a lot harder to critique fluff than it is to critique mechanics. The illusion is that one is a matter of taste and the other is not, but I think the reality is that both are matters of taste to some degree while at the same time there are 'solid' parts of both that need to be well-crafted to correctly support the tastes they're trying to cater to.

I can easily give an example of how a given mechanic might have problems or be 'bad', but I don't have very much shared language to do the same thing with fluff. With mechanics, we have all sorts of classification schemes, terms, and ideas: the power of versatility, the tier system, 'swinginess', 'rocket tag', 'balance', 'spotlight sharing', etc.

With fluff, we have, I suppose, 'Mary Sueism' and 'Fantasy Kitchen Sink', but I can't think of that many more ideas that have come out of analyzing various forms of fluff. We just haven't built many ways to evaluate or think about the consequences of particular fluff choices.

What I'd like to see is a community that thinks about this enough that we can move past 'however I refluff it is okay, because its just my imagination' into something where there's awareness that some fluff can clash with theme, setting, mood, and even can create imbalances in actual play in games where the fluff is taken seriously, and so we figure out ways to refluff things well.

The first thing though is taking the fluff seriously. And step one to that I think is looking at cases where particular fluff choices can actually create imbalance in play, since understanding balance/imbalance is the root of much of the forum's development of mechanical understanding.

[AntiTrust]

]
I think the bigger issue is that it is going to be tricky to have balanced in most games. There are undoubtedly much more balanced ways to implement whatever concept you have with that character.

So I think that begs the question "Does this forum promote/produce balanced and reasonable players"

If it does, then stay the course

If it doesn't, then I'm curious to find out what kind of player is the forum producing and what, if anything, should be done about it

[Raven777]

I would like to bring an interesting point to the discussion : Paizo's RAI does not allow re-fluffing. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pzg0?Standard-Races-Claws-Talons-and-Feet#44)


Claws and Talons: If I gain claw attacks, can I put those claw attacks on my feet?
If you are a bipedal creature (roughly humanoid-shaped, with two arms and two legs), your claws must go on your hands; you can not assign them to any other limb or body part.

If you are a quadruped (or have more than four legs), you can have claws on your feet. If you have claws on all of your feet, normally you can't use all of those claw attacks on your turn unless you have a special ability such as pounce or rake.

Talons are much like claws, but go on a creature's feet, usually a bipedal creature (especially a flying bipedal creature such as a giant eagle or harpy). An ability that grants you claw attacks cannot be used as if they were talon attacks (in other words, you can't "re-skin" the ability's game mechanics so you can use it on a different limb).

[rexx1888]

I would like to bring an interesting point to the discussion : Paizo's RAI does not allow re-fluffing. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pzg0?Standard-Races-Claws-Talons-and-Feet#44)

but thats daft because they are trying to state that talons and claws are somehow different. Thats like saying your fingernails are different to your toenails. I mean, they are in different places, but they are the same sort of thing. Same as hair. You have hair all over, but we are still all pretty sure that pubic hair and leg hair isnt fur.... At least, i hope we all are.

point is, that quote is trying to do two different things. Its saying that claws and talons are different and that because they are different they are treated different within the system and cant be 'refluffed'. Cept they arent different... Hell, calling claws on your hands claws and claws on your feet talons is just its own kind of refluff.

[NichG]

but thats daft because they are trying to state that talons and claws are somehow different. Thats like saying your fingernails are different to your toenails. I mean, they are in different places, but they are the same sort of thing. Same as hair. You have hair all over, but we are still all pretty sure that pubic hair and leg hair isnt fur.... At least, i hope we all are.

point is, that quote is trying to do two different things. Its saying that claws and talons are different and that because they are different they are treated different within the system and cant be 'refluffed'. Cept they arent different... Hell, calling claws on your hands claws and claws on your feet talons is just its own kind of refluff.

It makes perfect sense. They're creating a distinction because they want to create different subsets of 'things that can happen'.

I can attack someone with my fingernails. Because of the articulation of my legs, it would be much harder for me to attack someone with my toenails.

But this isn't an example of forbidding re-fluffing, its more like a mis-use of the word fluff. This is an example of creating two separate sets of mechanical abilities - one for 'claws', the other for 'talons'. Taking the fluff away, this rules text is analogous to a rule saying something like 'abilities of type 1 and abilities of type 2 are distinct, despite their apparent similarity. Things that influence abilities of type 1 cannot be used with abilities of type 2, and vice versa'.

The reason to present rules text like this is usually because two sets of abilities look very similar in structure, but there is an underlying design reason why those abilities shouldn't be allowed to co-mingle. It could be something very esoteric, like there being some race that gets claws for whom a particular talon feat would create a very unbalanced synergy.

It doesn't really look like its about fluff at all though. An example of a rule forbidding re-fluffing would be something like 'a warlock's power always comes from a demon - you cannot refluff it to come from another source'.

[HaikenEdge]

point is, that quote is trying to do two different things. Its saying that claws and talons are different and that because they are different they are treated different within the system and cant be 'refluffed'. Cept they arent different... Hell, calling claws on your hands claws and claws on your feet talons is just its own kind of refluff.

I'm not familiar with Path, but are claws and talons mechanically different? If not, then I agree it's a refluff, but if they are, then not so much.

[Karnith]

I'm not familiar with Path, but are claws and talons mechanically different? If not, then I agree it's a refluff, but if they are, then not so much.
They are separate natural attacks, yes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules#TOC-Natural-Attacks). Even aside from the whole hands/feet quadruped/biped thing, claws deal bludgeoning and slashing damage, while talons only deal slashing damage. The ruling in question comes down against re-fluffing for a mechanical effect (however minor), which is not generally what people around here talk about when discussing refluffing.

Whether or not it makes sense for talons and claws to be mechanically different is, of course, another issue entirely.

[zephyrkinetic]

My 2 cp:

I am a roleplayer. I always start with fluff, and while I respect someone's ability to understand all the rules necessary to properly optimize (read: min/max, munchkin, Mary Sue, etc), I also realize that I can't. There are simply too many rules for me to keep track of. I start with the fluff as a matter of course. It is necessary for me. I have been playing for over ten years, and DMing for most of that, and my table still consists of laughably unmaximized characters. Would I allow someone to play a Half-Dragon Anthro-Bat Fey-Kissed Undead Aquatic Minotaur? Probably not. If they had a very convincing backstory? Ok, I may reconsider.

I think the reason (seemingly) most people here are into optimization is because they have progressed beyond me, through talent or practice. If I could wrap my brain around everything I need to, I'd totally participate in those conversations.

Alternately, perhaps people who talk fluff do so more in real life, and therefore don't need to seek out an online forum to find peers. I know I can talk about basic fluff at work with people who have no interest in D&D whatsoever, but have a basic understanding of Elves, Dragons, Dwarves, Swords, etc. I could not, however, roll into work and be like "Jeez, man, my DM thinks these three templates shouldn't be allowed together, but Issue 354 of Dragon mag says they can!" That said, I use these forums to check my fluff ideas against the RAW mechanics.

In short: I get what you're saying. I get frustrated too, especially since a lot of conversations seem to be people bashing my preferred stereotype (melee tank), and saying that those wimpy little dudes in robes are more powerful. But I also respect the people who apparently know things better than I do.

[HaikenEdge]

I am a roleplayer. I always start with fluff, and while I respect someone's ability to understand all the rules necessary to properly optimize (read: min/max, munchkin, Mary Sue, etc), I also realize that I can't.

Kind of a nitpick, but being a Mary Sue has nothing to do with optimization, and everything to do with roleplay. A Mary Sue is a narrative device, and while an optimized character would be better mechanically at being a Mary Sue, a unoptimized character can be a Mary Sue all the same.

[zephyrkinetic]

Kind of a nitpick, but being a Mary Sue has nothing to do with optimization, and everything to do with roleplay. A Mary Sue is a narrative device, and while an optimized character would be better mechanically at being a Mary Sue, a unoptimized character can be a Mary Sue all the same.

Normally, I agree with your posts, but I have to argue that a character with half a dozen templates, an uncommon race, and multiple dips is a Mary Sue. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding what a Mary Sue is; I understand it to be a character to whom all special and interesting things seem to inevitably happen. Right?

[HaikenEdge]

Normally, I agree with your posts, but I have to argue that a character with half a dozen templates, an uncommon race, and multiple dips is a Mary Sue. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding what a Mary Sue is; I understand it to be a character to whom all special and interesting things seem to inevitably happen. Right?

From Wikipedia (yes, I know it's Wikipedia}:


In fan fiction, a Mary Sue is an idealized character representing the author.

"Mary Sue" today has changed from its original meaning and now carries a generalized, although not universal, connotation of wish-fulfillment and is commonly associated with self-insertion. True self-insertion is a literal and generally undisguised representation of the author; most characters described as "Mary Sues" are not, though they are often called "proxies" for the author. The negative connotation comes from this "wish-fulfillment" implication: the "Mary Sue" is judged as a poorly developed character, too perfect and lacking in realism to be interesting.

By your definition, every PC ever would be a Mary Sue, because interesting things inevitably happen to PCs, because they're the PCs, so they're the ones going on adventures, saving the princes, and murdering the evil demon lord.

[Augmental]

Normally, I agree with your posts, but I have to argue that a character with half a dozen templates, an uncommon race, and multiple dips is a Mary Sue. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding what a Mary Sue is; I understand it to be a character to whom all special and interesting things seem to inevitably happen. Right?

Looking at Wikipedia:


In fan fiction, a Mary Sue is an idealized character representing the author.

So unless your character is a self-insert, it's not a Mary Sue by the traditional definition.

Edit: ninja'd

[Psyren]

Pretty much this.

"And now we will create a system in which you can channel the very essence of souls and bend them to your will!"
"Sounds great! What can they do with that?"
"Alright get this- they can make glowy blue faux magic items!"

What on earth is wrong with Incarnum fluff? I liked it.

Also, the Totemist stuff is very rarely blue, FYI.

[Rubik]

Normally, I agree with your posts, but I have to argue that a character with half a dozen templates, an uncommon race, and multiple dips is a Mary Sue. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding what a Mary Sue is; I understand it to be a character to whom all special and interesting things seem to inevitably happen. Right?So long as the abilities are appropriate for what you want, and the character is in line with the game you're playing in, it shouldn't matter how many templates or classes are used, since characters in 3.5 are modular, and all the templates and classes and feats and such are the building blocks for a person in the game.

And just like real people have wide and varied interests, and some people have a wide variety of unusual talents and oddities, fantasy characters can and do as well. And in a game where nearly anything can breed with anything else, and potential skill sets are FAR more varied than is possible in the real world, I'm sure there exist some very unusual people indeed.

[Darrin]

Might as well throw my own ignorant sweepingly generalized tuppence into the murky pond... Ideally, all posts on this forum could be divided into three different purposes:

1) "Fluff". Someone can ask about, explain, or prosletyze about "fluff". To be exceedingly short-sighted about this, you can clump most of this stuff into a few broad categories:

* Alignment threads
* "Make This Paladin Fall" threads
* All "Edition Advocacy" threads
* All "ToB is bad and kills puppies with cancer" threads
* All "Monkday" threads. Yes, it looks like people are arguing mechanics, but they're not. You either have a mechanical monk fix you like or you don't. The reason these threads never go away and never end is because people are arguing about the fluff: in their mind's eye, what should a fantasy monk look like, what should it be able to do, how do they imagine what it contributes to the setting/theme/story/etc.? "Martial Artist" as an archetype is so mind-bogglingly broad and variable that there is no "One True Monk Fix" that will satisfy everybody.

Arguing about this stuff is like critiquing someone else's pornography. There is no goal, no way to end the argument: what works for them works for them.

2) "Crunch". Mechanical advice, suggestions, and practical optimization. Put bluntly, "How do I make this character better mechanically without sacrificing X?", with X being a personality/concept/theme of some sort. There are also practical questions about certain situations, like what's the best tool to use here? Am I better off grappling or should I try Improved Trip? The goal here should be to provide people with suggestions, options, and sources to improve mechanical crunch. What's the best tool for the job, what are certain tools good for, what tools should you reconsider/avoid/burn in the fires of Mount Doom. Handbooks are good for consolidating all this, and essentially present someone with a huge cafeteria menu with a built-in food critic: Stay away from the turkey sandwiches, some people swear by the cheesesteak, but I think the pulled pork ribeye is absolutely the best.

3) "Optimization DMZ". By this I mean there's a line between "this will make the character more powerful/flexible" and "you should drape your character with all these big shiny *I WIN* buttons to make the DM cry." The goal here is different from #2 because it's not about which tools are best for job X, it's about how far can we push these tools to the breaking point. The biggest problem here may be the belief that there is some sort of independent neutral-party breaking point where everybody's game breaks down at the same point, but there isn't. That breaking point is individualized, and it's different for ever person or group. For some people, it's "Core monks are overpowered", and for others it's "Tippy-Ki-Yay-Mutha****a".

If the goal to #2 is finding the best tool for the job, then the goal of #3 is to plug all those tools into an an amplifier and then decide "How far do you want to turn up the dial?" Is 7 high enough, or do your windows shatter at 11? That line separates "I'm having fun" from "No one else is having fun". And that line is different for every single person, group, campaign, play session, etc. The goal here should be everyone finds that sweet spot that rattles their windows, but not so loud that the neighbors call the cops or the bass player quits over "creative differences".

For some people, there's an entire sport where they take various tools and throw them together in unexpected ways to see if they can cross the wires and blow up the amplifier, and this is something they just enjoy doing, and it helps them explore the extreme edges of the rules in a very satisfying way. But even those chuckleheads know that when they sit down at a table with other players, they need to turn that knob down a bit, or nobody will play with them. Still, it can be fun to play around and find out where that particular meltdown falls on your personal Not Enough/Just Right/Too Much scale.

There is an additional boundary to #3 discussions, and that's when it crosses over from "this is what works for me, try this" into advocacy: "your dial is set too high/low, and you are a bad person who hates bacon, unless you agree with me because well DUH!" This means the #3 has become a #1 discussion, and all hope to reaching a satisfying conclusion may be safely abandoned.



Ugh. Sorry about that. If there was a point I was trying to make with this post... I think I lost it somewhere in my own pedantic wankery.

[Rubik]

Arguing about this stuff is like critiquing someone else's pornography.
http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070402191916/harrypotter/images/2/2f/450px-Lucius_from_Order_of_the_Phoenix.jpg
LUCIUS MALFOY
Pornographer For Hire

[NichG]

As you've described them, none of those three types of posts sounds very appealing.

But I do see things that are more productive than that occasionally. For example, a few days ago there was a thread about 'what if all the energy types became [Cold] suddenly?', that explored various fluff and crunch consequences of that happening. Every so often you see philosophy threads about Wishes, questions about how you could make economics actually work in D&D, etc.

These threads have a fluff component that goes beyond 'criticizing someone else's pornography'. What I'd like to see is more of those and less 'Monkday'. Basically, while it seems like there's a lot of 'stuck in a rut' going around, its not the only stuff - sometimes you see something new and creative, and it'd be awesome to encourage more of that kind of thing.

[eggynack]

As you've described them, none of those three types of posts sounds very appealing.

I dunno. I have fun with them. I tend to like giving advice to folks, or otherwise argue about random stuff, especially because I sometimes learn cool things in the process. For example, about a week ago I was having a lengthy druid argument, and I got to develop a fancy new way to use entangle in inhospitable environments. Fun stuff.

[zephyrkinetic]

From Wikipedia (yes, I know it's Wikipedia}:

By your definition, every PC ever would be a Mary Sue, because interesting things inevitably happen to PCs, because they're the PCs, so they're the ones going on adventures, saving the princes, and murdering the evil demon lord.

I have high respect for the Wikipedia community, so no complaints there.

You make a fair point. In my mind, there's a fine line between "these things are happening because you chose to put yourself in a position for them to happen to you" and "your character just happens to have the right mix of everything to be good at everything." That said, I realize one can easily fluff the latter by saying "he was born/augmented into something so unusual that adventuring was a very sensible choice." In the end, I guess it comes down to a "feeling." And in my defense, I just like to give examples in threes; "Mary Sue" was a near-miss, it seems.


So long as the abilities are appropriate for what you want, and the character is in line with the game you're playing in, it shouldn't matter how many templates or classes are used, since characters in 3.5 are modular, and all the templates and classes and feats and such are the building blocks for a person in the game.

And just like real people have wide and varied interests, and some people have a wide variety of unusual talents and oddities, fantasy characters can and do as well. And in a game where nearly anything can breed with anything else, and potential skill sets are FAR more varied than is possible in the real world, I'm sure there exist some very unusual people indeed.

I'm actually a big advocate of playing non-core races/classes. It's just when it gets too obscure, or too convenient, that I feel it's getting into the Munchkin category. And I don't have as big a problem with someone taking bizarre classes when they're levelling up, so long as it makes sense (or can be justified, at least) with their character and the story progression. In other words, I hate the idea of dips, because if you're going to start learning a new set of skills, you generally (not always, I concede) will stick with it for a while. And if I'm playing an Urban campaign, and someone decides they're going to start, say, Geomancer progression, it raises a red flag.

[Captnq]

Only read the first post
The rest: TL;DR

Hi. I'm one of the worst optimizer here. I'm going to let you in on a secret.

Intent Matters.

Fluff is as important to me as the rules. The RAI and the RAW are a continuum, not mutually exclusive. More importantly, the rules should be explored in every fashion including how insane they are for one important reason.

The DM can make up any rules he wants.

But the players want to understand the rules. It makes play enjoyable when it makes sense. "Oh, I'm sorry, you always fail on a 20 and crit on a 1. I like to mix things up." Would this rule change the game? No. Would it be more annoying then fun? You betcha.

I see 99% of the stuff here as theoretical or sandbox anyways. In game, I cannot see any reason someone could pull off being a twice betrayer of shar. Cool concept, but really? Now your game might allow it. Someone might figure it out. It's when people just BUILD the PC as a whacky combo that is "possible", but didn't actually start out from 1st level that I start to have issues. It's sandbox mode.

But a game has to have a THEME. You just wanna wreck things, go ahead. It's sandbox. A campaign needs something to tie it together. In one game I might use RAW about something, in another I might go with RAI. In a campaign that's low magic, I may enforce training rules. In another game, when you get enough XPs, a soft "ding" is heard over your head and you get a level. What sort of genre/theme am I pushing here? That determines the rules I use and how I view them.

Now, that all said, I never play. I only DM. So this is from the point of view of someone who can do whatever they want. My whole goal is an entertaining evening. Knowing the rules allows me to be "fair" and "impartial", but I don't need them. I follow RAW to restrain myself and to avoid, "cheating." It's easy to get out of hand when you can create universes on a whim. Heck, I got a whole plot coming up where I'm going to hit the campaign setting with a planet. It's got a bit of heft to it, I suspect it might prove difficult for the players to handle.

