From my magus thread:
Personally I find Magical Lineage and/or Wayang Spell Hunter a little tiring specifically because they're traits instead of feats - not because they change gameplay but because of their impact on roleplaying.Traits are meant to be minor bonuses that reflect your upbringing and previous life, and encourage building a story character background. For instance if your character used to be a sailor then it makes sense to take traits that improve swimming, profession: sailor, and so on.
However if one trait is overwhelmingly better than others for a specific class then that actually stifles story background diversity instead of encouraging it, since the player more than likely bends over backwards to make the trait fit his story.
For instance more or less every single magus out there has a parent 'who not only used metamagic often, but also developed many magical items and perhaps even a new spell or two' - the description for Magical Lineage.
This is a problem if the character's original story was that his parents were farmers.This is however a problem with traits in general, not just these two traits. The traits that allow Perception and Use Magic Device as class skills are also very, very popular. And it's always interesting to see an anti-paladin who spent some time in the city guard or a superstitious barbarian who kept sneaking into his dad's laboratory to tinker with spell components...
Of course you can ignore the description of the trait and/or house-rule this however you want, but I still find it a little jarring.
All that said, this is probably not the place to discuss the perceived shortcomings of the trait system - consider my side rant over and please continue discussing the magus :)
Kudaku's objection to super-good traits marring RP got me to thinking. I have very little attachment to the game's fluff, both as a player and as a DM. As a player my magus took Dervish Dance and his fighting style is nothing like a whirling dervish. I took the feat for the mechanics, and create my own fluff as I see fit.
As a DM I almost never use monsters as written. I take the stats and come up with something I like to fit them, or often the reverse, I'll come up with a monster concept and then flip through the monster manuals looking for stats that fit it. (My favorite example of this is when I used stirges to stat out some very sinister animate dolls in a haunted house.)
So, how important is the fluff to you? Do you see it as something solid that should be adhered to? If so, why? If not, why not?
For myself, I think the reason I don't see the fluff as concrete is because it would greatly hinder my own imagination, and coming up with imagery that I (or my players) would think is awesome is a large part of the fun of the game for me.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I view the fluff as somewhat important.
The fluff should be reflected in the mechanics. The union of story and mechanics is what separates Tabletop RPGs from other games, especially miniature combat games. If the fluff is irrelevant or tacked on the game suffers. When it becomes too easy to just reflavour powers and options you don't need as many mechanics. Character choices become purely mechanical and levelling becomes purely a numbers game with flavour added later.
If monsters become entirely reskinnable you don't need as many monsters. Really, you just need a couple monsters of every CR filling the various "roles". Or you can just run monsters based on the ballpark numbers in the back of the Bestiary.
I enjoy looking for the "right" monster. I've had some great encounters and stories made better because I looked for a monsters of the right tone and CR and stumbled across a gem. If I hadn't been looking for a low CR undead I never would have found the Attic Whisperer which made a ghost story I was telling so much creepier and tragic. If I were reflavouring I would have just done a ghost or standard spectral undead. Or just run an orc and added "incorporeal" to it by way of halving damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like fluff is important - but not necessarily the specific fluff outlined under each specific ability or class. I want a player, or GM, to explain how an ability is working and/or where it comes from, but I don't want to be constrained to it only being the way it says in the book. Holding someone to the specifics doesn't allow for us to tell the stories we want to tell, and that's the whole point, isn't it?
Basically, the rules are the rules, and the fluff is the fluff. Both are important to get right, but as long as they align thematically, I don't care which is used where.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not attached to the built-in game fluff at all.
It, to me, is just a jumping off point, something to fall back on if it suits your needs or to give you ideas, but can and should be changed if need be or it would be more interesting to do so.
This is on both sides of the screen IMO, especially when you want X mechanic but Y fluff is getting in the way. There's no reason fluff needs to be overly restricting.
Perfect example is those traits. They're too good to really give up, but they have very specific fluff to them that pigeonholes you into a certain kind of background. Dropping it makes everyone happy.
