|
@Kudaku:
Yes, we were definitely talking about different things. In the monster description you cited, I find the description of the monster ("fluff") as important as the rules description. The "fluff" text that I find entertaining but not absolutely necessary is the text at the beginning of each chapter of the rule books.
@Weirdo, you said it perfectly. If you don't like one flavor, add a bit of seasoning.
The fluff is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
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.And I could not sit more than a half hour with such a book, a game that was written that dry. In other systems like Storyteller, the "fluff" you so disparage, is absolutely vital into understanding the hows and whys of the system. In other games it's the teaser, the hook that keeps me interested.
That's cool. I didn't say you should or have to buy a game that's made of 100% mechanics. I would say that developers trying to force their own vision or forcing a specific view on people (Lawful-only monks, only horse/camel mounts, cackle has to be a loud annoying laugh, etc.) is pretty lame though. Suggest is cool, force is not. Telling people they are bad for not playing your way is also meh. Certain things are harder to avoid than others, like WBL or encounters per day design.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy fluff, but I don't care about "official" fluff. I dislike having arbitrary restrictions because my idea of fantasy differs from the one written in the books.
I see the written fluff as a good suggestion, not a rule so I often ignore it in favor of one of my own ideas.
Magical Knack? Indomitable Faith? They are just "+2 caster levels" and "+1 to will saves" to me. My character's fluff is what I make of it, not what the book says.
Fluff is somewhat important to me, but as a general theme, not an ironclad one.
For instance, if there was some awesome fluffy combat feat (there's not) that suggested that Tian Xia two handers utilized this style blah blah, I would be disinclined to simply allow my asianfantasy-hating player take it without forcing him to go to Tian Xia and learn it.
At the same time, I'm far less concerned with someone playing a samurai (character class) and simply being a knight, or playing a ninja and being a supernatural assassin, no asian overtones required. (the reverse is also true, I wouldn't have a problem with a samurai (social class) being a fighter or paladin or whatnot.
So reskinning is ok to me, except where it undermines my own purposes within the game.
For instance, if there was some awesome fluffy combat feat (there's not) that suggested that Tian Xia two handers utilized this style blah blah, I would be disinclined to simply allow my asianfantasy-hating player take it without forcing him to go to Tian Xia and learn it.
There is an awesome fluffy feat for improved weapon finesse. We call it Dervish Dance. Can you explain further what you mean here?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's Fluff and What's Crunch? Seems that the line is being defined by goalposts that move as fast as the Roadrunner.
Really? Where do you get that from?
You seem to want to utterly divorce any form of flavor from mechanics.
Somewhat, there's a good balance.
- Ray attack A that does D4/level fire damage is boring. Practical, but boring.
- Ray of Fiery Doom that does D4/level sounds cool and is viable.
- Ray of fiery doom that does D4/Level and sets unattended flammable objects ablaze in an adject square is pretty radical and good for RP. Edward plays this wizard and uses it in a pinch to attack a guy he ambushes at his desk and we have an adventure.
- Varesh's Ray of Fiery Doom that does all that... but can only be learned from the wizard Azkraden in the deserts of Zardeshkal'dan by male wizards of a certain archetype... is not so cool; Its overly specific, and you could easily get rid of all the restrictions. Its the additional restrictions that really hurt it. Not so much that its Veresh's, but that only one gender/archetype can learn it. Worse, its got RP restrictions that may not even exist if you make your own setting.
- Variable Elemental Ray does D4/Level of an element of your choice. Sonic throws adjacent objects to the side and shatters glass, fire sets nearby objects on fire, Cold covers nearby objects in frost. This spell recharges after a minute; This ones pretty cool. It has a variety of effects and its a great sidearm. It however doesn't fit the theme of vancian casting, and those effects aren't listed conditions. Its actually my favorite of the lot I put forth though. Gives the chance to pick from a variety of options, multitude of uses in storytelling, and it has flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I could not sit more than a half hour with such a book, a game that was written that dry. In other systems like Storyteller, the "fluff" you so disparage, is absolutely vital into understanding the hows and whys of the system. In other games it's the teaser, the hook that keeps me interested.
There are people perhaps who could live on protein pills, algae cakes, and unflavored tofu in other words a scientifically derived diet consisting of nothing but perfectly balanced nutrient.
That kind of life isn't for me.
Could you point to where I 'disparaged' fluff? I don't believe I have done anything of the sort.
