PDA

View Full Version : Is fluff uselss in core?



EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:15 PM
I've been hearing some very disturbing options in some thread lately. Now as most of your know, there are two main groups in RPGs, the cheese and the Fluff (mechanics and story). The mechanics explain how the game works, the classes racial bonuses, the rules ect ect, while fluff provides details and back ground to the game itself

Now there seems to be a new train of thought among some players. That fluff doesn't have a place in the core part of the game, and as delivered, the game should be only mechanics. IE, you buy a game, and get the mechanics and make up your own fluff.


I find this idea disgusting. And before people start throwing claims around, no i'm not stricken by lack of creativity, yes i can come up with my own ideas, and yes i don't need to have ideas presented to me, so can we get these fallacies out of the way now

Basically, if a game is just mechanics and no fluff, is taht a good thing according to this line of thought, because that lets you make up your own.


here is the thing, fluff within a game add depth. You can make up fluff on your own weather the book presents it or not, but if the game lacks fluff in its default presentation, the it just lacks any spirit. Home brewing fluff is like homebrewing mechanical fixes. A game without fluff is just as inherently flawed, if not more so then an unbalanced game. Without fluff, a game is inherently shallow. THe reason why the game doesn't offer anything more than some pictures and number crunches, it doesn't amount to anything. If you have a MM taht only presents the monsters stats and none of their description/content, is that good because it "encourages" the Dm to make up their own is just finding an excuse for the game designers to not work. A MM without fluff text is little more than just a series of random encounters and is uninteresting. Its like those monster guides at the end of FF game guides, they just don't have anything other than numbers to offer. On the same note, an MM that only had fluff isn't really that useful if interesting

The thing is, fluff and mechanics are both equally important in the game as presented. Sure, anyone can add their own fluff, and lets be honest, most people do add their own stuff. But taht doesn't make the presented fluff irrelevant, that actually has a very important basis. It adds depth. The mindflayer without fluff is just a creepy brain guy. The Demons and devils without fluff are just generic uglies. Souls in game are never really explained without fluff. Background makes the game engaging and it is just as an important part of teh game as mechanics. Not to say mechanics aren't important, because if those aren't handled properly you get a badly balanced game that makes most of its options unusable............yeah.

My two cents

from
EE

Ponce
2008-10-08, 10:20 PM
Lots of people really don't like the fluff presented to them. If you take a published material and boil it down, only a small fraction is crunch, which is what a lot are really after. It'd be nice to only have to pay for that small fraction when buying material. The fluff isn't really free, as you make it seem. Again, it really just is a matter of what you want. People don't like paying for something they aren't going to use. Some people use the fluff, so it isn't an issue.

chronoplasm
2008-10-08, 10:21 PM
I think the core should have basic fluff. No proper nouns, but perhaps some better examples for how things might be used in a story.
I think the races section in the 4E PHB does an okay job of this, but I wish Wizards had done something similar for the classes and I really wish Wizards had some more information in the Monster Manual.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:26 PM
Lots of people really don't like the fluff presented to them. If you take a published material and boil it down, only a small fraction is crunch, which is what a lot are really after. It'd be nice to only have to pay for that small fraction when buying material. The fluff isn't really free, as you make it seem. Again, it really just is a matter of what you want. People don't like paying for something they aren't going to use. Some people use the fluff, so it isn't an issue.

But as presented, there should be both fluff and crunch. A lot of people like the fluff, some don't, most of them (myself included) like bits and pieces and take what they like from it. Through i don't consider buying a book with more mechancis than fluff a good deal, i mean the complete books were that and they were a very boring read
from
EE

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 10:27 PM
You keep phrasing this as a disturbing development. Would you please explain what is so disturbing about this? You acknowledge that the people who take this stance are still very big on fluff - we just don't need it when we're looking to buy a rulebook for a generic ruleset (D&D is not as exportable as other systems, but anything built for multiple CSes is, to some degree, a generic ruleset). So we still have fluff, we still roleplay quite a bit, at what level is this disturbing? It's still roleplaying - roleplaying with a lot of thought behind it, I might add.


But as presented, there should be both fluff and crunch. A lot of people like the fluff, some don't, most of them (myself included) like bits and pieces and take what they like from it. Through i don't consider buying a book with more mechancis than fluff a good deal, i mean the complete books were that and they were a very boring read
from
EE

Then buy the fluff, instead of making everyone who's not looking to do so pay for it as well. Any company will be glad to take your money for it.

Temp.
2008-10-08, 10:28 PM
I don't pay people to help balance my game's fluff.


And that's really what I'm doing when I buy a gaming system--paying for rules that work out for an overall balanced game (or, alternatively, a game that can be balanced--whether for fun or because the game system is the one that people already know and recognize).

turkishproverb
2008-10-08, 10:30 PM
I think the core should have basic fluff. No proper nouns, but perhaps some better examples for how things might be used in a story.
I think the races section in the 4E PHB does an okay job of this, but I wish Wizards had done something similar for the classes and I really wish Wizards had some more information in the Monster Manual.

I don't know, PHP or otherwise, any non PC entry read a bit like "I'm a monster! RAWR!" to me.

Still, overall I kind've favor something similar to a two pronged approach, where a version with and without fluff is available, like having a regular version and a "Stingy gamers" version.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:32 PM
You keep phrasing this as a disturbing development. Would you please explain what is so disturbing about this? You acknowledge that the people who take this stance are still very big on fluff - we just don't need it when we're looking to buy a rulebook. So we still have fluff, we still roleplay quite a bit, at what level is this disturbing? It's still roleplaying - roleplaying with a lot of thought behind it, I might add.

because a game presented without fluff doesn't amount to anything. Sure you can make up your own, but that doesn't change the fact that the game itself is only doing half its job. A game with only mechanics is shallow because it doesn't present anything


Alright, lets take your game anti heroes. I could take your mechanical system totally out of context and use it with my own fluff and back ground correct? And if i ever use your system, i'm not going to use it simply as presented, i'll tweak things. But reading your thread, the game becomes very interesting because of the fluff you've included into it. Sure, you could have just made the mechanics and nothing else, but that wouldn't be engaging in any way. But the back ground you've included is actually very interesting and makes your world seem much more alive and in depth.




Then buy the fluff, instead of making everyone who's not looking to do so pay for it as well. Any company will be glad to take your money for it
A game without fluff simply isn't doing all of its work. Same goes visa versa. A good system should have both together. So if something doesn't have fluff, then it is essentially a shallow system. If something doesn't have mechanics then it is a defective system. You can fix both, but that doesn't change the fact the game messed up
from
EE

Swordguy
2008-10-08, 10:33 PM
Heh, I agree with EE. The end times are truly upon us. :smalleek:


EE, go look at the HERO System. They do precisely what you describe - they present a set of universal mechanics with next to no fluff whatsoever (except in the "examples of play" sections). The game reads like a math textbook.

I don't know about other people, but I got done paying for textbooks when I got out of college. I will not pay money for a textbook for a recreational activity. A game book should be fun to read, as well as containing rules for play. I find myself going back and re-reading Shadowrun and Call of Cthulhu books just for kicks, because of the fluff. I'll not be touching my HERO book again unless or until I'm actually involved in a game.

Talya
2008-10-08, 10:35 PM
Heh, I agree with EE. The end times are truly upon us. :smalleek:


EE, go look at the HERO System. They do precisely what you describe - they present a set of universal mechanics with next to no fluff whatsoever (except in the "examples of play" sections). The game reads like a math textbook.

I don't know about other people, but I got done paying for textbooks when I got out of college. I will not pay money for a textbook for a recreational activity. A game book should be fun to read, as well as containing rules for play. I find myself going back and re-reading Shadowrun and Call of Cthulhu books just for kicks, because of the fluff. I'll not be touching my HERO book again unless or until I'm actually involved in a game.


This! And again this.

erikun
2008-10-08, 10:35 PM
The "fluff" is what sells most game systems. Take a look at Iron Kingdoms, or Shadowrun, or World of Darkness. Eberron isn't popular because someone created stats for an Artificer or Warforged. And before 4e, I found giants quite boring, as nothing more than tall humans. Turning them into gigantic elemental beings quickly made them one of my favorite creatures. :smallsmile:

Also: help for new GMs. I am amazed that this isn't mention more often; GMing is very hard to break into, and most of us don't have a "GM mentor" to help us out.