Interesting to see a thread pop up on a mini-rant typed earlier - thanks for that :)
I'd like to clarify that I don't think fluff should overrule gameplay mechanics - if a player has a character concept he wants to realize that is mechanically sound, but conflicts with fluff, then I'd simply rewrite or ignore the fluff unless the conflict is extremely disruptive.
An example of what I'd personally consider extremely disruptive fluff would be a true primitive barbarian who decides to take a few levels of Gunslinger - I'd require a very good RP reason before I'd allow that multiclass choice. Similarly a goblin ranger with a dog animal companion would need to write a fairly compelling background story to explain how that particular partnership came to be.
All that said, my main issue in the previous thread is that traits are specifically bonuses given because and only because of fluff. If you remove the fluff requirement on traits then they don't really make sense, they're just one more random bonus on your character sheet.
Conversely, if you keep the fluff on traits and accept that some traits are better than others (and I personally think it is hard to argue otherwise) then you're either asking players to make build sacrifices to make their character make sense, or asking players to make RP sacrifices to make the character they want to play.
One solution to this is to simply have traits be general enough to cover a wide variety of character backgrounds. An example could be to compare the original Wayang Spell Hunter and PFSRD's take on it, Metamagic Master. This has its own advantages and drawbacks.
You grew up on one of the wayang-populated islands of Minata, and your use of magic while hunting has been a boon to you.
This is extremely specific - we've already established exactly where the character is from (Minata), that he is most likely a spellcaster straight from level 1, and that he hunted for a living. These are restrictions that the character has to take into account when writing his character's backstory, though restrictions can also help a character write a story in the first place. Wayang spell Hunter might be hard to explain for a Taldane who grew up in Absalom.
On the other side we have metamagic master:
Your ability to alter your spell of choice is greater than expected.
This is about as vague as it gets. This trait doesn't really do it for me either since it doesn't actually fulfill the purpose of traits - to give the character ideas to write a background story, or reward players who have written a background story with an appropriate trait.
Ideally I'd like to see something in the middle - trait fluff that gives characters ideas about what kind of background they have, but that's general enough that it'll fit into different parts of Golarion.
I quite like the fluff on traits like Crowd Dodger and Honest - they're specific enough to give you some ideas of what your character background is(he grew up in a city / he had a stern mentor), but vague enough that you can still play a character hailing from Mwangi or Absalom.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy fluff immensely. To the point where I buy certain splatbooks just to read the fluff, even though I know for a fact I'll never use anything written in them. Back in 3.5 era, for instance, I picked up Lords of Madness even though I'd never use aberrations in my game like they were depicted in that book. Still, fun to read about.
But when it comes to dming or playing, I try to have a balance. When a player, I talk to my DM to see if the fluff mirrors his concepts. When I DM, I use whichever fluff strikes my fancy and switch it up when I don't particularly like it (for instance, i always liked the old 3.5 fluff that the Tarrasque was the weakest of the Abominations, horrible beings that were essentially twisted godlings created through divine incest...or something, and prefer it to "scion of a locked god"). It's hit or miss. Most of the time, I stick to as written because the fluff is cool. But sometimes, things can be arranged differently.
@Jester David
To be clear, I don't think published fluff should be done away with. Like you, I have come across creatures whose fluff was very flavorful and gave me ideas for future encounters. Some of the published fluff can be very good. I just don't feel bound to use it at all.
I'd also have to disagree that by making fluff replacable there would be less mechanical variety. Almost all the critters in the bestiary are mechanically different. Ignoring the fluff doesn't remove the need for mechanical variety, I think. It merely allows the DM to substitute his own imagination for the developers', when the mood strikes him. :)
@Rynjin
I agree exactly. You said what I wanted to say, only more succinctly. :p
@Kudaku
You make a good point about traits. Perhaps a middle ground would be to require the player looking to ignore the fluff of a particular trait to write his own, with at least as much detail as the original. This would allow him to keep the mechanical advantage he is seeking, while at the same time traits would still encourage a more flavorful background.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I view built in fluff as strictly a hindrance that the game would be better off without, since you get people who just don't get reskinning. Each feat could be named strictly by what it does (Scimitar Finesse instead of Dervish Dance) and two or three examples of fluff that could used with it.