Fluff is very important and the basis of the games I run and play. But setting fluff. Not sample generic fluff provided by the rulebooks as one possible way to present a creature or ability in the game, if you don't want to come up with something setting specific.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's Fluff and What's Crunch? Seems that the line is being defined by goalposts that move as fast as the Roadrunner. In order to give something form, something needs to be removed. That's the difference between a statue and the lump of marble it came from.
When I buy a game system, I don't want a finished statue, I want a statue-making kit. And not just a set of assembly instructions, but something that allows me to actually determine the form of the final piece, whether that just means dressing it up in my little cousin's barbie clothes or chopping off its sword and replacing it with some weapon I made up myself.
You seem to want to utterly divorce any form of flavor from mechanics. That would essentially throw away all of D+D's heritage from Pathfinder, and while you may enjoy such a change, it'd pretty much drive the bulk of Paizo's audience back to WOTC.
There's quite a lot of room to switch up the fluff without throwing away D&D's heritage.
For example:
Forgotten Realms - halflings get along well with others.
Dark Sun - halflings are cannibalistic and consider other races inferior.
Last time I checked, those were both D&D. But different settings = different fluff.
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.
H E L L O D R F A L C O N
W O U L D Y O U L I K E T O P L A Y A G A M E
H O W A B O U T A N I C E G A M E O F C H E S S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just using the "term" Fluff is your value judgement acting right there.
It's a term.
Flavor, backstory, whatever you want to call it.
Fluff is catchy and rolls off the tongue (and keyboard).
What you seem to be looking for is a game with nothing more than Mr. Generic Spellcaster, Mr. Generic Melee, and maybe Madam Generic Expert.
Nobody has said this except you. Perhaps if you spent more time actually READING and comprehending other's posts instead of shoving words in their mouths you'd be frustrated (and look like an ass) less often.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some built-in flavor I like.
Some built-in flavor I will eagerly tear out and replace with something that works better for me without hesitation.
And I absolutely like my games flavor-heavy.
For ex: plant companions for elf druids only? Nuh-uh. Doesn't fit the flavor of the world I want to build.
The "well why don't you just go play GURPS" false dichotomy needs to be put out of its misery.
|
|
I love all the fluff. It inspires me to create... well, more fluff. I've been extremely blessed to game with the same creative people for 20 years. They get the rules, totally understand the mechanics (except for this one guy who is never going to get it), and also love the fluff.
Best examples of fluffery from my games:
In Kingmaker, our Queen going up on my balcony and delivering a speech to the citizens of Tuskhaven. (Yes, I have a balcony in the house that overlooks the gaming room.)
During Legacy of Fire, the deep sadness at the noble sacrifice of a wonderful cleric (only 5th level) to consecrate land to her deity. She chose to remain dead as she felt her character had accomplished her life's goal.
Our Cayden Cailean worshipper who donated all his gold to establish shrines to Cayden through the land of Grand Racklands (our kingdom in Kingmaker).
The party killing a queen of the giants and then crashing her funeral in disguise.
I could go on, but I know better. Anyway, long live the fluff and the crunch that makes it possible.
Just using the "term" Fluff is your value judgement acting right there.It's a term.
Flavor, backstory, whatever you want to call it.
Fluff is catchy and rolls off the tongue (and keyboard).
I always use flavor instead of fluff, since a number of professional RPG authors have indicated they find the latter term dismissive and even mildly derogatory.
A word is just a word, nonetheless (for me anyway) it's a courtesy to use the term they prefer (I've never heard anyone object to the dichotomy of crunch-flavor).
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind reskinning, but it does get a little old when EVERY SINGLE TIME you see Dervish Dance or Wayang Spell Hunter they are reskinned. Maybe that means that there should be generic versions of things like those.
Then again, there's some goodness to be found in fluff-based distinctions (not everyone will agree). Like race prerequisites: "in this campaign, only elves teach the secrets of the Arcane Archer, and they don't teach them to outsiders." That establishes that elves have secret, specialized techniques for archery and arcane magic; it gives them a certain flavor.
Traits are an example of a thing where I believe the mechanic exists to support the fluff, not the other way around. There are so many traits out there, and the benefits they provide so minor, that IMO it's better to pick traits that fit your backstory, or adjust your backstory a little bit to fit the traits you want, within reason.
All this is definitely a question of taste, however, therefore YMMV.
Just using the "term" Fluff is your value judgement acting right there.Could you point to where I 'disparaged' fluff? I don't believe I have done anything of the sort.And I could not sit more than a half hour with such a book, a game that was written that dry. In other systems like Storyteller, the "fluff" you so disparage, is absolutely vital into understanding the hows and whys of the system. In other games it's the teaser, the hook that keeps me interested.
