You wouldn't play a game that had examples flavor text.
Not true. I rather enjoy the flavor text of Magic cards, for example.
What I wouldn't play is a game that had specific, uninspiring flavor text tightly integrated into the mechanics.
Not true. I rather enjoy the flavor text of Magic cards, for example.What I wouldn't play is a game that had specific, uninspiring flavor text tightly integrated into the mechanics.
Crappy, intrusive fluff which overlaps with mechanics certainly qualifies.
Another view that just makes discussion impossible. As long as you continue to insist that fluff somehow overlaps with the mechanics, there is no way to have an honest discussion. I think I showed through direct quotes from the Playtest packet that the flavor text has no impact on the mechanics at all.
Saying that you dislike the fluff is a valid argument. Whether or not you like it is subjective, and certainly we want the best written text possible. But intrusive? It is completely separate from the mechanics! I guess you are saying it is "intrusive" because it is in the book...
It may be that he is one of those who considers fluff to be rules text. I've run into that sticking point during the refluffing argument.
Yeah, I remember that too, and from things he has said it might be the case. But honestly, even if you are someone who considers fluff to be rules text that still isn't a good argument for removing all flavor simply because you might not like it. Because there will be real rules that you don't like too...should the game be D&D for all or D&D for one?
It is sad that I end up having to quote this so much, but people seem to need constant reminders.
"The first rule of being a good Dm is to remember that the rules are a tool that you and the players use to have a good time. The rules aren't in charge. You, the DM, are the one in charge of the game. Guide the play experience and the use of the rules so that as many of your players have a good time as possible." (DM Guidelines, page 1).
So, say you hate the presented flavor for spells. Simply don't use it. If you are the DM, and your player hates the flavor, certainly don't make him use it. Flavor text doesn't tell you how to play the game. You tell you how to play the game. If you force yourself to play a certain way that you find stupid, you have only yourself to blame.
Another view that just makes discussion impossible. As long as you continue to insist that fluff somehow overlaps with the mechanics, there is no way to have an honest discussion. I think I showed through direct quotes from the Playtest packet that
What I wouldn't play is a game that had specific, uninspiring flavor text tightly integrated into the mechanics.
Thats a sligthly different argument. You might find folk behind the separation of salt and pepper.
Like myself. You should definitely be able to replace the fluff as you see fit. For the most part, this isn't so hard. Mechanical integration makes it hard, but a lot of things aren't that tightly integrated. 3e had a bunch of problems with this through tight integration of fluff (the biggest example of which was alignments), I'm hoping they leanred better.
Thats a sligthly different argument. You might find folk behind the separation of salt and pepper.[/quote]Like myself. You should definitely be able to replace the fluff as you see fit. For the most part, this isn't so hard. Mechanical integration
Fluff - even if it is pure fluff, absolutely and explicitly differentiated from rules (as these spell descriptions are not) - is, by definition, just one possible flavor for a D&D experience. One particular vision, out of the infinitude of potential options.
I find it fascinating, arithezoo, that you consider taking such exclusionary rhetoric out of spell descriptions to be somehow *more* limiting, making it D&D "for one" rather than "for all." Baffling, really, in its complete reversal of the definitions of what's at stake.
It is the inclusion of such mechafluff which promotes a single, particular playstyle, not its exclusion.
Fluff - even if it is pure fluff, absolutely and explicitly differentiated from rules (as these spell descriptions are not) - is, by definition, just one possible flavor for a D&D experience. One particular vision, out of the infinitude of potential
I really don't have a problem with re-fluffing, I've done it before, but I do have a problem with it when it deviates so far from mechanics as to be totally unrecognizable. I draw the line when the barbarian swaps his fluff out with the rogues, but the mechanics for both class are functionally the same.
I really don't have a problem with re-fluffing, I've done it before, but I do have a problem with it when it deviates so far from mechanics as to be totally unrecognizable. I draw the line when the barbarian swaps his fluff out with the rogues, but t
I really don't have a problem with re-fluffing, I've done it before, but I do have a problem with it when it deviates so far from mechanics as to be totally unrecognizable. I draw the line when the barbarian swaps his fluff out with the rogues, but the mechanics for both class are functionally the same.
