Flavour Vs. Game-mechanics

[irdeggman]

Ian, while I wasn’t one of the original BRCS team members (Jan and I were added in the first expansion), I have been the only one to post regularly since the playtest document was issued for playtesting – at least twice a week and usually more frequently. It does appear as if the rest are on a walkabout. This has caused me delays in rewriting Chapt 2, since I really need some more info from Jan. Regarding the rewrite of Chap 2, in the next few days I’ll post a progress on the board so all you all (hey I live in Virginia) can see what I’m planning on doing. It is based on the polls and what people said they preferred.

I think some of this discussion was moved forward too quickly. For one, I don’t believe that everyone is on the same page when it comes down to defining what is campaign setting material, what are mechanics and what constitutes flavor. Really until then there will always be conflicting opinions and hence the discussions will focus towards "What I want or what I use based upon my own house-rules." This is to be expected due to the very individualistic focus of D&D itself – it is and always has been a game that promotes creating house-rules and individual campaign settings.

IMO (everything is my take on things not the way things are):

Campaign setting information is what sets apart one setting from another, or what deviates from the "core rules". Basically it is defining the size of the canvas and the materials to be used when creating a painting.

Examples of things that are and are not campaign setting information;
Dwarves can’t be wizards. In 2nd ed this is not setting material since this was the standard rule and dwarves were not allowed to be wizards at all. I have never seen a TSR 2nd ed setting that allowed them to be wizards.
Elves can’t be priests. In 2nd ed this is definitely a campaign setting material since the standard was that elves could be priests (its the same in 3rd ed).
Druids must be gain their power from Erik. This is also definitely campaign setting definition material. In 2nd ed (and 3rd ed) druids didn’t gain their powers from the gods but from nature itself.
Specific info on the Cerilian races, dwarves, elves, halflings are all campaign definition material since they are specific deviations from the core.
The fact that the old gods died, spilt their blood on those around which granted them abilities and leadership far above those that didn’t receive this divine gift and those who received the benefit of the old gods’ spilt blood could actually steal this gift from others. New gods arose to replace the expired ones. These are all campaign setting definition material.
The fact that magic (arcane) was divided into true and lesser magic and only those with the divine gift of blood or of elven blood could cast true magic is also campaign definition material since it also deviates from the core.
Priests of different gods have different focuses. This is campaign specific material, but this one also crosses into the mechanics issues.

Mechanics issues are those things that are tied into a specific game mechanic system. This would be the criteria used for judging the painting or if you use oils then you must do the following to prep the canvas and brushes, allow so much time to dry, etc.

Examples of things that are game mechanics issues:
Skills and feats in d20 vice proficiencies in 2nd ed.
Character level with no restrictions on multi-classing, except for those defined by the campaign setting material, in 3rd ed vice the restriction of classes and levels in 2nd ed.
Specialty priests in 2nd ed use of minor and major access to spheres and granted abilities while 3rd ed uses domains which have granted powers associated with them. Technically both are specialty priests, but 2nd ed and 3rd ed use different game mechanics to handle them.

Flavor issues are the things that fill the gaps. In the painting issue this would be eye appeal, since it depends on how it is viewed and by whom. Flavor issues are those things that have no game mechanics used to support or define them.

Examples of things that are flavor issues:

Dwarves eat rocks. This has no game mechanic issues involved and really adds nothing but color.
Stabbing through the heart in order to accomplish bloodtheft. There were no mechanics written that specified how this was to be done. There were mechanics specified as to how a transfer of blood score was done once this action was done but nothing really given to define how to do this.
Sayim. This has no real game mechanic involved, but it does add flavor towards the Khinasi philosophy of life.

[Ruornil the Silver Prince]

Didn`t they have dwarven wizards in some of the old greyhawk stuff?

I`ve read novels where that happened.. err I think...