There are people perhaps who could live on protein pills, algae cakes, and unflavored tofu in other words a scientifically derived diet consisting of nothing but perfectly balanced nutrient.
That kind of life isn't for me.
On the forums in general as well as in this thread specifically I've seen posters using terms like 'fluff' and 'flavour' interchangeably.
Personally I like 'fluff' because like Ryinjin mentioned, it's catchy and easy to remember. It also contrasts well with 'crunch'.It seems like you think 'fluff' has strong negative connotations, while I find it's a neutral word. It's a term, much like any other term. If it makes you feel better, feel free to mentally replace 'fluff' with 'flavour' for the remainder of my post, as well as any future posts I make.
So again, respectfully - can you point to where I 'disparaged' fluff? I still don't believe I've done anything of the sort.
What you seem to be looking for is a game with nothing more than Mr. Generic Spellcaster, Mr. Generic Melee, and maybe Madam Generic Expert.
If you're looking for that, why not go all the way and use one of the totally point based systems which dispenses with character classes altogether, like HERO, or GURPS? Games in which you can sink yourself into nothing but mechanics until your eyes bleed.
I'm not going to dignify that with an answer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I abandon your fluff and substitute my own.
Indeed. Why even bother playing chess? Just map out all the possible move orders and end results and be done with it!
You do know that requires a purpose-built super computer...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody is saying 'no fluff'. People are saying the fluff should be mutable. F'rexample, taking the feat 'Wisdom in the Flesh' and altering the flavor text of "Your hours of meditation on inner perfection and the nature of strength and speed allow you to focus your thoughts to achieve things your body might not normally be able to do on its own." to something like "I spent hours of time practicing this skill."
Or choosing 'Magical Lineage' without the 'one of your parents was a spellcaster' baggage.
Or playing a Dwarf who isn't stoic, dour, humorless, and hates goblins.
Or a Monk who isn't a navel-gazing Zen-spouter.
Or the metric crapton of 'racial feats' that really don't have any business being racial.
The only flavor that matters on a character is what the player chooses to give it. The names of game features and their flavor text doesn't matter. If, mechanically, Monk is the best class to represent your character, then you use it even if your character has never even seen a monastery.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So would it be safe to say everyone loves fluff, but some people don't like being told to use a specific kind of fluff?
So would it be safe to say everyone loves fluff, but some people don't like being told to use a specific kind of fluff?
Bingo.
I'm of two minds on this. I think that the flavor (fluff, details, whatever you want to call it) of a setting is an integral part of the game and should in general be stuck to (more or less) if you are going to use that setting, while the default rules flavor I'm happy to discard.
In the Dark Suns example, I wouldn't "reskin" their halflings if I had a player say that they wanted to be a small race with all the halfling stats and abilities but didn't like the whole cannibal thing. If, in the world of Dark Sun, halflings are cannibals who hate all other creatures then that's what they are in that campaign. For another example, divine spellcasters in the Forgotten Realms have to worship a deity of some kind. When I run Forgotten Realms there is a god or god-like creature powering the magic of every single divine spellcaster, even druids, oracles, inquisitors, and paladins.
Feats and traits make for an interesting conundrum, particularly traits tied to a specific region. When I'm not running a game in Golarion it's easy to toss out the Golarion specific flavor of certain traits or feats and working with a player on what the flavor behind it should be for our campaign. The Dervish of Dawn archetype (Inner Sea magic), for an easy example, is replaced by the Dervish Dancer archetype (Ultimate Combat) for my campaigns outsider of Golarion, but if running Golarion the Dervish of Dawn archetype would be the one in use and bards taking it would have to worship the goddess of dawn. That's part of the setting's flavor. This was a big thing with PrCs back in 3.5e for my games, where I ran about 90% Forgotten Realms. Forgotten Realms specific PrCs, races, or feats come packaged with all the attending flavor. They aren't just mechanical options where a player gets a mechanical benefit, especially not organization or heritage based PrCs and feats, but have a specific flavor in the world.
All that said, what I do in actual play sometimes varies from this. If it won't affect the fun of myself or the other players to re-flavor the world a little bit to enhance the fun of one PC I have to take that into account of course. If a player wants to use the dervish dance feat to get dex to attack and damage with a shortsword or rapier I doubt I would stick to my guns and demand they use a scimitar instead unless it would marginalize another player. Or wants to use a race but reflavor it a little to make an interesting backstory (elf stats but being part human instead of full elf, 3/4 or so elves, is a trend I've seen with players) I work with them.
