Quote Originally Posted by sithlordnergal View Post
I'm curious, how important is fluff to all you players and DMs out there? And by fluff, I mean things that are stated but have no mechanical detriment or benefit, they're just things assumed by a given book.

A good example would be the "Druids won't wear metal armor due to it being taboo." There are no mechanical detriments for a Druid that chooses to wear metal armor like in 3.e. By RAW, the Druid loses nothing, and as such it is on the DM's head to make a penalty.

Personally, I see fluff as a guideline that can be tossed out without any real concerns. That Demon over there? Could be a lawful good Paladin. The Druid in metal armor? A few druids might give them the stink eye, but they're fine. Some broad assumption about a race? Feel free to break it.

My only rule as a DM is find a way to justify it. You're a Dwarven Druid that served in the Dwarven Army? Go ahead and wear metal armor. Dwarf Druids will have no issue with it, but other Druids might.
I value fluff as a way to distinguish one world from another. Consider, for example, the discussion about the 4e version of Dark Sun, and fitting dragonborn into it. They didn't deviate from the core ideas of dragonborn per se. Rather, they decided to switch the levels and directions of emphasis: sorcerous as opposed to martial, greedy (leaning into their dragon-ness) as opposed to noble, social as opposed to relative loners.

These are fluff things. As you say, they can be "discarded," but I dislike that term for how I do it. Instead, I'd say that they invite circumlocution: it's not that you ignore them, but rather that they are true things which your individual character doesn't exhibit/express, and that leads to or follows from their unique behavior, perspective, and story.