Fluff ambassy

I'm tired of math and crunch. I would like some flavor/story in the playtest.
And therein lies the first problem. How do you playtest flavor?
we're still in the early stages of hammering out the basics of the system. i think the playtest is more focused on getting the mechanics right than the fluff right now.

also, am i the only one who doesn't feel the need for WotC-supplied fluff? 
Yes, I really think we will come to a consensus about fluff more easily than about mechanics to give to an archetype.



P.S.: I'm joking, of course !
we're still in the early stages of hammering out the basics of the system. i think the playtest is more focused on getting the mechanics right than the fluff right now.

No. I want some FR info.

also, am i the only one who doesn't feel the need for WotC-supplied fluff? 

Yes.





we won't get any FR info until the sundering novels start coming out next year.

The notion that my hands are tied until the next novel comes out is kinda weird.



But anyway yeah I liked the thematic presentation of specialties in packet 2 and I was really digging it, and then they gave us packet 3 which lacks all semblance of theme in favour of total mechanic. It's kind of a downer.

also, am i the only one who doesn't feel the need for WotC-supplied fluff? 

Aside from reluctance to comment about what "we" need, I'll say no you are not.

I don't need WotC-supplied fluff. That's for sure. There's plenty of fluff in the world to draw on, a good share of it better written. The last two characters I played, used Disney-supplied fluff.

There's nothing inherently wrong with WotC-supplied fluff. However, I would much rather they get the mechanics right and then create fluff that matches, rather than the other way around. 
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I prefer the core foundation of mechanics to get nailed down.  After that I would like all skills, backgrounds, maneuvers, spells, etc. to have all mechanics match the fluff that's created with balance always under consideration.
I think the level of fluff has been about right. I can hardly control my typing fingers sometimes when I see people complaining about what they WANT already. If it was fluff related, it might get so nerdy and privledged I'd catch on fire.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
we're still in the early stages of hammering out the basics of the system. i think the playtest is more focused on getting the mechanics right than the fluff right now.

No. I want some FR info.

also, am i the only one who doesn't feel the need for WotC-supplied fluff? 

Yes.




No he's not.

And it's pretty arrogant to assume that you can answer for the rest of us.

I've never needed any of their fluff, even when I do decide to use some of it the majority doesn't stand.

The only exception is when I'm running a shared world with other DMs and am forced to use cannon material, which I may not do again in any case so it's most likely moot (they can either run in my setting or not DM for those characters). 
There actually were hunklets of fluff in playtest 2.5. They were... not that popular overall*, to the extent that it largely dominated discussion of the class. Fluff is a double-edged sword; at its best, it enhances the class and brings it to life. At its worst, it's a distraction. I think that they're more worried about the latter case.

*I'm not saying that nobody liked the wartlock. I'm saying that it was overall not that popular.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Fluff is good when it suggests what a character could be.
Fluff is bad when it mandates what a character must be.
But anyway yeah I liked the thematic presentation of specialties in packet 2 and I was really digging it, and then they gave us packet 3 which lacks all semblance of theme in favour of total mechanic. It's kind of a downer.


My suspicion is they are varying the amount of fluff in each playtest on purpose to guage the reaction.