-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of irdeggman

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 9:20 PM

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Flavour Vs. Game-mechanics [36#1997]



This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=1997



irdeggman wrote:

Ian, while I wasn`t one of the original BRCS team members (Jan and I

were added in the first expansion), I have been the only one to post

regularly since the playtest document was issued for playtesting - at

least twice a week and usually more frequently. It does appear as if

the rest are on a walkabout. This has caused me delays in rewriting

Chapt 2, since I really need some more info from Jan. Regarding the

rewrite of Chap 2, in the next few days I`ll post a progress on the

board so all you all (hey I live in Virginia) can see what I`m planning

on doing. It is based on the polls and what people said they preferred.



I think some of this discussion was moved forward too quickly. For

one, I don`t believe that everyone is on the same page when it comes

down to defining what is campaign setting material, what are mechanics

and what constitutes flavor. Really until then there will always be

conflicting opinions and hence the discussions will focus towards

"What I want or what I use based upon my own house-rules."

This is to be expected due to the very individualistic focus of D&D

itself - it is and always has been a game that promotes creating

house-rules and individual campaign settings.



IMO (everything is my take on things not the way things are):



Campaign setting information is what sets apart one setting from

another, or what deviates from the "core rules". Basically it

is defining the size of the canvas and the materials to be used when

creating a painting.



Examples of things that are and are not campaign setting information;

Dwarves can`t be wizards. In 2nd ed this is not setting material

since this was the standard rule and dwarves were not allowed to be

wizards at all. I have never seen a TSR 2nd ed setting that allowed

them to be wizards.

Elves can`t be priests. In 2nd ed this is definitely a campaign

setting material since the standard was that elves could be priests (its

the same in 3rd ed).

Druids must be gain their power from Erik. This is also definitely

campaign setting definition material. In 2nd ed (and 3rd ed) druids

didn`t gain their powers from the gods but from nature itself.

Specific info on the Cerilian races, dwarves, elves, halflings are

all campaign definition material since they are specific deviations from

the core.

The fact that the old gods died, spilt their blood on those around

which granted them abilities and leadership far above those that didn`t

receive this divine gift and those who received the benefit of the old

gods` spilt blood could actually steal this gift from others. New gods

arose to replace the expired ones. These are all campaign setting

definition material.

The fact that magic (arcane) was divided into true and lesser magic

and only those with the divine gift of blood or of elven blood could

cast true magic is also campaign definition material since it also

deviates from the core.

Priests of different gods have different focuses. This is campaign

specific material, but this one also crosses into the mechanics issues.



Mechanics issues are those things that are tied into a specific game

mechanic system. This would be the criteria used for judging the

painting or if you use oils then you must do the following to prep the

canvas and brushes, allow so much time to dry, etc.



Examples of things that are game mechanics issues:

Skills and feats in d20 vice proficiencies in 2nd ed.

Character level with no restrictions on multi-classing, except for

those defined by the campaign setting material, in 3rd ed vice the

restriction of classes and levels in 2nd ed.

Specialty priests in 2nd ed use of minor and major access to spheres

and granted abilities while 3rd ed uses domains which have granted

powers associated with them. Technically both are specialty priests,

but 2nd ed and 3rd ed use different game mechanics to handle them.



Flavor issues are the things that fill the gaps. In the painting issue

this would be eye appeal, since it depends on how it is viewed and by

whom. Flavor issues are those things that have no game mechanics used

to support or define them.



Examples of things that are flavor issues:



Dwarves eat rocks. This has no game mechanic issues involved and

really adds nothing but color.

Stabbing through the heart in order to accomplish bloodtheft. There

were no mechanics written that specified how this was to be done. There

were mechanics specified as to how a transfer of blood score was done

once this action was done but nothing really given to define how to do

this.

Sayim. This has no real game mechanic involved, but it does add

flavor towards the Khinasi philosophy of life.







************************************************** **********************

****



Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

[RaspK_FOG]

Thank you for coming in, Raesene Andu and Irdeggman. I assure you that we appreciate your work on the setting. [Insert BIG thumbs up.]

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Andrew Casey" <accasey@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 6:56 AM





> Didn`t they have dwarven wizards in some of the old greyhawk stuff?

> I`ve read novels where that happened.. err I think...