However, there are times when fluff can get in the way of running a game. One big issue is that, if the GM wants to change the world from the posted fluff, they sometimes need to go into extreme details to avoid player confusion. Okay, so dragonborne have tails, elfs have beards, gnomes float off the ground, orcs are blue, halflings are short and pudgy... trying to make minor adjustments to everything almost requires retyping the entire source material, just so the players know what is "typical" in the world! I have seen at least one GM try to make minor changes to the rulebook material, but ultimately threw up his hands over the whole affair after the players were repeatedly confused.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 10:37 PM
Alright, lets take your game anti heroes. I could take your mechanical system totally out of context and use it with my own fluff and back ground correct? And if i ever use your system, i'm not going to use it simply as presented, i'll tweak things. But reading your thread, the game becomes very interesting because of the fluff you've included into it. Sure, you could have just made the mechanics and nothing else, but that wouldn't be engaging in any way. But the back ground you've included is actually very interesting and makes your world seem much more alive and in depth.

Yes, but the amount of fluff I have in there is rather dwarfed by... almost any rulebook I can think of except GURPS. (You, guy who spoke about HERO - I did say short, evocative pieces of fluff were cool. Reading like a math textbook is a no-no.) It's stuffed mostly into one place, and is essentially non-existent in the mechanical portions of the SRD. Also consider that my stuff is free, and no one has to pay for another 100 pages of glossy color ink expounding on the awesomeness of being Superman as a result.

snoopy13a
2008-10-08, 10:37 PM
Fluff is there as a roleplaying aid for DMs and players. It doesn't really substitute for creativity in my view. Instead, it provides background information for the DMs and players to channel their creativity instead of working entirely from scratch. Whether or not people use the fluff is up to them. Either stance is acceptable as people have the right to play as they like.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:39 PM
Heh, I agree with EE. The end times are truly upon us. :smalleek:

........don't lie, you are actually subtly mocking me in some way, there is no way we could agree on something.


EE, go look at the HERO System. They do precisely what you describe - they present a set of universal mechanics with next to no fluff whatsoever (except in the "examples of play" sections). The game reads like a math textbook.
i've never heard of it. I know that 4E feels that way a lot of the time, but does it really have no fluff at all? Thats so.....empty.
[/QUOTE]

I don't know about other people, but I got done paying for textbooks when I got out of college. I will not pay money for a textbook for a recreational activity. A game book should be fun to read, as well as containing rules for play. I find myself going back and re-reading Shadowrun and Call of Cthulhu books just for kicks, because of the fluff. I'll not be touching my HERO book again unless or until I'm actually involved in a game.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I like to enjoy reading my books. If i had more money, i'd buy the WW books simply for the novelty of reading them


erikun, i think that problem could be solved is the fluff was better presented.......which is another dream
from
EE

Knaight
2008-10-08, 10:39 PM
Races, not monsters. Monsters haven't been the same since 2e, although I don't care since I like rules light systems where I can just make stuff up, which in many cases I like better anyways. A game book should have enough fluff for the crunch to make sense, and example characters and such are also nice, but I'm not going to pay a company for bad fluff when all I want is the crunch. If I want fluff, I'll buy a novel, otherwise I just use my own.

And the reason HERO system reads like a math textbooks is because they don't have many examples, and the rules are extremely heavy. Look up Fudge(Ok so I'll make this easy, go to www.fudgerpg.com and click download now.) For most of it there is very little fluff per say, just examples, and its a relatively interesting read. Granted it contains a lot of game design theory, and is a game that works exceptionally well for roleplaying, but there isn't much fluff, because by attaching fluff to the mechanics you imply that the mechanics can only be used for the fluff. For instance take the classes in 3.5, people think that to be an archetype you have to take a class of the same name, where an opportunistic, savage fighter(class name) is probably better as a rogue/ranger/barbarian or tiger claw warblade.

Temp.
2008-10-08, 10:41 PM
Sure you can make up your own, but that doesn't change the fact that the game itself is only doing half its job.It's doing the whole job that I want it to do. I want to write a world of my own, I want to create monsters and villains and unique situations. I don't like players or DMs to have a catalog of pre-fluffed options because such catalogs make players lazy--I've seen dozens of identical Paladins/Crusaders/Clerics, I've seen dozens of identical thieves, I've seen very few identical characters using less specific character-generation systems like d20 modern or a generic class system.

...Of course I'm a person who's gone through D&D and reduced my game into a pile of generic classes and generic monster levels. My group homebrews almost everything according to the necessity within our own game. I'm not sure how common this attitude is, but it's the most common I've experienced.

[edit:] We are barraged by fluff inspiration without it being included in our RPG rulesets. Potential fluff for our games is included in every novel we read, every movie we see, every bad detective pulp we pretend we aren't ingrossed in. I get ideas for monsters when I read about old myths and legends. I get ideas for plots and villains when I read about Toxoplasma Gondii. It isn't hard for me to plug these ideas into a gaming system--I usually do it on the fly without bothering to set aside prep time for it.

Ponce
2008-10-08, 10:41 PM
But as presented, there should be both fluff and crunch. A lot of people like the fluff, some don't, most of them (myself included) like bits and pieces and take what they like from it. Through i don't consider buying a book with more mechancis than fluff a good deal, i mean the complete books were that and they were a very boring read
from
EE

If I think gnomes should be a child-eating, demented race that are hated by all other creatures, using their illusion abilities to lure children into traps, what use do I have for the printed fluff for gnomes? I mean I honestly rarely read the fluff of the majority of material. Piled on top of that, if the printed material doesn't have what might be interpreted as "intended fluff" it can more easily be integrated into campaigns. There are quite a few bullheaded DMs out there who take the fluff very seriously in that sense.

I mean, pretty much every book out there has plenty of fluff. People who want fluff get it pretty much every time. It'd be nice if there were a few more options that didn't tack on the fluff and make you pay for it for those of us who don't want the fluff. See where I am going? This is especially true for the endless supplements given by WotC.

Also, David Bowie - The Laughing Gnome just popped up on my music player so there you have it. Evil. Gnomes. Everywhere.

FoE
2008-10-08, 10:44 PM
For me, mechanics should be tied to fluff in the Core books. 4E still does that, no matter what EE says. It's not as though the Warlock has a choice between "Pact 1," "Pact 2" and "Pact 3." It's not as though the monsters in the MM are filed according to number, and all their attacks are labeled "Powers A, B and C." But I don't need reams of information about the flavour of the world, which is stuff I will probably invent on my own.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:45 PM
If I think gnomes should be a child-eating, demented race that are hated by all other creatures, using their illusion abilities to lure children into traps, what use do I have for the printed fluff for gnomes? I mean I honestly rarely read the fluff of the majority of material. Piled on top of that, if the printed material doesn't have what might be interpreted as "intended fluff" it can more easily be integrated into campaigns. There are quite a few bullheaded DMs out there who take the fluff very seriously in that sense.

1) Those DM are just bad DMs, that is a different problems
2) Sure if you want that go ahead, but the book presenting background doesn't limit your imagination in any way nor make your creation any less valid



I mean, pretty much every book out there has plenty of fluff. People who want fluff get it pretty much every time. It'd be nice if there were a few more options that didn't tack on the fluff and make you pay for it for those of us who don't want the fluff. See where I am going? This is especially true for the endless supplements given by WotC.

4E MM?


temp your problem comes from lack of creative players/DMs. you twists the existing fluff into interesting ways without homebrewing, and homebrewing isn't bad for the game by any means. But if they can't think outside the cliches, then i don't think they are going to be able to create very much either


Face of evil, how about the 4E monsters descriptions. Or their society/culture. Or religion (in any part of teh game) outlines?
from
EE
from
EE

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 10:46 PM
I'm going to use the Lego analogy again. Possibly because tomorrow I'll be giving a lecture on Legos.

A good core rulebook should, in most cases, be like a nice new lego set. You get a bunch of specialized bricks that are clearly intended for use in this (or a handful of other) particular models. You get a cool picture (and a few smaller cool pictures) of what you can build and crap like Mr. Arctic Planet Buzzsaw Man hanging on for dear life to his ice miner ship as roboaliendinosaurs and robospyaliens have a space dogfight a few hundred feet away.

That's. It. It doesn't tell you "NO! Those glowy green antennas on the spaceship aren't lasers!"

