|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 6:07AM
#221
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@theMormegil
I thought v3rlon's examples weren't so bad. I agree they were expressed to make his point but hardly offensive. The attempt was a reduction to absurd. Would you not agree that if you are 100% committed to allowing any power to function regardless of flavor text that at some point that power functioning is going to be absurd? You gave a good fun answer but is there always a good fun answer? I think not. The second the entire rest of the players roll their eyes I've lost the group as DM. They won't be taking the game or campaign seriously after that.
Now in all truth. I am far less upset by reflavoring if it occurs prior to the start of a campaign. If the DM works with the player and they reflavor the powers to suit a concept thats fine by me. I might even consider that concept an existing class in my world and add some examples (probably still be very rare) throughout the world. That is a far cry though from doing stuff in game. For example if you reflavor your tangle spell to be fire then it won't work underwater. Whereas it might very well have worked if still the original spell. The reason is that the flavor as you like to call it is part of the mechanics to the rest of us. I'm not against changing it but I am against ignoring it throughout the gaming session.
I think you should consider this distinction. Being able to do it on the fly is far more game affecting than allowing it before the game starts. The DMs against it entirely just won't allow it. Those for it will allow it. If you remember I favored exposing the mechanics and providing guidelines on switching keywords and damage types while maintaining balance. I just don't want something that we started out and agreed was an ice spell working in situations where common sense says it wouldn't work. This doesn't mean I'm anti creativity. If you can give me a good enough reason I'll go with it as DM.
P.S. I did like your answer for using the mind reading ability of the bad guy. Of course you'd have to know that he could read your mind but I'm assuming that was known.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 6:34AM
#222
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
@theMormegil
I thought v3rlon's examples weren't so bad. I agree they were expressed to make his point but hardly offensive. The attempt was a reduction to absurd. Would you not agree that if you are 100% committed to allowing any power to function regardless of flavor text that at some point that power functioning is going to be absurd? You gave a good fun answer but is there always a good fun answer? I think not. The second the entire rest of the players roll their eyes I've lost the group as DM. They won't be taking the game or campaign seriously after that.
Agreed, there are limits. However, I tend to see it as a player motivation: describe your power in a way that makes it possible. If you can't, your power has no effect. Simple as that. Also, I almost never encounter situations like that, because ultimately the kinds of situation that spring stuff like this are extremely limited and I have an answer to all the obvious ones.
Now in all truth. I am far less upset by reflavoring if it occurs prior to the start of a campaign. If the DM works with the player and they reflavor the powers to suit a concept thats fine by me. I might even consider that concept an existing class in my world and add some examples (probably still be very rare) throughout the world. That is a far cry though from doing stuff in game. For example if you reflavor your tangle spell to be fire then it won't work underwater. Whereas it might very well have worked if still the original spell. The reason is that the flavor as you like to call it is part of the mechanics to the rest of us. I'm not against changing it but I am against ignoring it throughout the gaming session.
I think you should consider this distinction. Being able to do it on the fly is far more game affecting than allowing it before the game starts. The DMs against it entirely just won't allow it. Those for it will allow it. If you remember I favored exposing the mechanics and providing guidelines on switching keywords and damage types while maintaining balance. I just don't want something that we started out and agreed was an ice spell working in situations where common sense says it wouldn't work. This doesn't mean I'm anti creativity. If you can give me a good enough reason I'll go with it as DM.
P.S. I did like your answer for using the mind reading ability of the bad guy. Of course you'd have to know that he could read your mind but I'm assuming that was known.
"On the fly" reflavoring largely depends on the situation and on the character. By a certain definition of reflavoring, I don't allow it either. I won't allow Jon to cast fire spells, even if one of his powers clearly states he can choose to deal fire damages. [Sidenote: I would, in certain circumstances, allow him to deal fire damage with his lightning powers, if he has a good reason and it contributes to the game. But that's beside the point and is what I'd count as improvisation.]
