New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 14 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 391
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Fluff vs. Mechanics

    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.

    EDIT: So, in order to clarify things more, the Druid thing is just an example. Other examples could be height and weight. Does it matter to you, as a player or DM, if a person brings an 8 foot tall Dwarf. There's no mechanical benefit, you're still a Medium creature, you're just a Dwarf that's as tall as a Goliath. Or how about a peaceful Barbarian, one that prefers peaceful solutions and never does lethal damage? It goes against the fluff of being a Barbarian, but there's nothing stopping a player from doing so.

    As a person who frequents the forums, I have seen a few DMs who would balk at the idea of an 8 foot tall Dwarf, because it goes against the established norm. So, how important is that sort of thing to you?
    Last edited by sithlordnergal; 2019-11-12 at 03:27 PM.
    Never let the fluff of a class define the personality of a character. Let Clerics be Atheist, let Barbarians be cowardly or calm, let Druids hate nature, and let Wizards know nothing about the arcane

    Fun Fact: A monk in armor loses Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmored Movement, but keep all of their other abilities, including subclass features, and Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks. Make a Monk in Fullplate with a Greatsword >=D


  2. - Top - End - #2
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    I tend to agree. I think that the a lot of the purpose of role-playing games is to free yourself from the bonds of reality, and do something interesting. When the fluff without mechanical purpose gets in the way of that, I think we've started to bring our own rules into the game designed to let us break them. Fluff is a nice start, especially if you want to build a character idea, but it should NEVER get in the way of building one.

    Also, on a note about the druid armor thing, druids are naturalists. Why would leather armor be any better? I personally think that druids shouldn't get any armor proficiency. (except for things like shields, and other armor of wood.)
    When I ask how to get a nail out of piece of wood, please don't tell me why screws are better fastners.
    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Roc-rocks fall fall and everybody dies-dies.
    Quote Originally Posted by ftafp View Post
    Acid comes in a burlap sack, arrows come in a vase
    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    Newton's 3rd law of motion seems to apply in 5e.
    Quote Originally Posted by Imbalance View Post
    Weaponized chickens will be fed ball bearings. When ready to use, feed them a potion of alche-seltzer, then toss at enemy. Cruel, but effective.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Lupine View Post
    Also, on a note about the druid armor thing, druids are naturalists. Why would leather armor be any better? I personally think that druids shouldn't get any armor proficiency. (except for things like shields, and other armor of wood.)
    Ohhh, I kinda like that idea. Maybe give them Unarmored Defense keyed off Wisdom, like a Monk, that way they have something they can use for AC.
    Never let the fluff of a class define the personality of a character. Let Clerics be Atheist, let Barbarians be cowardly or calm, let Druids hate nature, and let Wizards know nothing about the arcane

    Fun Fact: A monk in armor loses Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmored Movement, but keep all of their other abilities, including subclass features, and Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks. Make a Monk in Fullplate with a Greatsword >=D


  4. - Top - End - #4
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by sithlordnergal View Post
    Ohhh, I kinda like that idea. Maybe give them Unarmored Defense keyed off Wisdom, like a Monk, that way they have something they can use for AC.
    Kind of like barbarian unarmored, but weaker. Or, if you want to stop int dumps, base it on intelligence.
    When I ask how to get a nail out of piece of wood, please don't tell me why screws are better fastners.
    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Roc-rocks fall fall and everybody dies-dies.
    Quote Originally Posted by ftafp View Post
    Acid comes in a burlap sack, arrows come in a vase
    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    Newton's 3rd law of motion seems to apply in 5e.
    Quote Originally Posted by Imbalance View Post
    Weaponized chickens will be fed ball bearings. When ready to use, feed them a potion of alche-seltzer, then toss at enemy. Cruel, but effective.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    The problem of giving druids unarmored defense is the VERY significant boost to wildshape.