Perhaps you are recalling the savants of the dark dwarven gods Diirinka and

Diinkarazan. They were effectivly wizards in the direct service of their

gods.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Yair]

I think some of this discussion was moved forward too quickly. For one, I don`t believe that everyone is on the same page when it comes down to defining what is campaign setting material, what are mechanics
and what constitutes flavor. Really until then there will always be conflicting opinions and hence the discussions will focus towards "What I want or what I use based upon my own house-rules."

I agree in principle, but... I want my house rules in

Actually, those look like excellent definitions, irdeggman.

[Yair]

Raesene Andu wrote:

1. Bloodtrait/Bloodform
I don&#39;t think balance really comes into it with these two abilties. They are there for a specific reason, to provide for the transformation of characters into Awnsheghlien and Erhsheghlien (primarily NPCs too, not players). They are certainly powerful, but necessary. If you have any balance issues with other bloodline abilities let me know and I&#39;ll try to address them.

And lots of other things... but discussing all of this will kidnap the thread.
I&#39;ll start another.

[Airgedok]

There is something to consider when you deal with the whole issue of flavour vs mechanics vs campaign setting and the overal philosophy of 3x edition rules.

Anytime you change the mechanics or flavour or setting so that it contradicts the rules or even flavour of 3x edition yo risk losing the people who joined 3e D&D. I quite Ad&D just after unearthed arcana for 1e came out. the reason was that there was no skills in the game (except for theives) and their was un reasoned restrictions in teh game all for teh sake of game balance which ironicaly could be bypassed via dual or multiclassing thus making the balanced arguement pretty weak. #e creates a system that provides more choice to teh player and helps eliminate teh cardboard cutouts that aD&D created, in both 1e and 2e. i came back to AD&D to try 2e but found that it was still teh "old" game with some minor changes. The spirit of the game was still the same.

3e changed the spirit of D&D and created a game that i could live with. BUT in so doing they hurt some of their die hard fan base but they gained far more people than they ever lost. The danger is if you return BR to the spirit of the restrictive nature of 2e rules you will lose the 3e fans of the BR setting and we do exist. The idea of dwarven wizards is greatly embraced by a vast majority of 3e players as it provides more flavour to game worlds because it creates more options and more possibilities. But others argue that the sameness of the races creates a loss of flavour.

Old doesnt equal better but likewise new doesnt equal better either. The team Will do the community a better service if they create a 3x edition birthright setting than create d20 rules for BR. This may seem like its the same thing but its is not nor are the differences subtle. I think you have to take the core spirit of 3e and create a BR setting to fit those rules than take the old 2e BR setting and add d20 rules for that system. Here is my reasoning.

The purests will likely prefer the 2e rules set over any rules using d20 simply because teh 2e rules are best at keeping the spirit and mechanics of teh old 2e setting. However the people who hate 2e and play 3e will really chafe at any 2e like limitations showing up in a 3e BR setting. I really hate the idea of alignment restrictions for elves harkens back to 2e limitations for me. (Mind you my group doesnt even use alignemnt uses all aligment based spells and changes them to be outsider or undead or unatural specific as opposed to evil, good, lawful or choatic speific. Makes for subtle morality plays and eliminates a role-playing tool that is designed more for children than grown adults.)

Balance is almost imposible to achieve in a BR setting. The reasoning behind it is that you have two seperate campaign types for the characters you have the regent level type of game and the adventure level type of game. What balances out for one is often not a balance for the other. The blood abilities of invulnerable are HUGE in the adventure setting but I&#39;d rather have the ability of Enhanced sense (great)- [Masela] in the regent setting of the game. The ability to hear my characters name and anything said about my character provided both me and the speakers are ouside and within a 10 MILE radius. Is enormous add in the fact that I play mostly sidhelien and you can see the huge advantage this great power has over Invulnerability But again only in the regent campaign setting. In an adventure based game I&#39;d rather be invulnerable. So how do you balance these two blood abilities? You cant and any attempt to do so would destroy the powers. Whats a great blood ability for adventuring is not a great ability in the regent level game and vise versa.

Feats also fall into this catagory Master admin. isnt really a great feat for an adventure based game but is a "must have" in a regent level based game.
How can you balance these two areas? What give you a benifit in one level of the BR setting provides you with little or no value in another level of the BR setting.