I guess the point is, Powergaming is very useful, but it's simply a means onto an end. It's like people getting obsessed with money. The money itself is useless, it's what you can get with the money that's important.

[AmberVael]

What on earth is wrong with Incarnum fluff? I liked it.

Also, the Totemist stuff is very rarely blue, FYI.

Well, it's a matter of personal preference I suppose. But to me it seems nonsensical and bizarre. So, there is soul stuff. Not soul stuff specific to anyone, just a sort of general soulstuff, like a universal subconscious except souls. To use it, you take this basic soul stuff, then you turn into an item, and wear it. Behold the power of bling, I guess?

The first thing about this that seems odd is why items. The physical nature of soulmelds is at odds with their metaphysical nature- this is supposedly the power of souls, the spiritual, mental form of an entity. What need is there to give it physical form? A great number of soulmelds could lose any physical nature and remain exactly as they are. Those that are physical don't really seem to have much to do with souls. If you ask me, a Totemist would be better off as just a druid-esque shaman character, completely separated from the whole incarnum mess. Heck, I'd find them more druidic than druids if you used them that way.

On top of this, the aesthetic is atrocious. People have seen video games in which various enchanted equipment gets minmaxed, right? You often end up with a hideous mish mash of items that clash with each other. Well, Incarnum has that by default. Look at the picture on page 53. (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/moi_gallery/91056.jpg) That's what happens when you shape a lot of soulmelds. I can't take that seriously.

But most of all, why does raw soul essence do all this stuff? The book seems to put a point on incarnum not being actual souls, and not being tied to any specific beings... and then it tries to contradict that with the soulmelds, saying you shape it out of souls aligned with this or that. Surely if you want the power of a soul aligned to something, you should be calling on the power of fully realized souls rather than the basic building blocks. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if the incarnum powers came from specific individuals, past or present? That when you gained some power you were borrowing it from a soul that actually possessed it rather than something that knew nothing of morality, skill, or talent at all?

Put it all together, and it is a bunch of silly looking stuff with shoddy explanations that make up maybe a couple of paragraphs in a massive book. Why would I like it? The mechanics are interesting enough (if a bit too passive to fully focus on), but every time I used incarnum I refluff it in some way. I have no desire to ever use it as is.

[zephyrkinetic]

Only read the first post
The rest: TL;DR

Hi. I'm one of the worst optimizer here. I'm going to let you in on a secret.

Intent Matters.

Fluff is as important to me as the rules. The RAI and the RAW are a continuum, not mutually exclusive. More importantly, the rules should be explored in every fashion including how insane they are for one important reason.

The DM can make up any rules he wants.

But the players want to understand the rules. It makes play enjoyable when it makes sense. "Oh, I'm sorry, you always fail on a 20 and crit on a 1. I like to mix things up." Would this rule change the game? No. Would it be more annoying then fun? You betcha.

I see 99% of the stuff here as theoretical or sandbox anyways. In game, I cannot see any reason someone could pull off being a twice betrayer of shar. Cool concept, but really? Now your game might allow it. Someone might figure it out. It's when people just BUILD the PC as a whacky combo that is "possible", but didn't actually start out from 1st level that I start to have issues. It's sandbox mode.

But a game has to have a THEME. You just wanna wreck things, go ahead. It's sandbox. A campaign needs something to tie it together. In one game I might use RAW about something, in another I might go with RAI. In a campaign that's low magic, I may enforce training rules. In another game, when you get enough XPs, a soft "ding" is heard over your head and you get a level. What sort of genre/theme am I pushing here? That determines the rules I use and how I view them.

Now, that all said, I never play. I only DM. So this is from the point of view of someone who can do whatever they want. My whole goal is an entertaining evening. Knowing the rules allows me to be "fair" and "impartial", but I don't need them. I follow RAW to restrain myself and to avoid, "cheating." It's easy to get out of hand when you can create universes on a whim. Heck, I got a whole plot coming up where I'm going to hit the campaign setting with a planet. It's got a bit of heft to it, I suspect it might prove difficult for the players to handle.

I guess the point is, Powergaming is very useful, but it's simply a means onto an end. It's like people getting obsessed with money. The money itself is useless, it's what you can get with the money that's important.

This properly conveys everything it took me several posts to fail to say. If I could optimize properly (and could communicate effectively), this is the post I would have written.

Nicely, nicely put.

[Rubik]

I'm actually a big advocate of playing non-core races/classes. It's just when it gets too obscure, or too convenient, that I feel it's getting into the Munchkin category. And I don't have as big a problem with someone taking bizarre classes when they're levelling up, so long as it makes sense (or can be justified, at least) with their character and the story progression. In other words, I hate the idea of dips, because if you're going to start learning a new set of skills, you generally (not always, I concede) will stick with it for a while. And if I'm playing an Urban campaign, and someone decides they're going to start, say, Geomancer progression, it raises a red flag.Problem is, the most powerful builds dip very little. Druid 20 is so powerful that there are only (maybe) 2-3 druid PrCs that meet or exceed the single-classed version. Wizard 5/PrC 10/PrC 5 encompasses some of the most fantastically powerful builds in the entire game.

Barbarian 2/dungeon crasher fighter 6/rogue 4/ranger 2/monk 2/paladin 3? It's far more powerful than any of its component classes taken all the way, and except for the paladin levels, there's absolutely nothing about it that changes the fluff ("I continually improve my martial prowess through seeking the best masters to train with in the world!") but it's not even a greasy stain compared to wizard or cleric or druid 20.

[HaikenEdge]

This feels like it's turning into a roleplay vs optimization debate, which may or may not be the intent of the OP.

As a DM, I pretty much allow anything short of the most broken theoretically optimized builds, particularly because the games I DM generally aren't combat heavy, so if players feel like they want to play the President of Smack to make combat easier for themselves, more power to them. As far as I'm concerned, if the player can justify their build within the context of their character and the game world, I let them do it, because my only task as the DM is to facilitate the story of the player characters, and if that's what the players want as their characters, so be it.

As a player, I have certain expectations when walking into a game, and if those expectations are not met, ie, a DM telling me I can't do certain things because it doesn't fit the theme of their game, more likely than not, I will walk away from the game. This is not, however, because I'm a power gamer or a munchkin; rather, I myself have expectations when I walk into a game, and if those expectations are not met, I'd rather leave than adversely affect anybody else's enjoyment of the game, because I play D&D to enjoy myself, and if the DM's world is one I think I cannot enjoy myself in, then it's not a game I want to play in.

For me, RAI does not exist, because, unless I'm mistaken, there is not a single actual mind-reader in this world, so saying something is intended a certain way is creating an interpretation that may or may not be the actual intent of a rule. What we do have is what is written on the page, literally, and that's what I feel games need to go by; as far as I'm concerned, any claims of RAW are simply houserules, and while there are times and places for that (hell, I house rule a lot of things when I DM, mostly for playability reasons, ie, no multi-classing penalties, etc), I make no bones about the fact my houserules are not RAI, but are instead decisions I have made because I believe they will better serve the enjoyment of all parties involved in the game.

A DM making up any rule they want is Rule 0, and is almost never discussed in RAW-based character optimization, because that's outside the control of the player.

I was trying respond to something that was written in this thread, but I'm afraid this post may have gotten away from me. I guess my main points are, "Fluff should be the domain of the DM not books, WotC is only reasonably good at providing chassis in terms of crunch and is very bad at providing fluff, and anybody who claims to use RAI either is a mind-reader, or is really just houseruling and giving it a different name." The last bit is just a major annoyance of mine, so that's probably what set me off.

[Killer Angel]

I have to agree with this as well. The WotC fluff often feels like it's written by people who don't read good (or even creative) literature, to a point where people I've played with and DM for would rather completely ignore the fluff as written in order to play interesting characters.

sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's not. There are cases where a specific fluff is inherently tied to a class, to the point that even some mechanical effects are fluff-related (spellguard of silverymoon comes to mind)

[eggynack]

Druid 20 is so powerful that there are only (maybe) 2-3 druid PrCs that meet or exceed the single-classed version.
I'd probably put the number a bit higher nowabouts. Planar shepherd and moonspeaker are the two obvious options, with lion of talisid not being significantly worse than straight druid, and I think those are the two or three you're talking about, but there're some solid options outside of that. For example, imagine dipping a level of hathran and combining that with an acorn of far travel for the ability to spontaneously cast from the druid list, or going a full five for crazy circle magic shenanigans.

For less borkedness, consider the power inherent in picking up a level of holt warden followed by one of contemplative, thus gaining a whole domain of spell slots filled with spell domain spells. Also on the fancy domain granting list are things like divine oracle, which ups the druid's divination list by a lot, and seeker of the misty isle, which is obviously neat. I'd say that pretty much all of those things are better than a level or two of wild shape and animal companion. It's not like you're actually losing those things. Druid 20 is still a perfectly viable and optimal build though, so that point stands. it's not like you're ever touching multi-classing either.

[Karoht]

My reason for not really caring about or discussing the fluff as written:
1-It's poorly written IMO.
2-It's hard to have a fluff discussion, it's very easy to discuss mechanics. Fluff discussions feel very empty/pointless to me. It's like trying to argue my headcanon VS your headcanon regarding an aspect of some story we both enjoy. Sure, we could argue Lord of the Rings canon until we're both blue in the face, but at the end of the day it probably won't change much, so I'm not really interested in discussing it. The books and movies arn't going to be any different regardless of if you're right or if I'm right.
3a-When you come up with a concept for a character, chances are I have no idea what world the DM has in mind until we start actually playing. I don't know what fluff is important to the DM and which stuff isn't. Not very fun to integrate fluff into the build and backstory if it's just a data point that is going to be ignored.
3b-Inversely, I don't want my fluff/backstory dominating the other players experience or detracting too much from the main story. A side quest or two in order to resolve things is fine, but I don't want to hijack things or steal the spotlight.
4-Mechanics discussions trend towards optimization or the ability to make a concept come to life, the fluff gets shoved to the side as a natural biproduct.
IE-I want to build Captain America in 3.5, how should I do it?

[NichG]

Rubik, power isn't really the objection with something like the Water Orc nine-halves templated out the wazoo character though. Its that (especially in the really convoluted cases) players end up playing characters who are not thematically well-integrated with the base material of the setting. The 'power' issue here is that its a tempting motivator to sacrifice a little coherency for a little more oomph. In principle, someone who is just a silly person could cause just as many problems in a more serious game, because they love the idea of a bear-barian who turns into a bear who rides bears, attacks by throwing bears, etc.

The 'power' aspects are more of a 'tempting nuisance' than the core issue here. There's this illusion that somehow if these convoluted builds weren't actually powerful, people would be less driven to them. And the thing is, many people have moved beyond this problem successfully by using lessons learned from discussion of optimization. If you play a Tier 3 only game, you don't need Water Orc shenanigans to make a melee character who can keep up anymore. Or if you know what you're doing with Tome of Battle.

The really irritating thing is when someone takes one of these highly templated builds to a game and says 'hey, I've justified this build with my backstory. Just because this is powerful doesn't mean I'm not roleplaying well. Stormwind!'. The thing is, its not about them being powerful, its that their backstory is usually actually just plain bad fluff, and the Stormwind fallacy is often taken as an implicit argument that you're not allowed to criticize a player's fluff, because you must in fact be objecting to the power level of things and the fact that they optimized, not the fact that their Water Orc just doesn't make sense in the setting.

(Again, many people have moved past this sort of thing, and in a case where they wanted to play melee without being outclassed, they could make something slick and elegant using Tome of Battle and completely coherent fluff that works together seamlessly, and there's no problem.)

[Rubik]

Rubik, power isn't really the objection with something like the Water Orc nine-halves templated out the wazoo character though. Its that (especially in the really convoluted cases) players end up playing characters who are not thematically well-integrated with the base material of the setting."Rorc is powerful orc of mixed blood. Rorc is proud of Rorc's strength!"

That's all you need.


The 'power' issue here is that its a tempting motivator to sacrifice a little coherency for a little more oomph. In principle, someone who is just a silly person could cause just as many problems in a more serious game, because they love the idea of a bear-barian who turns into a bear who rides bears, attacks by throwing bears, etc.Characters don't see themselves as collections of modular game abilities, though. It's like, when I'm filling out those affirmative action papers when filling out a job application, I don't have to check off, "Okay, I'm 25% Scottish, 12.5% Norwegian, 12.5% Blackfoot, 12.5% Cherokee, blah blah blah." I just mark the box for "Non-Hispanic Caucasian," and that's it. Sure, I acknowledge my mixed ancestry on occasion, but as far as anyone else is concerned, they can tell just by looking which box I checked.


The 'power' aspects are more of a 'tempting nuisance' than the core issue here. There's this illusion that somehow if these convoluted builds weren't actually powerful, people would be less driven to them. And the thing is, many people have moved beyond this problem successfully by using lessons learned from discussion of optimization. If you play a Tier 3 only game, you don't need Water Orc shenanigans to make a melee character who can keep up anymore. Or if you know what you're doing with Tome of Battle.It's easy to smooth over rough edges, so long as you remember that classes are not jobs. Classes are general skill sets, and they can easily segue into each other with no stutters or breaks. "Barbarian" just means you get an adrenaline rush during emotionally-charged fights and can move a bit faster. "Fighter" is just a generic boost to combat prowess (plus a few martial techniques, depending on ACFs). "Monk" just means you've learned to fight unarmed and unarmored, and maybe learned a bit of stealth in the process, depending on skill allocation.

Granted, some classes (primarily spellcasters) don't segue nearly as easily. But they're the ones you generally don't want to dip with anyway, since spellcasting generally benefits from dedication to a full caster level. And for PrC dips? I don't see much difference between those and the mundane examples I gave above. All they require is a bit of prereq juggling, which is a purely OoC concern.


The really irritating thing is when someone takes one of these highly templated builds to a game and says 'hey, I've justified this build with my backstory. Just because this is powerful doesn't mean I'm not roleplaying well. Stormwind!'. The thing is, its not about them being powerful, its that their backstory is usually actually just plain bad fluff, and the Stormwind fallacy is often taken as an implicit argument that you're not allowed to criticize a player's fluff, because you must in fact be objecting to the power level of things and the fact that they optimized, not the fact that their Water Orc just doesn't make sense in the setting.But it's just as easy to come up with a good backstory and fill in the blanks with class dips. What does it matter whether it's top-down or bottom-up, so long as the end result is functional and fun?


(Again, many people have moved past this sort of thing, and in a case where they wanted to play melee without being outclassed, they could make something slick and elegant using Tome of Battle and completely coherent fluff that works together seamlessly, and there's no problem.)That's got a definite leg-up on the mundane classes, but sometimes you just can't represent the character you want without nabbing a few abilities from elsewhere, and sometimes your character has a glaring weakness (such as ranged combat, or saves, or lack of flight, or something) that really needs shored up in order to not die each encounter. Not every character concept can be built using prepackaged 20-level builds. That's why multiclassing exists in the first place, for just this sort of thing.

[Lappy9001]

I'm really glad this thread came along. It reinforces my idea of writing a section in a homebrew system that lets players (especially new players) know that the minimal fluff presented is entirely optional, and that they are even encouraged to make up their own fluff.

Sometimes it's fun to play a class straight. Half-orc barbarian that smashes stuff. Almost elegant in its simplicity, and probably really fun if you feel like solving every problem with either "I go into rage" or "I smash it with my greataxe."

And other times, you feel like playing a dignified and witty half-orc wizard with fantastic mental attributes and a knack for appling spells in creative ways. Both are equally valid options, and I honestly don't care if a player sticks with the presented fluff or discards it entirely and does their own thing.

As long as they're having fun and not disrupting anyone at the table, more power to ya, I say.

[NichG]

"Rorc is powerful orc of mixed blood. Rorc is proud of Rorc's strength!"

That's all you need.


Actually no, it isn't. This is what I'm talking about. This particular bit of backstory does not actually answer the question of how the complex mixed lineage came about, what it means for this orc to have parents, grandparents, etc, of a bunch of different species, etc.

This 'answer' basically just discards the idea that the fluff of all the character options taken has any meaning. It is not actually a 'good backstory' for this build at all.

This is 'I really don't actually like the fluff of the options I've taken, so I'm going to just ignore it and expect you to be okay with that'. Which is not the same as actually filling in the gaps.



Characters don't see themselves as collections of modular game abilities, though. It's like, when I'm filling out those affirmative action papers when filling out a job application, I don't have to check off, "Okay, I'm 25% Scottish, 12.5% Norwegian, 12.5% Blackfoot, 12.5% Cherokee, blah blah blah." I just mark the box for "Non-Hispanic Caucasian," and that's it. Sure, I acknowledge my mixed ancestry on occasion, but as far as anyone else is concerned, they can tell just by looking which box I checked.

It's easy to smooth over rough edges, so long as you remember that classes are not jobs. Classes are general skill sets, and they can easily segue into each other with no stutters or breaks. "Barbarian" just means you get an adrenaline rush during emotionally-charged fights and can move a bit faster. "Fighter" is just a generic boost to combat prowess (plus a few martial techniques, depending on ACFs). "Monk" just means you've learned to fight unarmed and unarmored, and maybe learned a bit of stealth in the process, depending on skill allocation.


Or, classes are jobs and there's a strictly hierarchical and traditional society where everything has a way about it. Or classes are actually supernatural powers granted by the gods to their representative hero. Or classes are actually flaws in reality created when the unending ended and a fundamental paradox was integrated with the structure of the cosmos.

This is kind of what I was talking about before about fluff having teeth. If fluff has teeth, then no, you can't just say 'this character option is merely a bundle of mechanics', because changing the fluff is equivalent to giving yourself extra feats for free. Of course this isn't true in every campaign, but I think its taken for granted that fluff is 'merely window dressing' when really, fluff can (and should IMO) matter just as much as mechanical rules text.

If you're a noble, for example, you should be able to go to your parents for money. Or you should be able to pull strings and get out of police custody when you're arrested for being present at a bar brawl. Or you should be able to walk into the high council meetings or get invitations to balls at the courts of kings in foreign countries or even negotiate to be kept alive when the party is captured. There's no mechanics for any of this, but it can be driven by the fluff.

If you're a Water Orc Half-tons of things, then each of those parents is a plot hook. Your genesis shouldn't just be handwaved away - that is bad roleplay, because those details matter.



But it's just as easy to come up with a good backstory and fill in the blanks with class dips. What does it matter whether it's top-down or bottom-up, so long as the end result is functional and fun?


Because 'functional and fun' for yourself are not necessarily the only standards by which something should be evaluated. There is the fun of the table as a whole, the function with respect to not just the mechanical aspects but also the roleplay aspects. If you're in a campaign where these things are important, then you're bringing in something which is actually poorly suited for that campaign compared to something where the fluff and mechanics are more carefully executed and expressed.

