|
1 year ago ::
Feb 26, 2012 - 8:38PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Possibly they should look to their stable of novelists?
I couldn't say, I've had very little luck with D&D novels, and I'm not sure how effectively novel-writing applies to fluff writing. Not sure most novelists would deign to be writing what amounts to Copy when they could be writing stories, either.
Clearly they need to hire a plucky young man with a light in his eyes and a hunger in his belly to write their monster fluff. I can't imagine where such a person might exist, but I've heard such people favor avatars with eyepatches.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 26, 2012 - 8:48PM
#42
|
|
|
Obviously, I'm a fan of fluff in D&D  . *Good* fluff can actually contribute to the lore of the game, and that's something I really enjoy following. *Bad* fluff (for me) would be the kinda stuff seen in the later books of v3.5 (such as Complete Scoundrel). From page 24 to page 28 for instance, there's a ton of stuff written about the Avenging Executioner prestige class: Playing an Avenging Executioner (combat, advancement, resources), Avenging Executioners in the World (organization, NPC reactions), Avenging Executioner Lore (Local Knowledge DCs), Avenging Executioners in the Game (adaptation, sample encounter). Most of this is naturally gonna come out in play, given enough time. A lot of this is self-explanatory. Nothing really adds to the lore of D&D; instead, it's kind of a bore. Another good example of bad fluff has already been mentioned: The 'fluff da fluff' seen in the Essental books. This is the kinda stuff I don't wanna see (again) in the future.
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 26, 2012 - 9:15PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2009
|
The example I'm going to go with is this: The Nine Hells. Now, my 4e collection is nowhere near the size of previous editions. So it is entirely possible that I don't have all the material avtailable. But the point is this: 4e had a rather drastic cosmology overhaul. I have no immediate problem with this. The main problem I have is this. Over the previous editions, one can track Baalzebul going from a fly-eyed humanoid to a giant slug. One can follow the tumultuous shift of power over the Sixth Hell from a deposed Lord, to an oddly out of place hag, only to watch her be turned into the layer itself as Asmodeus' daughter took the layer for herself.
I believe 4e mentions the name of each layer, possibly the names of the rulers of each layer, and that Asmodeus lives there and it's a bad place to be.
Now, I'm oversimplifying this of course, but the point remains the same. I've only ever DM'd a homebrew setting. But some things, like that, are just cool to know. I like knowing why Gruumsh is the One-Eye, and why Orcs hate Elves. Is it necessary? No. Do you want to change it? Have fun. But I'm sure I'm not alone in this. So for the sake of players like myself, some more in-depth fluff is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 26, 2012 - 10:38PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
The example I'm going to go with is this: The Nine Hells. Now, my 4e collection is nowhere near the size of previous editions. So it is entirely possible that I don't have all the material avtailable. But the point is this: 4e had a rather drastic cosmology overhaul. I have no immediate problem with this. The main problem I have is this. Over the previous editions, one can track Baalzebul going from a fly-eyed humanoid to a giant slug. One can follow the tumultuous shift of power over the Sixth Hell from a deposed Lord, to an oddly out of place hag, only to watch her be turned into the layer itself as Asmodeus' daughter took the layer for herself.
I believe 4e mentions the name of each layer, possibly the names of the rulers of each layer, and that Asmodeus lives there and it's a bad place to be.
Now, I'm oversimplifying this of course, but the point remains the same. I've only ever DM'd a homebrew setting. But some things, like that, are just cool to know. I like knowing why Gruumsh is the One-Eye, and why Orcs hate Elves. Is it necessary? No. Do you want to change it? Have fun. But I'm sure I'm not alone in this. So for the sake of players like myself, some more in-depth fluff is a good thing.
I know the Monster Manual gives a quick rundown of the layers of hell, plus their ruler(s) and a short bit of how they got there, sort of.
The Manual of the Planes gives a layer by layer breakdown and a cross section map of the planet/prison of Baator. The Astral Sea Book also gives some other bits.
Completely unrelated note: I bet Riddick could escape Baator.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotes
Show
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 27, 2012 - 12:49AM
#45
|
|
|
If you are going to roleplay, you need fluff, in large amounts and out of the player's control. If you are just going to play a game like chess, you don't need fluff. But as long as D&D is roleplay, the fluff is very much needed.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 27, 2012 - 2:13AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
If you are going to roleplay, you need fluff, in large amounts and out of the player's control. If you are just going to play a game like chess, you don't need fluff. But as long as D&D is roleplay, the fluff is very much needed.