It doesn't tell you "HEY THOSE ROUND THINGS ARE ENGINES WITH AN EXACT MAXIMUM VELOCITY OF"

No. It gives you a few ideas, then lets you go, and they are marvelous, marvelous fun. I got the idea - those dudes transform into winged robot raptors, those dudes get cybersharks, and fiber optic lighting is frickin' awesome. That's all I needed to know.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:47 PM
that metaphor doesn't work because legos is designed as a construction game. You don't have very much of either. i mean, if we are going to pull out examples, lets try this one.


take a video game like Dark Alliance. Sure i can make up a great interesting plot as i play, but that doesn't change the fact that Dark Alliance doesn't have that
from
EE

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 10:49 PM
that metaphor doesn't work because legos is designed as a construction game. You don't have very much of either. i mean, if we are going to pull out examples, lets try this one.


take a video game like Dark Alliance. Sure i can make up a great interesting plot as i play, but that doesn't change the fact that Dark Alliance doesn't have that
from
EE

Legos are also meant to be played with. They are remarkably similar to D&D - you build something you like with a range of freedom unachievable with computers, then do whatever you feel like with them, up to and including decapitating invaders and using their heads as support bricks for a staircase.

FoE
2008-10-08, 10:50 PM
Face of evil, how about the 4E monsters descriptions. Or their society/culture. Or religion (in any part of teh game) outlines?

It takes up a lot of space, and DMs mostly adapt that stuff to their own ends anyways. I would rather have the Monster Manual STUFFED with monsters that I can use in my campaign rather than waste space on what a displacer beast's favourite foods are and where they like to take a crap. These are RULEBOOKS, not novels.

Ponce
2008-10-08, 10:50 PM
1) Those DM are just bad DMs, that is a different problems
2) Sure if you want that go ahead, but the book presenting background doesn't limit your imagination in any way nor make your creation any less valid


4E MM?

1) Having no fluff is a solution to the problem, which is why I like the idea. It also makes the crunch itself more easily adapted without creating confusion.

2) No, but I have to PAY for it. I don't WANT it.

I didn't say there are NO options, but that it would be nice if more gaming systems were like that. It would be especially nice for me in particular if 3.5 material was printed with much less fluff, since that is the system I use.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:55 PM
It takes up a lot of space, and DMs mostly adapt that stuff to their own ends anyways. I would rather have the Monster Manual STUFFED with monsters that I can use in my campaign rather than waste space on what a displacer beast's favourite foods are and where they like to take a crap.

You get a mass of low quality monsters instead of a few high quainity monsters. If the monster are little more than a picture and three stats, which are arbitrary different, then the book simply isn't interesting.


1) Having no fluff is a solution to the problem, which is why I like the idea. It also makes the crunch itself more easily adapted without creating confusion.

2) No, but I have to PAY for it. I don't WANT it.

I didn't say there are NO options, but that it would be nice if more gaming systems were like that. It would be especially nice for me in particular if 3.5 material was printed with much less fluff, since that is the system I use.
1) having no fluff makes the crunch inherently uninteresting. Without fluff, the crunch is just a section of a math text book. It also makes the game not make sense in the default
2) Why not? You still get your crunch, and now you have context its in. Don't like it make your own, you still get crunch.
3) Actually, 3E would be better if they focused more upon expanding their fluff. Like Heaven, nobody ever goes into that.

Also legos is like D&D the same way many other games are, but legos as teh advantage of not being a published game.
from
EE

Mando Knight
2008-10-08, 10:56 PM
I'm going to use the Lego analogy again. Possibly because tomorrow I'll be giving a lecture on Legos.

A good core rulebook should, in most cases, be like a nice new lego set. You get a bunch of specialized bricks that are clearly intended for use in this (or a handful of other) particular models. You get a cool picture (and a few smaller cool pictures) of what you can build and crap like Mr. Arctic Planet Buzzsaw Man hanging on for dear life to his ice miner ship as roboaliendinosaurs and robospyaliens have a space dogfight a few hundred feet away.

That's. It. It doesn't tell you "NO! Those glowy green antennas on the spaceship aren't lasers!"

It doesn't tell you "HEY THOSE ROUND THINGS ARE ENGINES WITH AN EXACT MAXIMUM VELOCITY OF"

No. It gives you a few ideas, then lets you go, and they are marvelous, marvelous fun. I got the idea - those dudes transform into winged robot raptors, those dudes get cybersharks, and fiber optic lighting is frickin' awesome. That's all I needed to know.

YAY LEGO! As a kid, the only thing I used those green antenna things (actually, pretty much all of the antennas if they were on a starship) for were lasers. Now I mostly use the Laser Cannon-type pieces introduced with the first LEGO Star Wars sets ten or so years ago.

And two or three years before that, I made my own LEGO Star Wars. Including the AT-ST and AT-AT (in weird colors because I used any bricks I had so long as the shape fit, and out of proportion because I was a little kid who didn't go and measure all of the vehicles to ensure movie accuracy...)

streakster
2008-10-08, 10:57 PM
then do whatever you feel like with them, up to and including decapitating invaders and using their heads as support bricks for a staircase.

I swear you must be in my group.

But, yeah, I agree with you - a book should have some cool specific stuff, and then just pass out the toys.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-08, 10:58 PM
No, fluff is not necessary, but it is what makes D&D into D&D. Without the fluff, you have the d20 System (which, incidentally, WotC released for free as the SRD). So, technically, by purchasing the PHB, you are paying for fluff.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 10:58 PM
They're actually a much more expensive hobby, as I recall. Or more accurately, as my doting older sister recalls.

Regardless, I think I've made my point. No one would be as interested in Legos if they just gave you a big bucket o' parts, sure; so instead, they give you something to build from and towards, and then as you get more advanced, you start buying them solely for the parts. The pictures can be discarded at that point, and easily, since they were only a few pages.

So too, fluff should be lightly present, succinct, evocative, and easily removed.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 11:00 PM
But i don't think that point stands when held to something like D&D, because of such separate mediums. The system on its own is meaningless, its the back ground that actually makes it interesting and gripping. You can make your own certainly, but having a game taht is just mechanics is just unimaginative
from
EE

Ponce
2008-10-08, 11:02 PM
1) having no fluff makes the crunch inherently uninteresting. Without fluff, the crunch is just a section of a math text book. It also makes the game not make sense in the default
2) Why not? You still get your crunch, and now you have context its in. Don't like it make your own, you still get crunch.
3) Actually, 3E would be better if they focused more upon expanding their fluff. Like Heaven, nobody ever goes into that.

1) I love math textbooks. Calculus: Early Transcendentals by Stewart was a solid buy.
2) Because I don't want to waste money on it. I don't want to have to flip through pages of fluff to get to the crunch that I would want to access quickly at the table. I just don't want it. It is that simple.
3) In your opinion. The whole point I'm making is that other people have other opinions about what they want. Some people just want a frame to mount their own fluff on.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 11:05 PM
1) I love math textbooks. Calculus: Early Transcendentals by Stewart was a solid buy.
2) Because I don't want to waste money on it. I don't want to have to flip through pages of fluff to get to the crunch that I would want to access quickly at the table. I just don't want it. It is that simple.
3) In your opinion. The whole point I'm making is that other people have other opinions about what they want. Some people just want a frame to mount their own fluff on.

1) But it doesn't offer anything in terms of interest to anyone who isn't deeply involved in math, where as a history book will involve anyone who reads it
2) What if the fluff isn't bad? What if it has potienal. Being original is nice, but not all published fluff is bad
3) That doesn't change the fact that a game without fluff doesn't amount to anything. Same goes visa versa. You need and equalibium
from
EE

erikun
2008-10-08, 11:06 PM
I do have a question. If you don't want any fluff, and are only interested in the ruleset, why would you ever buy a new system? I mean, it would make most sense to only have one system, then houserule it until it works the way you want it to.

I suppose it would make sense if you want to run something completely different (ie. flying spaceships into an aerial battle), but why ever buy a "new edition" of a system, fluff or no?

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 11:08 PM
I do have a question. If you don't want any fluff, and are only interested in the ruleset, why would you ever buy a new system? I mean, it would make most sense to only have one system, then houserule it until it works the way you want it to.

I suppose it would make sense if you want to run something completely different (ie. flying spaceships into an aerial battle), but why ever buy a "new edition" of a system, fluff or no?

Well, a lot of people don't ever change systems for starters. And, I dunno, your question seems kind of backwards to me. Flavor tends to be the part more easily changed around than rules, at least if you're trying to do it well. If you want a new system, you want a new gameplay experience. If you want new fluff, then you want a new roleplay experience.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-08, 11:08 PM
I do have a question. If you don't want any fluff, and are only interested in the ruleset, why would you ever buy a new system? I mean, it would make most sense to only have one system, then houserule it until it works the way you want it to.

I suppose it would make sense if you want to run something completely different (ie. flying spaceships into an aerial battle), but why ever buy a "new edition" of a system, fluff or no?

Better fixes to existing problems. The thrill of learning how a system works.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-08, 11:12 PM
I personally think there should be a small, maybe 1-2 pages for a race and 1/2 a page or a page for a class, very general and non-specific, if it is tied to a specific alignment or location it should be a PrC or a Paragon Path.