'I'm an elf so I like forests and thats why I'm a druid' is also bad, mind you, if thats all there is to the character. Convolution is not the only source of bad backstories.

[PersonMan]

Actually no, it isn't. This is what I'm talking about. This particular bit of backstory does not actually answer the question of how the complex mixed lineage came about, what it means for this orc to have parents, grandparents, etc, of a bunch of different species, etc.

I know very few backstories that describe multiple generations of their character's history.

I know of even less that make me give a damn. I mean, sure, the tale of how a wandering minotaur warrior met and had kids with an orc shaman is moderately more interesting than the story of Bob the Farmer's Son and Jill the Other Farmer's Daughter, but in the end I don't really care. If you want to include it, fine, go ahead. If not, it doesn't bother me. I mean, I don't ask for a Sorcerer to give me their 50-generation family tree and tell me how their ancestors ended up in bed with a dragon.

[NichG]

I know very few backstories that describe multiple generations of their character's history.

I know of even less that make me give a damn. I mean, sure, the tale of how a wandering minotaur warrior met and had kids with an orc shaman is moderately more interesting than the story of Bob the Farmer's Son and Jill the Other Farmer's Daughter, but in the end I don't really care. If you want to include it, fine, go ahead. If not, it doesn't bother me. I mean, I don't ask for a Sorcerer to give me their 50-generation family tree and tell me how their ancestors ended up in bed with a dragon.

The difference is, in most cases the detailed geneaology of the character doesn't actually factor into 'what the character is' to the same degree as a character with four templates. For your average wanderer, no, I don't care. I care about the things that are central and defining to the character, and that does overlap with the things that are mechanically central and defining to the character. If you're a Swordsage, then you learned that from somewhere - its a defining characteristic in some sense, and it should be clear. If you're a 4x templated Water Orc, well... that needs to be elaborated on as well.

If you have four templates, that means that not only do you have a very complex family history, but events happened in a way that kept the actual bloodlines of all of your family quite strong. If you're a half-dragon, that doesn't mean that 50 generations ago there was a dragon in your line, it means that one or at most two generations ago there was a dragon in your line. That means that that particular dragon is still around and kicking and, compared to its lifespan, you're a very recent event. Add to that another couple of templates and you have something very convoluted that, by its nature, demands explanation and detail.

That is, in some sense, the problem with the build from a roleplay point of view. Mechanics completely aside, it reads like someone who declares that their character 'went to lawschool, earned four different PhDs in different hard sciences and philosophy for kicks, learned to speak Chinese, Russian, Greek, and Swahili because he had a Russian maternal grandmother, a Chinese maternal grandfather, a Greek paternal grandfather, and an African paternal grandmother. Oh, and lets toss Spanish and Italian on there too - his mother and father travelled all over the world with him when he was a kid.' Its, well, trite.

I have yet to actually hear a good backstory for the heavily templated Water Orc. I've heard lots of people claim that their bad backstories were good enough. But if you do something ridiculous, it sets the bar a lot higher than if you do something more controlled. I won't exclude the possibility that one exists, but I will say that people tend to overestimate how easy it is to 'just explain away' something highly complex like that in a way that is actually satisfying and not just trying to brush it under the rug.

[Seto]

I know very few backstories that describe multiple generations of their character's history.

I know of even less that make me give a damn. I mean, sure, the tale of how a wandering minotaur warrior met and had kids with an orc shaman is moderately more interesting than the story of Bob the Farmer's Son and Jill the Other Farmer's Daughter, but in the end I don't really care. If you want to include it, fine, go ahead. If not, it doesn't bother me. I mean, I don't ask for a Sorcerer to give me their 50-generation family tree and tell me how their ancestors ended up in bed with a dragon.

But childhood, education, relationship with your family, singular events from your life, romance partners, etc. Are all things that are very important in an individual's psychology. Which makes them important to take into account when you really want to roleplay, in my view. (For example, I always figure out my characters' sexual history and behavior, even though I never roleplay it and neither does my group, because I think that desire is a crucial part of a human psyche. Of course, there are other ways, but this is an example of what is, IMO, caring about roleplay)

[Rubik]

But childhood, education, relationship with your family, singular events from your life, romance partners, etc. Are all things that are very important in an individual's psychology. Which makes them important to take into account when you really want to roleplay, in my view. (For example, I always figure out my characters' sexual history and behavior, even though I never roleplay it and neither does my group, because I think that desire is a crucial part of a human psyche. Of course, there are other ways, but this is an example of what is, IMO, caring about roleplay)Remind me to never ask the next time you decide to play an entomanthrope alienist oozemaster.

[HaikenEdge]

But childhood, education, relationship with your family, singular events from your life, romance partners, etc. Are all things that are very important in an individual's psychology. Which makes them important to take into account when you really want to roleplay, in my view. (For example, I always figure out my characters' sexual history and behavior, even though I never roleplay it and neither does my group, because I think that desire is a crucial part of a human psyche. Of course, there are other ways, but this is an example of what is, IMO, caring about roleplay)

If that's the case, you might as well write a novel every time you have to background a character, since how a character comes to be who they are doesn't just go back to their parents, but goes further beyond that, to the circumstances of their grandparents, great-grandparents, and generations back. If even one person was out of place, you'd have a completely different character.

[Slipperychicken]

But childhood, education, relationship with your family, singular events from your life, romance partners, etc. Are all things that are very important in an individual's psychology. Which makes them important to take into account when you really want to roleplay, in my view. (For example, I always figure out my characters' sexual history and behavior, even though I never roleplay it and neither does my group, because I think that desire is a crucial part of a human psyche. Of course, there are other ways, but this is an example of what is, IMO, caring about roleplay)

I did all this stuff for my first character ever, and it was awesome. I even had one of those "author character sheets" (This one (http://www.eclectics.com/articles/character.html), specifically) which are supposed to help writers create characters for works of fiction. It had pages of fields like "favorite food", "romantic partners", "relationship with mother" and other such items which really helped me inform who the character is. I find that I have more fun when I can get in depth like that, even though I don't have much time to answer all those questions now. I'm sure that if I practiced filling one of those sheets out, it would soon come as naturally as filling out a dnd character's stats.

Granted, I generally don't go into detail about the characters' family and friends. That way the GM can (assuming he cares enough to do so) fill in the blanks, integrate them into the setting, and use them for any purpose he thinks appropriate.

[icefractal]

I find that while backstory can be interesting, it often doesn't provide much "bang for the buck" in terms of roleplaying. Unless your character is extremely gregarious, the other PCs aren't going to know much of your backstory, and often the practical effects of historical details are unclear even to the player, much less to any observers.

My preference - while not ditching backstory entirely - is to focus more on mapping the character's reactions to things that are likely to actually come up in game. How do they act when they're victorious? When they're defeated? When they're the talk of the town? When they're just killing time on watch? When a spectre shows up and delivers mysterious threatening statements?

That's the kind of thing that (IMO) comes up more often, and has more effect on how the other players see your character, than what their family tree is.

[The Trickster]

I did all this stuff for my first character ever, and it was awesome. I even had one of those "author character sheets" (This one (http://www.eclectics.com/articles/character.html), specifically) which are supposed to help writers create characters for works of fiction. It had pages of fields like "favorite food", "romantic partners", "relationship with mother" and other such items which really helped me inform who the character is. I find that I have more fun when I can get in depth like that, even though I don't have much time to answer all those questions now. I'm sure that if I practiced filling one of those sheets out, it would soon come as naturally as filling out a dnd character's stats.

Granted, I generally don't go into detail about the characters' family and friends. That way the GM can (assuming he cares enough to do so) fill in the blanks, integrate them into the setting, and use them for any purpose he thinks appropriate.

Ok, that character sheet thing is awesome. +1 for you for bringing it to my attention.:smallsmile:



Basically, I'm frustrated that the "take rules to logical conclusion" setting has cheerleaders, and the "take fluff to logical conclusion" settings, which basically at the ones that are already published, are unpopular---

To be fair, a good portion of those people are refering to individuals commiting the Oberoni Fallacy (usually when talking about tiers, or balance questions).

A lot of people (if I needed to guess, 95-99%) don't play strict RAW games anyway. I know personally, I only become a stickler for the rules when we talk about game balance, and that's about it.

[NichG]

For me, I tend to characterize in terms of:

- What is the unshared truth that my character holds but which the rest of the world likely does not?
- What is/are the motivation(s) that drive the character's actions?
- What elements of the character's context constrain their worldview?

On top of that, useful questions may be things like 'What does the character feel confident in? Unconfident in?', and the like - more detailed stuff.

So, for example, I had a character who was a former god who had been cast down (the campaign's premise was basically, make a character from any setting you like - that setting has now been destroyed and you are the only survivor). Mechanically, he had a race that meant he was immune to fear effects. I decided to play that out and ask 'what does it mean if you cannot feel or even comprehend fear?'. The constraint of his context was 'fear is an impossible emotion - nothing he does can be motivated or based on an understanding of fear'.

As the game progressed, this particular thing became an interesting point of growth - because the character had been stripped of basically all power, the absence of fear was a dangerous handicap in many cases. But beyond that, when he finally found something that he actually was afraid of, it helped to set that element of the setting into contrast and made it that much more meaningful to the character.

To relate it back to the main line of this thread, the mechanics begat a fluff detail of the character that was important for characterization; I could have just ignored the ability and moved on, but I think that would have been doing a worse job of generating the character's fluff and making it coherent with the character's mechanics.

[iceman10058]

I believe wholeheartedly in refluffing classes and abilities to fit better into a campaign, so did wotc because they gave rules and guidelines on how to do it, and the best prestige classes are indeed ones that are tailored to the campaign you are playing. I dont have a problem creating your character to be very optimized and OP, I do it all the time, but doesnt mean i play to my full potential for one simple fact, it gets boring. being able to easily destroy a dragon with but a thought, lame, said dragon nearly wiping out the party but we slay it just in time to save the idiotic princess, thats fun and i think that is where people on here lose focus. having a barbarian that makes the hulk look like a weak pansy is cool, but doing it all the time takes the fun out of things.

[The Trickster]

I believe wholeheartedly in refluffing classes and abilities to fit better into a campaign, so did wotc because they gave rules and guidelines on how to do it, and the best prestige classes are indeed ones that are tailored to the campaign you are playing. I dont have a problem creating your character to be very optimized and OP, I do it all the time, but doesnt mean i play to my full potential for one simple fact, it gets boring. being able to easily destroy a dragon with but a thought, lame, said dragon nearly wiping out the party but we slay it just in time to save the idiotic princess, thats fun and i think that is where people on here lose focus. having a barbarian that makes the hulk look like a weak pansy is cool, but doing it all the time takes the fun out of things.

Fair points, although it is also fair to say that playing without any optimization can get boring too. I have played a sword n' board fighter before, and boy did I get board quick.

A little bit of practical optimization is nice.

[PersonMan]

But childhood, education, relationship with your family, singular events from your life, romance partners, etc. Are all things that are very important in an individual's psychology. Which makes them important to take into account when you really want to roleplay, in my view. (For example, I always figure out my characters' sexual history and behavior, even though I never roleplay it and neither does my group, because I think that desire is a crucial part of a human psyche. Of course, there are other ways, but this is an example of what is, IMO, caring about roleplay)

Of course. But your backstory =/= your parents' backstory. True, in theory you'd have to make 2-3 generations of fully fleshed out backstory to really be able to work out your character's childhood, but in practice it makes no sense. A few basic details are better than a long explanation that leaves the reader wondering who the character is - Bob the Second, who has the sheet, or Bob the First, whose backstory is described in just as much detail?

[Seto]

Of course. But your backstory =/= your parents' backstory. True, in theory you'd have to make 2-3 generations of fully fleshed out backstory to really be able to work out your character's childhood, but in practice it makes no sense. A few basic details are better than a long explanation that leaves the reader wondering who the character is - Bob the Second, who has the sheet, or Bob the First, whose backstory is described in just as much detail?

Sure. I write about 3-4 pages of backstory (for a young character), of which the parents' backstory represents maybe a paragraph. But in the specific case of a Half-Minotaur Feytouched Whatever Water Orc, who's probably a unique being in the whole universe, you'd need to develop why the hell he exists. And develop it REALLY well. (Because, being such a weird thing, it's probably a major part of his identity : where will it find a place ? Has it found acceptance ? Etc., etc.) Those are already questions that shape a half-elf, half-orc or half-dragon's life, so... You're taking it to the extreme. What I mean is that, as a DM, I'd want to have a really good fluff reason why you'd want to play such a character, other than "those templates go really well together mechanically, so I made a character with them, who the hell cares why ? He's there, just let me play this guy".

[Rubik]

Sure. I write about 3-4 pages of backstory (for a young character), of which the parents' backstory represents maybe a paragraph. But in the specific case of a Half-Minotaur Feytouched Whatever Water Orc, who's probably a unique being in the whole universe, you'd need to develop why the hell he exists. And develop it REALLY well. (Because, being such a weird thing, it's probably a major part of his identity : where will it find a place ? Has it found acceptance ? Etc., etc.) Those are already questions that shape a half-elf, half-orc or half-dragon's life, so... You're taking it to the extreme. What I mean is that, as a DM, I'd want to have a really good fluff reason why you'd want to play such a character, other than "those templates go really well together mechanically, so I made a character with them, who the hell cares why ? He's there, just let me play this guy".How many people intimately know their family past their grandparents? How many kids study their family histories in-depth, even for immediate family? I know I haven't, and I don't really know anyone else who has, either.

[Lord Raziere]

*snipped for shortness*

The Black Stain Objection: If you roleplay a lot, chances are you still respect the rules as written. If you optimize a lot, chances are you stop caring about the fluff as written.

I agree with you good sir. You have won my respect. You have voiced what I could not put into words for some time now, yet I always wanted to say, thank you.

[Boci]

I agree with you good sir. You have won my respect. You have voiced what I could not put into words for some time now, yet I always wanted to say, thank you.

Here's my question to you: why should U care about the fluff at written? Not only can it be weak at times, even when its written well it was written by for the masses. Surely I can right something more appropriate for my character and the game its set in. If not, why am I roleplaying?

[Drachasor]

In my experience a lot of people who "roleplay a lot" can also add in a lot of fluff and restrictions that don't exist in the game.

I don't know how that compares to the ones that don't, nor how that compares to optimizers (plenty do care about fluff and work within fluff in real games*). I don't think you can make remotely accurate statements about the population without some research to back it up. It's too complicated and reality can be counter-intuitive.

*You shouldn't act like people who mess around with TO actually use TO in their games.

[Lord Raziere]

Here's my question to you: why should YOU care about the fluff at written? Not only can it be weak at times, even when its written well it was written by for the masses. Surely I can right something more appropriate for my character and the game its set in. If not, why am I roleplaying?

Fixed for spelling.

True. But imagine if we didn't have it at all- just numbers and skills and feats with a bunch of pages blank, replaced with the words "make it up yourself" that isn't very inspiring now is it? people need some sort of focus for creativity, or they are left floundering without direction. its why its hard to draw from a blank page but easy to make thousands of fan fiction.

if the fluff was not there, it would inspire me to make my own. even defying the fluff as written and writing my own better fluff that replaces it in anger is a form of being inspired by it, for I would not have the passion to make the art I create, even if its a hateful passion. I cannot get that inspiration from the void, from a blank page. Therefore I must respect it. If nothing else, it provides framework, a foundation to build upon. Heck, you should see how many people over at RPG.net hate settings with too much fluff and wish they knew less about the setting so that they fill in things by themselves...but still want a setting to draw from. They even have an entire thread devoted to it! :smallbiggrin:

and I find it odd that you say "the masses" when we are one of those masses. I was under the impression that I am not somehow in some exclusive group we both share that is somehow above the rest of humanity in some vaguely defined manner so that we can laugh at everyone in an elitist manner. Was I wrong? :smallconfused:

the fluff is there to provide a baseline. a thing to leap from, a grounding. its there so that you can look at it so that can say that you can come up with something better- or simply extrapolate and fill in the blanks yourself, or twist it a little, or whatever you please. I may make art, but I respect the source I draw from. If I try to paint better than Michelangelo, am I not respecting him by saying that he is a challenge worth painting better than? If I make something great from being inspired by something completely horrible, am I not acknowledging that even in the most garbage-like of things there is something worth drawing from and making in spite of its horrible-ness?

Why, do you know the character, Dominic Deegan, Oracle? one webcomic protagonist made by the name of Mookie? its a horrible webcomic. complete snarkbait. the protagonist is a blatant mary sue, everything goes right for him, he completely dominates everything because of his Oracle powers....just....so terrible, ten years worth of it. ten years of the stupidest kind of writing mixed with naive idealism and bad jokes.
I made a character inspired by that actually. An elf oracle, named Meffelkrow. Only I then took away all the mary sue-ness, all the idealism and everything that gone right. I made that elf oracle's life HELL. I made him an orphan that made a deal with the cosmic mysteries to find his parents and ended up wandering for eighty years, predicting the future and having no one believe him, having him go around following a plan of the cosmos he didn't even know where it was leading him, and I made him the bitterest most disheveled elf there was, messy hair, baggy eyes, tattered robes, floppy ears, eternally pessimistic and sometimes mistaken for a zombie by villagers with pitchforks for comic effect. one of the best characters I ever made.

so in a way I'm thankful that bad webcomic exists. cause then, Meffelkrow wouldn't exist, yeah? you gotta respect the source. even if you hate it.

me? I don't see anything wrong with it. aside the racism/alignment stuff but y'know- refluffed, gotten rid of. used as inspiration to make better conflicts than racism, at least in my opinion.

[Boci]

Fixed for spelling.

You did a poor job (write not right in the second to last paragraph).


True. But imagine if we didn't have it at all- just numbers and skills and feats with a bunch of pages blank, replaced with the words "make it up yourself" that isn't very inspiring now is it? people need some sort of focus for creativity, or they are left floundering without direction. its why its hard to draw from a blank page but easy to make thousands of fan fiction.

I agree.


if the fluff was not there, it would inspire me to make my own. even defying the fluff as written and writing my own better fluff that replaces it in anger is a form of being inspired by it, for I would not have the passion to make the art I create, even if its a hateful passion. I cannot get that inspiration from the void, from a blank page. Therefore I must respect it. If nothing else, it provides framework, a foundation to build upon. Heck, you should see how many people over at RPG.net hate settings with too much fluff and wish they knew less about the setting so that they fill in things by themselves...but still want a setting to draw from. They even have an entire thread devoted to it! :smallbiggrin:

Here we are just getting caught up in words. Yes the fluff serves its purpose, yes you could say I "respect" it, although I'd find that a wierd choice of word. But I don't care about the fluff as written, because I want to rewrite it (at least parts of it) to suit my character and my game better. And I think that's a good thing.


and I find it odd that you say "the masses" when we are one of those masses. I was under the impression that I am not somehow in some exclusive group we both share that is somehow above the rest of humanity in some vaguely defined manner so that we can laugh at everyone in an elitist manner. Was I wrong? :smallconfused:

You were wrong if you thought I was implying that. Of course I am one of the masses, everyone is. And yet, everyone should be able to customize D&D's fluff to their own game. Its like your home. You use furniture magazines for inspirations, not as a blue print.