Long, back and forth, convoluted story short: campaign world flavor is more important than default rulebook flavor, and should in general be considered important, but neither sort of flavor should be blindly adhered to if doing so adversely affects the fun of everyone in the campaign.
there is a difference between a campaign setting and a rule set. People are saying that there is too much cross over. For example, racial feats make sense in a campaign setting, not in the rule book.
If the races themselves are in the rule book (and their nature described) it makes sense for racial traits to also be there.
Campaign setting feats, however, should be relegated to setting books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there is a difference between a campaign setting and a rule set. People are saying that there is too much cross over. For example, racial feats make sense in a campaign setting, not in the rule book.If the races themselves are in the rule book (and their nature described) it makes sense for racial traits to also be there.
Campaign setting feats, however, should be relegated to setting books.
Well, imo, race traits and racial feats/archetypes only really make sense if it makes sense for that race to solely have the physical features for it. Racial archetypes that are all about a race I get, but some I don't. Bonded witch for example is a half elf archetype that has nothing to do with half-elves. Similarly if all wind mages for examples had to be sylphs then you just negate the chance for any other race to be a wind mage... which is sort of narrow.
I intensely dislike the term "fluff" due to it's inherent derogatory value judgement nature.
What you call "fluff" I call the reason to put up with the mechanics, and the rules lawyering baggage that goes with them. For me, what you disparage as "fluff" is the meat of the game. If you're not playing a roleplaying game to roleplay, then why are you playing at all?
Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I missed this post. Firstly, I think you may want to be careful with accusations of disparagement. I didn't disparage anything. The term 'fluff' comes from 'fluff and crunch' referring to the description/flavor of something versus its 'hard' mechanics. There's nothing 'inherently derogatory' about it at all.
What you call "fluff" I call the reason to put up with the mechanics, and the rules lawyering baggage that goes with them. For me, what you disparage as "fluff" is the meat of the game. If you're not playing a roleplaying game to roleplay, then why are you playing at all?
Again, you might want to be careful with your tone. If you re-read my OP, or are familiar at all with my posting on these boards, you should know that I'm a pretty big proponent of fluff. Mostly, I prefer to create my own rather than use the pre-packaged stuff, although occasionally I do find a gem here and there that impresses or inspires me. This thread was created mostly to get folks' opinions on how strictly they adhered to the pregenerated fluff packaged in with the crunch in the core books, adventure paths, etc. and how important they felt that adherence to be.
I've found the responses here very enlightening. We all like the fluff, though some folks would prefer it not be there since they use most of their own and would like more of the published word count geared towards the crunch, while others would find such a product boring and uninspiring.
I have to say that although I don't use a lot of it myself, I don't know if I could get behind a product with no fluff at all. Not just because it would be dry but because, as others have stated, I enjoy reading it, to be inspired even if not to use. (As my best example of this, not sure how many of you read the Shadowrun second edition core rulebook, but it included a wonderfully flavorful and immersive short story at the beginning that totally pulled me into that world. Best. Fluff. Ever. And it wasn't even tied to any mechanic in specific.
|
|
Then again, there's some goodness to be found in fluff-based distinctions (not everyone will agree). Like race prerequisites: "in this campaign, only elves teach the secrets of the Arcane Archer, and they don't teach them to outsiders." That establishes that elves have secret, specialized techniques for archery and arcane magic; it gives them a certain flavor.
It does. But it assumes that elves are skilled in archery and arcane magic, and moreover that there is at least one group of elves skilled in both. In a setting in which the standard elf is replaced by two culturally distinct groups of wizards (arcane focus replaces weapon familiarity) and hunters (woodcraft replaces elven magic), a group of elves fusing archery with arcane magic would be out of place and the racial restriction wouldn't add much. Even in a standard game, it might make sense for a character who has been declared an "elf-friend" to be permitted to learn elven techniques even without being an elf. (The latter is currently only roughly approximated in RAW by the Racial Heritage feat, which is itself human-only.)
And there are racial restrictions that I find confusing even based on the standard set of racial stereotypes. For example: why the heck are only gnomes capable of formulating a Bewildering Koan? What if I want to play a halfling riddle-master? And why can a halfling be well-prepared, while a half-elven wanderer can't be?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there is a difference between a campaign setting and a rule set. People are saying that there is too much cross over. For example, racial feats make sense in a campaign setting, not in the rule book.If the races themselves are in the rule book (and their nature described) it makes sense for racial traits to also be there.
