Personally speaking, I wouldn't buy such a book. Or, rather, I would buy one for Eberron, but that's just because I prefer that setting to "points of light." I don't have much use for the core flavor of the game and have no compunctions about using my own flavor in my games. I don't care much for the fallen empire of Bael Turath, for example.
Finger wagging aside, I say that YES, emphatically and mightily YES, I would like a 'default' setting for 4th ed, the same way i would have appreciated one for 3rd ed. Most of my players would, too, I think, since that will give us a baseline assumption about what kind of world we're in if we sit down to a game. They are somewhat reticent to read any cream I myself create, due in large part to the fact that I am a terrible graphic artist and cannot make pretty pictures for them to look at while peruse the background for the world I create for them. A big book of creamy goodness would solve part of that problem right away.
I would be much more interested in purchasing that than products like, say, Stormwrack, or the monthly adventure supplements. As a DM, I am, of course looking to save time and such a book would save me loads of time, particularly if it is peppered with occasional bits of crunch to get the reader's attention, like special Feats or Powers you can only gain access to if you're from a particular nation.
I think people like reading the fluff in core books way more than they actually like applying it to their own campaigns.
Emphatically.
I would appreciate a modicum of fluff to back up monsters in the monster manual, but judging by the fluff elsewhere I don't think they could create anything I would enjoy reading.
First of all, 'fluff' is intensely denigrating. While a long way from traditional hate speech, it does imply a lack of relevancy to those of us who enjoy the acting aspects of RPGs, and is essentially straddling the border between discrimination and just being a normal word. 'Cream' is generally the much preferred term, as it is a word with positive and negative connotations, and alliterates nicely with 'crunch,' the opposite of the concept we are here to discuss.
Wait, why if fluff denigrating? Lack of relevancy? Fluffy things are easier to shape and less resistant to alteration. I like fluffy pillows, fluffy pets, fluffy stuffed toys, fluffy socks, fluffy mittens, and fluffy sweaters. I bought both of the Wizards Presents books because I enjoy fluffy content as much as I enjoy crunchy content.
Probably not, personally. That's subject to change, of course, but right now I couldn't care less for the core D&D "setting". Not that I dislike the Nentir Vale, but I'm using my own area.
That said, I think books with lots of fluff definitely have their place. Open Grave or the Draconomicon provide a good balance between fluff & stats, from what I've both heard & gleaned from my local Chapters. I love my campaign setting books, I get huge amounts of inspiration from them when I love the world (Eberron).
Wait, why if fluff denigrating? Lack of relevancy? Fluffy things are easier to shape and less resistant to alteration. I like fluffy pillows, fluffy pets, fluffy stuffed toys, fluffy socks, fluffy mittens, and fluffy sweaters. I bought both of the Wizards Presents books because I enjoy fluffy content as much as I enjoy crunchy content.
I have to agree. I only know "fluff" as the term to describe this and in all the years here at the WotC boards this is actually the first time I ever read the term "cream" to describe it and also the first time ever I read someone complaining about the term "fluff" (and I have never seen any of these two on any other board)
What I personally would find neat that is oriented somewhat around fluff. Would be DDI articles that are based around giving out lots of plot-hooks, alternative paths, etc. Essentially idea generators for your adventures/stories.
But Yes i would definately buy a book of fluff. I have kalamar which is a deadly setting, and 99% fluff. I will soon be buying a pirates guide to freeport, and am debating Amnest as well.
I actually wish there was more fluff in the actual players guide. As an example, in 2nd edition (Im pretty sure) the Druids class description required him to go on a quest to defeat an arch druid at level 10 (or something). This type of forced flavour is amazing, the DM can always ignore it, but it helps give the player a feel for his character.
I actually wish there was more fluff in the actual players guide. As an example, in 2nd edition (Im pretty sure) the Druids class description required him to go on a quest to defeat an arch druid at level 10 (or something). This type of forced flavour is amazing, the DM can always ignore it, but it helps give the player a feel for his character.
Personally, that's the kind of stuff I greatly dislike. If your setting lacks Archdruids, or the campaign won't allow your character to wander off and chase an Archdruid down, or simply doesn't want anything to do with Archdruids and just wanted to play a shapechanging nature mystic, you have a problem.
This kind of stuff is okay for articles in magazines, or in campaign settings- while still leaving the possibility of post level 10 Druids that don't fight Archdruids as "outsiders", or positing it as one of many things a Druid can do to advance, etc, but making it mandatory across all games is silly.
I think people are kind of missing the point of fluff (I've never ever heard of the use of "cream" and don't find the word fluff to be offensive) that no one ever uses 100% of the fluff in any book much like no one uses 100% of the crunch portions of books. Rule 0 is in effect, if you don't like something, change it. Fluff is around to give people ideas for characters, adventures, worlds, and etc. I don't like every bit of fluff I've read nor do I think I need to. It's subjective and that's why I think 4e has been kind of reluctant about it. For feats, and player options, crunch in other words, it's easier to include because theoretically you are trying to complement and expand a pre-existing mechanical system, the rules system (i.e. combat system). Thus the guidelines are clearer than creating good fluff which in my opinion is good story flavor.