I view built in fluff as strictly a hindrance that the game would be better off without, since you get people who just don't get reskinning. Each feat could be named strictly by what it does (Scimitar Finesse instead of Dervish Dance) and two or three examples of fluff that could used with it.
I don't know... I get where you're coming from since there are definitely some who don't get reskinning (which can be a real irritation if you're a creative player gaming with such a DM,) but on the flip side, not all DMs are creative enough to come up with their own fluff all-day-every-day. Even I occasionally use a critter straight from the bestiary, and I'm sure there are players out there who read the fluff of Dervish Dance and were inspired to create a PC that does resemble the classic whirling dervish.
Much as I don't feel chained to the fluff, I don't think I'd want it done away with entirely. I think you may lose a fair number of DMs who don't have the time or creativity to create all that fluff on their own.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly wouldn't play if I didn't like the fluff. Fluff = the entire flavor of the world and the characters therein. If the fluff sucks, I have no desire to interact with that world - even if the mechanics are perfect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fluff is geared toward one type of game, and that's one that takes place in Golarion. That's the systems pet setting so it makes sense, but at the same time there are tons of other published settings plus homebrew. I have no problem with dropping the current fluff and replacing it with something more fitting to what is actually being played.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, how important is the fluff to you? Do you see it as something solid that should be adhered to? If so, why? If not, why not?
Fluff is very important to me, however I don't like the 'built in fluff' like others have said. I actually hate a majority the Golarion setting, and I also feel like many traits pigeonhole you, and that they could've been created in a better "create your own!" fashion.
Anyways, in my homegames I allow people to refluff with permission and usually I say yes. I want this to be a team effort in world build and storytelling so I allow people to create their own deities, flavor appearances and abilities, and use the stats of one pet for another. I want people to be creative and have fun in a game rather than feel restricted. I also allow people to create their own traits with my permission.
As far as how mechanics work with fluff, I just want them not to directly contradict someone. If a guy wants rage to be a silent inner turmoil, a surge of emotion created by memories, or for cackle to be a giggle I say go for it! I love creating new mechanics and fluff too. It usually works out fine, except for a few munchkin moments here and there.
I should add there's this weird moment where if you say you don't like the fluff or want to change it(call it mutable) some people think you really don't want any fluff, but that's not true. I like things to be flexible so everyone wins, get it? Forcing me to live in another persons setting is pretty arbitrary and arrogant imo. Things should work for a variety of people and in a variety of ways imo.
So, how important is the fluff to you? Do you see it as something solid that should be adhered to? If so, why? If not, why not?
I find that built in fluff is fun to read, fun to use as a source for ideas, and in some cases a great way to catch what the creater had in mind from an imagination point of view. But as TriOmegaZero said, it is not sancrosact and should not be treated as a rule. Fluff is called fluff for a reason. It is the garnish on the plate. Not the main course.
I don't know about that. I can eat rice all day, and bottomless salads at Olive Garden are awesome. So to some, the fluff is the main course.
Yes, some folks might enjoy the fluff so much it is the reason they buy all these books. Point taken. But that still does not mean fluff should be treated as rules IMO.
The reason I thought of the garnish was because a garnish is an item or substance used as a decoration or embellishment of a prepared food dish. In many cases, it may give added or contrasting flavor. To me, fluff is the same. Fluff adds additional flavor to the item or setting. As a side note, I would never call Rice or Salad a Garnish. Those would be side dishes or main courses in my mind.
But either way, I would never ask for the fluff to go away, I enjoy it and read it. I just don't use it to force a particular take on a game mechanic.
|
I try to use the fluff as much as possible, but freely deviate when I find cool options that seem bound to a race or class. The mechanics for Dreamweaver Witch, for instance, really appealed to me for a tengu character. Nothing in the description was compelling enough to me that it had to be bound to the changeling, according to RAW.