[NichG]

Here we are just getting caught up in words. Yes the fluff serves its purpose, yes you could say I "respect" it, although I'd find that a wierd choice of word. But I don't care about the fluff as written, because I want to rewrite it (at least parts of it) to suit my character and my game better. And I think that's a good thing.

You were wrong if you thought I was implying that. Of course I am one of the masses, everyone is. And yet, everyone should be able to customize D&D's fluff to their own game. Its like your home. You use furniture magazines for inspirations, not as a blue print.

There needs to be a balance of what fluff the player customizes and what fluff the DM customizes even here though. Consider, 'I don't like greatswords doing 2d6 slashing. I can do a better job than that. I'm going to make a character whose greatsword does 2d6 bludgeoning instead, because a huge weapon like that damages by crushing.'

Whether or not you like the new mechanic, can we agree that a player just bringing in a character with the new mechanic taken for granted would be overstepping? I feel the same way about fluff, or at least certain fluff.

This is where I think there's room for interesting discussion. I think different kinds of fluff are being lumped together when we talk about fluff. For example: saying 'my elf actually hates forests' is fluff, but so is 'my elf actually does sleep rather than meditate - he's just weird like that'. However, the first one is really part of personality, whereas the second actually says something about the world - that elves don't all meditate rather than sleep. Which means that now, you can't e.g. make the assumption that that elf that appears to be asleep on watch is just meditating.

Its a bit of fluff that has consequences beyond just being a detail about the person's character, so I think it at least needs to be run past the DM, just like 'I want my greatsword to do bludgeoning instead of slashing' (and it could reasonably be rejected if there's some reason the change is problematic for the setting fluff)

[Boci]

There needs to be a balance of what fluff the player customizes and what fluff the DM customizes even here though. Consider, 'I don't like greatswords doing 2d6 slashing. I can do a better job than that. I'm going to make a character whose greatsword does 2d6 bludgeoning instead, because a huge weapon like that damages by crushing.'

Damage type isn't fluff, its mechanics. Changing that risk upsetting balance, something refluffing does not.

[NichG]

Damage type isn't fluff, its mechanics. Changing that risk upsetting balance, something refluffing does not.

My point was, if you want to take fluff seriously (not just fluff as written, but fluff in general), then it too can have balance implications.

A canonical example is deciding 'my character is a noble'. It may not have mechanical implications in the system, but it has strong fluff implications that can give rise to imbalances in play or even mechanical imbalances when the internal logic of the setting is followed. If you're a noble, it implies that you can get introductions to a number of rich people who your fellow PCs would not be able to get in good with as easily. You can go places other PCs can't. You can probably even beg money off of rich friends from your school days, offsetting WBL.

Fluff, if taken seriously and not just as a coat of paint, has balance implications too. Some fluff is just a coat of paint. But we talk about the two as if they're the same, when they really aren't.

[Boci]

Fluff, if taken seriously and not just as a coat of paint, has balance implications too. Some fluff is just a coat of paint. But we talk about the two as if they're the same, when they really aren't.

Fluff can have balance implications, but only if try. My character is an impoverished noble, my character is a noble from a far away nation that has no diplomatic relationships with these lands. There are plenty of of ways to fluff your character as a noble without upsetting balance.

However I agree there are to categories, but I don't think you are dividing them well. I think fluffing and reflufing. Refluffing will not typically have balance implications, because all you are doing is explaining abilities your character already has, just in different ways to the book. Fluffing, just adding stuff and fleshing out your character, like your "my character is a noble" can have balance implications, though not necessarily.

Those I think are the two categories that get mixed up.

[NichG]

Fluff can have balance implications, but only if try. My character is an impoverished noble, my character is a noble from a far away nation that has no diplomatic relationships with these lands. There are plenty of of ways to fluff your character as a noble without upsetting balance.

However I agree there are to categories, but I don't think you are dividing them well. I think fluffing and reflufing. Refluffing will not typically have balance implications, because all you are doing is explaining abilities your character already has, just in different ways to the book. Fluffing, just adding stuff and fleshing out your character, like your "my character is a noble" can have balance implications, though not necessarily.

Those I think are the two categories that get mixed up.

Well, I think its probably as rich or richer than the mechanical balance landscape:

-There are kinds of fluff that are just coats of paint

-There are kinds of fluff which do in fact make a change to the game's structure but where the balance is basically irrelevant (the equivalent of a bludgeoning greatsword - it means that if you see a greatsword and assume 'slashing' you can be wrong, but it doesn't really impact balance in a significant way other than being misleading)

-There is fluff that has direct balance consequences (the nobility case, or being the member of a prominent organization)

-There is fluff that has direct plot consequences. For example: 'I'm a warlock but I get my abilities from Pelor'. Mechanically there's no obvious effect, but if the campaign is about warlocks being the way that the demon lords influence the material plane and there are churches hunting warlocks and all sorts of things like that, then this case of refluffing has a large impact on the viability of the plot.

-There is fluff that has cosmological 'how things work' consequences. For example: 'I'm a wizard, but I'm going to fluff my spells as channelling ki via meditational practices; verbal components are just meditation chants or kiai-type yells; material components are poultices and potions I have to consume when casting the spell'. The implication of 'this guy can do exactly what people who study tomes about elemental correspondences and astrology do, but without any of that' says something about the way the cosmology works, which means it can be disruptive.

-There is fluff that conflicts with theme. This is a campaign about a gritty war between noble houses in a pseudo-medieval, highly xenophobic and fearful land. My character is an orc with sunglasses who likes to party and wields machine-guns. More commonly the 'Drizzt xenophobia syndrome' where a PC plays something that will get locked out of cities or shot on sight, and then is upset that their character can't fully participate. 4th wall breaking fluff is another example of this that is all too common.

-There is 'Mary-Sue' fluff. My character is the half-fiend son of Asmodeus, and in a century I will inherit the hells when my old man bites it, but till then I'm down here messing with you guys. My butler is a CR 20 Balor, but the old man thinks I need to prove myself, so they're all hands off for now.

Since these are predominantly negative examples, I kind of want to give a few positive examples too.

-There is fluff that explains away mechanical inconsistencies. This can be good or bad (and I would say it needs to be run past the DM). For example, coming up with a quantum theory of magic that explains the existence of spell slots as energy levels in the aether.

-There is fluff that has balance and plot consequences that make the game as a whole more interesting, and everyone is on-board with it. If one character is, for example, the bastard son of the king and everyone agrees it would be awesome to do a Game of Thrones style campaign to try to get him on the throne and get titles in the process, that can work. Until the one focal character gets on the throne, he doesn't really have a huge advantage over other PCs (aside from the fact that they need to keep him alive).

-There is fluff which enriches the strategic/tactical structure of the game. DM's purview mostly, but this is things like monsters having certain behavioral quirks. A rust monster goes after the Wall of Iron that the PC wizard summons rather than attacking the fighter for his full plate - nothing in the rules that says this should happen, but it makes sense given the rust monster's fluff.

[Boci]

Well, I think its probably as rich or richer than the mechanical balance landscape:

I'm not too sure how much that list adds to things. I like my two distinctions better. It should be clear where something belongs and the practical affects are also obvious. I wouldn't even call some of those examples you listed fluff.

[HaikenEdge]

NichG:

It seems like you're confusing fluff for roleplaying and world-building, which are different things than fluff. Fluff can have an effect on the latter two, but, in general, doesn't replace them.

That's to say, fluff is stuff that doesn't really matter much in the long run, and has very little real effect on gameplay, whereas, roleplay and worldbuilding are two of the core things done in D&D. That's to say, most the stuff you list as fluff are actually roleplaying or world-building, which is outside the player's control and would have to be run through the DM first.

Changing fluff would be if a player decided they wanted their magic missiles to shoot globs of magical energy or magical energy that looks like bees, or if they wanted their adamantium greatsword to be made of orihalcon instead. Making a character who is the child of a deposed noble isn't changing fluff; that's roleplay and world-building, because the player has to play the child of a noble who has been kicked from power, and the DM has to accommodate the player character in the world, by creating a social system that includes said backstory.

[NichG]

I'm not too sure how much that list adds to things. I like my two distinctions better. It should be clear where something belongs and the practical affects are also obvious. I wouldn't even call some of those examples you listed fluff.

But they're also not mechanics in the sense of hard rules. They're 'things about the world' which are at once factually true, but at the same time do not have explicitly constructed rules-text that says how to run them.

Anyhow, categorization is mostly here as a way to start nuanced discussion. As the OP stated, we spend a lot of time arguing over minutiae of the rules, investigating the balance of the various mechanical options of the game, etc. Things like the Tier system, an understanding of how wizards can use spells to generate infinite gold, the wish economy, etc. When it comes to depth of understanding, on the mechanics side we have the sort of thought and in-detail analysis that went into the Tippyverse.

On the fluff side, we're nowhere near as advanced in our thinking on these forums. There are a few people I think who do really think about fluff seriously and it comes across in their posts, but there isn't a set of widely understood underlying factors for fluff the same way we have with the Tier system, the ideas of action economy, feat taxes, etc.

Its more challenging since its more interpretation-driven, but I think it would be a rewarding exercise. And I do at least agree with the OP that we just don't talk about it enough, or even recognize it as a valid topic half the time.

So, to bring it back to something concrete, I think examples are a good place to start. This could be anecdotal evidence about how our players' refluffing either worked well or didn't, conflicts or problems that emerged that weren't obvious from the start, things that felt awkward or things that really felt like they worked perfectly, etc. As a result, we can maybe make a set of rough guidelines in the form of 'A Guide to Fluff Design', the same way one might write 'A Guide to System Design' - not to be exhaustive, but to give ideas. This would cover both the DM's side of things (how to make fluff that is concise and actually matters in play) and the player side of things (how to refluff in a way that is harmonious with the setting, what kinds of fluff one should ask their DM first about, etc).

[Boci]

But they're also not mechanics in the sense of hard rules. They're 'things about the world' which are at once factually true, but at the same time do not have explicitly constructed rules-text that says how to run them.

Which seems to be considered world building, a sort of middle ground between fluff and hard mechanics.


On the fluff side, we're nowhere near as advanced in our thinking on these forums.

That's because its harder, more subjective and there's no common ground like the rules text. The forums are just better suited for mechanical discussions, particularly when it comes to a broad scope, as oppose to a single incident.

[NichG]

Changing fluff would be if a player decided they wanted their magic missiles to shoot globs of magical energy or magical energy that looks like bees, or if they wanted their adamantium greatsword to be made of orihalcon instead.

I would argue that this is as much worldbuilding as your other examples, because it can collide with unknowns about the setting. If Orihalcon is a real metal in the setting, then deciding that Adamantium = Orihalcon is a world-building decision in disguise as fluff.

The 'magical energy that looks like bees' thing may also collide with worldbuilding, if 'magic works a certain way' in the setting that precludes attaching form and image to magical effects (for example, if all fire spells are red, that seems like fluff but there are actual consequences to that, namely that you can identify the elemental type of a spell by sight; if all evocations are un-formed energy, then you can identify evocations by sight, and allowing it to be formed into bees would interfere with that).

There is also the collision with theme. In a serious game, a wizard going around shooting bees out of their finger may well interfere with the theme and tenor of the game. Not always, but thats the point of discussing this stuff rather than just taking it as given that refluffing = okay!



Making a character who is the child of a deposed noble isn't changing fluff; that's roleplay and world-building, because the player has to play the child of a noble who has been kicked from power, and the DM has to accommodate the player character in the world, by creating a social system that includes said backstory.


You added 'deposed' there which was not in my original example. 'I want to be a noble' - full stop - has direct gameplay effects. Adding deposed means that there is in fact still a gameplay effect, but its sort of brushed under the rug and its harder to tease out. Even as a deposed noble, you might have friends from academy days, have inroads with people still loyal to your family, have former retainers who feel servile to you, or even have a clear path towards redeeming your family. The guy who says 'I'm just a chef at the local tavern' does not have these things (he in fact has other things that may balance against it).

Many other games explicitly recognize these kinds of 'backstory advantages/disadvantages'. In 7th Sea, if you want to be a noble it costs a certain number of character points. If you want to have gone to college, it costs character points. In World of Darkness there are explicit background points for this sort of thing. D&D doesn't do this kind of thing in a mechanically explicit way, but that doesn't mean that those advantages do not actually still exist, it just makes them murkier.

[Boci]

The 'magical energy that looks like bees' thing may also collide with worldbuilding, if 'magic works a certain way' in the setting that precludes attaching form and image to magical effects (for example, if all fire spells are red, that seems like fluff but there are actual consequences to that, namely that you can identify the elemental type of a spell by sight; if all evocations are un-formed energy, then you can identify evocations by sight, and allowing it to be formed into bees would interfere with that).

That's only valid if the spellcraft rules made sense to begin with. You cannot object to the problems of refluffing when the default rules make no sense.


There is also the collision with theme. In a serious game, a wizard going around shooting bees out of their finger may well interfere with the theme and tenor of the game. Not always, but thats the point of discussing this stuff rather than just taking it as given that refluffing = okay!

African killer aren't terror inspiring?

Sure you can contrive reasons for how refluffing will affect the game balance, but if you just stop fighting and let it happen none of these worst case scenarios are going to happen.

Edit: See this is why the forums do not deal with fluff discussions that much. There is no common ground. We bring up some examples, you pull up something equally out of nowhere that makes it a problem, or attempts to.

[Dimers]

"My character is a noble" has mechanical consequences, or at least CAN have them -- just not necessarily ones with specific rules prepared in the rulebooks. I suspect most mechanists would say it's only okay to add that fluff to a character if the DM will enforce it having no mechanical impact or intends to use it to make a better game.

And I know that most mechanists would say it's not okay to change a greatsword's damage from slashing to bludgeoning because that has mechanical impact. You can make a new weapon type that does 2d6 bludgeoning with your GM's approval. But the greatsword remains slashing for purposes of cutting rope, performing poorly against 3.X skeletons, qualifying for Heavy Blade Opportunity and swordmage warding in 4e, not harming AD&D clay golems, and so on.

That said, yes, fluff can have consequences for plot, cosmology and theme in ways that players should not ignore because "it's just fluff". I consider myself a mechanist but I have plenty of examples of fluff I reject, starting with the jarringly ridiculous stuff like kender and warforged wildshape druids. You don't get to bring a psion whose shtick is teleportation into my gameworld where there's a God Of Saying "No" To Teleportation, regardless of whether it follows the mechanics of teleportation correctly. You don't get to fluff yourself as being from the Empire of Epiclevelia when I know the late-game plot will require people not having direct knowledge of Epiclevelia.


Sure you can contrive reasons for how refluffing will affect the game balance, but if you just stop fighting and let it happen none of these worst case scenarios are going to happen.

"Contrive" is not the right word to use. Fluff does affect game balance. If the fluff of "my parents were a dragon and a human" is attached to "half-dragon" mechanics, there's hardly a GM around that won't bring about other consequences of that relationship.

[NichG]

That's only valid if the spellcraft rules made sense to begin with. You cannot object to the problems of refluffing when the default rules make no sense.


That sounds like something that should be a corollary to the Oberoni Fallacy 'you shouldn't care about fixing A because B is more broken'. I can absolutely object to refluffing that, especially if I have fixes in the line for the other problems as well.

Its pretty much universally true in my campaigns and all the campaigns I've played in for the last 4 years that there are patterns underlying the way things are described by the DM, and that those patterns hint at things about the setting/cosmos/plot/etc. In one campaign, spirals were the sign of a horrible spiritual sickness that causes you to be unable to heal or die, so you just suffer more and more forever. After a certain point, even something like drawing a spiral could weaken that area towards inviting the sickness. Refluffing your magic missiles to fly in spirals would have had huge ramifications in that campaign, for reasons that you basically could not have known before hand (and, in that campaign, we absolutely could have done so - the DM would have said, sure! - and then we would have had a nasty surprise a year into the game)



African killer aren't terror inspiring?

Sure you can contrive reasons for how refluffing will affect the game balance, but if you just stop fighting and let it happen none of these worst case scenarios are going to happen.

The devils advocate argument is that the same is often true of many of the mechanical imbalances that people complain about on these forums. The rules let you build, say, a Tainted Scholar with nigh-infinite caster level. I've never seen someone try to pull that in an actual game. That doesn't mean that the rules that let you do that aren't problematic, and that a general understanding 'infinities in the game mechanics are bad design' isn't useful elsewhere.

I would say that the #1 thing I want to convey is 'Good fluff has teeth'.

The stuff in a DM's game that I care about is the stuff that can be interacted with and used. I don't care if the elven armor style has huge shoulderpads or lots of little curlicues if its never anything but a visual detail. But if I can get a bonus on masquerading as an elven guard because I notice the visual detail and then use it in my disguise, suddenly that fluff becomes relevant. The game should, IMO, be predominantly filled with things that are or can be made relevant. As a corollary, I consider it to generally be good form to take things that were not intended to be relevant and make them so - it enriches the game as a whole.

[Boci]

That sounds like something that should be a corollary to the Oberoni Fallacy 'you shouldn't care about fixing A because B is more broken'. I can absolutely object to refluffing that, especially if I have fixes in the line for the other problems as well.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying "there's no point in fixing something that is broke" I'm saying "If something is broken you should not put higher requirements of player fluff in the area".

Incidentally, I have fix for spell craft. It works by allowing the user to sense the energy signatures of the spell. There, now it makes sense and you can customize your spells visuals.


Its pretty much universally true in my campaigns and all the campaigns I've played in for the last 4 years that there are patterns underlying the way things are described by the DM, and that those patterns hint at things about the setting/cosmos/plot/etc. In one campaign, spirals were the sign of a horrible spiritual sickness that causes you to be unable to heal or die, so you just suffer more and more forever. After a certain point, even something like drawing a spiral could weaken that area towards inviting the sickness. Refluffing your magic missiles to fly in spirals would have had huge ramifications in that campaign, for reasons that you basically could not have known before hand (and, in that campaign, we absolutely could have done so - the DM would have said, sure! - and then we would have had a nasty surprise a year into the game)

And in my campaign that didn't happen. There, we reached the limit of how much we can discuss the matter. This is why mechanical discussions are more popular. There is more common ground in the form of the written rules.


The devils advocate argument is that the same is often true of many of the mechanical imbalances that people complain about on these forums. The rules let you build, say, a Tainted Scholar with nigh-infinite caster level. I've never seen someone try to pull that in an actual game. That doesn't mean that the rules that let you do that aren't problematic, and that a general understanding 'infinities in the game mechanics are bad design' isn't useful elsewhere.

