A bit of flavor [Archive] - Wizards Community

A bit of flavor [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
TalonofTiamat
11-23-05, 07:38 PM I am a very open DM. I allow a player to use almost any supplemental material. I allow players to pick a class from any of the Complete books, the XPH and now, for the first time ever, Magic of Incarnum. But I have been wondering. Is there such a thing as too much flavor in a campaign? If you think so, please say where you draw the line and why.
MinusInnocence
11-23-05, 07:54 PM Too much flavor? Well, the only real limit for flavor is set by the attention span of your players. You can spend hours tinkering with some spur-of-the-moment rules for a new dicegame in your campaign setting... but if the players really just want to finish their shopping so they can head back into the dungeon, you've gone too far.

Likewise, entire books have been written in the real world about individual works of art; their creators, those who funded the work, interesting historical footnotes about the piece, etc. But in your campaign, the players probably didn't go to the museum to absorb any meaningful cultural lore from an imaginary place. They were looking for someone who could tell them about Neat Magic Item X.

That said, if you were asking instead about the theoretical limit to the number of gaming supplements you can include in the game... well, it's pretty similar. Some people (myself included) play Core-only games; PHB, DMG and MM are all we need. Others like to buy up every WotC supplement and fish for neat new stuff, trusting the publishers not to have made any grievous mistakes. At the other end of the spectrum are those who don't care who published the text, and assume anything with the d20 logo is fair play.

You might consider actually sitting down with your players and asking them what they think about all the books you've allowed in the game. Do they think all these options have made everything more fun? Less? What about balance; does anyone have concerns things are getting out of hand?

Players might not have as keen an eye as you when it comes to balance (and if they do, some keep their mouths shut so they can exploit the perceived weakness in the rules), but if one PC is clearly the star of the show during every single encounter, the others might be getting frustrated. If the source of this PC's success lies in a non-Core book, you have something to think about.

Finally, the players might grow tired of having to learn at least the basics of every new book you allow in the game. They may not take every feat from Magic of Incarnum for their own characters; actually, they might steer clear of the book altogether. But if it's cleared for player use, you probably have a few NPCs with access to Incarnum, and it's just good sense for the players to do their homework.

Another concern is that even if everyone has a keen grasp of the rules in each new book, it can still be distracting for you to abruptly include something as potentially revolutionary as psionics or incarnum halfway through a campaign. Eventually, it might wear on everyone's suspension of disbelief, and you know things have gotten out of hand when people start rolling their eyes at yet another NPC with mysterious, awesome power (read: someone who picked up a few tricks from the latest supplement before the players could).

It's different for each group but in my experience and that of many other DMs, if you simply open the floodgates and allow practically everything into your games (even if you review it carefully first), the combination you end up with might spoil someone's good time.
Thomar_of_Uointer
11-23-05, 09:03 PM Bah! I have trouble with having too little flavor due to lazy PCs. Consider yourself lucky...

Another way to do it is to say that the world is a big place, and there's room for all kinds of flavor.
Schmendrick
11-24-05, 04:28 AM Please note that complexity != flavor. Adding more options does not add flavor, it adds options (and complexity). Flavor comes from expanding on descriptions, regional/racial oddities, etc., and more often than not seems to spring from restricting options (rather than extending them). I'm not saying that using a lot of supplements is bad, but it does tend to make things a little more numbers-ey and so encourage min/max behavior. If you're looking to add flavor to your campaign, start with the [PHB] basics. Maybe certain classes (monks, druids, and sorcerors are good candidates) only come from a particular region. Make different currency types for different nations. Force all gnomes to be illusionists. Add incarnum, but only at specific geographic points of power. Or maybe the Flaming enchantment can only be placed on slashing weapons, while Frost is restricted to piercing weapons.
Flushpuppie
11-24-05, 05:30 AM well, I'm an open DM too, you can pick any feat, PrC, core class, item whatever as long as you have an in-game reason.

If someone comes up to me and says: I want to have a multiclass in rogue next to my 8 lvls fighter, can I do that? my response will be: Why?

if the answer is "for sneak attack damage and evasion at 2nd lvl" my answer is "NO"

if the answer is "My char met the representive of the thieves guild yesterday, and they share a common thought, my char is so fascinated by finally meeting someone with the same ideals that he wants to persue their goals and achievements too." the answer is "yes".
FriendoftheDork
11-24-05, 07:14 AM Flavor should not be restricted, but classes is not the same as flavor. If someone want to play a wizard with the flavor of a warlock, fine. If someone want to play a rogue with the flavor of a scout, fine. But that doesen't mean I allow the comlete books classes.