Yup, there is always going to be that refluffing line somewhere where it has just gone too far.
Yup, there is always going to be that refluffing line somewhere where it has just gone too far.
I really don't have a problem with re-fluffing, I've done it before, but I do have a problem with it when it deviates so far from mechanics as to be totally unrecognizable. I draw the line when the barbarian swaps his fluff out with the rogues, but the mechanics for both class are functionally the same.
Yup, there is always going to be that refluffing line somewhere where it has just gone too far.
While I agree with you that there is a line, the placement of it is entirely subjective.
Also, Zaramon, if the barbarian and the rogue are mechanically functionally the same, then that makes them perfect candidates for refluffing (actually, it means that one of those classes should probably just go because it's unnecessary redundancy).
Yup, there is always going to be that refluffing line somewhere where it has just gone too far.[/quote]While I agree with you that there is a line, the placement of it is entirely subjective.Also, Zaramon, if the barbarian and the rogue are mechanica
*blows the dust off his account* Something that actually got me to log in and reply. Yikes!
Fluff is just that- fluff. Most anyone can tell the difference between fluff and mechanics. There is no need to remove the descriptions, as they are merely examples. Even in their current state, they are seperate enough that there should be no qualms about it being taken as rule.
To use the restaurant analogy, the burgers in the menu come with a specific list of toppings. You can request that they be tuned more to your liking on a case-by-case basis.
The 1e example is just as bad, in a way. It drains the heat from the target(s) to deal dammage, ergo, if I were to enforce the fluff as rules, it could not damage anything which did not have heat (we'll say we're in a snowy wasteland fighting skeletons or somesuch things.)
Lastly, if the game is designed so that in order for spells to be cast, you must imagine certain things in order to physically invoke them, then so be it. There are many components to a spell, be they verbal, somatic, or material. I do not see this as any different. Knowledge checks are much the same, I roll, the DM tells me what I know. Or if I almost succeed on a Perception check and the DM (being merciful) tells me that "You think you saw something, but aren't sure..." I don't suddenly lash out and tell him that he doesn't tell me what to think, do I?
EDIT: Also, the DM is someone that we need to trust. I started DMing new, and I let people get away with all sorts of stuff. The margin of people who would, in these days, enforce the fluff as rules without it being a holdover bad habit from ye olden days, I would imagine is incredibly small. I cannot say for certain, of course, but that is my feeling on the matter.
*blows the dust off his account* Something that actually got me to log in and reply. Yikes! Fluff is just that- fluff. Most anyone can tell the difference between fluff and mechanics. There is no need to remove the descriptions, as they are mere
I really don't have a problem with re-fluffing, I've done it before, but I do have a problem with it when it deviates so far from mechanics as to be totally unrecognizable. I draw the line when the barbarian swaps his fluff out with the rogues, but the mechanics for both class are functionally the same.
Yup, there is always going to be that refluffing line somewhere where it has just gone too far.
As long as you're not coming up with fluff that completely contradicts the mechanical effects, I see no reason not go all out on it.
Yup, there is always going to be that refluffing line somewhere where it has just gone too far.[/quote]As long as you're not coming up with fluff that completely contradicts the mechanical effects, I see no reason not go all out on it.
Fluff is just that- fluff. Most anyone can tell the difference between fluff and mechanics. There is no need to remove the descriptions, as they are merely examples.
So one day I was on the internet and saying about how almost anyone would be smart enough to work it out then nek minute....
So one day I was on the internet and saying about how almost anyone would be smart enough to work it out then nek minute....;)
Fluff is just that- fluff. Most anyone can tell the difference between fluff and mechanics. There is no need to remove the descriptions, as they are merely examples.
So one day I was on the internet and saying about how almost anyone would be smart enough to work it out then nek minute....
Oh, don't get me started....