That's true. There's a reason the gentleman's agreement is the most popular balancing act, it works the most reliable. I fail to see how that counters the point I was making.


I would say that the #1 thing I want to convey is 'Good fluff has teeth'.

I disagree, fluff can have teeth, but it doesn't always have to. Shrug, how do we proceed here again?


"Contrive" is not the right word to use. Fluff does affect game balance. If the fluff of "my parents were a dragon and a human" is attached to "half-dragon" mechanics, there's hardly a GM around that won't bring about other consequences of that relationship.

What does a plot hook have to do with things?

[NichG]

And in my campaign that didn't happen. There, we reached the limit of how much we can discuss the matter. This is why mechanical discussions are more popular. There is more common ground in the form of the written rules.

It doesn't follow. "In my campaign, the Swordsage was more powerful than the Wizard. Now we've reached the limit to which the Tier system is worth talking about." There are generalities that are going to be worth understanding whether or not your specific circumstances in a specific campaign are different.

The discussion is useful to understand something about the general structure of the gaming space, the design of homebrew, the construction of setting details in future campaigns, what to do when a player brings in disruptive fluff, etc.



That's true. There's a reason the gentleman's agreement is the most popular balancing act, it works the most reliable. I fail to see how that counters the point I was making.


The point is, even if a specific sort of problem doesn't actually reach your table, understanding the origin of that problem in general can help you deal with less egregious things, or even figure out ways to guide players who do want to do more extensive refluffing.

If I understand why the Tainted Scholar broke (because its power scales with a resource whose rate of attainment is controlled entirely by the player) then I know not to design mechanics where, for example, the player can generate money every time they use an at-will ability. Or mechanics where, say, a skill increases 5% of the time when it's used (because the player can just spam that skill on meaningless uses).

The fluff equivalent is, if I understand the ways in which specific fluff can give unintentional in-game bonuses, I can take those things and make them intentional instead, maybe associate them with corresponding fluff-based flaws, etc. For example, if a player wants to play a landed noble in my game, I can say 'fine, but in trade the king can call on your services to defend the nation in times of war'. But maybe thats not actually a good idea because the way that the benefit and flaw are leveraged are asymmetric - to leverage the flaw, I have to make the game about a war (its probably not a great idea, the same way that having the wizard be really powerful at high levels but really weak at low levels wasn't a great idea for balance in AD&D). This is the kind of discussion that can be had, and its useful to do so.



I disagree, fluff can have teeth, but it doesn't always have to. Shrug, how do we proceed here again?


Usually a response like this indicates a lack of interest in the subject matter. Which is fine, though its kind of odd to be posting about it then. There are tons of threads about 'how do I build a powerful bard?' that I don't even glance at because I just don't care about that. Doesn't mean that the topic isn't worthwhile to the people who participate in those threads.


What does a plot hook have to do with things?

Plot hooks are one way in which fluff can have teeth and control the direction of the narrative. In many ways, they're far more powerful than mechanical abilities.

If I'm playing a well-optimized character, I can kill stuff really well and win any fight that I get into. But that doesn't give me the ability to choose the direction of the plot, it just gives me the follow-through to complete whatever course is chosen. Often where fluff is strong and mechanics are weak is where it comes to choosing 'what will this campaign be about?'. My bringing in a character who is the son of Asmodeus gives me power over the plot comparable to how someone bringing in a Tier 1 caster gives them power over the resolution of mechanical conflict.

[AmberVael]

"Contrive" is not the right word to use. Fluff does affect game balance. If the fluff of "my parents were a dragon and a human" is attached to "half-dragon" mechanics, there's hardly a GM around that won't bring about other consequences of that relationship.

Fluff affects the game, yes. That could indirectly affect the balance of the game, but how it affects the balance entirely depends on the DM and the player.

Lets take the half-dragon. It could be your character is abandoned by the dragon, and raised by the human. They never met the dragon, have no connection to them- they're an outcast human and typically shunned. Or it could be that they're the favored child of the dragon, who shows up to give them aid. Or maybe their dragon parent despises them and wants to kill them. Or maybe their human relatives and peers are in awe of their inhuman powers and accord them respect.

All of these things can affect game balance (having to deal with allies, or enemies, getting gifts or suspicion), but all of them are valid approaches as is just saying "you're a half dragon, they're common, no one gives a fig." So when it comes down to it, there is no default fluff benefit or penalty for being a half-dragon- what happens is entirely dependent on DM and story.

Now, all of these things are good and interesting to have in a game, but since none of them are stated as default, since none can be taken for granted, you can't say that fluff has a balancing factor on the half-dragon mechanics, whether positive or negative. Anything the fluff does to balance is effectively custom DM material. As such... if you decided to use the half-dragon template with a completely different non-dragon explanation, it should be equally mechanically valid.

What you can say is that your fluff should be discussed and approved by the DM since it can have game implications, but that's just as applicable to a character who uses the default fluff for everything as a character who changes the fluff of things they're using. You can say that a good character should have interesting hooks and details to work with- that fluff should have teeth- but refluffing also doesn't affect that.

In short- yes, you should work your fluff around the game, setting, and plot. You should discuss it with the DM. But this all applies regardless of whether you have refluffed anything or not... so why should you cling to the default fluff?

[Boci]

It doesn't follow. "In my campaign, the Swordsage was more powerful than the Wizard. Now we've reached the limit to which the Tier system is worth talking about." There are generalities that are going to be worth understanding whether or not your specific circumstances in a specific campaign are different.

No, there is potential discussion grounded in a frame work both parties can understand. What maneuvres does the swordsage use, what spells does the wizard use? What enemies are faced, in what environments?

What does a fluff discussion have to parallel?


The point is, even if a specific sort of problem doesn't actually reach your table, understanding the origin of that problem in general can help you deal with less egregious things, or even figure out ways to guide players who do want to do more extensive refluffing.

But its all hypothetical with no way to quantify it, unlike mechanics.


Usually a response like this indicates a lack of interest in the subject matter. Which is fine, though its kind of odd to be posting about it then. There are tons of threads about 'how do I build a powerful bard?' that I don't even glance at because I just don't care about that. Doesn't mean that the topic isn't worthwhile to the people who participate in those threads.

I'm starting to talk like this because I really cannot see this discussion going anywhere good, and I'm sick of what amount a DM freaking out going "Oh woe is me, I must prevent my crass players from getting their grubby little fingers on my precious game world". You're not a best selling author (and even if you are you're not perfect).

I have had players introduce elements that went against what I had a established, or added something I hadn't accounted for. You know what I did? I rolled with it, and it made the game better for both sides. The players got to feel they could contribute to the campaign world (although not in a wa that could be taken advantage of because I was responsible for fine tuning the implementation) and I got some neat ideas I would have thought of otherwise.

I don't get this freak out DMs on this forum seem to go into at the mere possibility of the players coming up with something that doesn't fit their master vision.

[Dimers]

In short- yes, you should work your fluff around the game, setting, and plot. You should discuss it with the DM. But this all applies regardless of whether you have refluffed anything or not... so why should you cling to the default fluff?

Oh, I'm not a default-fluff kind of guy, don't get me wrong. I'm arguing against the concept that any application of pure fluff -- that which has no mechanical consequence but can nonetheless affect balance and gameplay -- is immaterial to a game. Whether it's original fluff or refluffing or there WAS no initial fluff, there are important potential implications.

What I understand NichG to be saying is that a study of the potential implications can be useful as a theory, to complement the theoretical understanding we already have of various games' mechanics. If that's correct, it's something I agree with. Maybe we can learn how fluff affects the games we play -- whether it's default, altered or new -- and thus develop some idea of the ways it's good to fluff things and some idea of pitfalls to watch for in fluffing.

[NichG]

No, there is potential discussion grounded in a frame work both parties can understand. What maneuvres does the swordsage use, what spells does the wizard use? What enemies are faced, in what environments?

What does a fluff discussion have to parallel?


That's a productive question for discussion. Lets go with that.

I'd propose that one general piece of information at least that is key to understanding the consequences of fluff is the degree to which one's will can be amplified by leveraging fluff. That is to say, if your fluff gives you some degree of leverage over other characters who are more powerful than you, then that is a distinct way that fluff can lead to mechanical effectiveness above and beyond what your sheet says.

'Being a noble', 'being the child of a dragon', even 'having an encounter with a deity at one point' all do this to greater or lesser extent. That doesn't suggest that these things should be forbidden from play, but it does suggest that the DM should be careful to be aware of this and make sure that everyone has about the same amount of leverage they can call on.

Another consideration with balancing fluff that is probably pretty universal is the issue of character flaws versus player flaws and spotlight time. A 'flaw' that causes the game to revolve around the player will not actually be a true counter-balance to some upside, because both the flaw and the upside allow the player to grab spotlight, which in turn means the player can have more control over the direction of play than the other players as a result.



But its all hypothetical with no way to quantify it, unlike mechanics.


People can in fact talk productively with each other without having numbers behind it. Philosophers have gotten on that way for thousands of years. Artists, musicians, etc can discuss styles of art and artistic methods without being able to quantify the Viewer Response Index and the Aesthetic Quotient and so on.

Would having numbers make those things easier? Maybe. But it doesn't mean that its useless to talk about the things for which there aren't numbers. It just means that one has to learn to think a little differently.



I'm starting to talk like this because I really cannot see this discussion going anywhere good, and I'm sick of what amount a DM freaking out going "Oh woe is me, I must prevent my crass players from getting their grubby little fingers on my precious game world". You're not a best selling author (and even if you are you're not perfect).


I've been trying to keep snark out of my posts, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy. Or we could go back to half the forum saying 'you optimize, so you're a bad roleplayer' and the other half saying 'Stormwind!!!' if you think that would be a preferable state of things.



I have had players introduce elements that went against what I had a established, or added something I hadn't accounted for. You know what I did? I rolled with it, and it made the game better for both sides. The players got to feel they could contribute to the campaign world (although not in a wa that could be taken advantage of because I was responsible for fine tuning the implementation) and I got some neat ideas I would have thought of otherwise.

I don't get this freak out DMs on this forum seem to go into at the mere possibility of the players coming up with something that doesn't fit their master vision.

There's something productive here, so lets pick it apart:

- Some DMs do not know how to roll with it. Discussing fluff explicitly and openly would help give these DMs ways to respond to this situation, might help them suggest compromises, or learn how to adjust the game while retaining what they want to get out of it.

- Discussion will generate a shared language that DMs who are having problems of this sort can use to talk about their concerns. This may help the players respond better to explain why (if) it is not a problem, or understand why it could be a problem. "No you can't make your spells shroud you with a shimmering aura" is a stone wall. "Having flashy magic interferes with the thematic element that magic is subtle, which is important because the detection or non-detection of magic users is a key plot point." is more likely to be a productive statement that can be negotiated around.

- Some DMs do not know how to tell the difference between harmless fluff and fluff that will cause problems for one reason or another, so they over-react or under-react since they don't have a good basis for understanding the gameplay role of fluff. Discussion helps hone this awareness, which would reduce cases of pointless bickering over fluff and focus things on the cases that could actually be problematic.

- You mention fine-tuning to prevent unfair advantages. This is a skill, and discussion of that skill and the ins and outs of it will help DMs who don't have it acquire it. Simply saying 'no discussion' will mean that those who have it have it and those that don't continue to have problems.



What I understand NichG to be saying is that a study of the potential implications can be useful as a theory, to complement the theoretical understanding we already have of various games' mechanics. If that's correct, it's something I agree with. Maybe we can learn how fluff affects the games we play -- whether it's default, altered or new -- and thus develop some idea of the ways it's good to fluff things and some idea of pitfalls to watch for in fluffing.


This precisely!

[Dimers]

No, there is potential discussion grounded in a frame work both parties can understand. What maneuvres does the swordsage use, what spells does the wizard use? What enemies are faced, in what environments?

What does a fluff discussion have to parallel?

To give an example, we can discuss the category where a character may have friendly contacts in the local area due to fluff. What does that require of the player and the GM and what's optional? In what situations is it likely to impact the game negatively? positively? What other implications are likely to be connected to the fluff of friendly contacts -- social skill access, requirement of social skills, age, subordinate or superior status, duties?


But its all hypothetical with no way to quantify it, unlike mechanics.

Qualifying is valuable as well as quantifying. We don't have to say "39% of games run with friendly-local-contact fluff grant effective bonuses of 10% or more to relevant social skill checks" to make use of the awareness that there may be an impact.

[Boci]

Okay NichG, you have made a compelling case for why fluff should discussed (and that dig at DMs wasn't aimed at you specifically, its just how I feel about posters who first reaction to player fluffing/refluffing is "but what if it goes wrong" I understand you need to consider the negative side, but then that line of thinking takes over their posts, which it almost always seems to, it just feels like they are looking for excuses not to more than anything. Sorry if it came off as a personal attack).

I'm still a bit unclear on the "how" part though. Right now the only way I'm seeing this working is 101 pieces of anecdotes about how a DM worked with a player to use fluff. Whilst potential useful that sounds like it would be a bit of a mess. Any attempt to make it apply to all games is going to be difficult and will likely result in vague statement. What specific statements can we make about having a PC be a noble?

Consider the implications of wealth and influence
Choose an existing noble hierarchy within the world
Decide what his inheritance he is entitled to, when does he gain it
Decide what responsibilities and expectations come with the position
Make sure he has the appropriate skills for the role (or not, if he was bad at them and always snuck out of class or something)

Which sounds pretty vague to me. And even this is a specific example of a noble PC.

[AmberVael]

Oh, I'm not a default-fluff kind of guy, don't get me wrong. I'm arguing against the concept that any application of pure fluff -- that which has no mechanical consequence but can nonetheless affect balance and gameplay -- is immaterial to a game. Whether it's original fluff or refluffing or there WAS no initial fluff, there are important potential implications.

What I understand NichG to be saying is that a study of the potential implications can be useful as a theory, to complement the theoretical understanding we already have of various games' mechanics. If that's correct, it's something I agree with. Maybe we can learn how fluff affects the games we play -- whether it's default, altered or new -- and thus develop some idea of the ways it's good to fluff things and some idea of pitfalls to watch for in fluffing.


This precisely!

I see! The initial thread topic has unfortunate implications on your argument then, which may bear considering- and some of the arguments have seemed a bit more in line with defending default fluff and its value... or at least a lack of consideration for how refluffing might make something valid.

To go back to the water orc with a hundred templates, for example...


This is 'I really don't actually like the fluff of the options I've taken, so I'm going to just ignore it and expect you to be okay with that'. Which is not the same as actually filling in the gaps.

What if I didn't like the default fluff implications of say, a lolth-touched mineral warrior half-minotaur half-dragon water orc? And what if my explanation was "she is not in fact all of those things, I have a completely different explanation in mind that just involves giants." This wording implies that you wouldn't be okay with that, even if the alternate explanation worked with with the mechanics (assume for the sake of argument that Alternate Giant Backstory does fit perfectly with mechanics- the specific example isn't what is important here). Is this just miscommunication, or would you object to the alternate backstory?

[Kalmageddon]

The Black Stain Objection: If you roleplay a lot, chances are you still respect the rules as written. If you optimize a lot, chances are you stop caring about the fluff as written.

Well said, I agree completly.

[NichG]

Okay NichG, you have made a compelling case for why fluff should discussed (and that dig at DMs wasn't aimed at you specifically, its just how I feel about posters who first reaction to player fluffing/refluffing is "but what if it goes wrong" I understand you need to consider the negative side, but then that line of thinking takes over their posts, which it almost always seems to, it just feels like they are looking for excuses not to more than anything. Sorry if it came off as a personal attack).


No problem, moving on then.



I'm still a bit unclear on the "how" part though. Right now the only way I'm seeing this working is 101 pieces of anecdotes about how a DM worked with a player to use fluff. Whilst potential useful that sounds like it would be a bit of a mess. Any attempt to make it apply to all games is going to be difficult and will likely result in vague statement. What specific statements can we make about having a PC be a noble?


Hm... my thought was that the anecdotes might give at least some idea of things that keep going wrong or things that consistently go right, from which we could revisit things and try to generalize. Thats kind of my attempt at keeping things concrete until we have a good foundation for building theory, since otherwise as you pointed out its easy to over-react about how potent something really is.

Maybe this is a good point to take hints from Nobilis, which is a game where the core mechanic is inherently very vague, and the game asks players a series of questions to help deal with that vagueness. So in this vein, I'd propose a set of questions that one should answer to ones-self when considering the consequences of a given bit of fluff. This is similar to your list, but I'm going to rephrase in terms of specific questions - see if maybe walking through that is more useful?

I'll also put a bit of reasoning behind each question.



- Who does this background give you contact with, who would otherwise be inaccessible?


Information flow is an important element of the progression of the plot and control of the narrative. Often, a limiting factor on how fast things can move is that you do not know the right people to tell information to, try to interact with, try to stop, etc.

For the DM: Be aware that this character may be able to jump ahead a bit or may try to leverage their contact to head off a threat. If you run a game where there's a threat at a much higher power level than the PCs when they discover it, a likely response is for the PCs to go and contact similarly powerful people to prepare/deal with the threat. As such, there can be a risk of dissonance if you have to come up with reasons why the powerful NPCs would not intervene, so its important to bias the pacing factors of the campaign towards lack of information rather than lack of ability when a PC has powerful contacts .



- What is the context that is required to exist because of this background?


If a player is playing a noble, that means that there is a nobility. That's kind of a no-brainer of course. But there will be dissonance if, for example, the nation the player came from is run by a council, or is a democracy/democratic republic/etc, and they're playing a noble. For something like a half-dragon, this implies the existence of dragons, their immediacy in the setting (e.g. its not that 'there were dragons 1000 years ago, but now there aren't) and that they can have offspring with other species.

In general, this question is all about the background causing things to exist or not exist in the setting.

For the DM: One thing to do is to intentionally force the context to be inconsistent in order to cause this background to spring into contrast. The player is a half-dragon but there have been no dragons for thousands of years - this is now a mystery that can be turned into a plot hook.



- What inconveniences are attached to this background? Are they player inconveniences or character inconveniences?


If a particular background is going to cause the PC to be barred from entering cities or forced to serve on the city council and not allowed to go on adventures, the player needs to know and/or the DM needs to do something to moderate this.

For the DM: Player inconveniences often become table inconveniences, and are generally bad game design - be very careful about allowing things that cause player inconveniences (e.g. not being able to travel with the party) without some sort of moderating factor. Character inconveniences are generally not an issue, but may increase spotlight time.



- What are the constraints on the character due to this background, for sake of internal self-consistency?


If all nobles are trained in foreign languages, but the character does not speak those languages, that becomes an inconsistency that should be resolved or explained. Much like forced inconsistency between context and background, a forced inconsistency between the character and their background can become a plot hook or important point.

Does that sound more concrete?

