Fluff vs Mechanics

[keeper2161]

So just today, as in a couple of hours ago, I posted something that got me thinking. Should fluff every overrule mechanics? Is it wrong to ignore a mechanic if there is a valid fluff reason to ignore it? Does the concept as a valid fluff reason even exist? How far can fluff go before it is just outright cheating? What got me think about this was maneuvers from Dreamscarred Press book Path of War. How you can't use one classes recovery method to recover another classes maneuvers. For those who haven't read Path of War I'll link my thread from earlier. And it just got me thinking about how some rules are rules to stop people from abusing it but don't actually make sense role-playing wise. What does everyone else think and what stories do you have of fluff vs mechanics.


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?588161-Path-of-War-multiclass-question

[gkathellar]

Fluff should override mechanics when it's, (a) reasonable, (b) important to the narrative, and (c) when there's agreement on what exactly the fluff is. If any of those conditions aren't satisfied, it's generally a good idea not to make mechanical changes.

Re: your PoW example, I would give a strong no, since the change is unreasonable (balance concerns arise), it is of no narrative importance, and your position is tremendously subjective to a specific interpretation of PoW's fluff.

[Crichton]

Override as in contradictory? Probably not? But clarify an unclear or ambiguous mechanic? Sure! Not that uncommon for the crunch of a rule to be worded unclearly, or even more or less incompletely, and if there's fluff nearby that directly sheds light on how it's supposed to work, why not use it?

[Kyutaru]

Absolutely. Fluff is the full description. Mechanics are the cliff notes. They're intentionally brief and confined to a tiny box. Fireball is one of the few spells that actually specifies what side effects it can have. The windowless cell version of Forcecage lasts 2 hours per level and blocks even ghosts and magic. Surely that means everything inside suffocates? Heck, the 5e version claims no matter can pass through it. Guess what oxygen is?

Screw mechanics. Fluff wins. This is a story game before it is a combat simulator.

[Psyren]

This reads like you didn't get the answer you wanted in one thread so you started another.

Several of the Path of War/Dreamscarred Press authors read this forum - I would PM your question to one of them.

[Tvtyrant]

So just today, as in a couple of hours ago, I posted something that got me thinking. Should fluff every overrule mechanics? Is it wrong to ignore a mechanic if there is a valid fluff reason to ignore it? Does the concept as a valid fluff reason even exist? How far can fluff go before it is just outright cheating? What got me think about this was maneuvers from Dreamscarred Press book Path of War. How you can't use one classes recovery method to recover another classes maneuvers. For those who haven't read Path of War I'll link my thread from earlier. And it just got me thinking about how some rules are rules to stop people from abusing it but don't actually make sense role-playing wise. What does everyone else think and what stories do you have of fluff vs mechanics.


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?588161-Path-of-War-multiclass-question

I consider it always valid to overrule mechanics for fluff, as long as your group agrees. The mechanics are there to make the fluff playable, if they impede that they should get out of the way.

[zlefin]

Rule 0 exists for a reason. Using it seems to cover your questions well enough in the general sense; whatever works best for your table.

[emeraldstreak]

How you can't use one classes recovery method to recover another classes maneuvers[/url]

If both classes have the maneuver's Discipline, then there are 'fluff' grounds. There's zero justification, mechanic or fluff, for a class that doesn't have the Discipline to use its recovery method to recover a maneuver of a different class from an inaccessible Discipline.

[keeper2161]

But every class can have any discipline. Simply join a martial tradition and you can switch out your discipline for that martial tradition. Or take a trait or a feat. Why every class cannot have access to every discipline is wonky.

[emeraldstreak]

But every class can have any discipline. Simply join a martial tradition and you can switch out your discipline for that martial tradition. Or take a trait or a feat. Why every class cannot have access to every discipline is wonky.

Paying a trait or a feat (or losing a Discipline) isn't a small thing.

[jintoya]

I think it's likely important to talk with your group and DM on the topic, no matter the outcome of this thread, your friends will roll their eyes if you say
"People in an online forum all say:"
It's for your table to decide what trumps what, at the end of the day, all that matters is what's best for the game happening at your table.

[ATalsen]

I see rules and fluff being two different things, and for me, rules always trump fluff when in conflict, and for games I run I allow people to re-fluff as desired as long as the rules don't change.


For example, there are many different styles of chess sets you can buy, from the classic look to civil war inspired, to fantasy or sci-fi looks. But no matter the look of the pieces, the game rules remain the same. For chess, no one *expects* the look of the pieces to confer or imply different abilities.

I hold to the same outlook in RPGs, however, RPGs do not universally have the clarity of vision that chess does - some players and undoubtedly even some authors expect that you have to use both fluff and crunch in their entirety, or even place fluff over crunch.


> Is it wrong to ignore a mechanic if there is a valid fluff reason to ignore it?

If there are expectation differences that have not been discussed, or worse, if they have and the decision was that mechanics trump fluff, then yes it can be wrong to ignore mechanics.

Ultimately 'wrongness' come down to the social contract you have with your table-members.

Everyone should do their best not to surprise other members with some new interpretation or 'gotcha', and when that does occur its usually best to come to some group consensus about how things are supposed to work.

Just like a table may need to reign in or prohibit overly powerful mechanical combos in order to provide equality of enjoyment for all the players at the table, a table may need to reign in overly liberal application of fluff.