Ponce
2008-10-08, 11:13 PM
1) But it doesn't offer anything in terms of interest to anyone who isn't deeply involved in math, where as a history book will involve anyone who reads it
2) What if the fluff isn't bad? What if it has potienal. Being original is nice, but not all published fluff is bad
3) That doesn't change the fact that a game without fluff doesn't amount to anything. Same goes visa versa. You need and equalibium
from
EE

To each his own. I can understand perfectly that people would want fluff. However, if I don't want fluff, then I don't want fluff, and it is perfectly reasonable to want for systems that do not have fluff and do not make you pay for fluff. I can make my own fluff. Lots of people can make their own fluff. The idea that every system must have fluff and everyone should be happy to have it is ludicrous.

Colmarr
2008-10-08, 11:16 PM
I think the OP is founded on a mistaken premise: that people are suggesting that an RPG rulebook should have no fluff at all.

I don't recall anyone arguing that. The only mention in this thread or the barbarian thread of an RPG without fluff is the HERO system and no one has stood up in defence of it as a publishing paradigm.

As such, we just come back to the suggestion that I made in the barbarian thread: that EE wants his RPG with lots of built-in fluff, and others (such as Astral Fire) don't.

For what it's worth, I would not buy a product that contained no fluff whatsoever, but I am happy with the amount of fluff in 4e as compared to 3e D&D (which is what sparked this thread).

Swordguy
2008-10-08, 11:20 PM
I think the OP is founded on a mistaken premise: that people are suggesting that an RPG rulebook should have no fluff at all.

I don't recall anyone arguing that. The only mention in this thread or the barbarian thread of an RPG without fluff is the HERO system and no one has stood up in defence of it as a publishing paradigm.

As such, we just come back to the suggestion that I made in the barbarian thread: that EE wants his RPG with lots of built-in fluff, and others (such as Astral Fire) don't.

Is it better to have an option and choose not to use it, or have the need to exercise that option and not have it available?

I'd prefer the first one. It's why I have a fire extinguisher, carry a concealed firearm, buy cars with airbags, and play RPGs with built-in fluff.

The rest of you can have your cars without such explosively inflatable luxuries.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 11:22 PM
Is it better to have an option and choose not to use it, or have the need to exercise that option and not have it available?

I'd prefer the first one. It's why I have a fire extinguisher, carry a concealed firearm, buy cars with airbags, and play RPGs with built-in fluff.

The rest of you can have your cars without such explosively inflatable luxuries.

Three of the things you list are safety features. This is more akin to "do I want to pay extra for their slightly nicer built in radio with no hassle, or take the time to self-install this really really nice one I got from my friend?"

Break
2008-10-08, 11:22 PM
I'm generally okay with fluff being in a system. I don't consider it to be a requirement by any means; it's something that's nice to have as a default or an example. I can live without it, however - I find the mechanics to be just as interesting as the flavor associated with it.

However, I want the fluff to be easily separable from the mechanics - should I like the mechanics of some portion of the system, I don't want to be married to the default fluff of it due to how attached they are to each other. I simply want the ability to refluff with minimal fuss if fluff is already present in the system.

sonofzeal
2008-10-08, 11:27 PM
I do have a question. If you don't want any fluff, and are only interested in the ruleset, why would you ever buy a new system? I mean, it would make most sense to only have one system, then houserule it until it works the way you want it to.

I suppose it would make sense if you want to run something completely different (ie. flying spaceships into an aerial battle), but why ever buy a "new edition" of a system, fluff or no?
If you're houseruling 3.5e enough to get the dynamics of GURPS, or starting with Shadowrun and gradually turning it into 4e, then you're going to have massive binders full of custom rules that any new players have to memorize before they can join.

By contrast, it's pretty easy to say "in this world Psychic Warriors use kung fu rather than psionics to power their special abilities".

Swordguy
2008-10-08, 11:32 PM
Three of the things you list are safety features. This is more akin to "do I want to pay extra for their slightly nicer built in radio with no hassle, or take the time to self-install this really really nice one I got from my friend?"

All four are safety features. Fluff is something that even an experienced DM can fall back upon in an emergency when they're caught off-guard or are out of ideas. "How does THIS work?" "I don't know and the rules don't cover it. Let me look at the game world and see how it handles similar situations." It's a safety net.

And, frankly, getting rid of fluff in books may in fact be appropriate for experienced GMs...but not every GM is experienced enough to create their own fluff, and the creation of an entire world's worth of fluff is a pretty tall order for some prospective player looking to GM a new game. Remember, gaming books aren't made just for experienced gamers - they have the responsibility of introducing new people to the hobby as well. Every single book you produce may be the very first RPG book a prospective gamer picks up. If for no other reason, that's a compelling argument against deleting fluff from RPG rulebooks.

Also, without fluff, how do you tell if a sword is a slashing or bludgeoning weapon? The term, "sword" may mean completely different things from game world to game world. Without context, a sword can mean a sharp bit of metal, or a hunk of wood (this happens in real life too - ask a Brit what they thought of "Free Willy"). Fluff is a necessity simply to define the context in which the rules need to be viewed and interpreted.

Oh, forgot this:

1) I love math textbooks. Calculus: Early Transcendentals by Stewart was a solid buy.

You are a strange and disturbing being.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 11:35 PM
All four are safety features. Fluff is something that even an experience DM can fall back upon in an emergency when they're caught off-guard or are out of ideas. It's a safety net.

I meant safety features of 'dire peril or you die', but okay.


And, frankly, getting rid of fluff in books may in fact be appropriate for experienced GMs...but not every GM is experienced enough to create their own fluff, and the creation of an entire world's worth of fluff is a pretty tall order for some prospective player looking to GM a new game. Remember, gaming books aren't made just for experienced gamers - they have the responsibility of introducing new people to the hobby as well. Every single book you produce may be the very first RPG book a prospective gamer picks up. If for no other reason, that's a compelling argument against deletig fluff from RPG rulebooks.

And these inexperienced ones who need help can't pick up Campaign Setting supplements? That's what I did (and do if I choose to DM a setting I am not intimately familiar with.)

As far as getting people interested - see below about not removing fluff.


Also, without fluff, how do you tell if a sword is a slashing or bludgeoning weapon? The term, "sword" may mean completely different things from game world to game world. Without context, a sword can mean a sharp bit of metal, or a hunk of wood (this happens in real life too - ask a Brit what they thought of "Free Willy"). Fluff is a necessity simply to define the context in which the rules need to be viewed and interpreted.

...

Dude?

No one's saying STRIP BARE THE BOOK OF EVERYTHING WHICH RESEMBLES FLAVOR. The majority opinion appears to be in the "let's not go into pages about this, a quick sketch gets the point done."

In other words, we don't want HERO, we just also don't want World of Darkness. I'm aware I don't speak for everyone, but I think there's a fair amount of people with me on this.

turkishproverb
2008-10-08, 11:39 PM
I think the real problem is what is too stripped down and what is not among people. Personally I think they stripped too much character from the monsters in 3.X and 4.0 compared to ADD. I like things like habitat and diet and group behavior listings.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 11:43 PM
I think the real problem is what is too stripped down and what is not among people. Personally I think they stripped too much character from the monsters in 3.X and 4.0 compared to ADD. I like things like habitat and diet and group behavior listings.

seconded
from
EE

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 11:49 PM
I think the real problem is what is too stripped down and what is not among people. Personally I think they stripped too much character from the monsters in 3.X and 4.0 compared to ADD. I like things like habitat and diet and group behavior listings.

FWIW - I actually enjoy those things too. The original discussion was mostly on classes, which is mostly what I expect to be left to my own devices. 'Monster Manuals' aren't core rules to most other games that I know, and are practically a random slice of a campaign setting.

However, I have never purchased a monster manual in my life and never will, simply because there are too many monsters in any regard for me. I've used like, five monsters. Maybe. I like to focus on a few things closely.

Swordguy
2008-10-08, 11:49 PM
No one's saying STRIP BARE THE BOOK OF EVERYTHING WHICH RESEMBLES FLAVOR. The majority opinion appears to be in the "let's not go into pages about this, a quick sketch gets the point done."

In other words, we don't want HERO, we just also don't want World of Darkness. I'm aware I don't speak for everyone, but I think there's a fair amount of people with me on this.

Okay, but...



These are RULEBOOKS, not novels.


It's doing the whole job that I want it to do. I want to write a world of my own, I want to create monsters and villains and unique situations. I don't like players or DMs to have a catalog of pre-fluffed options because such catalogs make players lazy--I've seen dozens of identical Paladins/Crusaders/Clerics,...