So one day I was on the internet and saying about how almost anyone would be smart enough to work it out then nek minute....;)[/quote]Oh, don't get me started....
I really don't have a problem with re-fluffing, I've done it before, but I do have a problem with it when it deviates so far from mechanics as to be totally unrecognizable. I draw the line when the barbarian swaps his fluff out with the rogues, but the mechanics for both class are functionally the same.
Yup, there is always going to be that refluffing line somewhere where it has just gone too far.
While I agree with you that there is a line, the placement of it is entirely subjective.
Yes and also would be subject to the play group as a whole too.
Also, Zaramon, if the barbarian and the rogue are mechanically functionally the same, then that makes them perfect candidates for refluffing (actually, it means that one of those classes should probably just go because it's unnecessary redundancy).
Well technically if you were refluffing a barbarian as a rogue then they would be mechanically the same. You would just be doing battle axe damage with what "appears" to be a dagger.
Yup, there is always going to be that refluffing line somewhere where it has just gone too far.[/quote]While I agree with you that there is a line, the placement of it is entirely subjective.[/quote]Yes and also would be subject to the play group as
I really don't have a problem with re-fluffing, I've done it before, but I do have a problem with it when it deviates so far from mechanics as to be totally unrecognizable. I draw the line when the barbarian swaps his fluff out with the rogues, but the mechanics for both class are functionally the same.
Yup, there is always going to be that refluffing line somewhere where it has just gone too far.
While I agree with you that there is a line, the placement of it is entirely subjective.
Yes and also would be subject to the play group as a whole too.
Also, Zaramon, if the barbarian and the rogue are mechanically functionally the same, then that makes them perfect candidates for refluffing (actually, it means that one of those classes should probably just go because it's unnecessary redundancy).
Well technically if you were refluffing a barbarian as a rogue then they would be mechanically the same. You would just be doing battle axe damage with what "appears" to be a dagger.
Battle axe damage... Oh you mean that thing.. hit points... yup you also do that with the sword and other stuff too.
Yup, there is always going to be that refluffing line somewhere where it has just gone too far.[/quote]While I agree with you that there is a line, the placement of it is entirely subjective.[/quote]Yes and also would be subject to the play group as
Shedeo, you manage to significantly contradict yourself twice in one posting. First you declare the distinction between fluff and mechanics is obvious...then turn around and try to justify the fluff as a mechanic. You follow up by declaring that even new DMs should somehow 'jest know' how to handle imprecision in rules and such...then you relate how in your own experience, as a new DM you had difficulty establishing clear rulings for players, letting them "get away with all sorts of stuff."
Not as egregious a self-contradiction as Arithezoo's but pretty bad. Care to reclarify?
Shedeo, you manage to significantly contradict yourself twice in one posting. First you declare the distinction between fluff and mechanics is obvious...then turn around and try to justify the fluff as a mechanic. You follow up by declaring that e
Shedeo, you manage to significantly contradict yourself twice in one posting. First you declare the distinction between fluff and mechanics is obvious...then turn around and try to justify the fluff as a mechanic. You follow up by declaring that even new DMs should somehow 'jest know' how to handle imprecision in rules and such...then you relate how in your own experience, as a new DM you had difficulty establishing clear rulings for players, letting them "get away with all sorts of stuff." Not as egregious a self-contradiction as Arithezoo's but pretty bad. Care to reclarify?
Of course, certainly.
My reference to using the fluff as mechanics was meant to be seen as inane and rediculous (in regards to the older version of Cone of Cold.) There is a desperate need for a sarcasm font, I swear.
Also, I had no problem establishing rule boundaries with my players, I'm not sure where you got that from. What I meant was that, in regards to how they decided to execute their actions, it was entirely up to them how they did it beyond mechanical structures, even though I was a new DM. In essence, I let them get away with describing it however they want, and bent the rules for fun's sake on many occaisions.
Additionally, there is, at least in this instance, no imprecision in the rules.