Campaign setting feats, however, should be relegated to setting books.
Genetic racial traits, yes.
Behavioral racial traits (which are total BS anyway), no.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again, there's some goodness to be found in fluff-based distinctions (not everyone will agree). Like race prerequisites: "in this campaign, only elves teach the secrets of the Arcane Archer, and they don't teach them to outsiders." That establishes that elves have secret, specialized techniques for archery and arcane magic; it gives them a certain flavor.
And the reason nobody else could have developed these techniques independently is ... ?
Some heretic/traitorous/free-thinking elf couldn't have taught it to someone sometime is ... ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again, there's some goodness to be found in fluff-based distinctions (not everyone will agree). Like race prerequisites: "in this campaign, only elves teach the secrets of the Arcane Archer, and they don't teach them to outsiders." That establishes that elves have secret, specialized techniques for archery and arcane magic; it gives them a certain flavor.And the reason nobody else could have developed these techniques independently is ... ?
Some heretic/traitorous/free-thinking elf couldn't have taught it to someone sometime is ... ?
The world of "everyone can do everything" is certainly something a DM can run. But it will lack a lot of flavor.
In Tolkien's world Elves didn't dwell underground and wield axes in battle. Dwarves didn't climb trees and master the longbow.
It's just a matter of making a world have a set of thematic threads that give it a semblance of life.
Modern sensibilities that anyone can do anything are anachronistic in many fantasy settings.
I like fluff that creates examples, or generates ideas, and in reference to rules the fluff should remain neutral or support the mechanic. Contradicting the mechanics is not a good situation. Also if the fluff adds stuff the mechanic does not appear to support creates the awkward situation where you are left guessing and most the time results in arguments.
Then again, there's some goodness to be found in fluff-based distinctions (not everyone will agree). Like race prerequisites: "in this campaign, only elves teach the secrets of the Arcane Archer, and they don't teach them to outsiders." That establishes that elves have secret, specialized techniques for archery and arcane magic; it gives them a certain flavor.And the reason nobody else could have developed these techniques independently is ... ?
Some heretic/traitorous/free-thinking elf couldn't have taught it to someone sometime is ... ?
The world of "everyone can do everything" is certainly something a DM can run. But it will lack a lot of flavor.
In Tolkien's world Elves didn't dwell underground and wield axes in battle. Dwarves didn't climb trees and master the longbow.
It's just a matter of making a world have a set of thematic threads that give it a semblance of life.
Modern sensibilities that anyone can do anything are anachronistic in many fantasy settings.
It will have just as much flavor. It will simply be different flavor. The only flavor that matters is that which the DM and players give the world.
I notice you didn't actually answer my questions, either.
(Dear Inari, aren't we over 'all fantasy is Tolkien' yet?!)
1. Because gnomes have a unique mindset which gives them an advantage in this narrow area? Which helps emphasize that what makes gnomes gnomes is more than just their physical nature. You can still have a hafling who's great at riddles, he just wouldn't have this particular power.
2. As for the hafling's "well prepared" again it's part of what makes haflings haflings, I wish they had given Kender this attribute instead of the one that makes them objects of well deserved hatred.
Personally, I think having them emphasis them being Halfling/Gnome traits would retain the flavor for Gnomes and Halflings but allow other races to take them too. That way you can have an elf that's well prepared or a Dwarven monk use bewildering Koan.
And the reason nobody else could have developed these techniques independently is ... ?
Some heretic/traitorous/free-thinking elf couldn't have taught it to someone sometime is ... ?
Not everyone wants a world full of special snowflakes. That said, that's a big part of what makes a story imo, and I'd rather it be on the table level where decisions on restrictions are made than on the system level. The system should not enforce your creativity.
The world of "everyone can do everything" is certainly something a DM can run. But it will lack a lot of flavor.
A world where the players have options doesn't really take away from the setting itself. In particular if the players work with the GM to create their characters so they are set up for the setting(or the setting is made for them in shared storytelling). That said, when the GM makes the world and decides "Dwarves don't like magic" he can make every dwarf NPC not like magic sans a few special snowflakes, but if the player decides to play a dwarf wizard in the same game it doesn't mean suddenly dwarves love magic in the setting. You especially betray the player if dwarves who use magic show up after saying dwarves hate magic so the player can't be a magic using dwarf, but that's something else entirely.
|
|
Maybe in this world dwarves are known as piratical sailors, while in this one they're traveling merchants and over here in this one they're the stereotypical mountain dwelling ax-wielding alcoholics. Great. But a player shouldn't grab racial traits from one world to use in another. If he wants to play against type for that world, that's also great, but don't expect racial traits to support it.