I love the fluff. For immersion it's important that I can tell my players what is the country to the north, let them recognize holy symbols of different faiths, have them meet not just a merchant but one with a varisian accent... I can't just make up all that stuff on the fly and keep it consistent and interesting.
It's important for my storytelling that PCs have a default understanding of their world– that way they can be surprised!
I have zero attachment to the 'official' fluff.
I permit people to take racially-restricted feats/prestige classes/whatever, unless those elements interact directly with the race's mechanics.
To me, the only flavor that matters is the flavor the players and GM give to their characters/the game world.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 'fluff' text from traits and other game concepts really shouldn't matter - if you have a background idea that would give a character the benefits of Magical Lineage some other way, why avoid it just because your idea doesn't match the original author's? The same can apply to any number of other traits, feats, religions, classes or spells.
In addition, fluff is malleable - fluff can be made to say anything. That's kind of the point of a literary work - it is imaginary, and can be made to fit anything you like, with a little extra justification. This is why fluff should never be related to rules in game mechanics (in any game, not just PF). If I want to play a good-aligned demon, then I'll come up with whatever justification I want to make it work. If I want to play a fighter who casts spells, if I can make it work mechanically, I can certainly come up with some background fluff to suit.
I'll just say that if a PC wanted to portray Burning Hands in game as fire breath, I wouldn't have any problem with it.
When it comes to the various flavor-based restrictions on traits and so forth, I've always treated them as rewards for tying one's character to the campaign world.
If there's some trait only available to urchins from Korvosa, I dont take that to mean that only Korvosan urchins can do that particular thing in the game world, but merely that it's a restriction on PC-available choices (we dont allow evil PCs either, but that doesnt mean evil people dont exist).
If someone told me they wanted to reflavor a trait, I'd allow it but I dont think it would ever happen in our group.
To even call it 'fluff' is a mistake. Matter of characterization, flavor, and tone are the core of the game, for which rules are a mere mechanical support system.
No one said it wasn't a matter of characterization, flavor, and tone. No one wants a game without any of those things. That would be kind of boring.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am very attached to fluff. I am very flexible as to what the fluff of the setting is, I don't mind a GM adjusting the fluff to fit the setting, but I do want the world to actually seem like a place that exists and for characters to feel like they would exist in that setting.
Otherwise, why bother role playing? Just make a spreadsheet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. I reject the term 'fluff' becuase it implies that this content is somehow less important than the mechanics, when in fact it's infinitely MORE important.
I can make up my own fluff mind you, but mechanics are a little more hard coded. Its important, but easier to fill in the blanks than mechanics. I want to buy a rule book, not a setting. I want to make my own setting with friends.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the setting and fluff that it provides. However, I would really like to see the fluff and setting specific rules decoupled from the mechanics of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going to have to agree with MrSin here, it's perfectly doable to play an RP game with a book that's 100% mechanics and 0% fluff. Not only that, RP games require mechanics to work but can do perfectly well without prewritten fluff.
Conversely if you have a book that's 100% fluff and 0% mechanics then you don't have an RPG book, you have a fantasy novel.
I usually find 'fluff' interesting, at times inspirational and at times limiting to the character concept I want to play. If I hit the latter I'll frequently ignore or alter the fluff (with agreement from my GM) so that it does fit.
I'm not too attached to the fluff. For example, I kind of refit the Dirty Fighter trait as a Tactical Fighter trait. Same mechanics, but it fit my characters concept better.
Then there are those times where the fluff says something that the rules do not, and you're left with the dilemma of whether or not to follow the fluff or the mechanic.
A perfect example of this is the Spellbinder archetype, where the fluff says you "prepare" a spell in place of another, while the mechanics say you "replace / exchange" the spell. A subtle difference that could mean the difference of whether or not you can add metamagic.
Consistency would be nice sometimes :)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the fluff is the whole point of the game. The rules exist to provide a framework for the fluff. The game is about telling a story. I might make a comparison between the game and a play - the rules are comparable to the lighting, props, costumes etc. The actors use them in the play, but these items are not the main focus.