Of course, certainly.My reference to using the fluff as mechanics was meant to be seen as inane and rediculous (in regards to the older version of Cone of Cold.) There is a desperate need for a sarcasm font, I swear.Also, I had no problem establishi
I think Professordaddy just needs to put down the 1e and play a little refluff-heavy 4e to get his mind off things.
In all honesty making the game your own through any means (changing the way a particular race looks, veering off the path of a trope or stereotype, changing a setting or removing/adding/changing the way things look in your world) is what makes this game fun for a lot of people. Most people, in my experience, don't just go through modules, reading through the pages like a checklist. They adapt, change and alter a lot of what is written about the fluff of the spell to make things feel interesting to them.
Lets take for example a character I played in 4e that was very well loved at the table. Now I rewrote every one of his abilities from the original Paladin flavor because I liked how the paladin mechanically played but didn't like one particular aspect. The aspect I didn't like was that he was required to use a weapon. I wanted to wear plate and punch people really hard.
The first step was to talk to my DM and explain why I was wearing plate and where I wanted to go with the character. Please try to keep everything following that has been refluffed in a strong ukranian accent if you can . Mani the Manhammer played with what was, mechanically, a mordenkraad as his weapon (a big 2 handed mace) but it was refluffed into being his fists. We agreed I wouldn't abuse my "open hands" as long as my weapon was equipped and that, mechanically, it would function exactly like the weapon.
I decided that I wanted to take it two steps further. The first step was to describe why Mani wouldn't hold anything in his hands. Well... he was a bit of an obsessive about clean hands. Which led to the character wearing a bib over his chest to wipe blood and gore on (he turned it around backwards when things were getting heavy) and also set up for an eventual plot point where I got a pet sheep to wipe my hands on after crazy fights (and to carry my gear).
The second step was renaming / refluffing my abilities. Mani was the type of character who would actually name his abilities (bare-knuckle boxer in underground boxing rings). So I took everything that wasn't nailed down to the mechanics and rewrote it. I liked the 2nd person perspective so I made the flavor text as if the italics were his old boxing coach with my level 1 powers. The later abilities were less that, and more how Mani what Mani thought he would say if he were there.
Paladin Power:
Heedless Fury You lay into your foe without regard to your own safety. EncounterDivine, Weapon Standard ActionMelee weapon Target: One creature Attack: Strength vs. AC Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you take a -5 penalty to all defenses until the end of your next turn.
Mani's Power:
Brick on a String You burn everything you got -take advantage of your openings- and hit hard as you can Mani-boy. If they is a blood splat they can't take give you the what for you'll be leaving yourself open to. EncounterDivine, Weapon Standard ActionMelee weapon Target: One creature Attack: Strength vs. AC Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you take a -5 penalty to all defenses until the end of your next turn.
Paladin Power:
Bless Weapon You recite an ancient prayer to imbue your weapon with the power of pure faith. DailyDivine, Radiant Minor ActionPersonal Effect: Choose one weapon you are wielding. Until the end of the encounter, you gain a +1 power bonus to attack rolls with that weapon, and it deals 1d6 extra radiant damage on a hit. In addition, you can score a critical hit with the weapon on a roll of 18–20 against creatures vulnerable to radiant damage.
Mani's Power:
Modda's Kiss You gotta keep that holy symbol wrapped tight and close around the palm-a-your hand. If the judge saw you with that little bit of metal you'd be toast. Hell, if that otha fighta saw your eyes roll back a little when you pressed your lips to your knuckles he'd be an idiot not to take you our on da spot. DailyDivine, Radiant Minor ActionPersonal Effect: Choose one weapon you are wielding. Until the end of the encounter, you gain a +1 power bonus to attack rolls with that weapon, and it deals 1d6 extra radiant damage on a hit. In addition, you can score a critical hit with the weapon on a roll of 18–20 against creatures vulnerable to radiant damage.
Is this "wrong play". Does having the default fluff (as long as it isn't directly tied to mechanics) effect this style of play at all? My opinion is no. Do I think that the original fluff shouldn't be there at all? No again. Just because I want to change it doesn't mean others won't. Just because I have a good feel for how I want my character and don't want/need to read any of the fluff doesn't mean someone else won't like it. Most times I read a power in 4th I completely ignore the italicized part, but that doesn't mean someone else won't enjoy it.