    You could say "this ability does not work in wildshape", but this is clunky and would raise the question of "but why does 1 level in monk or barbarian work for wildshapes"?
    Last edited by diplomancer; 2019-11-11 at 04:55 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Greywander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    My problem with druids and metal armor is that it states they won't wear metal armor. Not that they can't, but won't. I'll be the one to decide what my character does or doesn't do, thank you very much. Personally, I would have just given them proficiency with non-metal armors, so if you multiclass to get full armor proficiency then metal armor ceases to be an issue.

    I do think people often underestimate the power of fluff. Strict mechanics often deals with combat, but fluff can provide a lot of utility for out of combat. For example, tieflings apparently have prehensile tails that are about 5 feet long. Use it to grab stuff, hang from stuff, slap the butt of the person next to you to create a distraction, etc. Fluff tends to get brushed off, probably because the "benefits" aren't immediately spelled out. If you like to find creative solutions to problems, or engage in Combat as War, then fluff can be quite powerful.

    While mechanics need to be restricted to preserve balance, often there's no such restriction on fluff. Part of this is that the DM does have the final say on whether you can or can't do something, so simply having the fluff to support it isn't always enough. Fluff can be a nice way to reward players who put extra effort into their character creation, but the DM also shouldn't let it get out of hand (see Old Man Henderson for a glorious example). To get the most out of fluff, you have to stop treating D&D like a video game and start treating it like a medieval fantasy simulation.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2014

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    In fact, leather armor should be more detestable to druids because it usually requires killing an animal. Unless you force your druid players to use only leather armor that they know was made from an animal that died of natural causes.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Greywander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Not all druids are hippies. I'll bet some of them would be very into stalking, killing, and then devouring their prey. By which I mean cannibalism. No reason to think a druid would automatically have a problem with killing animals, eating meat, or wearing leather.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Despite its label as 'fluff' it is not just the most important part of the game, it is its backbone.

    Without it the game is just a very complicated, messy, and tedious abstract.

    You're doing yourself a disservice by throwing it out.
    If you are trying to abuse the game; Don't. And you're probably wrong anyway.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2014

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Greywander View Post
    Not all druids are hippies. I'll bet some of them would be very into stalking, killing, and then devouring their prey. By which I mean cannibalism. No reason to think a druid would automatically have a problem with killing animals, eating meat, or wearing leather.
    Just like they shouldn't have any problem wearing metal. Even though it is nonliving, it is just as much a part of the natural world as anything else.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Greywander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    I could understand a specific druidic circle that had tenets against wearing worked metal armor, but that would likely apply to using any worked metal object. Unworked metal would still be in its natural state, and therefore should be fine. But that's the thing: it would be one specific druidic circle, not all of them. Just like some clerical or paladin orders have their own tenets. Don't like those tenets? Join a different order.

    The thing about metal, specifically, is that it has a close connection to technology and civilization. Fire, and subsequently, metal working, are among the greatest technological advancements of humanity. Without metal working, much of the rest of our technology wouldn't exist. Now, it's not strictly needed for civilization, as there are a number of stone age civilizations that thrived; really, farming would be the major technological advancement required for establishing a civilization. But metal working was major game changer and allowed civilizations to advance much further than they ever could with stone age tech.

    What I'm saying is, I can understand there being a thematic connection between metal and civilization. Where I have a problem is that I have no reason not to use metal, except the book telling me what my own character will do. It would be one thing if metal armor blocked druidic spellcasting, or, as I suggested, you simply didn't have proficiency with metal armor. Then I would have a reason to choose not to wear metal armor. But as it stands, there is no reason. I can choose to make that part of my character, but I don't like it being forced on me.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    For me is THE most important thing and have to be backed up by the rules.
    Druids wont wear metal armor because of their spiritual oaths, so in my table druids wont use it, (they simply wont, the mere idea does not go through their head) if you want to use metal armor dont play a druid, simple as that.
    I like the game because of the fluff, its Mystcism and lore. I try to put emphasis on it at my table. You wont find a LG demon, ever, because the moment a demon ceases to be evil he will become something else.
    I play in Forgotten Realms and follow the fluff and lore of the setting as close as I can. Those stuff make D&D for me and not just a generic game

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Not to be rude, but I'd like if this thread didn't devolve into the "Can Druids wear metal armor?" debate. Lord knows we have enough of those threads scattered about anyways.