Now, if we're talking about the text in books that does not pertain to the rules, that is a different matter. That additional text is entertaining to read, but not necessary. I would miss it if it were omitted from the books.
This is my opinion, nothing more.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am very attached to fluff. I am very flexible as to what the fluff of the setting is, I don't mind a GM adjusting the fluff to fit the setting, but I do want the world to actually seem like a place that exists and for characters to feel like they would exist in that setting.
Otherwise, why bother role playing? Just make a spreadsheet.
Indeed. Why even bother playing chess? Just map out all the possible move orders and end results and be done with it!
Some good answers here, imho.
All that said, my main issue in the previous thread is that traits are specifically bonuses given because and only because of fluff. If you remove the fluff requirement on traits then they don't really make sense, they're just one more random bonus on your character sheet.
Conversely, if you keep the fluff on traits and accept that some traits are better than others (and I personally think it is hard to argue otherwise) then you're either asking players to make build sacrifices to make their character make sense, or asking players to make RP sacrifices to make the character they want to play.
well said.
I'd say beware of removing fluff if it is a distinctive cultural trait. Such a restriction is actually a GOOD thing from the GM's perspective, as it creates something with which to hook the player character.
And since Lord Pendragon mentioned "story" as an important aspect of his game, I'd like to point out that from a literary perspective, it's a character's restrictions and needs that drive an interesting character, not the things that make him or her complete (think of Conan and what drove him).
All this reminds me of a discussion gamer friends and I had back in the 90's with White Wolf games; that even if you never play every character concept in the game, we still buy, collect and read the books because of the "fluff" - it's an ongoing narrative of its own, even if it's not a chronological series of novels; all these narrations come together to create a whole picture of the world in which your character lives.
|
|
Indeed. Why even bother playing chess? Just map out all the possible move orders and end results and be done with it!I am very attached to fluff. I am very flexible as to what the fluff of the setting is, I don't mind a GM adjusting the fluff to fit the setting, but I do want the world to actually seem like a place that exists and for characters to feel like they would exist in that setting.
Otherwise, why bother role playing? Just make a spreadsheet.
Absolutely! Lets get rid of the setting entirely! That way we wouldn't need that pesky GM and all that mean fiat.
(I actually miss playing bughouse chess at this coffee shop/bar near where I used to live...)
Now, if we're talking about the text in books that does not pertain to the rules, that is a different matter. That additional text is entertaining to read, but not necessary. I would miss it if it were omitted from the books.
Maybe we're talking past one another, but I believe that is exactly what most people will refer to as 'fluff'?
Let's use the Linnorm as an example.
The monster can be broken into two sections, the stat bar (crunch) and the monster description (fluff).
For instance in my theoretical custom campaign (let's call it Kudarion) I could easily describe the crag linnorm as a "primal dragon" that lives in or near volcanoes, not to the frigid north of Golarion. I'd change the monster description and change Environment to no longer be "cold hills". That'd be 'refluffing' the crag linnorm to make it fit Kudarion. Note that the 'crunch' is unaltered and if I were to make mechanical alterations to the monster then that's a much more complicated process.
A different example is the Pathfinder Chronicler prestige class - say you have a player that finds that the Pathfinder Chronicler class mechanics fit his character concept perfectly but his character story describes how he disapproves of Pathfinders. He finds the pathfinder society's habit of employing people across the alignment spectrum troubling and notes with distaste how many of the so-called "pathfinders" are more focused on becoming rich and famous instead of learning how to treat priceless historical artifacts with care.
The prestige class fluff is fairly clear that the class is intended to be used by characters who are a member of the Pathfinder society - the name is a bit of a giveaway.
The prestige class crunch however, does not have that requirement - nowhere is it spelled out that the character has to be a member of the Pathfinder society.
Personally I'd have no problem allowing a player to play a generic "Chronicler" with identical class abilities, but who is not a member of the Pathfinder society.
...And I'd probably grin maniacally as I mentally built his obnoxious cavalier Pathfinder foil/nemesis.
My example might be a little on the nose, but it was the quickest class example I could think of - I am sure there are better ones out there.