Allowing too much will often result of unbalanced "builds", and alot of headache for the DM. Never allow something you have not read up and approve of. Simply assuming that WotC can make no mistake won't do. I'm not saying everything from the splatbooks is broken, just that everything should be checked out before implemented, just like any other optional rule.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TalonofTiamat 11-23-05, 07:38 PM	I am a very open DM. I allow a player to use almost any supplemental material. I allow players to pick a class from any of the Complete books, the XPH and now, for the first time ever, Magic of Incarnum. But I have been wondering. Is there such a thing as too much flavor in a campaign? If you think so, please say where you draw the line and why.
MinusInnocence 11-23-05, 07:54 PM	Too much flavor? Well, the only real limit for flavor is set by the attention span of your players. You can spend hours tinkering with some spur-of-the-moment rules for a new dicegame in your campaign setting... but if the players really just want to finish their shopping so they can head back into the dungeon, you've gone too far. Likewise, entire books have been written in the real world about individual works of art; their creators, those who funded the work, interesting historical footnotes about the piece, etc. But in your campaign, the players probably didn't go to the museum to absorb any meaningful cultural lore from an imaginary place. They were looking for someone who could tell them about Neat Magic Item X. That said, if you were asking instead about the theoretical limit to the number of gaming supplements you can include in the game... well, it's pretty similar. Some people (myself included) play Core-only games; PHB, DMG and MM are all we need. Others like to buy up every WotC supplement and fish for neat new stuff, trusting the publishers not to have made any grievous mistakes. At the other end of the spectrum are those who don't care who published the text, and assume anything with the d20 logo is fair play. You might consider actually sitting down with your players and asking them what they think about all the books you've allowed in the game. Do they think all these options have made everything more fun? Less? What about balance; does anyone have concerns things are getting out of hand? Players might not have as keen an eye as you when it comes to balance (and if they do, some keep their mouths shut so they can exploit the perceived weakness in the rules), but if one PC is clearly the star of the show during every single encounter, the others might be getting frustrated. If the source of this PC's success lies in a non-Core book, you have something to think about. Finally, the players might grow tired of having to learn at least the basics of every new book you allow in the game. They may not take every feat from Magic of Incarnum for their own characters; actually, they might steer clear of the book altogether. But if it's cleared for player use, you probably have a few NPCs with access to Incarnum, and it's just good sense for the players to do their homework. Another concern is that even if everyone has a keen grasp of the rules in each new book, it can still be distracting for you to abruptly include something as potentially revolutionary as psionics or incarnum halfway through a campaign. Eventually, it might wear on everyone's suspension of disbelief, and you know things have gotten out of hand when people start rolling their eyes at yet another NPC with mysterious, awesome power (read: someone who picked up a few tricks from the latest supplement before the players could). It's different for each group but in my experience and that of many other DMs, if you simply open the floodgates and allow practically everything into your games (even if you review it carefully first), the combination you end up with might spoil someone's good time.
Thomar_of_Uointer 11-23-05, 09:03 PM	Bah! I have trouble with having too little flavor due to lazy PCs. Consider yourself lucky... Another way to do it is to say that the world is a big place, and there's room for all kinds of flavor.
Schmendrick 11-24-05, 04:28 AM	Please note that complexity != flavor. Adding more options does not add flavor, it adds options (and complexity). Flavor comes from expanding on descriptions, regional/racial oddities, etc., and more often than not seems to spring from restricting options (rather than extending them). I'm not saying that using a lot of supplements is bad, but it does tend to make things a little more numbers-ey and so encourage min/max behavior. If you're looking to add flavor to your campaign, start with the [PHB] basics. Maybe certain classes (monks, druids, and sorcerors are good candidates) only come from a particular region. Make different currency types for different nations. Force all gnomes to be illusionists. Add incarnum, but only at specific geographic points of power. Or maybe the Flaming enchantment can only be placed on slashing weapons, while Frost is restricted to piercing weapons.
Flushpuppie 11-24-05, 05:30 AM	well, I'm an open DM too, you can pick any feat, PrC, core class, item whatever as long as you have an in-game reason. If someone comes up to me and says: I want to have a multiclass in rogue next to my 8 lvls fighter, can I do that? my response will be: Why? if the answer is "for sneak attack damage and evasion at 2nd lvl" my answer is "NO" if the answer is "My char met the representive of the thieves guild yesterday, and they share a common thought, my char is so fascinated by finally meeting someone with the same ideals that he wants to persue their goals and achievements too." the answer is "yes".
FriendoftheDork 11-24-05, 07:14 AM	Flavor should not be restricted, but classes is not the same as flavor. If someone want to play a wizard with the flavor of a warlock, fine. If someone want to play a rogue with the flavor of a scout, fine. But that doesen't mean I allow the comlete books classes. Allowing too much will often result of unbalanced "builds", and alot of headache for the DM. Never allow something you have not read up and approve of. Simply assuming that WotC can make no mistake won't do. I'm not saying everything from the splatbooks is broken, just that everything should be checked out before implemented, just like any other optional rule.