1) Having no fluff is a solution to the problem, which is why I like the idea. It also makes the crunch itself more easily adapted without creating confusion.

2) No, but I have to PAY for it. I don't WANT it.


I don't pay people to help balance my game's fluff.

And finally, in response to: "But as presented, there should be both fluff and crunch." (which is what you allude to in your quote at the top of this post)



Then buy the fluff, instead of making everyone who's not looking to do so pay for it as well. Any company will be glad to take your money for it.

...

These all look to me like unequivocal arguments to remove fluff completely from rulebooks.

All that said, I think D&D actually strikes about the right balance between too little fluff (HERO, Basic GURPS) and too much (WoD).

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 11:51 PM
Okay, but...

And finally, in response to: "But as presented, there should be both fluff and crunch." (which is what you allude to in your quote at the top of this post)

...

These all look to me like unequivocal arguments to remove fluff completely from rulebooks.

You're overreading - note the lego example I used and got many people agreeing with me on. I can't speak for anyone specifically, but I'd guess most people saying "no fluff" are overstating "no pages and pages of 'class socialization fluff like 3.x had'".

Ponce
2008-10-08, 11:59 PM
These all look to me like unequivocal arguments to remove fluff completely from rulebooks.

I've said a number of times I can appreciate that people might want fluff. You shouldn't quote out of context like that. :smallfrown: The OP is advocating that everyone should want fluff, and that all books should have fluff, which I cannot agree with at all. I and many others would simply like the option not to have to buy fluff. This is not unreasonable.

Vva70
2008-10-09, 12:04 AM
I'll have to say, I like fluff. I like to have fluff. I like to make fluff. I like default fluff for things I consider less important and don't want to spend the time making.

But I think it's perfectly reasonable to keep only light fluff in core rules.

Now, I think that light fluff should be there, but it doesn't need to be anything extravagant. I have to say, I like the idea of making some books mechanics-centric and some books fluff-centric. Campaign settings, books like the 3.5 "Races of" series, and the like are good examples of fluff-centric books (though they do have some mechanics). Books like the 3.5 "Complete" series are good examples of mechanics-centric books (though they do have some fluff). As long as there is fluff enough to give basic, meant-to-be-expanded-on concepts, I'm okay with the core rulebooks falling into the latter category.

Swordguy
2008-10-09, 12:08 AM
I've said a number of times I can appreciate that people might want fluff. You shouldn't quote out of context like that. :smallfrown: The OP is advocating that everyone should want fluff, and that all books should have fluff, which I cannot agree with at all. I and many others would simply like the option not to have to buy fluff. This is not unreasonable.

It is absolutely unreasonable if a company is only going to print a single PHB (or equivalent). Printing costs (along with logistic costs) are significant for ANY book these days, and the benefit from printing a fluff-less PHB is going to be negligible from a business perspective, if indeed there is any.

Whether everyone wants fluff is their own concern. Advocating a position that nobody gets fluff (which is what would happen if your solution were to be enacted, because companies can't - CAN'T - reasonably publish two edition of the same book at the same time and make any profit) is infringing upon others in a negative way. You always have the option to ignore the fluff. Others do not always have the option to make up their own fluff in the manner you clearly prefer (lack of creativity, time, etc). The only position here that restricts another's ability to game is the one that minimizes or eliminates fluff from books.

Side note: I quoted that YOU wanted no fluff. That follows logically into an argument to remove fluff from rulebooks (which is what you don't want to pay for, as quoted). That isn't out of context whatsoever.

FoE
2008-10-09, 12:18 AM
These all look to me like unequivocal arguments to remove fluff completely from rulebooks.

No, that's incorrect. I think there should be some fluff tied to mechanics within the Core books (ie. I think classes should be "wizard" or "fighter" rather than Class A and Class B). I think there should be options to get people started on building adventures, ie. a sample town or adventure. But I don't care about the Core book being an "interesting read" or building an entire world. I will do that myself, or I will pick up a campaign book.

Asbestos
2008-10-09, 12:53 AM
Hey so... with WotC redifining "Core Product" as something "Not setting specific" what does that change?
Also... on the general "Fluff in 4e is absent" note... what about Dragon Magazine? Those articles are printed by WotC and are full of 4e fluff for the most part. Did you read the article about the Star Pact warlocks? That was like... a 100x increase in fluff from what was presented in the PHB. And as for monsters... the Kobold and Gnoll articles really fleshed those guys out. They even gave us a bunch of detailed organizations to insert right into a game if we want. This having been said... those fluff-filled articles did a lot, from what I've observed here and on the WotC forums, to make people want to play the fluffier races/classes. Star Pact got a lot more love after the "Wish Upon a Star" article, and I don't think it was only because of the new powers.

I think that WotC pretty much crammed what they could into the books while keeping them from getting too big/too expensive. Would I rather have detailed ecologies for every monster in the MM or would I rather have 40 more monsters? Do I need amazing fluff on every class/build or do I need to have more than 3 classes? In this case, I would much rather have a fluff-lite intital release so I can start playing... WotC *knows* that plenty of fluff for a lot of the monsters in the MM exists and that people can find it. You want quick info on Kobolds? Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)) Heck! Just go here and start clicking! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_monsters) It isn't the 70s or 80s anymore! We can look stuff up in seconds! WotC still has tons of their old articles up, if it hasn't been changed, then there is little reason for them to reprint it right away. I think that the current setup is a good compromise. If you have to release some stuff fluff-lite in order to fit the needed crunch in, fine. But let's release fluff for the brand-new/vastly changed things outside of splat books and core books. If its setting specific, put it into a campaign book, if it isn't put it in Dragon.

turkishproverb
2008-10-09, 12:58 AM
Bullocks. I repeat: if the 2.0 book was thinner AND had more details about the creatures in it (a good variety of creatures) that suggests a different problem than pagefit.

Colmarr
2008-10-09, 01:06 AM
Is it better to have an option and choose not to use it, or have the need to exercise that option and not have it available?

I'd prefer the first one. It's why I have a fire extinguisher, carry a concealed firearm, buy cars with airbags, and play RPGs with built-in fluff.

The rest of you can have your cars without such explosively inflatable luxuries.

Two issues:

One:

I'm not sure how your comments are relevant specifically to my post that you quoted.

I was clear in my post that "no fluff = bad", which seems to be a position you share.

Ultimately, the key word in my post was "lots". EE wants "lots" of fluff. Others want an amount less than "lots". I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that there should (as opposed to can) be no fluff at all.

EDIT: Ok, maybe one person :smallsmile:

Hence my point that the OP appears to be based on a false premise.

Two:

Fluff built into the core rules is no more an option than the rules for rolling d20s to attack.

One may be easier to remove than the other, but that does not make it optional.

Lert, A.
2008-10-09, 01:23 AM
You're overreading - note the lego example I used and got many people agreeing with me on. I can't speak for anyone specifically, but I'd guess most people saying "no fluff" are overstating "no pages and pages of 'class socialization fluff like 3.x had'".

I agree with you Lego Lad!

I think something that got glossed over here was a comment on stingy gamer editions. I think back to a player in my group picking up a copy of BESM d20 where there were page after page of different suggestions and fluff. Then I picked up a stingy edition that contained a few pictures and a couple of paragraphs (mostly crunch). We ended up using the crunchy edition.

Fluff is alright, but a person should have choice. Why should players have to spend so much time to sort through their handbooks to find out if they need to roll for a DC 15 or DC 20? A little fluff and some pictures are good for most of us. If you want more then campaign settings and adventure guides are for you. If you don't, then why should you be forced to pay extra for it?

Asbestos
2008-10-09, 01:34 AM
Bullocks. I repeat: if the 2.0 book was thinner AND had more details about the creatures in it (a good variety of creatures) that suggests a different problem than pagefit.

Where did you get the idea that it would be thinner? Detailed fluff takes up physical space and stats take up physical space. If you increase one you have to decrease the other.

turkishproverb
2008-10-09, 01:36 AM
I agree with you Lego Lad!

I think something that got glossed over here was a comment on stingy gamer editions. I think back to a player in my group picking up a copy of BESM d20 where there were page after page of different suggestions and fluff. Then I picked up a stingy edition that contained a few pictures and a couple of paragraphs (mostly crunch). We ended up using the crunchy edition.

Fluff is alright, but a person should have choice. Why should players have to spend so much time to sort through their handbooks to find out if they need to roll for a DC 15 or DC 20? A little fluff and some pictures are good for most of us. If you want more then campaign settings and adventure guides are for you. If you don't, then why should you be forced to pay extra for it?