I think many people call fluff "fluff" specifically because it implies something that is soft and malleable - you can fairly easily alter fluff to fit whatever you need it to do without having to worry about the change biting you in the ass. For instance if I wanted to implement a bard archetype similar to the Dawnflower Dervish but without the religious aspect in my setting then I could look up the archetype and transplant it into Kudarion with minimal issues - altering the Golarion-specific fluff of the Dervish is easy.
Conversely, if you alter 'crunch' then there's a good chance that some unintended side effect will come back to bite you in the ass along the way. For instance if I were to rule that in Kudarion bards can only cast spells as long as they are holding a mandolin (the bard equivalent of a holy symbol), I'm immediately creating problems down the road.
|
|
Absolutely!So if you remove the rules, you're no longer playing a game.
If you remove the setting, you're no longer roleplaying.
So do you want to game, or do you want to roleplay?
Who is removing the rules? Remember, I'm in the "Let the Ref call the game" camp.
I'm saying if the setting doesn't matter, if making a logical reality that has some predictably and understandably consistancy doesn't matter, just pull out some spreadsheets and dice rollers.
That is "a" game.
Indeed. Why even bother playing chess? Just map out all the possible move orders and end results and be done with it!I am very attached to fluff. I am very flexible as to what the fluff of the setting is, I don't mind a GM adjusting the fluff to fit the setting, but I do want the world to actually seem like a place that exists and for characters to feel like they would exist in that setting.
Otherwise, why bother role playing? Just make a spreadsheet.
Absolutely! Lets get rid of the setting entirely! That way we wouldn't need that pesky GM and all that mean fiat.
(I actually miss playing bughouse chess at this coffee shop/bar near where I used to live...)
I miss the shot glass chess that my buddy and I would play with silver and gold tequila.... Come to think of it, I don't recall ever finishing a game :)
|
|
I miss the shot glass chess that my buddy and I would play with silver and gold tequila.... Come to think of it, I don't recall ever finishing a game :)
Absolutely! Lets get rid of the setting entirely! That way we wouldn't need that pesky GM and all that mean fiat.(I actually miss playing bughouse chess at this coffee shop/bar near where I used to live...)
Deadly. We had 5 minute timed bughouse games. It is a team game two boards, I take a piece and I give to my partner to place on the board as his move anywhere but the front or back row. The losers had to walk to make room for the next group, and buy the winners a shot.
The shot purchased for the winners insured that streaks only lasted so long...
Good question! I'm thinking of "fluff" in terms of campaign settings, personally. And it depends on the game. For whatever reason, I'm not attached too strongly to most 3.5/PF fluff. I just don't most of the published settings I've read to be that interesting or immersive. Even the ones I think are solid tend to support pretty much every fantasy trope, so it doesn't feel like there's too much point in tying mechanics to setting that strongly.
That said, other settings seem to be pulling for a certain "kind" of game and in these settings I take the flavor a bit more seriously. I was extremely attached to the old Planescape setting and the current Legend of the Five Rings ones. In those games I could see looking askance at certain characters, like a lawful Anarchist or a Lion Clan Ninja, concepts that wouldn't make sense with the setting as written. A player would have to have some sort of creative explanation to make this character fit in the world. If they *could* do that, then we're good to go, of course. But in those cases I'd take the setting seriously, since it's integral to the story I'd be trying to tell.
That involves a lot of work from the players' perspectives, however. It's hard to suggest running L5R to my group and then tell them they should read 3 books to get a good sense of the lens through which their character and clan view the world. Some players are into that, some aren't.
|
|
In my view fluff is a very necessary part of the game. It plays the role of inspiration for some, definition or guidance for others, but for each of those individuals the role it plays is invaluable to their respective experiences. The only unfortunate part comes for me when people allow the tight coupling of fluff and crunch to rule over all, when in reality the interaction is much more loose than that.
Optimally speaking, an ability/monster/etc would be named generically, but give example fluff (or even setting-specific fluff). This example fluff could even, in some cases, add additional pre-requisites to an ability (such as adding Perform(Dance) to Scimitar Finesse, which is only called Dervish Dance in Golarion as opposed to all settings).