    Personally, I love the concept of fluff in character creation, and every other facet of the game really. It helps so much to establish a unique and memorable experience for all at the table, and can really get people engaged into the world that's being set up. Stuff like people jeering at Tieflings for being "Devil-Spawn", or the Dwarven homes having lowered entryways/smaller furniture, or a quaint description of a village square and all the hustle and bustle though it always brings a smile to my face, as the world the DM has so carefully crafted is filled with unnecessary but life-bringing details. Immersion is very important (to me) in a roleplaying game, and fluff is a great way to implement that relatively without a hitch.
    "Frankly, with a million posts dedicated to arguing rules or min/max builds or discussing ways to optimally kill your players without feeling guilty, more about player/DM collaboration are appreciated."-Beeporama
    My Homebrews:
    Oath of the Sand
    Path of the Striker

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    I like fluff and think it's important to the world in general. But i don't think it should be super strict, especialy with players.

    If it was as clear cut as Rafaelfras mentionned :
    Druids wont wear metal armor because of their spiritual oaths, so in my table druids wont use it, (they simply wont, the mere idea does not go through their head) if you want to use metal armor dont play a druid, simple as that.
    There wouldn't be The Hobbit, cause Hobbits don't adventure. There wouldn't be Drizz't or Elistraee, seems Drows are always evil. There wouldn't be that albinos red dragon in that module, because red dragons are always red.

    I also think that you can often let the player pick a mechanic but change the fluff if he wants it. Eldritch Knight with a spell book for his known spell (not being able to exceed the max) cause he learned from a wizard. Human that made a pack with devils but instead of getting eldritch blast and spells, he gets a super strong body ( Orc ) and amazing fighting prowess ( barbarian). Evil druid that stole the secrets from a Circle through torture and dominate nature to his will instead of protecting it.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ezekielraiden's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    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.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Orc in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Addaran View Post
    I like fluff and think it's important to the world in general. But i don't think it should be super strict, especialy with players.

    If it was as clear cut as Rafaelfras mentionned :

    There wouldn't be The Hobbit, cause Hobbits don't adventure. There wouldn't be Drizz't or Elistraee, seems Drows are always evil. There wouldn't be that albinos red dragon in that module, because red dragons are always red.

    I also think that you can often let the player pick a mechanic but change the fluff if he wants it. Eldritch Knight with a spell book for his known spell (not being able to exceed the max) cause he learned from a wizard. Human that made a pack with devils but instead of getting eldritch blast and spells, he gets a super strong body ( Orc ) and amazing fighting prowess ( barbarian). Evil druid that stole the secrets from a Circle through torture and dominate nature to his will instead of protecting it.
    That's a good point. My general opinion on conflicting with fluff is: If your character/world/monster doesn't match with the pre-established official fluff, give a reason.
    Your druid wears metal? Sounds good, now tell me a line or two about the Mountain Circle dwarf druids that run an eco-friendly mine (or whatever it is that explains your character's deviation from the norm). Anything like that is good enough for me as DM.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by firelistener View Post
    That's a good point. My general opinion on conflicting with fluff is: If your character/world/monster doesn't match with the pre-established official fluff, give a reason.
    Your druid wears metal? Sounds good, now tell me a line or two about the Mountain Circle dwarf druids that run an eco-friendly mine (or whatever it is that explains your character's deviation from the norm). Anything like that is good enough for me as DM.
    Yeah, if it deviates, you need a reason that's not just silly. It will even help the GM get a better feel of your character and it might lead to fun interaction with players and NPCs after.
    Dwarven druid convincing the septical druid circle that minerals are just as part of nature as faune and flora, and that crafting something out of it is just as good.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Fluff is really important for establishing context and consistency, even within the mechanics. As a recent example, the question 'what is the identity of the ranger' required both fluff and mechanics to fully answer to people's satisfaction.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Cleveland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Put me strongly in the fluff rocks category. In fact, I can run an entirely fluffy campaign where the most complex mechanic is a coin toss. Shoot, its what I do with my family on long car rides.