Which would you rather have the dodge feat or the master administator feat? The answer would really depend on if you are playing a party based adventure level game or a regent level game. This creates a problem with balancing feats. Skill based feats in an adventure level game are not really all that powerful even if you doubled their bonus. But in the regent game they are extremly powerful. Having a regent level character with a dodge feat that game you +2 ac bonus isnt all that great when such a feat would be so very powerful in and adventure level game.

So the question becomes is balance possible? or perhaps should you only try to balance the adventure level part of the game? is a scion&#39;s blood abilities really worth the level adjustments? I&#39;d say no way. And even the optional rules in chapter 8 that give early leadersip or special equipment or bodyguards dont make up for 1 to 3 levels. and yet if you had a character with invulnerable even at a 3 level penalty you would be unbalanced. And what happens if you have a low blood score does the +4 or +8 really make up the difference since you cant use the major or great blood powers even with the bonus to the score? Perhaps a better way to deal with level adjustments is to place level adjustments to the actual power chosen NOT the blood strength level. So if you take less powerful blood powers you arent penalised 1 or 2 or 3 levels because your powers are not unbalancing.
Does a character the chooses alerntess, character reading and greater long life with an 18 blood score really equal a character with a ECL +2 penalty? Even with the modifiers given from the variant rules in chapter 8 isnt any 3rd level character going to be more powerful than this example? And those powers are far from useless. It just goes to show that making level adjustments based on blood strength is flawed and will always be flawed but making them based on the powers chosen, is likely to bear better fruit.

I dont claim to know the answers here but I see a problem with trying to balance a game who&#39;s scope is so great that at one end a feat or power is almost worthless but on the other end its a game breaker. The danger with balancing things to much is they lose all flavour. Take psionics the old rules where so unbalanced that most peope ignored the rules all together. Made psionics the uber weapon so that you either had to create a darksun setting where psionics where a dime a dozen or you just eliminated them all together like the dragon lance setting. Psionics has potential but their imbalance made them useless (ie no DM/Gm in his or her right mind would allow them is most campaigns) Now lets looks at 3e psionics. They ruined everything that was great about psionics in the old system and made them into just another spell system. Psyonics are simply spells in 3e that use spell points vs spell slots. All the flavour of psyonics is lost in teh new rules. While they are now balance and completely intergrateable into the 3e rules they have lost all flavour. The danger with blood powers is that you either balance them out so "perfectly" that they lose all the unique flavour of the powers or you go nuts on the other end create powers so over the top that they create super characters. The only way I see of creating a balaced approach is to tie the powers to a ECL rating and not blood strength.

[ConjurerDragon]

Airgedok schrieb:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=1997

> Airgedok wrote:

> 3e changed the spirit of D&D and created a game that i could live with. BUT in so doing

>they hurt some of their die hard fan base but they gained far more

people than they ever lost.

> The danger is if you return BR to the spirit of the restrictive

nature of 2e rules you will

>lose the 3e fans of the BR setting and we do exist. The idea of

dwarven wizards is greatly

> embraced by a vast majority of 3e players



I would be really interested to know how much that are. Please provide

me with the absolute number of 3E players and the percentage of those

who greatly embrace dwarven wizards. As you state this as a fact, I

assume to give me both numbers is no problem to you? ;-)



>as it provides more flavour to game worlds because it creates more

options and more

>possibilities.



To provide more options does not necessarily add to flavour. Being able

to play the talking parrot of the half-celestial/half-minotaur

monk-pirate-assasin with snirfneblin parents is an option. One could

also play just about anything. However how much sense that would make is

the question. Would you play a Minotaur in a game-world that exactly

mirrors our own nowadays world (and expect anything else except to be

immediately captured and cut in pieces for science?).

Or even more fantastic: Playing the lasersword wielding monk of the

vulcan race - needless to say that I insist on playing him in the

Birthright setting, as 3E is all about options, isnt´t it?



>But others argue that the sameness of the races creates a loss of flavour.