That was my comment. Although someone else did point out that that usually isn't going to be economically viable for the company involved 2/3 times. Still, selling stingy as a PDF exclusive could be an idea..

Jerthanis
2008-10-09, 02:40 AM
I think it's important to have fluff in a game, but that fluff must absolutely match its mechanics. If there's an Assassin class, it should be good at quick, efficient killing, possibly from ambush, stealth, trap laying, poison, or similar underhanded methods. If mechanically, an Assassin is best suited to front line fighting with a scythe, then any amount of fluff you write for it meaningless.

However, I don't believe fluff needs to be overly specific in most cases. If I'm playing D&D, or most Modern settings, the Assassin Class (IMHO) shouldn't necessitate affiliation with a specific organization of people with similar abilities, or a specific method of operation, or means of determining what contracts to take and which to reject. If I'm playing Crusades Era Arabian Historical Fiction the game, perhaps "Hashishin" would have all those things, but "Assassin" has evolved into a term that is evocative enough on its own that you immediately know what the term represents, and what a class bearing that name would offer.

On the other hand, there ARE terms that aren't as evocative as Assassin. This includes terms like "Ranger". Why do they tend to use two weapons at once? Why are they survivalists? How do they operate? These are questions which aren't immediately and intuitively answered by their title, so in these cases a quick explanation like, "Rangers tend to come from organizations such as the scouts of armies or the like" or "Rangers are an ancient brotherhood inspired to protect a certain stretch of wilderness from intruders". To what extent depends on the setting.

A game doesn't NEED to contain detailed backstories and motives for each one of its Archdukes of Hell, OR ruminations on the thought processes of the typical member of each class or organization on each other member of each other class or organization to have enough fluff to qualify as an RPG... it just needs enough that you can make a character and have some idea who they are, and for the DM/GM/ST to make up a story involving those characters. Saying, "I'm an Assassin" IS enough of a jumping off point to make characters as varied as that guy from Hitman to John Cusack's character from Grosse Pointe Blank.

Personally, my favorite game system is generic (Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition), but my favorite setting is Exalted, which has ludicrously specific canon for almost every single major mover and shaker in the world (except the PCs, who will be major movers and shakers inside of 10 sessions or something's probably wrong) Both have amazing flavor, in my opinion, and are both shining examples of what RPGs should be (in different ways... Exalted desperately needs better editing). One of these provides you with almost no fluff, but gives you advice on coming up with your own, and the other provides you with so much fluff you risk drowning in it.

I guess what I'm saying in a highly highly roundabout way is that people play a lot of different ways. Even the same person plays a lot of different ways. Fluff-lite isn't Fluff-less, and there isn't a set level of Fluff that says ----- This much or more fluff, or there's no value to the game as an RPG. To me, "Assassin" is enough fluff... as long as the mechanics match the fluff.

Kaihaku
2008-10-09, 02:56 AM
Actually... If core were written like the SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html) with a minimal amount of fluff I'd be fine with that. I think very setting specific fluff in core limits what the system can do. Now, I think fluff is important, more so than the mechanics, but it doesn't need to be included so strongly.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-09, 04:43 AM
What strikes me as worse than having little fluff is having stupid fluff. Do people remember those preview articles from before 4E came out, that had such, er, marvels as the Amber Dragon Wizard, and other [adjective] [animal] style things? As I recall, a large internet backlash convinced WOTC to de-fluff that, at least in the player's handbook.

D&D is one of those few RPGs with no real "default" setting (Fallcrest is too small to count as a setting). That means that the PHB is expected to be as generic as the main GURPS manual, and that most of the fluff will be found in optional settings books. So how much can you actually say about the Fighter class, if the player's handbook is not allowed to lay the groundworks for the Iron Leopard Fighter School in Pink Cobra Town?

YPU
2008-10-09, 05:00 AM
I agree, there should always be fluff, in my opinion it’s a good story at the core of good mechanics. But I also agree that dnd is kind of a generic system, or was in previous editions anyway. So instead of giving specifics of any class or race, instead the fluff could include what the designers imagined it would be in a setting ie. Wizards are studious users of magic, their abilities are only so much talent and take time reading books and practicing. The mechanics represent this with the spellbook. Sure, one could change the fluff of the class into something more spontaneous but that would require a rework or at least a good renaming of the class abilities. Lets take a race as example as well, the dragonborn get a bonus when bloodied, they could be dedicated to their work, thus only pushing harder when it gets tough. They could also have bezerker blood, getting really angry and violent when they eat some axe. Both would make good descriptions of fluff, in fact if there is no explanation it would be kind of strange to get the bonus just like that. So perhaps core should have explanations of how the designers imagined the classes and races and how that influences the mechanics. That way one who changes the fluff knows what mechanics need to change as well.

_Zoot_
2008-10-09, 05:38 AM
I think that there should be soom fluff in all rule books. It makes the books readable and it is interesting, i could not sit down and read a book if all it did was to tell me the stats and rule of the game. I think that if they did not include the fluff in the books then they would just find something elce to make us pay for when we buy them.

I don't buy the idea that fluff tells DM's or players what they can and can't do, for my first 4e campain my DM is making an Aztec game, theres no fluff in the 4e books that say anything about aztecs, were using the same rules just reworking the fluff. If people are that worried about what the fluff says then don't read it. I like the fluff and i don't think that the 4e books have enough but that dosn't mean that im makeing or playing in games that go with it.

Hal
2008-10-09, 05:49 AM
There has to be at least some level of fluff. Otherwise, the PHB core classes would look like this:

Barbarian Melee combatant who buffs himself in battle
Bard Spontaneous spellcaster from spell-list A with party buffs
Cleric Prepared spellcaster from spell-list B
Druid Prepared spellcaster from spell-list C with an animal companion
Fighter Martial combatant with bonus feats
Monk Melee combatant skilled in unarmed combat
Paladin Melee combatant with prepared spellcasting from list D and a special mount
Ranger Martial tracker with prepared spellcasting from list E
Rogue Skillful class that deals extra damage to unaware enemies
Sorceror Spontaneous spellcaster from spell-list F with a familiar
Wizard Prepared spellcaster from spell-list F with a familiar

That is a fluff-less system. It's BORING.

ShaggyMarco
2008-10-09, 06:12 AM
For DnD in particular, I think the core books should maintain a minimal level of fluff, and the fluff it does contain should be nothing beyond a detailed explanation of the archetype the designers were drawing on for the particular class/race/monster and how that archetype informed their design decisions.

For instance, in 4ed, it is important to know the assumption that Barbarians draw on the spirits of nature and upon ancestor spirits for their rage--this explains the mechanics of them having powers that make them insubstantial or doing elemental damage.

For core DnD, this is the fluff/crunch ratio that works best--we know why the design decisions were made and what archetype they are going for was. It gives us enough information to play with, but not so much that it won't fit into our personal homebrew world.

Duke of URL
2008-10-09, 06:35 AM
For quite some time, I've putting forth the argument that "crunch" and "fluff" need to be kept separate, but really, this is only in the sense that the "crunch" should not be arbitrarily married to the "fluff".

As a designer, I find the "fluff" quite important in getting a feel for what I want the mechanic to actually do. I don't write the mechanic first, and then fluff it (or, more often, have a better writer fluff it for me from my notes), I write at least an outline of the fluff first (in some cases, I may only have it in my head), which provides the inspiration for what the mechanics should do. At the same time, I try to make sure that the mechanic developed is not coupled to the "fluff" to the point where it either breaks down or becomes nonsensical if the fluff is removed or altered.

(There are some limits here, of course. If I develop a fire-based mechanic and someone tries to adapt it to an underwater setting, it may not be as simple as replacing "fire" with another element.)

Nevertheless, the "fluff" that comes with the mechanic performs two critical functions. Firstly, it demonstrates the designers intent -- how (s)he envisions the mechanic working and how it fits in with other mechanics. Secondly, it provides a default setting that can either be used "out of the box" or altered to fit specific needs.

This default setting is the key in this discussion. Sure, you can write an entire setting completely from scratch using just the rules and none of its fluff. But in most cases, why? It's easier on you and your players to basically start off as "like the default setting, except..." This allows players a common framework to start from while still providing infinite variability for adaptation.

The exception, of course, would be "total conversion" projects. E.g., ditching D&D's "medieval fantasy" framework altogether and trying to use the same mechanics in other genres (just as the d20 system gave us d20 Modern, Mutants and Masterminds, Babylon 5 d20, Serenity d20, etc.). But then all you've really done is replace the default setting with another default setting, which people are then going to customize to their own needs and desires.