[Dimers]

What if I didn't like the default fluff implications of say, a lolth-touched mineral warrior half-minotaur half-dragon water orc?

I know I sure don't! Ew! :smalltongue:


And what if my explanation was "she is not in fact all of those things, I have a completely different explanation in mind that just involves giants." Is this just miscommunication, or would you object to the alternate backstory?

Whether it's the original sorta-genetic fluff, a replacement sorta-genetic fluff, divine champion fluff, elemental fluff or low-impact fluff (what, aren't ALL the characters pretty much like this?) wouldn't matter to me. What would matter is what (as the hypothetical DM in this response) I would need to do in order to integrate the character into the game. Elemental fluff might have a lot of mystical tie-ins. Divine fluff, you definitely have SOME relationship to the Church hierarchy, and not necessarily a good one. Genetic fluff would have implications for the gameworld, like everything being able to mate with everything -- in some cases that'd be a flat "no" and in others it would be awesomely plot-tastic. And so on. Which fluff you want will alter what I do with the gameworld and quite possibly how other players can or should build their characters.

I don't object to the alternate backstory inherently, and probably couldn't object to any alternate as much as I object to the original. :smalltongue: (Tongue firmly in cheek, there.) I would have serious qualms if you said "it doesn't matter what the backstory is as long as the mechanics are the same." Default, altered or new, the fluff has the power to alter the whole world and all the other PCs, possibly in excellent ways but possibly in bad ways.

[Boci]

Does that sound more concrete?

I guess, I'm still skeptical. But honestly, start that thread. See what happens. I wouldn't use this thread because I don't think it started on the best note. So start a new thread, "Theories on the DM and player's use of fluff" or something. I'd refrain from posting at first because I wouldn't want to bring my negative attitude in, but I would be interesting in how it goes.


I would have serious qualms if you said "it doesn't matter what the backstory is as long as the mechanics are the same." Default, altered or new, the fluff has the power to alter the whole world and all the other PCs, possibly in excellent ways but possibly in bad ways.

This is a common attitude, one I use as well, but I do have to ask "Why does it matter what their back story says? If you would allow, then its okay in the game, if not it isn't. Why make a player jump through hoops to play the character concept they want"?

[NichG]

What if I didn't like the default fluff implications of say, a lolth-touched mineral warrior half-minotaur half-dragon water orc? And what if my explanation was "she is not in fact all of those things, I have a completely different explanation in mind that just involves giants." This wording implies that you wouldn't be okay with that, even if the alternate explanation worked with with the mechanics (assume for the sake of argument that Alternate Giant Backstory does fit perfectly with mechanics- the specific example isn't what is important here). Is this just miscommunication, or would you object to the alternate backstory?

I would actually not be okay with this in general, because I want mechanics and fluff to be integrated in meaningful ways.

To put it another way, I would prefer that you create a completely new race from the ground up and propose its mechanics to me than to refluff a lolth-touched mineral warrior half-minotaur half-dragon water orc, because that way correlations between mechanics and fluff can still be preserved and remain meaningful.

E.g. if I want to say 'Lolth has special minions that bear her divine touch, and their attributes and powers are thus' then that means that a player can learn about Lolth-touched and predict things about dealing with them (and when they see similar abilities on another character, they can rightly assume that they might be servants of Lolth). Of course this is a really bad example because Lolth-touched is an incredibly bland template, with no actual Lolth-flavored mechanics, but hopefully the principle at least is clear?

In general, I want to preserve these sorts of patterns (though perhaps not this specific pattern), because they allow a player to reason about the events and situations within the game using all the information available to them.

Of course, on the face of it, creating a new race with the combined mechanics that are produced by that combination of templates will seem very unbalanced, so thats a social barrier to just going and making something internally consistent with the mechanics you want. There's the worry, rightly so, that the DM will say 'no, thats broken as a race', and the combinatoric exploration of templates is a way to 'make your case' that it should be allowed. Similarly, just having the mechanics handed to you removes some of the joy of finding ways to construct them yourself. So this is in fact a real problem and it needs to be handled carefully in a real game to preserve the parts of the game each player enjoys.

[Yawgmoth]

I can't believe this thread is 5 pages long, given the OP is so thoroughly wrong-headed.

Foreward: I make a distinction between 'optimizer' and 'roleplayer' here. Well there's your first problem. You treat optimization and roleplaying as opposite ends of a spectrum instead of independent traits. May as well say "I make a distinction between cake-lovers and pie-eaters." Nothing prevents anyone from enjoying both cake and pie, nothing stops me from enjoying both optimization and roleplaying.

Do we care as much about fluff as we do optimization? If we do, we certainly don't talk about it; like 90%-ish of the threads on this forum are exclusively mechanical discussions. That's because everyone plays using different fluff, but we all use the same rules. There's also a lot more rules than there is campaign-specific fluff, and said fluff is generally not in any sort of contention. And if it is, it's generally not anything we here on the forums can answer. Ergo, more rules question/requests/discussion.

Sounds convincing enough. You can substitute the fluff given by the book with whatever you want, and it would be just as valid, right? Well...kind of. You lose something by doing this Wrong. You lose nothing and gain everything, because by refluffing you change something you don't care about to something you do without screwing with mechanics. Changing the rules can have disastrous consequences, whereas changing fluff does not. It's the difference between putting a new coat of paint on your car and swapping the spark plugs in your engine. Only one of these can make your car explode.

"But you can't know what the authors intended. Maybe they wanted to make a template with those mechanics." Doesn't matter. The mechanics and the fluff are written so that they support each other Wrong. The fluff is readily and obviously written to be mutable and droppable at a moment's notice. Anyone who has ever played any TTRPG knows that trying to use fluff to balance rules results in tears & blood. It just doesn't work. The two are always going to be separate, especially with so many intentionally setting-agnostic books in print.

The complaint is that you're starting from the mechanics first, then creating the fluff around it, with disregard to the original fluff. If you're more of a roleplayer than an optimizer (but are competent at both), you probably want to start with a character concept first, then find mechanics that let you play that concept without floundering. Not only false, but also a particularly baseless assumption. People make their characters in countless ways, regardless of how much they like to optimize and/or roleplay.

On the "optimizer" side, you refluff some more.
On the "roleplayer" side, you ask to change the mechanics. Only if you start with the original flawed premise and take a pickaxe to it to fit it into an already poorly-dug hole. I ask to change mechanics if they suck, and I ask to rewite the fluff if it doesn't interest me. Neither has anything to do with the other.

The optimizer does not respect fluff as written as much as the roleplayer respects RAW. [citation needed]

I have seldom met a player of D&D 3.5 that even tweaks mechanics to make them fit the attached fluff I do both, and I'm certain you have too; any time you've heard anyone say "If [race/class/whatever] is supposed to do X, shouldn't they have [mechanical capability] instead of [existing quality]?" they were adjusting the rules to fit fluff.

I've also never met anyone who plays 100% RAW, and I've never met anyone who plays 100% FAW. Because both have large chunks of badness and need a bit of tweaking to actually function. And since creating functional fluff is a hell of a lot easier than creating functional house rules (and generally more enjoyable IME but that's personal taste), guess which happens more?

The Black Stain Objection: If you roleplay a lot, chances are you still respect the rules as written. If you optimize a lot, chances are you stop caring about the fluff as written.Absolutely baseless conclusion drawn from an absolutely baseless premise with a massive pile of assertions borne from nothing except your own personal bias and more straw men than a kansas corn field.

[Dimers]

This is a common attitude, one I use as well, but I do have to ask "Why does it matter what their back story says? If you would allow, then its okay in the game, if not it isn't. Why make a player jump through hoops to play the character concept they want"?

If the character would lead to a bad game for that player, other players or the GM, they shouldn't play it. That's not unique to this situation. We advise the same way in mechanics discussions -- "don't play a single-classed monk in a party with an optimized druid, wizard and warblade" or "don't take only AoE damage spells if the campaign is intrigue/mystery" or "don't play a frenzied berserker ... period". (Again, the tongue, it is in my cheek.) There are reasons to disallow certain character concepts in certain situations. Whether the issue is fluff or crunch, it might just not be the right game to use a given idea.

[Boci]

If the character would lead to a bad game for that player, other players or the GM, they shouldn't play it. That's not unique to this situation. We advise the same way in mechanics discussions -- "don't play a single-classed monk in a party with an optimized druid, wizard and warblade" or "don't take only AoE damage spells if the campaign is intrigue/mystery" or "don't play a frenzied berserker ... period". (Again, the tongue, it is in my cheek.) There are reasons to disallow certain character concepts in certain situations. Whether the issue is fluff or crunch, it might just not be the right game to use a given idea.

But that's the thing, you're not disallowing a character concept or allowing it, you are saying "Do X (right a good background story) and I will allow it, otherwise I'll disallow it".

[NichG]

I'm not sure that's actually what's being said here though. The character concept and the background that explains it in text aren't disconnected things.

[Spuddles]

{{scrubbed}}

[iceman10058]

Fair points, although it is also fair to say that playing without any optimization can get boring too. I have played a sword n' board fighter before, and boy did I get board quick.

A little bit of practical optimization is nice.

i agree, its important to build a character that you will enjoy, and that everyone else will enjoy having there as well. if everyone is of the same playing level, then a bunch op characters is fine, as long as the dm can handle it, otherwise it becomes more needed to make simpler characters.

[Augmental]

{{Scrubbed}}

Two stereotypes don't make a right.


{{Scrubbed}}

You're the one assuming an optimization disparity. The other characters could be just as complicated as the multi-templated water orc.

[Spuddles]

Two stereotypes don't make a right.

They dont make a wrong, either.


You're the one assuming an optimization disparity. The other characters could be just as complicated as the multi-templated water orc.

Optimization disparity? The wizard can cast 9th level spells and the cleric can persist more spells than he has slots.

There's definitely a fluff disparity, though.

[Dimers]

But that's the thing, you're not disallowing a character concept or allowing it, you are saying "Do X (write a good background story) and I will allow it, otherwise I'll disallow it".

What I'm saying is, your character should have both crunch and fluff that make the game better or at least non-worse. The fluff doesn't have to be verbose or pretty and it doesn't have to be something I already intended to have in my game, but it does have to pass muster in ways other than being one possible explanation of the crunch. Will it interfere with other players' fun or give them more fun? Will it turn a plot point into nonsense? Does it force the DM to do more worldbuilding work, and if so, will that be a net gain or a net loss for the game?

God, you know what I just realized? If we develop the language to talk about what makes good and bad fluff for a game, we could explain why some groups love their DMPCs! In addition to pointing out why many groups despise them, of course.

[Arkhaic]

Is requiring one player to write a large background due to class/race choices and not requiring other players to do so a good choice? If so, why when one can simply refluff and skip hours of wasted time that may or may not add to the game? Does this really add to the game, or is it simply a desire to prevent players from using a particular set of options?


No good argument against refluffing has been presented as of yet assuming the fluff fits the tone of the game and does not have a mechanical effect in practice. It takes a skilled DM to react and adapt appropriately to fluff, in the same way that it takes a skilled DM to react and adapt to optimization. All this has shown me is that extensive worldbuilding is not necessarily conducive to a fun game, particularly if it limits options in ways that the PCs don't know.

Most of these problems are covered by the gentlemen's agreement, and aside from madness such as holding FAW sacrosanct (FAW is as dysfunctional as RAW) they simply get in the way of holding a game session.

[Dimers]

No good argument against refluffing has been presented as of yet assuming the fluff fits the tone of the game and does not have a mechanical effect in practice.

Wait ... this thread was originally about following FAW? :smallconfused: *goes back and checks* :smalleek: Wow, weird. I can't grasp following anything strictly as written except as a convenience. There's nothing written, rule or flavor, that's both detailed enough and encompassing enough for unmodified practical application in the huge range of situations that actually come up.

[NichG]

Is requiring one player to write a large background due to class/race choices and not requiring other players to do so a good choice? If so, why when one can simply refluff and skip hours of wasted time that may or may not add to the game? Does this really add to the game, or is it simply a desire to prevent players from using a particular set of options?


'Large' is misleading here. I would say rather that the more complicated the set of things you're trying to explain, the harder the task is - and so to do it well requires a correspondingly higher level of skill.

The argument isn't that the Water Orc player should submit a 20 page backstory. The argument is that simply ignoring the complexities of the character when actually considering the character's fluff breaks the connection between what things are and what they do in the world. In other words, if you're a human with Str 18 'I'm just a strong dude' is fine. If you're a half-minotaur water orc lolth touched mineral warrior whatever, 'I'm just a strong dude' is not fine - because you've taken on that complexity, you've promised to somehow justify it. Which is much harder than justifying 'I'm a human with Str 18'.

Its not about power or forbidding options, its about making sure that character choices are more than just bags of numbers.

In my case at least, I would far rather you throw out all the template stuff and submit a re-mechanized Orc race than submit a refluffed version of the complicated build. There's no reason to prefer the refluffing over the re-mechanizing, especially when one requires glossing over something absurdly complex while the other ends up with something much simpler on both sides.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

After doing a ctrl+f on "pounce" I believe I'm the first to pick this particular nit:

Not having pounce or free movement doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective. I'll let that stew for a second...

Consider Fighter A and Fighter B. They're both 11th level, unbuffed, with no special mechanics benefiting them (all their feats are in Toughness or something), and they're about to fight from 30 paces. Fighter A wins initiative, and he moves and makes a single attack against Fighter B.

"This makes sense from a fluff perspective," my imaginary interlocutor says, "because that's a lot to do in 6 seconds." Now, back to the action:

It's Fighter B's turn, and he full attacks, getting 3 attacks in. In the same 6 seconds, Fighter A got one attack, and Fighter B just stood there and got 3 attacks. Remember that, while Fighter A is moving, the "fluff" of the combat scene is that Fighter B is just standing there waiting for him. Fluff isn't turn-based, so they have the same amount of "real time" to murderkillstab each other. So if no one has pounce or free movement, less reactive warriors (lower initiative) are somehow able to attack more.

"But wait," my imaginary interlocutor says. "I can just say that a full attack is a technique that requires a special fighting stance where you're not moving that much, unless you have some other ability that provides free movement or pounce." Great! That's called re-fluffing.

[OldTrees1]

Occasionally during character creation, some fluff vs crunch discord may arise. Either the character gets discarded or more frequently either fluff or crunch is bent to resolve the discord.

The more frequently we side with either fluff or crunch, the less we value the side we bent. I consider either extreme hazardous due to this devaluing.

However I would note that we as a forum seem to side mostly(almost always) with one particular side over the other. Thus while individually we may shun the extremes, collectively we are near one of the extremes. This, I believe, is an issue. Your thoughts?

[Augmental]

They dont make a wrong, either.

No, they make two wrongs.

[Vanitas]

Occasionally during character creation, some fluff vs crunch discord may arise. Either the character gets discarded or more frequently either fluff or crunch is bent to resolve the discord.

The more frequently we side with either fluff or crunch, the less we value the side we bent. I consider either extreme hazardous due to this devaluing.

However I would note that we as a forum seem to side mostly(almost always) with one particular side over the other. Thus while individually we may shun the extremes, collectively we are near one of the extremes. This, I believe, is an issue. Your thoughts?

I think this happens in part because so many people here have so much fun bashing the designers, including bashing the fluff they made.

[OldTrees1]

I think this happens in part because so many people here have so much fun bashing the designers, including bashing the fluff they made.

While I have seen fluff bashing in this thread, in general this forum does not fluff bash that often. This increases my concern since it would seem that we are, in general, oblivious to our excessive favoritism of crunch over fluff.

[NichG]

The phenomenon certainly exists. I often hear it justified one way or another, but I don't really know that I have a good feeling for what could be the true underlying reasons.

Boci's comment about fluff discussions being harder to cement in concrete, demonstrable facts is one such thing. Another thing I've heard said frequently is that 'its easier to come up with new fluff than it is to come up with new mechanics' (something that, for myself, is absolutely not true and is actually probably the reverse of the case, but I could see that holding for a large subset of people).

Another factor may be that a good portion of the traffic on the forum is people who want help with the intricacies of the character-building minigame. Its not just abstract discussions about the variance of the d20, but often what sets the tenor of discussion is 'my monk sucks, what do I do?' or 'I want to make this bard really good at minionmancy, how do I do that?'. People rarely come onto a forum to ask about their character's personality and how they can make their character deeper or make their fluff more interesting. That doesn't really answer the question though, it just pushes it back a layer.

Maybe what it comes down to is that we instinctively tend to think that whatever ideas we have are good. With quantitative things, the math often proves us wrong, but with the subtler art of fluff, we may never have that dissonance between expectation and reality to realize that there is a problem to be solved. Its a lot harder to make the connection that, e.g., you got bored with a character because you didn't give them a way to be proactive than it is to make the connection that you got killed in a fight because you let the dragon full attack you.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Also one tends to find fluff-oriented questions in the general RP section because, gasp, fluff questions aren't considered to be specific to particular sets of mechanics.

[Lord_Gareth]

I think this happens in part because so many people here have so much fun bashing the designers, including bashing the fluff they made.

Hey now. I call out the cool stuff when I see it. Pathfinder has a guy who got so drunk one night that when he woke up he was the god of doing stupid drunk stuff. That's awesome.

[Gemini476]

I'm a big proponent of emergent fluff - that is, fluff that is created by the mechanics of the game, even if the developers did not necessarily intend that.
It's a bit like what Tippy is doing, except spread out to everything.
Are most Monks either non-Humanoid or multiclassed, since they aren't proficient with Unarmed Strikes? In a world with drown-healing, how valuable is a drop of water in the desert? If you have an immortal Festering Anger Cancer Mage imprisoned somewhere, what do you need to do so that he can't just flex his heart and blow up the mountain from the shockwaves displaced from his bulging veins? If Aid Another or Profession checks always leads to less income than both working individually, why do people work together? Would they even do so?

Take the Paragnostic Assembly from Compete Champion, for instance. Probably 90% of high-level Truenamers will be members of it (and Masters of the Unturned Page, to boot!), simply because +10 to Truespeak keeps the class relevant for five more levels.
Is that a bad thing? Not really, since the fluff of the class and the fluff of the organization fit together like peanut butter and jam.
The same thing goes for Truenamers and the Illumian race, actually, since the fluff for Illumians kind of implies some sort of Truenaming-before-Truenaming-was-a-thing. I mean really, just compare how the Illumian gods ascended to that snippet in the Truenaming chapter about the Truenamer who thought he found the Word of Ascension but just ended up wandering Pandemonium until he went mad.
That Illumians are probably the best race for Truenamers is incidental. (There's only one build, after all.)

Speaking of Truenamers, did you know that the Red Wizards of Thay find truenaming a "distasteful threat"? Yeah, I don't know why either. Maybe they're afraid that someone will come and dispel their CL 40 effects.