That is a true statement. Races are described in a way that adds flavour

to a setting. Be it the immortal elves of Lord of the Rings or whatever.

You certainly can insist on playing for example in a Midgard setting an

elf, with a height of 1 meter 30 centimetres, who is fat and slow and

suffers from pneumonia since his birth while being awful at bowshooting

or with the sword, and looks exactly like Gollum. But why then should it

be an elf to begin with?



(Not that there are no clumsy sidhelien - I laughged about the one

sidhelien who stumbled over his own feet in the novel Greatheart...)



>(Mind you my group doesnt even use alignemnt uses all aligment based

spells and changes them to

> be outsider or undead or unatural specific as opposed to evil, good, lawful or choatic speific.

>Makes for subtle morality plays and eliminates a role-playing tool that is designed more for

>children than grown adults.)



Alignment is a tool that can be used regardless of age of the player. It

is a skeleton of behaviour to expect. A guideline an actor is given how

to perform on stage.



No Lawful or Evil character need to act the same, even in the same

situation. Even a good and evil character might act in the same

situation in the same way - just out of different motivations (I am the

good paladin of my god: I always rescue damsels in distress as opposed

to I am the evil rogue: I expect a huge reward for rescuing that lady

and safely returning her to her father the baron)





>The blood abilities of invulnerable are HUGE in the adventure setting but I`d rather have the

ability of Enhanced sense (great)- [Masela] in the regent setting of the

game. The ability to

hear my characters name and anything said about my character provided

both me and the speakers

are ouside and within a 10 MILE radius. Is enormous add in the fact

that I play mostly sidhelien

and you can see the huge advantage this great power has over

Invulnerability But again only in

the regent campaign setting. In an adventure based game I`d rather be

invulnerable. So how do

you balance these two blood abilities? You cant and any attempt to do

so would destroy the

powers.



Only how you perceive the powers and you DM interpretes them. I could

imagine a DM who thinks just like you that hearing anything spoken about

you in ten miles would be too good - so your character constantly hears

dozens of people speaking about him at the same time, barely able to

understand it mixed up as it is and fleeing to the barren wilderness

whenever he can to enjoy a few moments of peace from the voices in his head



You did assume that you only hear what you *wanted* to hear and what was

*interesting* for you, did you? ;-)



Perhaps I as the greedy and evil guilder planning to take over your

realm would pay 200 men to talk about you around the clock to drive you

insane and deny you any rest 24 hours a day... (while talking about you

only WITHOUT NAMING YOUR NAME - so you would hear nothing helpful for

you...)



You overrate the importance of that ability. The devil and most major

villains are rumoured to have that ability (even if in reality they only

have good spys) and so people avoid naming their names and use nicknames.





> I dont claim to know the answers here but I see a problem with trying to balance a game who`s

> scope is so great that at one end a feat or power is almost worthless but on the other end its

>a game breaker. The danger with balancing things to much is they lose all flavour. Take psionics

>the old rules where so unbalanced that most peope ignored the rules all together. Made psionics

> the uber weapon so that you either had to create a darksun setting where psionics where a dime a

> dozen or you just eliminated them all together like the dragon lance setting.



And the Birthright setting...

bye

Michael

[RaspK_FOG]

Balance... the Scales of Power to most people that shall never rest in the middle... or maybe the Gallows of Truth?

First of all, this post and its remarks are not assaults directed at anyone from the site. Thank you.

It is interesting how much misconception I have seen over this one matter that could be so easilly figured out had people had the sense to overcome their own fears and raise the blindfold above their eyes... Before you shout my head off, I would like to propose a question: What is Balance?

I have heard outcries that Balance does not exist. I can accept this as much as that there is no real logic in anything: the truth of such calims is mostly strengthened by the claimers&#39; irresponsibility to work based on pure, square logic, just as most people who refuse to accept the basic and golden rule of RPGs - YOU make the rules. Period. - criticise games for their rules. In fact, most of the latter I know of really do not take their time to do anything on their own - new rules, for example - or abuse rules as they see fit&#33;

In the end, I understand that Balance also comes up as an issue even for those who accept its existence. For what is Balance, I ask one more?