However, I distinguish between reflavoring and describing. The above example with Jon is what I consider reflavoring. Here's an example of what I consider describing. Changing stuff like that on the fly is cool with me: if next time Jim decides to cast his Summon Firebeast (or whatever) spell by saying: "I hit the ground with my staff and a portal to the Plane of Elemental Fire opens in front of me. A beast made entirely of fire runs out and towards my enemies, charging the first one then breathing fire on him to boot." then I'd be cool with it. It's already been established Jim can open portals to the Elemental Plane of Fire and summon a fire creature to fight for him: I don't see why it has to always be in the same way. I repeat, most of the fun we have as a group (while in a combat sequence) comes from describing the way our characters fight. Powers and background give a guideline on what our characters can do, and from then on it's just improvisation.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 8:49AM
#223
|
|
|
Do I seriously believe people play like that? Yes. You can visit the character optimization thread and find numerous examples. Are you seriously suggesting people do not build characters like that?
I once played with someone who had a level one movement of 14 for some reason (and this was a character in play, so not just some exercise). Played with someone (else) who would spout the percentages for DPR comparing implement expertise versus "sucker feats" like astral fire and talking about which weapons work out the best (and built characters around this math). So I absolutely know for a fact people DO build characters like this.
Now, do people PLAY like that? Do they say that the quote about "sometimes the DM may rule that powers do not work" is meant for cases where the monster has some specific ability that specifically states said power doesn't work, and that this is to cover instances where you do not actually know the power being used? Yes. This is not my opinion. I have ran across people who argue that the power always works unless there is a rule specifying an exception.
Heck, look earlier in this thread for people trying to rationalize how you would knock an ooze prone. It is an OOZE. It can't be prone. It doesn't have legs, a top, or a bottom. It is an ooze. How does a monk's leg sweep "discom-blob-ulate" it when other melee strikes do not?
If you want to sell me that a lightning strike could jam its ganglionic net, and so an ooze could be effectively stunned, I am willing to listen, but you cannot kick one prone. Trying to rationalize how one could BE prone is like the Fire Mage trying to bluff his way past the dragoon guard, and yet there are people in this thread making a case for it.
And to the people trying to make the case for it, I understand the mathematics and balance of the power always working, but I would prefer the game not work like that.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 8:54AM
#224
|
|
|
For me mechanics to rule over fluff at all times then common sense, suspension of disbelief, and intolerance of the absurd have to be thrown out the window.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 9:18AM
#225
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Do I seriously believe people play like that? Yes. You can visit the character optimization thread and find numerous examples. Are you seriously suggesting people do not build characters like that?
I once played with someone who had a level one movement of 14 for some reason (and this was a character in play, so not just some exercise). Played with someone (else) who would spout the percentages for DPR comparing implement expertise versus "sucker feats" like astral fire and talking about which weapons work out the best (and built characters around this math). So I absolutely know for a fact people DO build characters like this.
Now, do people PLAY like that? Do they say that the quote about "sometimes the DM may rule that powers do not work" is meant for cases where the monster has some specific ability that specifically states said power doesn't work, and that this is to cover instances where you do not actually know the power being used? Yes. This is not my opinion. I have ran across people who argue that the power always works unless there is a rule specifying an exception.
Heck, look earlier in this thread for people trying to rationalize how you would knock an ooze prone. It is an OOZE. It can't be prone. It doesn't have legs, a top, or a bottom. It is an ooze. How does a monk's leg sweep "discom-blob-ulate" it when other melee strikes do not?
If you want to sell me that a lightning strike could jam its ganglionic net, and so an ooze could be effectively stunned, I am willing to listen, but you cannot kick one prone. Trying to rationalize how one could BE prone is like the Fire Mage trying to bluff his way past the dragoon guard, and yet there are people in this thread making a case for it.
And to the people trying to make the case for it, I understand the mathematics and balance of the power always working, but I would prefer the game not work like that.
I am one of the people that think that oozes should be able to be knocked prone, but only on a good enough description. 
Much of the stuff you say about flavor needing to be connected to the game's reality I just see as "yeah, the player needs to come up with a good description". Most of the talk about reflavoring I see floating around wouldn't even be considered at my table, because the player is free to describe any way that he likes, as long as it fits the story.
I showed you how the fire mage could describe his Bluff attempt. If the player came up with stuff like that in game, I would rule it that way. If a player described the ooze as being squashed, or the snake as being pinned to the ground by his lance, I'd give him the bonuses of prone. If a player just stated "I'm using Prone Attack 3 bis" I wouldn't, but that never happens at my table anyway, except with newer players.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 10:46AM
#226
|
Date Joined:
Jan 26, 2010
|
Here is my problem. I have tried many of the other flavorless systems.
Other flavorless systems?
Three powers (wizard spells for example):
In OD&D through 3.5E:
1) mechanics
2) mechanics
3) fl mech avo ni r cs (read all the underlined, then read all the italics; the "a" is both)
In 4E:
1) flavor; mechanics
2) flavor; mechanics
3) flavor; mechanics
That's right; in older versions about one spell in three had flavor text at all, and in that one case the flavor text was thoroughly intermingled with the mechanical effect. Which made it hard to determine what could be safely refluffed without mechanical impact.
And in 4E, EVERY class power - every spell, every prayer, every exploit - has flavor text. Readily identifiable. Explicitly declared to be safely refluffable without mechanical impact. Unless, of course, the DM doesn't allow refluffing at all (as some claim but I don't necessarily believe them).
So when you say "other flavorless systems", which version of D&D are you considering flavorless?
Not trying to be rude but please keep in mind that we are in the DnD Next section of the forum (and thus my comments are directed towards that). Not every comment is a personal affront to what ever DnD system you prefer.
If you read the sentences before the one sentence you plucked you will see what version of D&D I am considering flavorless.
So I completely understand the impetus to separate mechanics and flavor. And, intellectually I can appreciate the arguments for this sort of system.
Here is my problem. I have tried many of the other flavorless systems.
The answer? I am not talking about any existing D&D edition. I am talking about a hypothetical DnD Next where flavor has been completely removed (which is the extreme version of the argument I am trying to oppose). I am saying don't listen to people who say remove fluff and just give us bare bones mechanics. Give us fluff because that is what has kept me coming back.
There may be people debating the relative fluffyness (cute right?) of the previous of edition of DnD. I am not one of them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 10:52AM
#227
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@theMormegil
I don't think anyone is arguing that minor descriptive flare is bad. As long as it fits within the bounds of what the spell does I'm all for it. Those bounds vary for different people of course but a summoning spell working the way you said it worked is fine by me. A fireball working that way maybe not.
I wish we had two different terms. Then I could favor one and be against the other.
1. A system that lets me build a wide variety of powers/spells beyond what the game provides and the assurance that those powers/spells are appropriate.
2. A system for monsters too.
3. Once a power is defined with it's flavor (e.g. fireball is an explosive fire spell) I want the spell to be adjudicated as it is defined.
4. I'm not against the DM deciding in some cases that a spell is allowed when I might not have allowed it on first impulse. Creative uses of spells is good not bad. It just has to meet some threshhold or believability. That varies by person. Groups learn their DM.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 12:18PM
#228
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
@theMormegil
I thought v3rlon's examples weren't so bad. I agree they were expressed to make his point but hardly offensive. The attempt was a reduction to absurd. Would you not agree that if you are 100% committed to allowing any power to function regardless of flavor text that at some point that power functioning is going to be absurd?
This is somewhere we differ, Emerikol. I generally commit a power to working as long as there's no mechanical reason it shouldn't, regardless of the flavor involved. I do think the mechanics should back up the flavor, but when they depart we just roll with it. Fire spells work underwater, Ice spells work on the surface of lava. Why? Because the mechanics don't say they shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 12:23PM
#229
|
|
|
No anderkrag the rules don't.....common sense does however.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 12:25PM
#230
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2011
|
All right, let me try this once more.
Earlier in the thread, talking about a feat that would change the flavor of a spell, someone asked "why they would ever make such a feat?" Someone else asserted "it would be a waste of ink."
Now I think I understand the disconnect. I also feel I can better explain why I feel that 4e does not feel like it encourages role playing and storytelling as much.
...
Now I feel that people are so wrapped up in 4e's mathematical balance that most people do not want to mess with saying that "well entangling roots isn't going to work against the Avatar of Round-up*" because they are afraid of creating imbalance. Now I understand that no one wants to sit around being useless all the time, but not everyone will contribute equally to every fight.
Finally, if I reflavored my red fireball to a yellow one, it would matter a whole heck of a lot to some versions of Green Lantern.