That's what settings are. Like I said earlier. 4e provides just enough fluff to plant ideas into someone's head. The PoL "setting" is designed to be a skeleton to build your own setting out of, so not everyone will be using the same fluff if they design a setting around it. I'd like to see that again in DDN. Makes homebrewing a lot easier if you have something to build off of without preconceived notions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 27, 2012 - 1:08PM
#47
|
|
|
If you are going to roleplay, you need fluff, in large amounts and out of the player's control. If you are just going to play a game like chess, you don't need fluff. But as long as D&D is roleplay, the fluff is very much needed.
That's what settings are. Like I said earlier. 4e provides just enough fluff to plant ideas into someone's head. The PoL "setting" is designed to be a skeleton to build your own setting out of, so not everyone will be using the same fluff if they design a setting around it. I'd like to see that again in DDN. Makes homebrewing a lot easier if you have something to build off of without preconceived notions.
4e sharpy undersupplied fluff. "Points of Light" whether a good idea or bad, amounted to almost nothing. The talk about being a skeleton to build around is an excuse for not doing their job. Jou can build the skeleton too.
Note here that Star-wars stuff sells, and for a higher price than any competition in that field. And it is not for the rules, which are dubious at best. Rather the players are paying for the fluff.
4e viewed as just a game is not much. We too heavily need that fluff and 5e had better supply it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 27, 2012 - 5:01PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2005
|
If you are going to roleplay, you need fluff, in large amounts and out of the player's control. If you are just going to play a game like chess, you don't need fluff. But as long as D&D is roleplay, the fluff is very much needed.
Okay, seriously. You've got to be having us on. Some of the best elements of any games I've been in are the player-created portions. As in, "My character is a member of this secret organization whose goals are this..." And then the DM says, "Cool," and runs with it. RPGs are interactive storytelling. If it's all being handed down from on high (DM, or, worse yet, books), then it's not interactive.
I usually DM, and I don't have the time to develop everything myself. Fob it off on your players! It's much more awesome that way, anyway. It's a game about using your imagination. Everybody at the table needs to use it. Otherwise it's just chess (a respectable game, but not an RPG). Why put artificial boundaries on when/how the players can exercise their imaingation? I am not saying the DM should always let players write stuff, or use everything the players provide... especially when it's obviously only there for self-serving purposes.
Resident jark.
Resident Minister of Education and Misinformation.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 27, 2012 - 5:50PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2009
|
Okay, seriously. You've got to be having us on. Some of the best elements of any games I've been in are the player-created portions. As in, "My character is a member of this secret organization whose goals are this..." And then the DM says, "Cool," and runs with it. RPGs are interactive storytelling. If it's all being handed down from on high (DM, or, worse yet, books), then it's not interactive.
There are a few problems with these kinds of backgrounds: For one thing, you can easily get a situation where two or more players have totally conflicting goals (Player X works for a secret organization who likes to reinstate Cedric as the rightful heir to the throne, while Player Y works for yet another secret org that thinks Cedric is evil, and would much rather reinstate his twin brother Antonius...). When there is no shared goal, you can end up with a total deadlock where nobody wants to give an inch and then it's time to end the campaign and roll another.
I've no idea why dealing and scheming with pre-existing entities and organizations is "not interactive", but whatever it is, it's good enough for this poster.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 27, 2012 - 6:12PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2009
|
If you are going to roleplay, you need fluff, in large amounts and out of the player's control. If you are just going to play a game like chess, you don't need fluff. But as long as D&D is roleplay, the fluff is very much needed.
Okay, seriously. You've got to be having us on. Some of the best elements of any games I've been in are the player-created portions. As in, "My character is a member of this secret organization whose goals are this..." And then the DM says, "Cool," and runs with it. RPGs are interactive storytelling. If it's all being handed down from on high (DM, or, worse yet, books), then it's not interactive.
There are a few problems with these kinds of backgrounds: For one thing, you can easily get a situation where two or more players have totally conflicting goals (Player X works for a secret organization who likes to reinstate Cedric as the rightful heir to the throne, while Player Y works for yet another secret org that thinks Cedric is evil, and would much rather reinstate his twin brother Antonius...). When there is no shared goal, you can end up with a total deadlock where nobody wants to give an inch and then it's time to end the campaign and roll another.
I've no idea why dealing and scheming with pre-existing entities and organizations is "not interactive", but whatever it is, it's good enough for this poster.
Right. Also, I'll point out that, without the pre-existing knowledge of "Cedric" or what have you, there is little idea of what your secret organization is doing. If you don't have a pre-established enmity between orcs and elves, your special, Orc-hunting Elf squadron that your character is from wouldn't be able to exist. The point is that those who say that fluff is superfluous enjoy the benefits of it already- they've just long since committed it to memory.
|
|
|