To use something from earlier in the thread, the MtG flavortext. I used to play MtG a lot and during games I rarely, if ever, looked at the flavortext. But there were times when I really liked going through an entire deck and just reading the flavortext. In short, more isn't automatically (or in my mind even default) bad.
I think Professordaddy just needs to put down the 1e and play a little refluff-heavy 4e to get his mind off things.In all honesty making the game your own through any means (changing the way a particular race looks, veering off the path of a trope or
I think Professordaddy just needs to put down the 1e and play a little refluff-heavy 4e to get his mind off things.
And maybe you should put down the board-skirmish game variant and pick up fluff-heavy 1st Ed to get your mind on things.
I know right, cause not having the same viewpoint as the OP means my argument is completely invalid and I should just conform.
Why didn't I think of that?
And maybe you should put down the board-skirmish game variant and pick up fluff-heavy 1st Ed to get your mind on things.[/quote]I know right, cause not having the same viewpoint as the OP means my argument is completely invalid and I should just conf
I think Professordaddy just needs to put down the 1e and play a little refluff-heavy 4e to get his mind off things.
And maybe you should put down the board-skirmish game variant and pick up fluff-heavy 1st Ed to get your mind on things.
I know right, cause not having the same viewpoint as the OP means my argument is completely invalid and I should just conform.
What does your viewpoint have to do with it, what argument, and what is this conforming you type of?
The fact you're being defensive says a lot...those 1st Ed reprints came out a few months ago, they're so choice, I highly recommend you pick them up. *said like Ferris Bueller*
And maybe you should put down the board-skirmish game variant and pick up fluff-heavy 1st Ed to get your mind on things.[/quote]I know right, cause not having the same viewpoint as the OP means my argument is completely invalid and I should just conf
You wouldn't play a game that had examples flavor text.
Not true. I rather enjoy the flavor text of Magic cards, for example.
What I wouldn't play is a game that had specific, uninspiring flavor text tightly integrated into the mechanics.
Would you mind expanding on this? What, specifically, do you enjoy about the flavor text of Magic cards? Do you find it to be inspiring? Do you feel that it isn't specific?
Why doesn't the flavor in the playtest packet inspire you? Why do you feel that the flavor in the playtest packet is tightly integrated into the mechanics?
It is odd how some people call 1st ed "fluff-heavy" and others say that it has the least fluff of any edition.Not true. I rather enjoy the flavor text of Magic cards, for example.What I wouldn't play is a game that had specific, uninspiring flavor te
What does your viewpoint have to do with it, what argument, and what is this conforming you type of?
The fact you're being defensive says a lot...those 1st Ed reprints came out a few months ago, they're so choice, I highly recommend you pick them up. *said like Ferris Bueller*
Not being defensive, I was just poking you .
I have all the old 1e books. I think they are archaic and not suited for the types of games that myself and the players I play with like. Doesn't mean its bad, just not my taste.
Not being defensive, I was just poking you :-P.I have all the old 1e books. I think they are archaic and not suited for the types of games that myself and the players I play with like. Doesn't mean its bad, just not my taste.
I just dipped into the spell list to see what all the fuss is about, and came up with this.
Cloudkill 5th-level conjuration To master this spell, you must be familiar with one of a few nameless, reeking Abyssal layers where the very atmosphere is death to mortals and demons alike.
...or I could use mustard gas.
I can ignore this piece of fluff, and no one at my table would bat an eye. But it sure sounds like a rule. As a young player, I would have assumed that it was a rule, meaning I couldn't take the spell unless the campaign happened to take a jaunt through the Abyss. If there had been an experienced GM around they would have corrected me, but there wasn't. When I first picked up a D&D manual, it was just me and the book.
