I was reading through a discussion on Paizo’s message boards that grew out of a post linking to our coverage of the panel with Mike Mearls at Origins, and one discussion in particular caught my eye. Several people began to discuss the amount of content provided in the 4E core books vs. the amount provided in the 3.5 core books, which I think is a funny comparison to begin with because you’re looking at a revised edition in relation to a whole new edition; naturally, things are going to be more polished and meaty in the revision because it’s based on existing material. I’d say it would definitely be more relevant to compare the 4E core books to the original 3rd Edition ones, but then you could also get into a huge argument over how much of the content that was provided in 3rd Edition was actually usable/functional, which I think would lead to some more interesting comparison also.
The discussions quickly jumped on the obvious fact that there is less fluff presented in the 4th Edition core books, in comparison to previous editions, and many feel that the amount of fluff has been decreasing over time as the game progresses through various editions. The question this brings up to me, is this a bad thing? Your gut reaction is most likely, “YES! Without fluff the game is just like every other game!” However, when you really think about it, do the progressing editions of the game really change that much of the fluff that goes along with the game?
Phil, the ever-useful human resource of internet information, pointed me towards a post by Mearls from back in 2005 about fluff where he christened:
Stross’s Law of RPG Setting Design: A setting element should never require more than two paragraphs to explain it in full.
I’m not sure whether or not I fully agree with this law of RPG design yet, but I do feel it has merit in that it stops a particular writer or designer from infringing too much on a DM/GM’s fun. If you’ve ever tried to run a historical game, then you know that the biggest obstacle for a GM is dealing with a player who knows more about your setting than you do. By limiting an RPG setting design to two paragraphs per element, the GM’s job not only becomes less stressful but also more fun because he can create more of the setting. What I’m still undecided on is whether or not this makes the job of running a game easier, as you are provided with less information, especially details are left out as the limitation on fluff tends to keep things to general and summary descriptions.
So clearly Mearls feels that the reduction in fluff is in the right direction, but what I’m curious about is why people don’t see this as a good thing. One argument that always comes up about 4th Edition, it came up plenty about previous editions also, is that Wizards is just trying to grab money from the populace. What most people seem to overlook is that with 4th Edition there was very little content wasted on reprinting the same old fluff that was in previous editions. Need a lot of background on Dwarves, why can’t you look in the books from previous editions? Even Tieflings have tons of written fluff that already exists, while the only semi-argument might be that the Dragonborn are a relatively new race that might require some additional fluff there are precedents for them too!
A lot of people are blowing off 4E as insubstantial because of how much fluff is lacking from it, but really shouldn’t it be considered better because you’re not spending money on some re-written flavor text that takes up half the book? Don’t get me wrong, as I’ve been reading through the core books I feel a deep longing as I read some of the powers and there is little in the way of fanciful description accompanying them, but the powers for classes like Rogue and Fighter are probably the only things which would require some effort to find in my older D&D books. Perhaps we should think twice before auctioning / selling off all of our old books? Worst case I just have to put a little thought towards how I want these things to be described in my game world, and I can’t really hate Wizards too much for making me do more creative thinking as I plan things out. Hell, they’ve made monsters so much easier to run I really don’t mind the extra time worrying about how to describe them to my players.
Overall I’d say the apparent lack of fluff in 4th Edition is unfortunate, but it is definitely not a deal breaker and may even contribute to the game in many ways as DM’s are individually more creative. To me it just seems natural that as the game has been played for several decades the amount of fluff that needs to be printed should reduce.
Fluff is pretty nice, all the story and variables; however, the PHB lets you dive right in, which I think has more appeal for the masses.
I’m sure they’ll release more lore & info eventually, I’m in no huge rush.
I wonder if this will have the same (or similar) side-effect that the OGL had for developing a new crop of RPG designers. Previously, the OGL allowed anyone to (within reason) piggy-back on 3.5 and create their own campaign/system/game. See Mutants and Masterminds or Iron Heroes for some examples. Now, with the emphasis on DMs creating their own fluff/world, it might have the same effect on a much larger (but also potentially much shallower with respect to quality) scale.
Marcel Beaudoin’s last post: Long Weekends
One thing that surprises me about 4e is the amount of hidden fluff there is. On first look through the 4e Monster Manual seems to be nothing but statblock after statblock, but in reality I reckon it’s the most fluff-filled MM we’ve had so far – it’s jam packed with great little tidbits about the critters.
For example a random turn to page 136 tells us that “Bugbears often decapitate their foes to honour their greatest hero, Hruggek, who is known to decapitate his enemies”.
Now, it might not be world-class fluff, but it’s there, and there’s lots of it – each one is a potential clue or adventure hook. Good stuff.
In contrast, the PHB feels like we’re only getting half a story. There’s Races that reference Planes and ancient Empires. There’s Gods who have worshippers, but no central fluffy world to tie it all together. “Points of Light” is a great campaign concept, but it was a mistake to treat it like it’s the entire gameworld. PoL-style gaming would work in Greyhawk, the Realms, Sigil, or wherever – it’s a technique, not a setting. It would have helped new players (and new gaming groups as a whole) if the was some easy-to-revise-or-revoke starting setting outlined in the PHB. Both Shadowfell & Fallcrest and The Nentir Vale (from the DMG) fix that though, so it’s all good 🙂
I love the fact that 4E is going a bit light on the fluff. There are too many systems out now that are basically one-shot ponies where the system is entertwined with the game world. Earthdawn is my particular gripe, although you can probably think of several others.