Unfortunately the separation of fluff and crunch leads to extra word count that is unnecessary for most; this is (to my knowledge) avoided like the plague in the printing business. As such, we're unlikely to ever see such a thing happen until physical books go almost completely out of style, and that will probably be a while.
Deadly. We had 5 minute timed bughouse games. It is a team game two boards, I take a piece and I give to my partner to place on the board as his move anywhere but the front or back row. The losers had to walk to make room for the next group, and buy the winners a shot.
The shot purchased for the winners insured that streaks only lasted so long...
Sounds like a blast :)
I only had a few friends who liked chess so we didn't do to many team games. We did play 4 player chess one time on a specially designed board. I usually beat them so they played me 3 vs 1. I did manage to take one of them out, but still lost the match :)
And as far as giving my friend shots for winning, I wouldn't recommend it. While I usually beat him when he's sober.. For some reason, the man becomes Bobby Fischer when he's hammered :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issues come in when the mechanics (crunch) do not in any way support the description (fluff).
When I have game rules that describe the creation of undead shadow spawn and mechanics that provide absolutely no limitation on production of said spawn, I expect to have a game world in which whole continents are inhabited only by incorporeal undead, and where strong protections against them are near-ubiquitous everywhere else. When the game world instead has only a few shadows or whatever here and there, and no reason why they haven't converted the entire town they live in (which has no cleric listed among NPCs), that strains credibility.
That's one example, and OK, fine, we can ignore it. Enough of those, though, and sooner or later you start thinking about maybe homebrewing the sort of mechanics that adequately describe your personal fluff.
|
|
I don't know about that. I can eat rice all day, and bottomless salads at Olive Garden are awesome. So to some, the fluff is the main course.Yes, some folks might enjoy the fluff so much it is the reason they buy all these books. Point taken. But that still does not mean fluff should be treated as rules IMO.
The reason I thought of the garnish was because a garnish is an item or substance used as a decoration or embellishment of a prepared food dish. In many cases, it may give added or contrasting flavor. To me, fluff is the same. Fluff adds additional flavor to the item or setting. As a side note, I would never call Rice or Salad a Garnish. Those would be side dishes or main courses in my mind.
But either way, I would never ask for the fluff to go away, I enjoy it and read it. I just don't use it to force a particular take on a game mechanic.
I see fluff as the spice/sauce. I would never eat a meal with no spice at all. My dinner tonight was pasta with olive oil, lemon, pepper, and garlic. But I could just have easily had made the pasta with butter instead of olive oil, or used an entirely different tomato-based sauce. It wouldn't have been the same pasta, but it still would have been delicious. Plain pasta with no sauce or spice would not have been.
Exactly. I reject the term 'fluff' because it implies that this content is somehow less important than the mechanics, when in fact it's infinitely MORE important.
Doesn't mean that we have to accept the "fluff" that comes prepackaged with the mechanics. In fact, even more reason to alter and reflavour things that don't want to fit the game we want to play. Since the flavour is so important, why accept flavour that isn't perfectly suited to your tastes?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issues come in when the mechanics (crunch) do not in any way support the description (fluff).
When I have game rules that describe the creation of undead shadow spawn and mechanics that provide absolutely no limitation on production of said spawn, I expect to have a game world in which whole continents are inhabited only by incorporeal undead, and where strong protections against them are near-ubiquitous everywhere else. When the game world instead has only a few shadows or whatever here and there, and no reason why they haven't converted the entire town they live in (which has no cleric listed among NPCs), that strains credibility.
That's one example, and OK, fine, we can ignore it. Enough of those, though, and sooner or later you start thinking about maybe homebrewing the sort of mechanics that adequately describe your personal fluff.
I second this sentiment. I extend it not just to individual creatures, but to class abilities, feats, spells and items. Many of them work fine for one scene, but not for a whole world.
@Others: Perhaps a better term for fluff and crunch would be flavor and texture (respectively)? I might get hungry using those terms, though. Especially with this talk of pasta going around.