    That's not to say that fluff is ever written in stone. Even within D&D the fluff mutates between editions and settings. Gnomes, Vecna take them all, are a great example. Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance and Dark Sun have radically different gnomes. Halflings are another one. Sometimes they are not-Hobbits, other times Kender, sometimes primative cannibals, other times boat people or gypsies. In some games the crunch is changed to reflect these changes in the character of a race, but other times it is purely window dressing.

    What bothers me is when the fluff is used as a balancing mechanic in an edition, or is based on a specific real world example and is then carried into the next edition without any regard to why, or how it affects interactions with other rules changes. *Looking at you no metal armor for druids.* Retarding change because of sacred cows is one of the biggest hurdles D&D has been unable to shake. Putting those bits into fluff exclusively allows DMs and players to more easily ignore the bits that don't work for them.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    This is a false dichotomy for RPGs in general, but especially for 5e. The book is the rules. Some things are more defined in a mathy way, some are less, but there is no "fluff vs mechanics".

    There are some exceptions in the RPG world, such as some things written by Heinsoo. Like D&D 4e or 13th age, where descriptions are explicitly descriptive and rules are explicitly not descriptive.

    But 5e isn't like that. It's all rules. Just different kinds of rules. For example, there are roleplaying rules, there are how to resolve things rules, there are how to build things rules, there are what it looks like rules. Among a variety of rules. Some are designed to be more flexible and DM or even player tuned. Others less so.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Addaran View Post
    I like fluff and think it's important to the world in general. But i don't think it should be super strict, especialy with players.

    If it was as clear cut as Rafaelfras mentionned :

    There wouldn't be The Hobbit, cause Hobbits don't adventure. There wouldn't be Drizz't or Elistraee, seems Drows are always evil. There wouldn't be that albinos red dragon in that module, because red dragons are always red.
    Different things for different situations, the hobbit is a story about a hobbit that left his home for an adventure, Elistraee is part of the lore, as drows not being allways evil. Albino is just a condition, the dragon is still red. Druids on metal armor is just power grab.

    Quote Originally Posted by Addaran View Post
    I also think that you can often let the player pick a mechanic but change the fluff if he wants it. Eldritch Knight with a spell book for his known spell (not being able to exceed the max) cause he learned from a wizard. Human that made a pack with devils but instead of getting eldritch blast and spells, he gets a super strong body ( Orc ) and amazing fighting prowess ( barbarian). Evil druid that stole the secrets from a Circle through torture and dominate nature to his will instead of protecting it.
    Sure, i have nothing against some of it. If they dont break fundamental rules of the setting I am using. For example the druid one wouldn't fly on my table because on Forgotten realms druids get their powers from the nature gods so his method wouldn't work (same as you cant get sorcerers powers by torturing sorcerers)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    This is a false dichotomy for RPGs in general, but especially for 5e. The book is the rules. Some things are more defined in a mathy way, some are less, but there is no "fluff vs mechanics".

    There are some exceptions in the RPG world, such as some things written by Heinsoo. Like D&D 4e or 13th age, where descriptions are explicitly descriptive and rules are explicitly not descriptive.