The PoL backstory is pretty rocksome, but seems like the theme is 'everything cool happened a long time ago and... in your campaign. The rest of the world? Brown.'
Which is why I danced a jig when I saw that classes weren't shackled and brainboxed into the designer's (or certian obnoxious playtester's) flavor. Even the Paladin is no longer suck flavored.
i would like to see a book of fluff come out if that meant that all of the unnecessary fluff that was in the core books was removed. that is to say that this would cause a separation of the mechanical aspects and the roleplaying aspect. in this way i could get all of the interesting information i wanted without every power telling me what the power looks like when it is performed.
i think it would be very interesting to see how people would react if the most of the fluff were removed from the core books, more along the lines of something that you would see in GURPS (although not nearly something as extreme)
Wait, why if fluff denigrating? Lack of relevancy? Fluffy things are easier to shape and less resistant to alteration. I like fluffy pillows, fluffy pets, fluffy stuffed toys, fluffy socks, fluffy mittens, and fluffy sweaters. I bought both of the Wizards Presents books because I enjoy fluffy content as much as I enjoy crunchy content.
Do you like fluffy pets because they are fluffy, or because they are pets? Do you like fluff, or is fluff something that enhances a thing you already like?
Regardless of what you mean when you say fluff, the word is defined as 'that which is useless gilding.' As the dictionary would have it:
fluff
/flʌf/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fluhf]
–noun
1. light, downy particles, as of cotton.
2. a soft, light, downy mass: a fluff of summer clouds.
3. something of no consequence: The book is pure fluff, but fun to read.
4. an error or blunder, esp. an actor's memory lapse in the delivery of lines.
Perhaps it's because I've been spending too much time around miniature war gamers recently, but whenever I hear 'fluff' spoken aloud the way you talk about it, it is always with the same tone of voice reserved for 'leprosy' or 'stale beer.'
Do you like fluffy pets because they are fluffy, or because they are pets? Do you like fluff, or is fluff something that enhances a thing you already like?
Regardless of what you mean when you say fluff, the word is defined as 'that which is useless gilding.' As the dictionary would have it:
fluff
/flʌf/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fluhf]
–noun
1. light, downy particles, as of cotton.
2. a soft, light, downy mass: a fluff of summer clouds.
3. something of no consequence: The book is pure fluff, but fun to read.
4. an error or blunder, esp. an actor's memory lapse in the delivery of lines.
Perhaps it's because I've been spending too much time around miniature war gamers recently, but whenever I hear 'fluff' spoken aloud the way you talk about it, it is always with the same tone of voice reserved for 'leprosy' or 'stale beer.'
And that is quite correct, fluff is of no consequence. All a game book needs to provide is rules; it is up to the DM and the players to write their own fluff for their own worlds, because no two worlds are the same, even when using the basic 'points of light' concept.
Provided such a book of fluff kept true to this I'd not have a problem, it'd have to be much more concerned with the bigger picture rather than the finer details. It'd probably sort of come out somewhere around a fluffier MotP i guess, which (although i havn't read it) I'd imagine was pretty fluffy anyway.
They are somewhat reticent to read any cream I myself create,
Yeah, I'd be hesitant to take in my DMs cream as well...
Honestly, I could never use the term "cream" this way with a straight face. :P
Now, I could make my own system, too, but it would take so much effort. So much playtesting. So many resources to get enough people to make sure everything worked.
To write a story, I need, uh, nothing at all. I only need time when I'm not actively thinking about something else. I almost feel insulted by Fluffy books, as if they are saying, "Our fluff is better than yours!" PS - it never is.
I use fluff books for inspiration. I have several books that cover the origins of the drow, all with a different story because they came from different publishers. This has fired up a drow history particular to my own campaign and redefined Lolth as an entity of pure chaos instead of a (mere) Demon-Goddess.
It's a flight of fancy that took only some Cheetohs and imagination and no considerations of game balance and number-crunching.
For something that was just a flight of fancy that took some cheetos and imagination, it would seem all those fluff books you purchased about the drow have definitely enriched your game
.The ultimate in fluff/cream, of course, is the novelization of the setting.
There have been a number of games that have been almost nothing but story. Castle Falkenstein springs to mind. I don't remember how the rules worked with the cards and the whatnot, but I remember the characters through which the world was explored. It was an interesting world with fun characters, and this did a great deal to establish the setting in my imagination. Shadowrun and Vampire: The Masquerade are both like that, too, though not as much.
Dungeons & Dragons actually has the greatest sheer scope of all the games. It occupies a vast universe with unlimited potential, designed to be explored and studied. And while I might use very little of the pre-packaged ideas for my own campaign, I always like to see how it's been done, especially if it's done well.
I still employ the "Spell Engine" from the game, but for magic tied to cards I went with the Spellslinger from Deadlands.
Just curious what did you guys think of the Van Richten's guides from 2nd edition Ravenloft? Personally they are among my favorite books in my D&D collection.