Ponce
2008-10-09, 07:22 AM
It is absolutely unreasonable if a company is only going to print a single PHB (or equivalent). Printing costs (along with logistic costs) are significant for ANY book these days, and the benefit from printing a fluff-less PHB is going to be negligible from a business perspective, if indeed there is any.

Whether everyone wants fluff is their own concern. Advocating a position that nobody gets fluff (which is what would happen if your solution were to be enacted, because companies can't - CAN'T - reasonably publish two edition of the same book at the same time and make any profit) is infringing upon others in a negative way. You always have the option to ignore the fluff. Others do not always have the option to make up their own fluff in the manner you clearly prefer (lack of creativity, time, etc). The only position here that restricts another's ability to game is the one that minimizes or eliminates fluff from books.

Side note: I quoted that YOU wanted no fluff. That follows logically into an argument to remove fluff from rulebooks (which is what you don't want to pay for, as quoted). That isn't out of context whatsoever.

I don't think it is unreasonable. Different campaign-specific material is quite often printed separately from the core material. Again, I'm not advocating that every single system should remove fluff, but rather that I would like for there to be more pure crunch systems available or that it be offered publishers like WotC who have a large enough user base to make it plausible. It is quite a stretch between not wanting fluff and insisting that the all core material in the entire gaming market be purged of fluff. Just because I like my peanuts unsalted doesn't mean I don't want anyone else to have salted peanuts.

Blackfang108
2008-10-09, 08:41 AM
up to and including decapitating invaders and using their heads as support bricks for a staircase.

I miss my Legos.

Starsinger
2008-10-09, 12:17 PM
No fluff is not useless in core. However, fluff can be limiting in core. To pick my particularly favorite example in 3e in the sorcerer's description buried between several "Unlike Wizards..." statements, there lies a small line saying some Sorcerers might have a possibility of having Draconic Heritage. That's fine. Now some people roll sorcerers up and say, "My character's great great grandmother was a half-red dragon, I will take a lot of fire spells to simulate draconic heritage." And I'm okay with that, their dragon sorcerer is not my concern.

And in the core books all that there was to cement that line was the Dragon Disciple, a curious prestige class filled with suck. And then came the splats. Sorcerer specific item in a splatbook? It's Dragon related! (And then there were the other heritage feats but that's a different matter). Dragon-Magic was particularly offensive, giving many spells bonuses if cast by Sorcerers because y'know, the practically official fluff was now changed to Sorcerer = Dragon.

I said above that the Celestial/Infernal/Fey heritage feats were a separate matter from the Dragon Heritage feats, and that's really a lie. The other issue here was that Sorcerers (Unlike Wizards...) cast spells because they're descended from other beings that cast spells. This small bit of information raises the claim that humans can't possess the ability to spontaneously cast spells without having an ancestor who dips outside of the species. And so, the Sorcerer, a class I enjoyed because it seemed to be naturally in tune with the magical forces of the universe, was reduced to "Bastard grandchild of Outsider/Dragon/Fey" because the game makers took a bit of optional fluff and ran with it.

But the real problem was people. People who value the game fluff above what the players want. The same people who espouse the Paladin's code as a wonderful thing are the kinds of people who say, "No, your Sorcerer can't just cast spells, where are you getting it from? Dragon blood? Chosen of Mystra? <Other reason I didn't want for my character>? Sold your soul? Maybe you should try Wizard. You know Shugenja cast spells spontaneously and are charisma based."

So while fluff isn't useless in core, it can be dangerous. So I'm happy for a fluff light core book this time around. When I stop being able to enjoy a class because they ruin its fluff and stupid people refuse to let what a few lines of flavor in a book say go, I'll change my mind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the other side of the issue, Mutants and Masterminds is pretty fluff-light as far as setting and the like goes, and it's still very enjoyable. Maybe the issue is that some people expect all the fluff given to them on a plate instead of having to make any up. Which I find a bit confusing, I thought some modicum of creativity was required for role-playing games, but I enjoy 4e, what do I know, right?

nowiwantmydmg
2008-10-09, 12:47 PM
There's a balancing point where there's just enough fluff to not be cumbersome and just the right amount to be evocative and inspirational. 4e strikes this balance quite well in the PHB and DMG I find, but could use a little more in the MM (I don't mean full 2 page write ups like in 2e, but a bit more description of appearance and usual locales would be nice).

EE--If you're going to call yourself an elitist; please use spell check. I'm not poking fun, but it does make some of your posts harder/annoying to read. There's an error in the thread title even.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-09, 01:11 PM
There has to be at least some level of fluff. Otherwise, the PHB core classes would look like this:

Barbarian Melee combatant who buffs himself in battle
Bard Spontaneous spellcaster from spell-list A with party buffs
Cleric Prepared spellcaster from spell-list B
Druid Prepared spellcaster from spell-list C with an animal companion
Fighter Martial combatant with bonus feats
Monk Melee combatant skilled in unarmed combat
Paladin Melee combatant with prepared spellcasting from list D and a special mount
Ranger Martial tracker with prepared spellcasting from list E
Rogue Skillful class that deals extra damage to unaware enemies
Sorceror Spontaneous spellcaster from spell-list F with a familiar
Wizard Prepared spellcaster from spell-list F with a familiar

That is a fluff-less system. It's BORING.

To this, I reiterate:


No, fluff is not necessary, but it is what makes D&D into D&D. Without the fluff, you have the d20 System (which, incidentally, WotC released for free as the SRD). So, technically, by purchasing the PHB, you are paying for fluff.

Talya
2008-10-09, 02:04 PM
Really the problem is that a lot of younger players want a setting that an adult game designer wouldn't dream of committing to paper. They want PowerRangers style combat and characters who can cast spells AND fight AND fly AND are champions of the Gods AND have a dark secret which gives them more extra powers on weekends AND are stealthy etc. That's dull as ditch-water to the more mature player but as soon as the game starts saying "this is how things are", the youthful crowd start complaining that they can't simulate My Little Pony Versus Pokemon. The only way to satisfy such players (who are now the target audience) is to take out anything which implies any firm baseline expectation of how the world works.

The 4e paladin is an interesting example of this blandness, IMO, while the Dragonborn is a good illustration of the opposing viewpoint within Hasbro itself - because a generic system doesn't generate trademarks and is thus, according to some at least, bad for business in the long term.

I prefer a baseline feel from which I can strike out in different directions to a totally blank sheet (I prefer to have an eraser and a pencil rather than just a pencil) because the truth is that any mechanic does inevitably imply things about the setting anyway so the lack of background information is unhelpful and futile at the same time.

Pre-3e, D&D had two default settings, IMO: Greyhawk (knights and damsels/elves and dwarves High Fantasy) and City State (human fighters and thieves/Heroic Fantasy). The rot set in with 3e's multiclassing which made any coherent setting very hard unless the DM was prepared to be very draconian.

You are made of awesome.


There has to be at least some level of fluff. Otherwise, the PHB core classes would look like this:

Barbarian Melee combatant who buffs himself in battle
Bard Spontaneous spellcaster from spell-list A with party buffs
Cleric Prepared spellcaster from spell-list B
Druid Prepared spellcaster from spell-list C with an animal companion
Fighter Martial combatant with bonus feats
Monk Melee combatant skilled in unarmed combat
Paladin Melee combatant with prepared spellcasting from list D and a special mount
Ranger Martial tracker with prepared spellcasting from list E
Rogue Skillful class that deals extra damage to unaware enemies
Sorceror Spontaneous spellcaster from spell-list F with a familiar
Wizard Prepared spellcaster from spell-list F with a familiar

That is a fluff-less system.

So are you.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 02:27 PM
To Hal, I say he isn't actually addressing what most people on this thread want, since he's actually repeating it. There has been no one I've seen that has said they want fluff removed from all versions of the core rulebook - the closest it has come is "I want an optional version that is an SRD and therefore cheaper."

To Flipping Eck, I say "Fangled Gamer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93341)."

Roderick_BR
2008-10-09, 03:11 PM
I think the core should have basic fluff. No proper nouns, but perhaps some better examples for how things might be used in a story.
I think the races section in the 4E PHB does an okay job of this, but I wish Wizards had done something similar for the classes and I really wish Wizards had some more information in the Monster Manual.
I agree. Basic fluff is needed so you know what something is and is not is fine. Anything deeper should be up to the campaing setting.

Basic info: Elves favor natural environment, and are skilled marksmen and swordmen.
Dwarves are short tempered, and hard workers, prefering to work from stone and iron.