    But 5e isn't like that. It's all rules. Just different kinds of rules. For example, there are roleplaying rules, there are how to resolve things rules, there are how to build things rules, there are what it looks like rules. Among a variety of rules. Some are designed to be more flexible and DM or even player tuned. Others less so.
    Fully agree.
    Last edited by Rafaelfras; 2019-11-11 at 10:35 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ElfMonkGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    I've always been hard on the side that the fluff the players and DM make is automatically ranked over the default fluff. You want your Rage to instead be a stance of perfect calm, where you carefully analyze your opponents to find their weak spots? Sure. Your "monk" is a rowdy pit fighter who throws wild haymakers? Great. Your wizard is actually throwing out a self-propelled bomb that explodes for 8d6 damage? Go for it. I'll usually talk it over with the person beforehand, of course, and there's probably some lines that'd go too far for me (if your wizard is pulling their robe down and farting instead of casting stinking cloud, that's probably not happening), but for the most part, I want my players to be able to make the characters they want. The system is just a tool for them to use.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Rafaelfras View Post
    Different things for different situations, the hobbit is a story about a hobbit that left his home for an adventure, Elistraee is part of the lore, as drows not being allways evil. Albino is just a condition, the dragon is still red. Druids on metal armor is just power grab.
    From what i've read, Elistraee wasn't part of the lore until 14 years after drows were introduced. Probably because Salvatore invented Drizz't. So you can always make new stuff part of the lore.


    Sure, i have nothing against some of it. If they dont break fundamental rules of the setting I am using. For example the druid one wouldn't fly on my table because on Forgotten realms druids get their powers from the nature gods so his method wouldn't work (same as you cant get sorcerers powers by torturing sorcerers)
    Didn't remember that part for FR. I was thinking the more basic D&D version where they are often godless and just get powers from nature. I guess Druidic language would work better for FR then.

    Haha, yeah, torturing sorcerer wouldn't give you powers. Though now that i think of it, some mad scientist replacing his blood with that of a dragon sorcerer....that would be a cool villain.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Under Mt. Ebott
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Far as I'm concerned, Fluff is:

    a) Significantly more important than the mechanics.
    b) Highly mutable before coming into view.

    By this I mean, you as a player get to set the fluff, and I as GM set the fluff, and what the book says has comparatively little value compared to what the players want and what my setting says, in that order. And then the fluff you have created will be the reality in the world, and I will expect you to adhere to it.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    In 4e there was an explicit split between the two.
    In 5e there is not.

    It is thus worthwhile for the table as a whole to work out where such distinctions matter or don't. I've seen it vary quite a bit from table to table. The old
    'What you get out of it depends on what you put into it' seems to apply.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Both mechanics and fluff are not Holy Writ, and can be changed by the DM, or by the players, with DM approval.
    But if it has mechanical implications (like Druids and armor, or, yes, even burning hands gestures), it should not be called fluff, and specially not be called fluff in order to dismiss them. You want to dismiss them, just do it.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Addaran View Post

    Haha, yeah, torturing sorcerer wouldn't give you powers. Though now that i think of it, some mad scientist replacing his blood with that of a dragon sorcerer....that would be a cool villain.
    Indeed, and you could do a lot of unintended consequences from his experimentes including but not limited a very gore explosion upon death :D

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Purgatory
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    blah, blah, "I want my druid to wear metal armor.." blah blah

    Same old argument, "It is just fluff, and fluff doesn't matter"

    Moving on.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    I consider anything of zero consequence fluff. If a rogue wants to call his daggers small axes or chakrams that's fluff. A player wants a guinea pig familiar and uses the rat or weasel stat block is fluffy.

    The whole druid and metal armor problem could be solved if they listed alternative armor materials in a core book instead of one campaign print.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2005

    Default Re: Fluff vs. Mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Rafaelfras View Post
    Fully agree.
    Also agree, as a general principle.

    Druids not wearing metal armour is an assumed world fact, just as it's an assumed world fact that Shadow Geezers learn to manipulate grimdarkness [and this is represented and resolved mechanically thus and so]. Of course, the people who say "my druid is entitled to wear metal armour because there's no mechanical drawback stated" would never expect anyone to question that in this game world, too, their Shadow Geezers in fact learn to manipulate grimdarkness [and it does 1d2 damage to pigs at level 12 etc.].

    World facts are of course open to negotiation, but people throwing them out due to the seeming lack of mechanical representation are getting the causality wrong.
    Ur-member and coffee caterer of the fan club.

    I wish people would stop using phrases such as "in my humble opinion", "just my two cents", and "we're out of coffee".

    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for they are out drinking coffee and, like, whatever.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •