I think cloudboy's point is more subtle, though - in a great game, the mechanics are such that the "fluff" flows from them fairly easily.

So, dwarves are greedy, elves carry the grief of the ages, humans have the capacity for astonishing faith, and orcs are full of hatred. That's often true in D&D games - but each of those emotions have powerful mechanics behind them in Burning Wheel. Where's the dividing line?

It happens in D&D too, though it is less obvious. I'm not sure one should distinguish between them, even if it's often convenient. (And I do too.)

Now, as to the content questions that Anthony brought up:



Both. I like a lot of setting material, but I want new setting material. That is why I was so disappointed that they never came out with a Nentir Vale campaign setting book like they had scheduled. I am not a fan of FR, so when they killed the Nentir Vale book but then produced Neverwinter and Menzoberranzzan, I was a bit cheesed. I am tired of FR - it got more products and adventures than any other setting in 4e... I wanted Nentir Vale stuff, so I was disappointed. But once again, I digress.

The problem WotC had with 4e is not lack of content. It was the fact that most of the early 4e releases (and when I say early I mean the first 2.5 years) were largely "update" products - and they were largely focused on "how to use this thing in the 4e universe" filled with lots of crunch and not as much fluff.

Post-Essentials releases were much more focused on content that said: "Here is why this is a cool place for your adventurers to visit and interact with..." and it said this first, and then it said "And by the way, here are the rules about how to incorporate this, or something like it, into your game."

That is to say - early 4e releases had those two things switched, so the first thing you see is in-your-face here's how to use this! And the second thing, that you had to dig for (and try very hard to find in some cases) the things that make the product seem like more than stat blocks. You can see the difference by directly comparing Adventurer's Vault to Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, or MM1 to Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale.

This is only my opinion, of course, so YMMV. And to be fair, as I see it, 3.5 had this problem too - some of those books seemed like nothing but stat block after stat block. And this is where Paizo seems to have found a nice balance. While I am not a huge fan of Pathfinder (I didn't like 3.x much either) I do appreciate that they have worked hard to make their products contain the right mix of content.

The dividing line is this: If the item is accompanied by a rule that determines a specific thing, it is then crunch.

Dwarf Racial Traits

+2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom, –2 Charisma: Dwarves are both tough and wise, but also a bit gruff.

Medium: Dwarves are Medium creatures and have no bonuses or penalties due to their size.

Slow and Steady: Dwarves have a base speed of 20 feet, but their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance.

Darkvision: Dwarves can see in the dark up to 60 feet.

Defensive Training: Dwarves get a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant subtype.

Greed: Dwarves receive a +2 racial bonus on Appraise skill checks made to determine the price of nonmagical goods that contain precious metals or gemstones.

Hatred: Dwarves receive a +1 bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the orc and goblinoid subtypes due to special training against these hated foes.

Hardy: Dwarves receive a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison, spells, and spell-like abilities.

Stability: Dwarves receive a +4 racial bonus to their Combat Maneuver Defense when resisting a bull rush or trip attempt while standing on the ground.

Stonecunning: Dwarves receive a +2 bonus on Perception checks to potentially notice unusual stonework, such as traps and hidden doors located in stone walls or floors. They receive a check to notice such features whenever they pass within 10 feet of them, whether or not they are actively looking.

Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves are proficient with battleaxes, heavy picks, and warhammers, and treat any weapon with the word “dwarven” in its name as a martial weapon.

Languages: Dwarves begin play speaking Common and Dwarven. Dwarves with high Intelligence scores can choose from the following: Giant, Gnome, Goblin, Orc, Terran, and Undercommon.

The fluff and crunch have to come together.

Dwarf Racial Traits

+2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom, –2 Charisma: Dwarves are both tough and wise, but also a bit gruff.

Greed: Dwarves receive a +2 racial bonus on Appraise skill checks made to determine the price of nonmagical goods that contain precious metals or gemstones.

This may not be the kind of fluff people are looking for, but I'll be honest - I don't want fluff that isn't supported by rules in a fashion like this.

I fell like we have gotten off on an unimportant tangent here, but to address your point...

But I see this as the difference between someone who likes to play in a game where there is a rule for everything versus someone who is okay with a lot of unstated rules and rulings on the fly. Some people don't tend to like the rule-for-everything direction that d&d has gone, some seem to prefer it.

And to bring this back to the true discussion topic of this thread - how are those two people going to sit down at the same table and play the same game and both be satisfied? That is what WotC says in the goal for DnDNext, and I am not sure it is achievable.

I don't mean it like that at all - I don't like the rule-for-everything approach. But I think that the important things do need rules, and if you want to make dwarves feel like dwarves, there have to be rules to make them feel like dwarves - whatever that means in your world.

Or, perhaps, there needs to be a structure that supports allowing the DM to choose how to make them feel like dwarves.

I agree that's an implausible goal. But building a game that allows you to construct the kind of world/game that your table wants to play - that's a noble venture.

You want to play a politcal intrigue game? Don't play D&D. You want investigative drama? Don't play D&D. You want a morality play? Don't play D&D. You want kingdom building? Don't play D&D.

Whyever not? D&D, at least the older versions, is just fine for all that.

You can run political intrigue games with D&D without a hitch. Marvel Super Heroes is fine for investigative drama. Morality plays work well with Toon. If a game's rules are stable and internally consistent, they generally won't fall apart just because you decide to switch from one kind of story to another.


Ed.: OK, I'm afraid I somehow missed the bit about kingdom building when I first read your post. Since D&D has more mechanics to handle kingdom building than all but a handful of games, I assume the whole section I quoted was tongue in cheek? In that case, I completely agree with your point.