As it seems, most people idealise the concept of Balance, thinking it is a rare quotient in the real world, one that, if achieved, allows a GM to work out his game without taking into account how powerful his players really are, since they are equally powerful&#33;

But this is the trap they fall in: Balance is not about how many people can you pummel to the ground when compared with another character; if it was like that, a wizard would wield a sword just as easilly as a fighter, without being in need of taking the appropriate feat&#33; That is the misconception most people realise they have made&#33;

Balance, in truth, is how much can a character provide to an adventuring party. A bard, for example, rarely is a real threat to a wizard, fighter, or cleric, if he fights them alone. Balance is how much will he be able to help within his own limits in any given situation&#33; Fighters are always helpful when it comes to muscle and strategy, barbarians to REAL muscle, rogues to slyness, rangers to stealth, wizards to versatility of magic, sorcerers to fire power, clerics to supporting others, druids to nature mastery, "holy warriors" to fighting their particular enemies (evil, good, law, chaos, outsiders, [whatever]), and bards at helping with anything and anyone, particulalry negotiations&#33;

[Osprey]

I&#39;ve been thinking about the issue of balance relative to D&D lately. The discussion on feats and skills has brought up an interesting point concerning the D&D version of balance: it is EXTREMELY combat-focused. The 3.x rules focus on combat abilities as the primary measure of power for a given character or monster.

Take the feats, for example: ever notice that the most core feats with prerequisites are combat-specific? Improved Critical, Weapon Specialization, Improved 2-Weapon Fighting, the Archery feats, etc. Yet not a single skill-enhancing feat has a prerequisite. Thankfully, 3.5 did add a nice selection of "paired" skill-boosting feats (Stealthy, et al, adding +2 to 2 related skills), yet any of these is available at any time, as if they&#39;re very secondary in power, and it is not unbalancing for any character to take these at any time. To me, this speaks clearly to the fact that skills take a back seat to combat ability in D&D.

If we look closely, we&#39;ll see that spells and magic items were made (and remade) in a similar spirit. Ever notice how cheap an item is that adds +10 to a skill?&#33;? That&#39;s like saying "You just added 10 levels of experience to your Hide skill thanks to that Cloak of Elvenkind&#33;" Yet compare to the massive expense of a +5 weapon or even +5 armor, not to mention +10 weapons, which are strictly epic. The message here is loud and clear: "A character&#39;s combat abilities are the key issue when deciding game balance. Skills, on the other hand, may reach epic ("superhuman") proportions very early in the game, and that&#39;s OK."

So here we have a reiteration of a classic theme: D&D is, at its heart, a hack and slash game, with all the other aspects of adventuring and roleplaying a set of secondary "flavor elements" that can help flesh out the adventure. But the battles are what&#39;s important. That&#39;s why there are detailed rules for XP awards for victory in battle, but only vague guidelines for story based awards, and these are distinctly "optional."

Don&#39;t get me wrong: skill sets and points are obviously figured in to class balance, it&#39;s just they are considered of secondary importance compared to "what fighting stats, spells, and abilities can this character lend to a fight?"

Keep in mind that this entire post is really dedicated to interpreting the "spirit" of the D&D ruleset and where those designers have focused their attentions regarding game balance.

In Birthright, however, we cannot directly translate D&D and still keep things balanced on the political level. Social interactions are a key aspect of politics, and skills in general are of primary importance. Imagine the modest 5th level general who acquires a 2000gp Crown of Command (a "minor item" in D&D terms) that adds +10 to his Warcraft checks. Suddenly he&#39;s one of Anuire&#39;s greatest field commanders&#33;

Skills are extremely important in Birthright, and in order to keep balance I believe a reorganization of rule priorities, and especially these magically enhanced bonuses, must be taken into account to keep the Birthright world balanced. Allowing magic items to mimic the bonuses from feats would be far more appropriate. At best, let them be similar to ability enhancers (+2/+4/+6), and have their costs reflect their utility in the game (not as valuable as ability enhancements, but more than the dirt-cheap rates that are currently set for them).