PDA

View Full Version : 4th Edition: Shut Up About the Fluff



purepolarpanzer
2008-03-18, 11:59 AM
Seriously. I'm not going to be a 4th freak. I'm buying the system, probably enjoy it too. And I have no problem accepting people criticizing the loss of a race or a class, even the mechanics.

But stop talking about fluff.

If you like the blood war, make the blood war. If you don't like the teiflings, kick em out. But don't hate the system because they GIVE YOU SOME FLUFF. Fluff is what you make it. Take out what you want, put in what you like, and enjoy your game. I barely play any games in set settings (Eberron, Faerun). I've always had an issue with orcs being evil all the time, so in my worlds orcs are individual tribes- some good, some bad. But I don't slander Wizards because I like green goblins and they list their's as orange.

THE GAME IS SUPPOSED TO BE CUSTOMIZED. Like the current system of gods and such? Stop being lazy and transfer it. I guaruntee someone productive will do it in a week or less after the new edition comes out.

In short, don't buy 4th because of the mechanics. Don't buy it because you think that 3.5 is great. But don't avoid buying it because you don't like the fluff.

Come on.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-18, 12:15 PM
In short, don't buy 4th because of the mechanics. Don't buy it because you think that 3.5 is great. But don't avoid buying it because you don't like the fluff.


The fluff is part of the overall product that is for sale. Is it changeable? Sure, but so is any part of the product, including the mechanics. The representation in game, of those mechanics (i.e. the fluff) is just as much what one is paying for as the mechanics, particularly when the two seem closley tied (which there are indications of in 4e).

Please don't tell people what reasons are good enough to keep them from spending their money. It's their money.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-18, 12:24 PM
{Scrubbed}

Lucyfur
2008-03-18, 12:31 PM
who simply post logical fallacies, lies, half-truths and other disinformation.

such as this.



fluff, particularly when the two seem closley tied (which there are indications of in 4e).

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-18, 12:31 PM
Fluff does matter, because systems specifically designed to support specific themes work better than generic systems for those themes.

That's why I prefer non-WotC d20 games; Conan d20 is great for playing Conan-style adventures, Call of Cthulhu d20 works for horror, and so on.

I'll definitely get the 4th-edition core books, but from what I've seen, I think I'm going to stick with 3.5 campaigns and (especially) other d20 games already out. It's impossible to assess the whole product from pieces, and I do love Star Wars SAGA edition, but the 4th edition's design philosophy feels like it's aiming for the WoW-playing crowd (which, really, is a very sound choice for Wizards; in fact, they'd be stupid if they didn't try to get in on some of that huge potential market for fantasy gaming), and that's definitely not me.

purepolarpanzer
2008-03-18, 12:34 PM
I honestly should have just said "Don't flame it" instead of "Don't avoid buying it". I don't care if anyone buys 4th or not, but Friendly is right in that I do hate the anti-4th hoard for attacking fluff as the downfall of D+D as we know it.

I don't know about other people out there, but I don't give a crap if a book has good/bad fluff. I like crunch. I pay for books to get new, cool ideas for my campaign mechanics, while I make my own fluff. I'm all for role playing, but as far as buying books goes, its all about the new ways to dice my enemies. Leave good "fluff" to actual novels.

(on a side note, I do actually like the fluff for 4th, and will use it. Sometimes. Most of the time my worlds are my own.)

SilverClawShift
2008-03-18, 12:50 PM
I don't know about other people out there, but I don't give a crap if a book has good/bad fluff. I like crunch.

I'll try not to rant.

I do care if a book has good fluff. I like reading interesting world information, history, behavior of various organizations and monsters, ect, ect, that are presented with the mechanics to bring them to life at the table.

I read Lords of Madness to find out more about mindflayers. That means how they think, how they feel, why they do the things they do, not just how they do them.
I read Heroes of Horror to get a feel for how horror elements interact with roleplaying elements. I like the new monster concepts, not just the new tables to reference when rolling a D20 or new ways to track skill points.
I love Tome of Magic, and I love it for two reasons. One is the new and interesting mechanics it brings to your character, sure. But the other is the flavor behind those mechanics. Binders wouldn't have ever piqued my curiosity or gotten any prolonged interest from me if the fluff behind them was "They're sorcerers who cast one day-long spell with multiple effects." They could have been fluffed that way, mechanically it would have been the same idea. But it wouldn't have seemed so intriguing and new. There would have been no romance to the class.

When I'm buying a book, I expect it to interest me. Of course that can mean good game mechanics, I do play the game and all. But it's not just that.