I find Earthdawn’s step system of dice rolling brilliant and easy to use. However, too many character abilities seem to be focused on one aspect of the game fluff (Horrors). It would be a lot of trouble to come up with useful equivalents for all the abilities you’d have to strip out of the game if you decided to use the rules as a generic D&D dungeon-crawl or if you wanted to re-create a setting like Dragonlance or Middle Earth.
Having said that, I really do enjoy fluff. Over on You Meet In A Tavern (http://www.ymiat.com/index.php?topic=1222.20), I’ve even pulled fluff from Earthdawn into my Worldbuilding in 10 Easy Steps post. Heck, I buy Warhammer & 40K game books and codices just for the fluff. But fluff should be kept seperate from the mechanics, and this is where 4E is succeeding.
Rather than come out with a million setting-specific splatbooks, WotC is limiting how many books are released for each setting. Each setting gets a player’s guide, campaign book, and an adventure. That’s it. Everything else gets added to the basic rule set that any DM can use without having to buy a campaign setting.
Now, we all know that this is going to go out the window when Eberron is released in 2009. But I have hopes for the system, because WotC is splitting their book types into crunch and fluff, with fluff books being “editionless”. Their goal with this is that when 5E rolls around in 5 – 8 years, people can continue using fluff books without worrying about invalidating half of it’s contents. So additional setting books may just end up being fluff updates.
As someone coming back to D&D after 20 years – I rather like having Core Books that don’t spend several pages on fluff. The mechanics are there. There are also plenty of hooks mentioned.
Its also worth mentioning that the Dramicon (dragon book… however you spell it) will most likely contain tons of Dragonborn fluff.
I think there’s a lot of people who are upset not at the lack of fluff, but what’s there is different than what has been in D&D before. I know I had a long-running discussion this past weekend where his argument was “it’s always been there” and my argument was “I don’t care that it’s always been there.”
Mearls said specifically in the talks that they were trying to leverage D&D’s main strength: that you can make stuff up, and tried to limit barriers to that (like his example about creating a new Abyssal layer for Orcus’s Zombie Closet instead of having to worry that it already existed.)
Fluff is good, but mechanics are better. With a game like D&D where a lot of the fluff can be made up, there is little need to include large amounts of fluff if it would mean taking away from including information about the mechanics/rules.
I haven’t been a “fluffer” for a long time. I sort of enjoy getting the rules, classes, etc. in a book more, these days. I almost always game in my own home-created settings, so I ignore so much of that.
Now, if you’re going to create an interesting monster, I’d like to know a little bit about how it fights, etc. But that’s about it.
Based on what I’ve seen from DDI articles, I think we’re going to get a lot of good fluff in Dragon. I like that the PHB is mainly crunch.. I want to use it for rules and in-game reference really.
Looking forward to the campaign settings for some good fluff. (And shifty shifters shifting while shifted).
Of all the problems I’ve got with 4th edition, the lack of fluff is so minor it barely even registers.
Besides, many DMs rewrite the fluff to fit their own worlds anyways, so by not including it in the PHB and MM, they just saved space.
The lack of Fluff in my mind is a wise choice. For everyone that points their finger at 4E being just like WoW consider what lack of fluff does… it makes people really come up with their own stuff and own world which is EXACTLY what you cannot do in WoW. It emphasizes the creativity right off the bat from the minute the DM starts the game.
REally there is more fluff tere thant you’d think, the “hidden fluff” as greywulf said.
Where does most of the fluff actually come in in my oppinion? Read those Lore Checks.
I think the people might be making a real point if they said that this reduced fluff put the new DM at a disadvantage. Without a rich back history they might not easily be able to define what they want drow to be in “their world”. But really.. how many of us DM the first time we ever play D&D. There’s a smaller portion of the small. And, still more importantly, at least the DM reading the book shouldn’t be mind boggled at the mechanics like previous editions. And the Fresh off the printing rom floor DM would probably have fresh players too.
Well, I’m definitely glad to see most of you think the choices made on fluff were good ones.
Mea: I’d actually forgotten about the lore checks, I love those as a way to read information because it really gives you a progression of detail based on what DC the characters can reach with their skill. Also something just reads nicely about the monsters going from general to specifics, like a natural process of education even for the DM.
I don’t mind the lack of fluff. That’s what we have our imaginations for!
Jonathan Drain’s D&D Blog’s last post: 7 Habits of a Successful Dungeon Master
The thing that bugs me about fluff is how it turns into this mental roadblock for GM’s. Just because warforged aren’t in the fluff of forgotten realms, why can’t you (as a GM) allow them in. Does their existence in the world bring about armageddon? Do they break the balance of races available, that warforged are practically gods?
If it isn’t explicitly laid out in the fluff, some GM’s brains go into comatose. So lack of fluff means room for creativity.