*(Round-up is an all-purpose plant and weed killer)
I agree with TheMormegil in that your examples were completely biased, but, more importantly: your examples doesn't point how anything exposed in them is 4the editions fault.
Your example could be easily translated to other editions of D&D or other systems (except maybe the ones in which there's no way or no point in optimizing).
You feel, as you state at the start of that paragraph, that "most people" do not want to mess with the RAW because they are afraid of creating imbalance. This "most people" you mention, what actual percentage of the total of players do represent? Have you obtained precise mathematical knowledge of the relative number of people that do not want to mess with RAW? Because if this is only your feelings, feelings can be aything but precise. Specially #InMyHeart.
But if you have that data, please, tell us where did you obtain it, because I'm sure that having access to such a source of analytical data could be very useful for me and the roleplaying community as a whole.
Do I seriously believe people play like that? Yes. You can visit the character optimization thread and find numerous examples. Are you seriously suggesting people do not build characters like that?
I once played with someone who had a level one movement of 14 for some reason (and this was a character in play, so not just some exercise). Played with someone (else) who would spout the percentages for DPR comparing implement expertise versus "sucker feats" like astral fire and talking about which weapons work out the best (and built characters around this math). So I absolutely know for a fact people DO build characters like this.
Now, do people PLAY like that? Do they say that the quote about "sometimes the DM may rule that powers do not work" is meant for cases where the monster has some specific ability that specifically states said power doesn't work, and that this is to cover instances where you do not actually know the power being used? Yes. This is not my opinion. I have ran across people who argue that the power always works unless there is a rule specifying an exception.
Hmmm... Aren't all these examples mainly some people's (player and DM) problem instead of a RAW problem?
I know people who tried to convince their DM in nWoD that a 1st dot in one vampiric power could be used to obfuscate/conceal buildings... even from the people inside the building... because the paragraph that described the machanical workings of the power only said that it was more difficult to use on bigger things. They convinced the DM, btw. They later used that same power to ride an obfuscated car on the streets. It was funny in a patethic and sad way. But it's the DM's fault first for accepting the RAW despite knowing that wasn't the intent, then the players' fault for trying to exploit the rules and finally, maybe, the writer's fault for being a little vague on the limits of the power.
People can act like dicks IRL, much more easily so in an RPG because there's no real consequences. But that doesn't have anything to do with 4th edition's way of writing, formatting or explaining things. Dicks can be dicks in any P&P RPG ever published, with or without polyhedrical dices, AEDU powers, dungeons and/or dragons.
Heck, look earlier in this thread for people trying to rationalize how you would knock an ooze prone. It is an OOZE. It can't be prone. It doesn't have legs, a top, or a bottom. It is an ooze. How does a monk's leg sweep "discom-blob-ulate" it when other melee strikes do not?
If you want to sell me that a lightning strike could jam its ganglionic net, and so an ooze could be effectively stunned, I am willing to listen, but you cannot kick one prone. Trying to rationalize how one could BE prone is like the Fire Mage trying to bluff his way past the dragoon guard, and yet there are people in this thread making a case for it.
And to the people trying to make the case for it, I understand the mathematics and balance of the power always working, but I would prefer the game not work like that.
There are some monsters (at least one IIRC) inmune to prone effects but, anyway, what some users were trying to say is that the mechanical consequences of being prone could be applied to any enemy by ignoring the "prone" part and focusing on the "-2 to attack, +2 AC vs ranged, need to spend MoveA or only crawl, etc".
Can a monk kick an ooze so hard that, for example, sends ripples through its structure and liquifies it slightly (somehow replicating the mechanical effects of "prone")? In the real world there's no way. In fantasy/fiction? Depends on the eye of the beholder* (the person who beholds, not the eyestalked monster).
Obviously, you're entitled to your own opinion in each particular situation and in the general sense, and the "Logic vs. Prone Ooze/Swarm/Serpent" case is an especially interesting and convoluted one, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that some people will rule that the mechanical effects remain, if they want, because both your stance on this and theirs are supported by the RAW as seen in:
Now, I hate to mention this, yet again, but the 4th ed PHB does provide for the lack of ability to use powers. In specific, it states:
"Your DM might rule that you can't use powers in special circumstances, such as when your hands are tied" ~PHB pg 54
|
|
|