As for the Lolth-Touched Mineral Warrior Half-Minotaur Water Orc, that's not really that difficult to work in. I mean, really.
Water Orc just means that he's an Orc with a strong racial connection to the Elemental Plane of Water,
Half-Minotaur means that one of his parents was a Minotaur (but could also mean that one of his grandparents was a Minotaur, or even further back in the tree),
Mineral Warrior is the result of the 6th level spell Mineralize Warrior and you need to serve the caster for a year and a day (but they just spent 500gp/HD and 250xp/HD, so it's a fair cop, guv [although I would deduct it from WBL if they have completed the service]),
and Lolth-Touched means that Lolth (or Vulkoor, in Eberron) has blessed the creature in question... which doesn't seem very difficult, since one of the example critters is a Drow Ranger 5.

So what you currently have is a burly half-orc (but not that kind) who served/serves under a 11th level Wizard and has been blessed by Lolth for one reason or another.
I'd allow the character without a WBL hit if the player understood that he was in servitude of said Wizard, but that's the only thing that really differentiates it from just being a CE half-something with huge strength and the [Earth] subtype.
I guess if they roleplayed some heel-face turn and went Good they could also grab the Dragonborn template/race-a-ma-bob, but yeah.

As for a Dragonborn's -2 Dex representing awkwardness in a new body, does that mean that the penalty to Dex disappears after a few years? Sweet!

[NichG]

So what you currently have is a burly half-orc (but not that kind) who served/serves under a 11th level Wizard and has been blessed by Lolth for one reason or another.
I'd allow the character without a WBL hit if the player understood that he was in servitude of said Wizard, but that's the only thing that really differentiates it from just being a CE half-something with huge strength and the [Earth] subtype.


See, I think this is worlds better than the 'I'm just a strong guy who can lift 5 tons over my head' refluffing. There are consequences to the various choices made - you're buddy-buddy with Lolth, you have a minotaur ancestor, you're in service to a wizard, etc - which then become the character's context.

The next thing to do would be to decide how each of those things happened to the character, because those are relevant decision points in the character's life. Where did his association with Lolth come from, and what's the story behind that? What was the reason he chose to become mineralized? Does it suggest a 'cold' temperment in the sense of 'only power matters', or did it come from necessity to complete some goal that he needed strength for, or was he a guinea pig against his will, or what? Does having lost his sense of touch change his enjoyment of life - e.g. is he pulling a Zelgadis and hates the fact that he's mineralized, or is he at peace with it, or did he just never care in the first place (physical pleasures are for the weak!)?

[Arkhaic]

All of those can be interesting concepts to start from, but forcing one into those is a bad idea. FAW is an optional starting place, not the only possible explanation. And it often contradicts itself, or otherwise makes no sense. For monks sake, look at the Book of Exalted/Vile Deeds/Darkness. When what one needs to model their character mechanically exists in the game, there is no reason to fabricate entirely new things when you can simply rename and refluff what already exists. We don't need to invent the wheel when we can refluff a potter's wheel as one.

[Lanaya]

I'm in favour of refluffing anything that isn't inherently tied to the fluff that comes with it, and there are very few things like that in 3.5. Lolth-touched, for instance, is a template with absolutely no connection to Lolth. If you'd never heard of it and someone told you that there was a template that makes a creature stronger, tougher, sneakier and more courageous, would that immediately bring to mind Lolth? The connection is totally arbitrary and needlessly restrictive, there's no reason at all that a different patron deity couldn't bestow those gifts upon you, and no real reason that it needs to come from a divine source at all. It seems far more appropriate as a Big Damn Hero template, one that turns a mere mortal into an unstoppable juggernaut through the power of destiny and unbreakable willpower or something like that. Likewise, there's some sort of fluff behind the mineral warrior template - something to do with the Underdark I think. But the idea of a person made of stone works perfectly well without that fluff, so why should we restrict ourselves to using it in a single, fairly boring way when there are so many possibilities out there?

One thing about the discussions going on here that does bother me a little bit is the idea of having to justify an overpowered build using a good enough backstory. A half-minotaur lolth-touched mineral warrior water orc is not acceptable because it's a cheesey munchkin build and you should feel ashamed of yourself, unless you can come up with a compelling narrative that ties it all together in which case it's okay? If the mechanical parts of a character are too strong for your campaign, it shouldn't be allowed for that reason, not because you haven't written out enough pages of backstory explaining in depth the history of your entire family tree stretching back three hundred years.

[Yawgmoth]

I think this happens in part because so many people here have so much fun bashing the designers, including bashing the fluff they made. That's ridiculous. People change fluff because fluff is subjective, numbers are not. We can say, objectively, that a feat that gives you +5 to [thing you want to do] is better than one that gives you a +3. We cannot do the same for a PrC that has you join an elite order (that you may or may not find interesting or want to join) vs. one that represents a physiological change (that you may or may not want to undergo or find compelling to roleplay).

While I have seen fluff bashing in this thread, in general this forum does not fluff bash that often. This increases my concern since it would seem that we are, in general, oblivious to our excessive favoritism of crunch over fluff. This is even more absurd. As I previously stated: fluff is subjective, crunch is objective. We can discuss rules interactions because it's nigh guaranteed that we're all looking at the same set of rules, the same brick of numbers with the same operation symbols. We can come to a conclusion based on these that someone else can look at and go "yep, X+Y=Z."

Arguing fluff, however, is a matter entirely based on taste and personal preferences, and thus is much harder to have a genuine discussion about. There's just less to talk about and is pretty much impossible to "prove" anything. Ergo, it doesn't come up as much since to bring it up without a request for critique is to say "you are having fun wrong!"

Which is exactly what anyone who states or implies that fluff should be held sacrosanct is doing. The various settings of D&D and the myriad setting-agnostic books are not some lovingly crafted, intricately detailed work of art. There is no one in charge of keeping track of what exactly would happen if a Disciple of Asmodeus came in contact with an Anima Mage, or how a Stonelord should feel about a Blood Magus. They're a series of suggestions and jumping off points that we can and should tinker about with. If you like the FAW, great! Run with it. If you have a better idea, great! Use that instead. There is literally zero reason not to.

[Arkhaic]

Yeah, even when people claimed otherwise I got the impression that that was the real reason they were requiring all that backstory, etc.

[OldTrees1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
While I have seen fluff bashing in this thread, in general this forum does not fluff bash that often. This increases my concern since it would seem that we are, in general, oblivious to our excessive favoritism of crunch over fluff.
This is even more absurd. As I previously stated: fluff is subjective, crunch is objective. We can discuss rules interactions because it's nigh guaranteed that we're all looking at the same set of rules, the same brick of numbers with the same operation symbols. We can come to a conclusion based on these that someone else can look at and go "yep, X+Y=Z."

Arguing fluff, however, is a matter entirely based on taste and personal preferences, and thus is much harder to have a genuine discussion about. There's just less to talk about and is pretty much impossible to "prove" anything. Ergo, it doesn't come up as much since to bring it up without a request for critique is to say "you are having fun wrong!"

Which is exactly what anyone who states or implies that fluff should be held sacrosanct is doing. The various settings of D&D and the myriad setting-agnostic books are not some lovingly crafted, intricately detailed work of art. There is no one in charge of keeping track of what exactly would happen if a Disciple of Asmodeus came in contact with an Anima Mage, or how a Stonelord should feel about a Blood Magus. They're a series of suggestions and jumping off points that we can and should tinker about with. If you like the FAW, great! Run with it. If you have a better idea, great! Use that instead. There is literally zero reason not to.

1)
I am not saying fluff should be held sacrosanct.
I am saying that a) collectively we disrespect fluff much more frequently than we would individually and b) that the extreme of devaluing fluff is dangerous in a similar way as the extreme of devaluing crunch.
previewing

2)
I am not saying it is not easier to talk about mechanics. The difficulty in discussing an element of a game should not be used as an excuse to continue extreme devaluation of that element.

It seems like my previous posts were not clear on these points. Did this succeed in communicating the difference between my position and the position your post was responding to?

[NichG]

I disagree that fluff is entirely subjective. Completely subjective fluff is objectively bad fluff. The mistake is thinking that fluff isn't there to actually do something other than look cool. If the only purpose of fluff is to look nice, then yes, it doesn't matter. But, as we've been saying, there are many cases where fluff has direct implications on gameplay, characterization and what the character does, even mechanical benefits. And once those are in place, it means that there start to be objective standards by which fluff can be judged.

Think of fluff like a room description - if you describe all the embroidery on the doily on the table, but don't mention the actionable things like 'there is a dragon in the room', then thats an objectively bad way to go about describing the room, because its wasteful of time and attention, but more importantly because it fails to deliver on what the point of describing the room is - to convey relevant detail to the players.

Right now, the problem is that both RAW and FAW are pretty awful (or at least contain a handful of pretty awful things). Of course refluffing is popular and somewhat necessary, the same way house rules are popular and somewhat necessary. But when you say 'FAW is bad, I can do almost anything and it will be better, so I'll just do whatever I feel like' thats sort of like the mechanical equivalent of 'RAW is broken, so if I replace d20 rolls with games of rock paper scissors, its all good! I don't have to be careful about mechanics because what I'm changing sucks!'

In the case of mechanics, if you do that the game breaks, so you get slapped on the wrist pretty quickly over it. In the case of fluff, you just end up with a somewhat hollow, dis-satisfying experience, a feeling like everything in the game is without any real meaning, or something where you have zero immersion because everyone is doing expy's from their favorite TV show, or something where everything is confusing because there's no flavor consistency.

In my sort of idealized picture of what D&D 'could be', each mechanically distinctive thing that goes above the sort of base-shading of the game world would be tied specifically to some kind of fluff, and there would be a (mostly) one-to-one relationship between them. If you summon and control fire, that implies something very specific, and everyone who summons and controls fire is covered by that implication. Exceptions, if they existed, would be hints at something deeper going on - all teleportation is through the Astral... well, actually through one of the three transitive planes, but Shadow and Ordial are much rarer. Things like that.

[Gemini476]

Likewise, there's some sort of fluff behind the mineral warrior template - something to do with the Underdark I think. But the idea of a person made of stone works perfectly well without that fluff, so why should we restrict ourselves to using it in a single, fairly boring way when there are so many possibilities out there?

The only way to get the Mineral Warrior template is to have someone cast Minerallize Warrior upon you. Some acquired templates have RAW restrictions on when you get it (as opposed to the completely fluff-based requirement for Lolth-Touched), like lycanthrope and being bitten or the Ritual of Transcrucimigration [?] for Necropolitan or the Dragonborn's ritual. Even if you don't follow the exact fluff, you should make sure to keep the mechanical aspects - you are in servitude (or have been), you are Large, etc. etc.
Whether or not a minotaur is in your bloodline is unimportant, what's important is that you get the stat adjustments, a Gore attack, the Track feat, and a +4 bonus to escape Mazes.
...The last one pretty much guarantees a Minotaur relative, though. I can't really think of anything else that even cares about Maze, except the Riddled Dragon Psychosis which gives you a penalty to Mazes.

Maybe you have a Riddled horned dragon (which one has horns?) and your family has developed an overly strong immunity to the illness. Yeah, I dunno. It's easier to just say that your father/uncle/cousin-once-removed is a Minotaur woodsman who likes crafting small miniature labyrinths in his spare time (as well as designing hedge mazes for extra coin). Or, just for novelty, you're a half-Water Orc Minotaur! Weren't expecting that now, were you?

While I am rather lenient on the fluffy side of things, I prefer to stick to RAW quite a bit. Personal preference.

[NichG]

The only way to get the Mineral Warrior template is to have someone cast Minerallize Warrior upon you. Some acquired templates have RAW restrictions on when you get it (as opposed to the completely fluff-based requirement for Lolth-Touched), like lycanthrope and being bitten or the Ritual of Transcrucimigration [?] for Necropolitan or the Dragonborn's ritual. Even if you don't follow the exact fluff, you should make sure to keep the mechanical aspects - you are in servitude (or have been), you are Large, etc. etc.
Whether or not a minotaur is in your bloodline is unimportant, what's important is that you get the stat adjustments, a Gore attack, the Track feat, and a +4 bonus to escape Mazes.
...The last one pretty much guarantees a Minotaur relative, though. I can't really think of anything else that even cares about Maze, except the Riddled Dragon Psychosis which gives you a penalty to Mazes.


I'm going to disagree here. Having had to have a wizard cast the spell on you is just as important as there being a minotaur in your bloodline. Actually, I would say mildly less so (if only because 'its a spell effect' and there are huge numbers of things that replicate spell effects in the game, but having _some_ consistent reason is important).


While I am rather lenient on the fluffy side of things, I prefer to stick to RAW quite a bit. Personal preference.

I'm pretty lenient with both, but I like things to make internal sense somehow. If person A is four times as strong as person B, that requires some kind of explanation, and it should be the sort of explanation where someone could go and say 'oh, so person C will also be that strong' or 'oh, where's this wizard who mineralized you, I want me some of that?' or the like.

[Coidzor]

I think partially, if you keep on suggesting houserules and homebrew to address mechanics issues instead of providing information about how to work within the rules, you reach the point where you're just laying the groundwork for a rejiggering of the entire system eventually and then you have people bumping heads about competing rules rewrites.

[Gemini476]

I'm going to disagree here. Having had to have a wizard cast the spell on you is just as important as there being a minotaur in your bloodline. Actually, I would say mildly less so (if only because 'its a spell effect' and there are huge numbers of things that replicate spell effects in the game, but having _some_ consistent reason is important).
The entirety of the mechanics of Mineral Warrior supports the fluff - that being that you have been partially turned into stone. As for the fluff for the half-minotaur, beyond the template being rather broken it the only things it gives that point towards minotaurs rather than, say, a large bull (go greek mythology whoo) is that you get resistance to Maze. Other than that one point, it could be any Large creature with a Gore attack.

Now, something like Half-Ogre? You could call that "Half-Giant" without having any larger issues. Or "Half-Ettin", if you're feeling particularly humorous. (Ignoring the actual Half-Giant which isn't Large for now, that is.)

Speaking of fluff for templates, did you know that there have been two entirely different templates for half-Vampires published? Now you do.


I'm pretty lenient with both, but I like things to make internal sense somehow. If person A is four times as strong as person B, that requires some kind of explanation, and it should be the sort of explanation where someone could go and say 'oh, so person C will also be that strong' or 'oh, where's this wizard who mineralized you, I want me some of that?' or the like.
You are aware that the spell in question is both costly and is basically selling yourself into indentured servitude for a year and a day? It's not exactly a glorious thing, not to mention that it makes you rocky.
And you get -2 to all mental stats and lose any existing fly speed (although you gain a burrow speed and DR 8/Adamantine.)
All for +2 Str and +4 Con? At 1750gp/HD, the average adventurer is probably better off just buying a +2 Belt.
I mean, really. If some guy walks up to you and says "Yo dawg I want summa dat +2 Strength ya got", you just point him in the direction of the Wizard and say "sure brah, but be prepared to do some nasty dishes for a year; wizards ain't exactly known for their hygein".

I may not have made this clear, but the servitude is binding. It's not just something you need to agree on, the spell itself forces you to serve the caster.

[NichG]

The entirety of the mechanics of Mineral Warrior supports the fluff - that being that you have been partially turned into stone. As for the fluff for the half-minotaur, beyond the template being rather broken it the only things it gives that point towards minotaurs rather than, say, a large bull (go greek mythology whoo) is that you get resistance to Maze. Other than that one point, it could be any Large creature with a Gore attack.

Now, something like Half-Ogre? You could call that "Half-Giant" without having any larger issues. Or "Half-Ettin", if you're feeling particularly humorous. (Ignoring the actual Half-Giant which isn't Large for now, that is.)


Good examples of objectively bad fluff I'd say (or at least bad integration between fluff and crunch). If you have something where the connection is so weak you can change the source of it around willy-nilly, thats a lot of opportunity for the connection to be much stronger.

The maze thing is pretty characteristic of minotaurs, but lets take this proposed Half-Ogre to Half-Ettin refluff. I think its a pretty poor job of it if a Half-Ettin template doesn't actually give you some sort of ability or feature characteristic of coming from stock that normally has two heads. Maybe even just a little nod like 'You can maintain two Duration: Concentration effects at the same time, rather than the usual one'.



You are aware that the spell in question is both costly and is basically selling yourself into indentured servitude for a year and a day? It's not exactly a glorious thing, not to mention that it makes you rocky.


Replace with 'whomever did that to you is an abomination in the eyes of Sune, and I must teach them a lesson - where do I find him?' if you like.

[Boci]

@NichG - How about this for a lolth-touched mineral warrior half-minotaur half-dragon water orc back story:

Father was a minotaur slave warrior of the Drow, betrayed them in accordance with the tennets of Lolth and was rewarded for his devotion with the Lolth-touched template. Fled the underdark and found himself on an archipelago inhabited by humans and orcs, joined the orcs and aided them in their battles against the humans, swiftly becoming their leader. Took the strongest female as his mate. She gave him a son, who wanting to rule the orc so he killed his father, Lolth found this amusing and allowed him to inherit the father's template Lolth-Touched template, but the orc did not accept him and he was forced to flee.
On another land he was then cursed by a mage, given a year and a day until he turned into stone, but remained conscious. A witch told him he must drink the blood of the earth, so he found an amythest dragon and slew it, drinking their blood and eating the heart. The magic of the dragon and curse merged, partially turning hos body to rock, but keeping him alive. Further more he also gained characteristic of the dragon. which he was able to further augment by taking the beast wings and having a fleshcrafter graft them onto his back, allowing him to fly.

[Brookshw]

Hey now. I call out the cool stuff when I see it. Pathfinder has a guy who got so drunk one night that when he woke up he was the god of doing stupid drunk stuff. That's awesome.

Did.....did you,......yes you might have..........I think you just convinced PF might be worth my time.

[Lord_Gareth]

Did.....did you,......yes you might have..........I think you just convinced PF might be worth my time.

Nah, I just convinced you that Golarion is worth your time.

Mind you, I'd like PF to be worth your time since I'm writing for it, but aforementioned god is on Golarion.

[Sir Pippin Boyd]

There is a lot to address in this post, so my apologies in advance if this gets a bit wordy. There are a few logical fallacies produced either explicitly or implicitly by this post, and its going to take some jumping around to bullet-point it all, so I'll do my best to make my explanation as clear as possible. We'll begin with the conclusion you've drawn, and assume that the post beforehand contains the reasoning you've used to produce this conclusion.



The Black Stain Objection: If you roleplay a lot, chances are you still respect the rules as written. If you optimize a lot, chances are you stop caring about the fluff as written.