But who defines the world that determines which traits will be in use? Some of us think that ultimately it should be the GM, not the game publishing company. The latter has come up with some neat stuff, but it's the former's call to take it or leave it. Some of us prefer to leave it, or adjust/adapt it.
1. Because gnomes have a unique mindset which gives them an advantage in this narrow area? Which helps emphasize that what makes gnomes gnomes is more than just their physical nature. You can still have a hafling who's great at riddles, he just wouldn't have this particular power.
2. As for the hafling's "well prepared" again it's part of what makes haflings haflings, I wish they had given Kender this attribute instead of the one that makes them objects of well deserved hatred.
In other words, it's arbitrary. And if someone is going to make arbitrary decisions about the world, why not the GM? Even better, why not the GM in conversation with the players? I wasn't planning on including goblin wizards in my next campaign, but one of my players came up with a fun character, so I'm going to relax goblins a little bit and add my restrictive flavour to races that no one is playing, like dwarves (who are getting a neat caste system).
That wasn't her point. Give ANY sample of fantasy or science fiction, or even real world culture, and you'll find that such are defined by as much as what is excluded as much as by what is included. One of the things that define the Star Trek Federation as opposed to it's enemy powers is that they use cloaking and the Feds generally do not.
The use of the word "generally" implies exceptions.
Racial restrictions for prestige classes or feats do not allow exceptions - unless the GM fudges to allow for one or two oddballs and black sheep, like that dwarf who spent years in a gnome monastery until he finally understood their koans (and as a result is considered crazy by his fellow dwarves).
And if the GM fudges to make exceptions, that makes the flavour restrictions in the book "suggestions." Which is what I, personally, like to see them as.
That wasn't her point. Give ANY sample of fantasy or science fiction, or even real world culture, and you'll find that such are defined by as much as what is excluded as much as by what is included. One of the things that define the Star Trek Federation as opposed to it's enemy powers is that they use cloaking and the Feds generally do not.
Then again, there's some goodness to be found in fluff-based distinctions (not everyone will agree). Like race prerequisites: "in this campaign, only elves teach the secrets of the Arcane Archer, and they don't teach them to outsiders." That establishes that elves have secret, specialized techniques for archery and arcane magic; it gives them a certain flavor.And the reason nobody else could have developed these techniques independently is ... ?
Some heretic/traitorous/free-thinking elf couldn't have taught it to someone sometime is ... ?
The world of "everyone can do everything" is certainly something a DM can run. But it will lack a lot of flavor.
In Tolkien's world Elves didn't dwell underground and wield axes in battle. Dwarves didn't climb trees and master the longbow.
It's just a matter of making a world have a set of thematic threads that give it a semblance of life.
Modern sensibilities that anyone can do anything are anachronistic in many fantasy settings.
It will have just as much flavor. It will simply be different flavor. The only flavor that matters is that which the DM and players give the world.
I notice you didn't actually answer my questions, either.
(Dear Inari, aren't we over 'all fantasy is Tolkien' yet?!)
GENERALLY, yes. There are multiple occasions where they HAVE, which lines up very well with what I was saying. So, thank you for agreeing with me.
Glad somebody jumped on that before I could.
The odd PC that is not a Gnome who can take Bewildering Koan does not suddenly mean "Everyone has Bewildering Koan" just like the existence of the Defiant doesn't mean the Federation still doesn't GENERALLY use cloaking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am of the firm belief that game elements should only be racially limited if it's a function of the race's innate abilities (aka mechanics). The drow 'more spell-like abilities' feats are an example of a feat I would not let another race take. They build on the race's innate genetic abilities.
Just about everything else, I can see no reason why a member of another race couldn't develop them independently. The dwarven 'cleave lots of stuff' feats, for example ... it's just a fighting style. Anybody could learn to do that if they wanted to.
I basically ask myself, 'Is there any logical reason that anybody couldn't learn to do this?' If not, anybody can learn to do that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
With Zhayne on this one.
Take the halfling trait "cautious combatant", I believe it's called. When you use combat expertise, the penalty to hit is decreased by one. Nowhere in the description or the mechanics are halflings even referenced, except to say "halfling only". That baffled me.
Now "steel soul" which specifically increases bonuses that only dwarves get should be racially specific.