KIDS
2008-03-18, 12:56 PM
Hahaha, I know I know, well I wouldn't quite agree with you on all points but you do bring up some good reasons. And Mr. Friendly has a point as well....
(anyways, made me LOL, very well worded)

Indon
2008-03-18, 12:57 PM
If you like the blood war, make the blood war. If you don't like the teiflings, kick em out. But don't hate the system because they GIVE YOU SOME FLUFF. Fluff is what you make it. Take out what you want, put in what you like, and enjoy your game.
If I like Vancian casting, I can make vancian casting. If I don't like racial progressions, I can get rid of them. But I'm pretty sure I can hate 4'th edition because IT HAS MECHANICS, and you seem to agree.

So what makes the mechanical aspects of the game so sacred compared to the non-mechanical aspects? Rules can be tweaked just as easily as fluff, and system and setting are both entirely buildable.


Come on.

So what you're really saying is, "I think mechanics are important and setting isn't."

I disagree. Both are important, both are entirely modifiable, and there is no excuse for either being of poor quality.

Edit: As for the specifics of 4'th edition fluff, I honestly don't have any strong feelings about it. But there are games I play for the fluff, and not the system, and I'll not see the creative essence of an RPG belittled.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-18, 01:00 PM
I honestly should have just said "Don't flame it" instead of "Don't avoid buying it". I don't care if anyone buys 4th or not, but Friendly is right in that I do hate the anti-4th hoard for attacking fluff as the downfall of D+D as we know it.

I don't know about other people out there, but I don't give a crap if a book has good/bad fluff. I like crunch. I pay for books to get new, cool ideas for my campaign mechanics, while I make my own fluff. I'm all for role playing, but as far as buying books goes, its all about the new ways to dice my enemies. Leave good "fluff" to actual novels.

(on a side note, I do actually like the fluff for 4th, and will use it. Sometimes. Most of the time my worlds are my own.)

But AD&D / D&D has never been good at the crunch. The game doesn't model anything well. The reason to play it has always been the style and feel of it - "you can't have Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms or Ravenloft or Dark Sun without D&D!" The settings are great fun, and the game's still relatively quick and simple to play.

Admittedly, just recently I've been working on a Ravenloft campaign using d20 Modern, and it frankly seems like it'd work far better than D&D. I've also considered trying Forgotten Realms with Mutants & Masterminds. Really, it's starting to look like the best thing to come out of D&D was the d20 license and the mechanically much better games spawned by it. (There's no way to express the depth of my appreciation for the simple, straightforward, and consistent system of M&M 2nd ed.)

Most RPG books that I buy are full of fluff - way more fluff than mechanics, in fact. The 3rd ed. Ravenloft books, Issaries Inc.'s and Mongoose's Glorantha stuff, and so on. It just matters so much more than the crunch parts.

Sleet
2008-03-18, 01:10 PM
such as this.

If that were a half-truth, you'd have a point.

But it's not.

Like it or not, purepolarpanzer, some folks just don't like the fluff in 4e. And they're not going to "shut up" about it just because you tell them to. Me, I'm really digging 4e mechanics, but I don't like how tightly the fluff is tied to it. I'll buy it and use it in spite of that, but I'm not going to stop saying what I don't like about it just because you don't like to hear it.

Rutee
2008-03-18, 01:16 PM
If I like Vancian casting, I can make vancian casting. If I don't like racial progressions, I can get rid of them. But I'm pretty sure I can hate 4'th edition because IT HAS MECHANICS, and you seem to agree.

So what makes the mechanical aspects of the game so sacred compared to the non-mechanical aspects? Rules can be tweaked just as easily as fluff, and system and setting are both entirely buildable.



BUilding Fluff is easier then building mechanics. It's that simple. Unless you're a complete math nerd like the guy who writes xkcd, you're liable to find the 'fluffy' aspects easier then the mechanics. They're not 'more sacred', but they are harder to erect replacements for most people. *That's* why people tend to treat fluff as being more subject to mutability then crunch.


If that were a half-truth, you'd have a point.
It's an innacurate statement. 4e doesn't appear more setting specific then 3e. They seem to be making 3 actually important assumptions.

1. It's a medievalish world
2. There's a crapton of monsters that lurk in the wilderness.
3. There was a country of dragon-descended people who warred a country of demon-descended people.

The proto-Greyhawk of the 3e core books had more assumptions then that (Such as 1 and 2, plus 'Magic Items are easy to find and buy' and "Dwarves hate Orcs, and Guhnomes argue with Kobolds over who's the more annoying Small Inventor Race")

Roland St. Jude
2008-03-18, 01:20 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: It is against this board's Forum Rules to tell other posters to "shut up." Starting a thread to tell others to shut up is plainly inappropriate here. Likewise, characterizing a whole group of posters as "thread crapping" or as those "who simply post logical fallacies, lies, half-truths and other disinformation," is not helpful to a rational, civil discussion. (Please don't do that.) It smacks of trolling and does nothing but invite those you are addressing to respond with flames. Thread locked.