This statement is actually two statements that aren't technically connected, and in that sense, isn't incorrect unless it is submitted under the pretenses that you established in the beginning of your post, which I will detail shortly. In fact, the only part of this statement, taken on its own, that I have any problem with at all is the word "Objection". Without any of the implications you've chosen to associate with it, it is perfectly reasonable. All players are presented as probably respecting rules as written. Fluff as written is often discarded by optimizers. As evidenced by general response to this thread, the general conception is that this is harmless because fluff-as-written is needlessly constraining, and many players would prefer to use their own fluff in place of being a servant of 'x' deity or being from 'x' region as their homeland.


Foreward: I make a distinction between 'optimizer' and 'roleplayer' here. There are general terms for very general statements about the way different types of people play D&D 3.5; not everything I say will apply to everyone in a category. Conclusions I draw are general, not universal, conclusions.

Your disclaimer that these conclusions are general statements undermines your final point by highlighting that it is only a valid conclusion if one accepts premises that are by your own admission flawed.


The response is usually referencing the tried-and-true Stormwind Fallacy, even if it's not an exact fit for the argument. I'll get back to this part later, its important.


Sounds convincing enough. You can substitute the fluff given by the book with whatever you want, and it would be just as valid, right? Well...kind of. You lose something by doing this, because basically, a mechanical choice and its fluff are interrelated. A Dragonborn of Bahamut has -2 to Dexterity because they're awkward in a brand new body, not because a +2 Con/-2 Dex template justifies its own existence.

A false assertion is made here. You assert that in the eyes of the refluffer, which in this statement you imply is the optimizer, "a +2 Con/-2 Dex template justifies its own existence." The point of refluffing *isn't* to strip the justification from a template or piece of crunch, but rather to provide an equal, yet alternative justification that is better suited to the desired character. What you describe here, acting as though it *is* its own justification instead of providing one, isn't refluffing, its unfluffing and you do your optimizer strawmen a disservice by equivocating the two terms.



When you refluff, you can certainly create a justification for your fluff-stripped mechanical choices. And that can definitely be valid. A problem occurs when refluffing does not actually explain what's going on. If you describe your Dragonborn Half-Minotaur Lolth-Touched Water Orc as a big ugly guy who just so happens to be able to lift 5 tons over his head, of course it might not sit well with pure roleplayers. You wonder what the big deal is; you're following the rules and you're roleplaying--what's the issue?

Again, you present "refluffing" as being the same and equal to "unfluffing", this time by providing a hypothetical example. The proposed example is completely fictional at worst and anecdotal at best, and in either instance it has absolutely no bearing on the larger point. It doesn't demonstrate that optimizers DO produce such characters or even that they have any reason to want to, merely that they have the capacity to do so and this somehow helps define them as bad roleplayers.


The complaint is that you're starting from the mechanics first, then creating the fluff around it, with disregard to the original fluff. If you're more of a roleplayerthan an optimizer (but are competent at both), you probably want to start with a character concept first, then find mechanics that let you play that concept without floundering.

Sure, but both approaches result in the same thing, don't they? Isn't the roleplayer just whining?

Not necessarily, because there are artifacts that result from both approaches. ...
So you have more disconnects.

What's the approach to resolving the disconnects?

On the "optimizer" side, you refluff some more.
On the "roleplayer" side, you ask to change the mechanics.

Okay, so now you've got two characters that are sound in fluff and mechanics. Sounds good. So why does the roleplayer feel like the optimizer still did something wrong?

Because the optimizer goes into the character creation minigame automatically disregarding fluff-as-written, and but the roleplayer will pick mechanics that let his concept work, changing them to homebrew only when they don't quite fit.

This is where you really create issues. Before you had only setup two different abstract categories for players, but these aren't abstractions, they're clear definitions that are mutually exclusive -- Roleplayers figure out fluff first and then find mechanics, Optimizers figure out mechanics first and then refluff. Your argument now presents it as impossible for one to be both a 'roleplayer' and an 'optimizer'. You further complicate how these definitions are understood in your final statement by bringing up points based on your own preconceptions and personal bias.

For example, you point out that optimizers fix the fluff problems with their character by refluffing. As I pointed out with your earlier statement, you equivocate changing fluff to removing it completely, and you reinforce this equivocation by providing an example, the ugly guy that can just so happens to be able to lift 5 tons. You even go a step farther, and present a scenario where a roleplayer is *also* a good optimizer and default this type of player to building their character first, but present no such possibility for optimizers to be good at roleplaying, even going as far to provide anecdotes which suggest they cannot.

This entire post merely takes two subjective terms and uses a combination of false dichotomies and equivocations to reduce them into nothing but what your own admitted generalizations would assume them to be, then makes a comparison between these two terms based on their new definitions.


The optimizer does not respect fluff as written as much as the roleplayer respects RAW.

I have seldom met a player of D&D 3.5 that even tweaks mechanics to make them fit the attached fluff, but I have met a guy who says anyone who doesn't do a massive refluff of the entire pseudo-Medieval setting is playing the game wrong (and then inserts somewhat transparent caveats to that sentiment). He's a celebrity around here.

Im not sure what part of this is a problem. Players are expected to respect the rules because they provide a common medium of play that all the players understand. Despite their flaws, they provide consistency, and sometimes (frequently) these flaws are addressed using homebrew which is typically agreed upon in advance to help with this provision of consistency. Unless it is for some dire reason, it is generally considered bad etiquette on part of a DM to deviate from RAW without letting the players know what changes would be made in advance, because this threatens that consistency. Fluff as written is universally seen as a dismissable and arbitrary constraint on anyone's creative control over their own character and world, and the game actively encourages its replacement with one's own personally preferred fluff.

Now -- back to the Stormwind Fallacy.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Optimizer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

The context you've provided within the post attempts to define roleplayers and optimizers, and then provides argument that optimizers are not good roleplayers because they are refluffing mechanical material, which you present as inferior. You do this by equivocating refluffing to unfluffing by implying optimizers believe that templates justify themselves without fluff, and by providing a largely flavorless character as an outcome of refluffing. Admittedly, this invocation of the stormwind fallacy includes one equivocation on my part: The assertion that writing bad or no fluff is the same as roleplaying poorly, but it is my opinion that the general roleplaying population will agree that while in not all ways identical, the two are interchangeable in some contexts.

The reality is that disregard for fluff as written is completely harmless as long as one uses appropriate new fluff in its place, which you admitted in your post above. With this in mind, you statement could be reworded to include the assumptions you've made in this post.


The Black Stain Implication: If you are a roleplayer (A player that determines fluff before mechanics) chances are you still respect rules as written. If you are an optimizer (A player that determines mechanics and justifies them by changing fluff) chances are you stop caring about fluff.

Ultimately, you present two categories of players: Roleplayers and Optimizers. Roleplayers are defined as being good at roleplaying. Optimizers are not automatically defined as good roleplayers, and your description presents a bias indicating that they are not. Your statement then presents optimizers as not respecting fluff-as-written, which is harmless by itself, but your argument suggests that disregarding fluff as written is similar or equal to disregarding fluff completely, which could be construed as roleplaying badly. Back to your initial point then:



The Black Stain Objection: If you roleplay a lot, chances are you still respect the rules as written. If you optimize a lot, chances are you stop caring about the fluff as written.

Technically correct? Yes. Problematic and objectionable? Only when viewed through the reductive assumptions presented by your own generalizations.

[NichG]

@NichG - How about this for a lolth-touched mineral warrior half-minotaur half-dragon water orc back story:

Father was a minotaur slave warrior of the Drow, betrayed them in accordance with the tennets of Lolth and was rewarded for his devotion with the Lolth-touched template. Fled the underdark and found himself on an archipelago inhabited by humans and orcs, joined the orcs and aided them in their battles against the humans, swiftly becoming their leader. Took the strongest female as his mate. She gave him a son, who wanting to rule the orc so he killed his father, Lolth found this amusing and allowed him to inherit the father's template Lolth-Touched template, but the orc did not accept him and he was forced to flee.
On another land he was then cursed by a mage, given a year and a day until he turned into stone, but remained conscious. A witch told him he must drink the blood of the earth, so he found an amythest dragon and slew it, drinking their blood and eating the heart. The magic of the dragon and curse merged, partially turning hos body to rock, but keeping him alive. Further more he also gained characteristic of the dragon. which he was able to further augment by taking the beast wings and having a fleshcrafter graft them onto his back, allowing him to fly.

I don't have a problem with this backstory at all. Actually, if you don't mind, I want to pick it apart for the various hooks it gives and things it implies about the game world.

- Lolth-Touched, in this take on it, strongly implies a degree of continued attention from Lolth, rather than something fire-and-forget (e.g. she was paying attention when the character killed his father). That implies that Lolth is still watching this character, so there are lots of plot hooks waiting to happen there. It also means that the character may be known on sight to Lolth's clergy.

- A little bit of an odd thing, but it does paint a picture of a very progressive Lolth - rather than a racial deity, only concerned about Drow, she's giving her favor to people who merely associated with Drow. This could be a potential problem depending on setting stuff.

- There is now a war (or was a war) between orcs and humans that involves an island. Not a big deal, but it would be weird if e.g. orcs weren't seen with mistrust in human cities on the coast facing this conflict, so the DM should keep this in mind.

- What did he do that got him cursed by the mage? And also cursed, rather than killed? It feels like there's something here; as a GM, I would want to have the mage show up again during play - its a good way to have someone the PC is set by backstory to at least have a problem with, if not hate. Since there's something unexplained here, that also suggests that there is an explanation which is more complex than things appear to be - perhaps the curse had a purpose beyond 'this guy annoyed me', and the mage was testing something out.

- There are now gem dragons in the setting. And witches who give advice about things its unlikely they ever had to deal with before (oracles/seers maybe? channelling the wisdom of the gods rather than 'oh, mineral curse, go kill a dragon'). Also, dragon blood has mystic powers. I would want to anticipate other PCs trying to drink dragon blood whenever they kill a dragon, in hope of a free template. I would want to figure out some way to standardize this idea so it doesn't cause mechanical problems but rewards the players for actually paying attention to eachothers' backstories and being clever enough to make the connection.

- There are fleshcrafters who can graft on parts of dead things and make them into powerful magic items. In my campaigns, this particular bit of backstory would scream 'night hag' to me, since I'm a Planescape fan. Still, the rarity of fleshcrafting would have to be established. As a DM, I'd either suggest that the encounter was somehow tied to Lolth's favor (Lolth sends a fleshcrafter from her own retinue - after all, if she can make driders, grafting some wings on a favored servant should be no problem), or I'd want to make fleshcrafting a fairly common thing in the setting (to the same level as wizards and druids), such that when you go down the street you'd often see someone with a franken-limb or other signs of augmentation.

- In terms of 'leverage', this PC knows/is connected to: a god, a warlike tribe of orcs, a powerful mage, a witch, a fleshcrafter. Two of these are negative connections, three are positive (or at least business-like). So even if the PC is completely non-magical, I would expect (and possibly remind the player) that they have access to magic via these NPCs.

[Drachasor]

I think there's often a trend in these conversations to lump everyone into a couple categories and call it a day. But reality is a lot more complicated that that.

Regardless of how they feel about optimization, someone might love a mechanic, but not like the fluff. They might prefer a different fluff for it that still makes sense and works well with that mechanic.

Regardless of how they feel about optimization, someone might love a particular fluff, but see another mechanic that fits it better. They might want to refluff that mechanic.

Regardless of how they feel about existing fluff, someone might want to combine some mechanics together because they work well, and then figure out fluff that really fits that mechanics after -- because the resulting fluff can work a lot better than combining bits of existing fluff in unusual ways.

Or someone might see a mechanic + fluff combo, and realize it makes NO SENSE, and so want to change the fluff into something that does make sense. Fundamentally this is about having good fluff.

Similarly, someone might house rule a mechanic so that it fits the fluff better. Also fundamentally about good fluff.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of different motivations and ways to look at fluff, mechanics, and how they interact. It's not a "roleplayers" vs. "optimizers" thing at all. And this isn't even getting into the fact people can have shifting opinions on these issues depending on the actual subject matter!


Also, some might view RAW as the most important thing in the game. That way everyone understands how the world works in detail.

Others might feel common fluff as written is most important, so everyone understands how the world feels.

Honestly, both of the above are important to an extent. Imho, neither is sacrosanct though. And again, these are far from the only possible views and aren't at all mutually exclusive.

And like I said before, unless we do some solid statistical studies of the gamer population, we are not going to know what the breakdown for different people is.

Anyhow, I always feel weird when people act like there are just 2 distinct when there are dozens or more indistinct groups and you can't really turn them into 2 in a sensible manner. Often it seems this stuff is just based on the most vocal and memorable people in the community or threads or posts. But we should remember such things (even in person) are not representative of population statistics. Always remember are brains are AWFUL at figuring out the statistics based on anecdotal evidence -- in fact we're wired to develop incorrect perceptions of groups (because too much caution or notice of extremes doesn't kill you in the wild).

[The Insanity]

Why should I care about default fluff when WotC doesn't care about default fluff? :smallconfused:
Or, more correctly, why should I follow default fluff when WotC themselves do refluff and encourage it?

[NichG]

Has anyone actually argued yet for keeping FAW in this thread? I'm tempted to call agreement on 'FAW is irrelevant to whether you care about fluff or not'.

Of course, I want to try to push the viewpoint that people should similarly not care about RAW, but that may be difficult to get away with. I don't think I can just declare victory on that one.

Ultimately, whether or not 'canonicity' matters to you is likely orthogonal to whether or not you care deeply about fluff and/or mechanics as aspects of the game in general.

[Coidzor]

Has Kayzan yet explained why he's calling it "Black Stain" and formulating it as an "Objection?" If they did so in the OP, I managed to miss it.


Nah, I just convinced you that Golarion is worth your time.

Mind you, I'd like PF to be worth your time since I'm writing for it, but aforementioned god is on Golarion.

It's great material for inspiration from what I've seen, though you can't just up and abandon your houseruling sensibilities like most people seem to indicate is possible when they talk up "switching" rather than just incorporating it into the body of houserules and fixes you've been using already if you've been playing anything other than the most vanilla of 3.5.

And just reading anything SKR writes on the subject of PF rules should convince most people that they need to take said rules and rulings with a grain of salt and sometimes pepper too.

[NichG]

Has Kayzan yet explained why he's calling it "Black Stain" and formulating it as an "Objection?" If they did so in the OP, I managed to miss it.

Yes, in the original post he mentions it. Its based on a comment in another thread (Debunking the Tippyverse, I believe) where someone made an allusion to the mechanics being the only actual stuff about the game, and half of the books being merely 'a black stain on the pages'.

IIRC, they were not saying this from the point of view of asserting it to be true, but rather saying it to describe their view of a certain section of the forum community.

For better or worse it does seem to be a good thread title to get people to read it, considering the momentum of this conversation.

[vitkiraven]

The Black Stain Objection: If you roleplay a lot, chances are you still respect the rules as written. If you optimize a lot, chances are you stop caring about the fluff as written.
Just chiming in for a +1 from my table side experience.

[DR27]

I don't think for a second that this is between two things: crunch and fluff. It's more about the many ways that people enjoy games, and whether or not mechanics as written provide enjoyment or fluff as written provide enjoyment. I'd direct people to this article on game design that attempts to categorize the different types of enjoyment: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

There are several types of fun to pursue, and those that derive a large part of their enjoyment from the "fluff" that come with game mechanics are looking for immersion into fantasy, and see the fluff that the rulebook comes with as integral to that immersion, as keeping up the suspension of disbelief. There are people who don't share this though, and derive their enjoyment from some other part of the game. It just so happens that many of the other types of fun are catered to by the mechanical aspects of the game, while only one really relies on the fluff written in the books. So small wonder that there is more discussion of one over the other.

Both are valid ways to enjoy the game, and DMs need to think about the players at their tables interests (as well as their own) in order to create an experience that will make their group work well together. (or part ways if an agreeable solution is not there) At least having the discussion is important.

Ultimately though, I personally see the mechanics of a system as the important bits that make it work, if you are radically changing them, you might as well use a different system. That's not to say that you can't graft new things onto the existing system (home-brew can be better than the rulebooks) - just that the "guts" of 3.5 appeal to me more than the coat of paint on the outside.

[TuggyNE]

Ultimately, whether or not 'canonicity' matters to you is likely orthogonal to whether or not you care deeply about fluff and/or mechanics as aspects of the game in general.

Hmm, good point. For example, I care a lot about mechanics but rather less about canonicity: mostly, I want to know how first-party rules work so that I can rewrite, fix, or adapt them as efficiently as possible for practical games.

[Arkhaic]

Fluff is an aspect of the game I care deeply about, and that is precisely the reason I do NOT use fluff as written. WoTC really wasn't good with all of their fluff, and I see no reason to be constrained by the fluff they wrote. Fluff tailored to whatever game world I'm in works much better than using the generic fluff. It happens to be much more interesting as well.

[zionpopsickle]

I think some of the disagreements in this thread are being caused by an equivocation over what the word fluff actually means. Sometimes fluff is being used for meaningless details that simply add character. Other times fluff is being used for important story elements that motivate aspects of the plot or of the characters worldview and ideology.

Now, sometimes these things can overlap. 90% of the time the fact that my car is black and has faux leather seats is unimportant. But in the summer when my car gets to 140F inside those faux leather seats can lead to an unpleasantly warm backside. However, if my car was dark red and had real leather seats I would be in the same predicament. The absolute specifics are not actually that important, simply that my car is bad at reflecting heat and has seats that hold in heat well. This being said, sometimes there is no overlap or the specifics that could be important simply are not something that will ever be plot relevant.

This brings me back to my original point which is that there is an equivocation being made between two different 'kinds' of fluff and this equivocation really can muddy the issue. And tying in my second point, what determines the distinction between these two can be campaign specific. In a campaign that is heavily about the character's place in the world and the interactions between the factors that made them what they are a templated out the wazoo water-orc might be inappropriate. However, a different campaign may be far more about journey and the party's struggle to overcome some great challenge. In this case the templates are really just not that important to be explained because it isn't how the orc deals with parental issues or various obligations that defines the roleplaying but how the character deals with a situation were his raw strength and toughness simply do not matter.

Along with this distinction comes the issue that we are attempting to talk of fluff in general when much of the time these differences are entirely context sensitive. If my character has a scar on his cheek there can be a variety of reasons which all propel the story in different directions. Perhaps he accidentally cut himself when he tried to shave for the first time. Now this could just be a meaningless and amusing story that gives the character a bit of flair. This could also be a very formative experience that taught the character the importance of caution and precision and guides a number of his life choices. Or it could represent part of a larger pattern of recklessness which could bring the character trouble. And this is a choice that is entirely at the discretion of the player to make and no choice is inherently superior to the other.

Fluff, as a whole, is neither good nor bad in the same way that food is categorically neither tasty nor unappetizing. The strength of fluff (and the tastiness of food) is entirely based upon the merits of what is being presented and the context that it is being presented in. Stale bread is unappealing to the well-fed man but is a feast for the starving. Fluff is the same. Sometimes pages of backstory will define the character, sometimes all one may need is a single word.