Deep info: In campaign X, elves are hunters, living primarily from hunting monsters and creatures, and trading goods crafted from these creatures. They have a long oral tradition, sharing stories of hunting and monster slaying. A good portion of them favor also study of the arcane arts, although most prefer to keep to the bow and blade.
Dwarves craft and forge great machines to help manufacture common tools like carriages and farming tools. Their cities tend to be filled with smoke, and loud clanking sounds. Most dwarves, whoever, join great parties on weekends and holidays, what usually involves lots of drinking and name calling. Their frontiers are defended by trained warriors aided by big war machines.

The idea is that the books should say what, more or less, things are, so people doesn't think elves are just skinny humans with pointy ears. If I want to know how they dress and date,
Check the SRD, for example. Little to no fluff, and no one complains.

That said, yeah, 4E's books could use a little more information. The classes would take what? 8 more pages?

Knaight
2008-10-09, 05:22 PM
To use a sci-fi example. Plasma rifle 2d8 is a bit low on fluff, but a picture, or something along the lines of "Plasma rifles are long, narrow rifles that use battery power." is fine. I don't want to see something like this:

Plasma rifles are relatively light weight weapons, consisting of a barrel made of tungsten, with a plastic cover and handle, and a rubber grip on the handle that is typically sticky on the back, so as to make them removable and allow any given rifle to be used by several species. They tend to be fairly narrow, and have grooves running down the sides of the barrel, connecting to the interior of the barrel at two points. These have glass tubes running down the side, which are filled with a nitrogen-helium gel, highly pressurized, that is charged by the battery, and fired as plasma. Most plasma rifles are colored black, dull greens and yellows are used in jungle environments.

A campaign setting can have that, then a picture, I don't have a problem with that. Rules that are supposed to be there to support your own setting anyways shouldn't.

Raz_Fox
2008-10-09, 05:31 PM
I second Roderick. Basic fluff so that I know what's what is exactly what should be in the rulebooks. That is a foundation, if you will, over which you can build anything from a simple hovel to a grand cathedral. I tend to make cathedrals. :smallwink:

Fluff is required to balance the mechanics, but there should be very exhaustive rules because the mechanics are very hard to make up on the fly. Fluff is easy to create, once you have the foundation.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-09, 05:36 PM
Fluff is required to balance the mechanics, but there should be very exhaustive rules because the mechanics are very hard to make up on the fly. Fluff is easy to create, once you have the foundation.

...fluff used in a balancing fashion isn't fluff, but is instead a mechanic.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 05:37 PM
...fluff used in a balancing fashion isn't fluff, but is instead a mechanic.

I believe he means the balance of role-play and game, not the internal game balance.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-09, 05:40 PM
I believe he means the balance of role-play and game, not the internal game balance.

Ooooooooooooooooh.

DM Raven
2008-10-09, 05:51 PM
I hate the term fluff...

I think story is very important to the D&D game. For me, a D&D game without story isn't a D&D game at all. A proper game will have engaging characters, interesting plots, lots of flavor, and good encounters to keep players and DM interested...

That being said, I don't think that story should dominate a rulebook. Rulebooks are RULEbooks because they contain rules. This is how I feel, but that is just me. When I go to buy D&D books, I'm buying them for the rules. I use the rules as a tool to craft interesting situations, encounters, and scenarios for my players. I don't want or need pre-generated story when I'm buying rulebooks. A balanced and engaging rule system is much harder to create than story. (at least for me)

My games are a huge chunk story, small part rules. But I need those balanced rules to help me craft a more fun night for my players. Thats just me...and I'm not saying it's true for everyone. But it makes more sense to me that the D&D rulebooks be made up of more game mechanics than story. To me, a lot of story means the devs were being lazy and didn't want to have to deal with play testing as much content.

You see it all the time with JRPGs and their lack of innovation. I mean yeah, that sort of thing was fun when we were kids and the game industry was young...but it's time to evolve and create some better game systems to go along with the good story. Bad game design can only be covered up so much by good story.

But no, story is not useless in core. But I would argue that good mechanics are more important than story for rulebooks.

TheThan
2008-10-09, 08:34 PM
Dungeons and Dragons is a very generic fantasy game, when you read the fluff, it’s all very familiar because we’ve seen it in popular (and unpopular) media before. With that in mind I don’t think its necessary for such a generic game to have reams of pages worth of fluff clogging up the rulebooks. A few brief descriptions of what races and classes are like is just fine. Even a description of what a spell looks like when it gets fired off is great. But I don’t need nor want a 25-page dissertation on the beginnings of magic, that sort of stuff is campaign specific.

Now, when you take a game system that based on a specific genre, with its own unique look and feel (take COC for example), then it’s perfectly fine to have that flavor text and fluff. It serves to create a unique and highly stylized world for your players to interact in. The same is true when you buy a pre-published campaign world. You’re explicitly looking to buy that fluff.

I have spent an awful lot of time and effort in creating a dnd campaign setting. It’s unique to me, with its own look and feel. Now I’m in the middle of detailing out all the areas of this world, its time consuming and sometimes difficult, but its something I take great delight in. with this in mind I do not need a rulebook to tell me what want to use and what I don’t. I’ll gladly pull from each rulebook I have, but I’m not using any of the flavor from them.

With that said, I understand that many Dms and players don’t the time, creativity or inclination to create such a world. So having a certain amount of fluff and flavor text in rulebooks does not bother me in the least. However I want mechanics to separable from the fluff. I want the crunchy bits to be modular enough that I can either use it as is, or adapt it to my setting without having to make house rules or rewrite sections of the class to “make it fit”.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-09, 08:43 PM
I fail to understand why someone would hate the concept of having some neat description with their rules. I mean, I think Starsinger did place the real concern there the best; When you have some fluff there, some people will have an incredibly hard time breaking with it. But that's just some people being buggy, not a concept.

Then again, I lurk RPG.net's Exalted board, and the absurd things people /do/ with that game have rather firmly shattered the idea that just because the fluff was written one way doesn't mean the mechanics can't be taken the other. On the other other hand, I like 4e, and anime, and MMORPGs, which clearly makes me some sort of ignorant heathen.

Ravyn
2008-10-10, 01:06 AM
I actually make a practice of writing fluff (I don't know why my coworkers would keep me around if I didn't, except maybe as an editor), so I'm a little biased on this point.

But what I do, I try to keep generic. They hand me a Fighter redux, I come back with a way of explaining the variations on things it does that as far as I can see can be applied to any setting that holds still long enough. They give me a spontaneous variant on a druid, I start in on at least three different roles such a one could take in the world, add suggestions for theme variation depending on region....

In my opinion, the best fluff is like a coloring book. It gives you outlines, but leaves plenty of room within the outlines to do what you want--and some even manages to do so without actually doing pictures, like those nifty tessellation sheets you find on the spinning ranks at the end of the stationery aisle. It doesn't tell you how to color or forbid you from adding patterns and changing lines; it's just a springboard, something to fill in. And I wouldn't touch a game that didn't have it.

Starsinger
2008-10-10, 01:15 AM
In my opinion, the best fluff is like a coloring book. It gives you outlines, but leaves plenty of room within the outlines to do what you want--and some even manages to do so without actually doing pictures, like those nifty tessellation sheets you find on the spinning ranks at the end of the stationery aisle. It doesn't tell you how to color or forbid you from adding patterns and changing lines; it's just a springboard, something to fill in. And I wouldn't touch a game that didn't have it.

That's beautiful.

Ravyn
2008-10-10, 01:32 AM
Thank you. It's good to see an analogy resonate with someone.

SmartAlec
2008-10-10, 01:36 AM
When you have some fluff there, some people will have an incredibly hard time breaking with it.

You gotta write with your audience in mind, I guess.

Ravens_cry
2008-10-10, 01:51 AM
Who are we kidding, this hobby is just people rolling unusually sided dice. That is all this hobby is, sans fluff. No one is denying or even discouraging adding your own fluff. But for me at least, when I first came across a DnD book, the first thing I did was look at the pretty pictures. Then I started reading the text, the fluff mostly. I thought, hey wouldn't it be cool to DO that? Then I started reading the mechanics, slowly at first. I started to figure out how the game worked. I wanted to get into this, so I picked the logical place to ask, a comic book shop. Since then , I have had a great time. I haven't DM'd yet, but I do write, and I know that all it takes is a small spark of an idea to build a story. It can be twisted, changed and mutated, but that small spark tweaks something. That is what the fluff is for, in my view. Both to sell the system, and to give ideas. Yo put it from a players perspective, I am playing the pathfinder beta, and the module we are playing forces us all to have some shared past, in this case we are all connected to this one bad guy. He is quickly taken out of the picture, but having that helped me make the transition from rollplay to roleplay. Working from an absolute blank slate is hard, I know. If you can do it, fine, good for you.But I find fluff to be inspirational.