We here on the boards are experienced players, and long used to picking out which pieces of text are fluff. To test whether this passage is confusing, we would have to find an inexperienced potential new player, show them this spell, and ask them "To learn this spell, do you need to be familiar with one of the nameless, reeking Abyssal layers where the very atmosphere is death to mortals and demons alike?"
I'll bet they say yes, and that's an undesireable point of confusion.
I just dipped into the spell list to see what all the fuss is about, and came up with this....or I could use mustard gas.I can ignore this piece of fluff, and no one at my table would bat an eye. But it sure sounds like a rule. As a young player, I w
I'll bet they say yes, and that's an undesireable point of confusion.
I had just assumed that it meant having read about it in a tome somewhere along the line, since that's what wizards do, but in this case I will agree that it could be easily interpreted in a bad way. However, if it said something along the lines of "This spell invokes the images of one of the few nameless, reeking Abyssal layers..." etc, then it would be fine. It doesn't however, but lets not forget that this is still an early playtest document.
If all the spells were written in the same manner as, say, Spider Climb or Wall of Flire, then that would be alright with me.
I had just assumed that it meant having read about it in a tome somewhere along the line, since that's what wizards do, but in this case I will agree that it could be easily interpreted in a bad way. However, if it said something along the lines of
I just dipped into the spell list to see what all the fuss is about, and came up with this.
Cloudkill 5th-level conjuration To master this spell, you must be familiar with one of a few nameless, reeking Abyssal layers where the very atmosphere is death to mortals and demons alike.
...or I could use mustard gas.
I can ignore this piece of fluff, and no one at my table would bat an eye. But it sure sounds like a rule. As a young player, I would have assumed that it was a rule, meaning I couldn't take the spell unless the campaign happened to take a jaunt through the Abyss. If there had been an experienced GM around they would have corrected me, but there wasn't. When I first picked up a D&D manual, it was just me and the book.
We here on the boards are experienced players, and long used to picking out which pieces of text are fluff. To test whether this passage is confusing, we would have to find an inexperienced potential new player, show them this spell, and ask them "To learn this spell, do you need to be familiar with one of the nameless, reeking Abyssal layers where the very atmosphere is death to mortals and demons alike?"
I'll bet they say yes, and that's an undesireable point of confusion.
Putting aside your conjecture regarding the potential confusion of new players (because without an actual survey of new players, such conjecture is pointless), what about rewriting the flavor as something like this:
"With a few arcane words of power, you conjure a cloud of gas from a nameless, reeking Abyssal layer where the very atmosphere is death to mortals and demons alike."
Now it is flavor rich without the use of words like "must".
Given that the book clearly delineates between flavor and mechanics, I don't see any problem with the former. If you read the section on magic (which you should do if you don't have anyone else to teach you the game), you will learn that the first section is pure flavor and background text, with no impact on mechanics. The next sections, clearly labeled as Requirements, Effect, Special, etc., tell you about specific mechanics and game rules.
But the later still contains the same sort of flavor, so to me it works just as well.
...or I could use mustard gas.I can ignore this piece of fluff, and no one at my table would bat an eye. But it sure sounds like a rule. As a young player, I would have assumed that it was a rule, meaning I couldn't take the spell unless the campaign
What does your viewpoint have to do with it, what argument, and what is this conforming you type of?
The fact you're being defensive says a lot...those 1st Ed reprints came out a few months ago, they're so choice, I highly recommend you pick them up. *said like Ferris Bueller*
Not being defensive, I was just poking you .
You could at least buy me flowers first!
Not being defensive, I was just poking you :-P.[/quote]You could at least buy me flowers first!
Now it is flavor rich without the use of words like "must".
This had also occured to me, that the real problem with the description is the usage of the word "Must." Also, while I agree that it could be misconstrued as law, from a standpoint of pure RAW, it does not state in the "Requirements" section that you MUST be familliar with it, ergo, to enforce such a stricture is incorrect. As always, however, DMs are not perfect, and I can imagine that many could do so, wrongly, in this case.
This had also occured to me, that the real problem with the description is the usage of the word "Must." Also, while I agree that it could be misconstrued as law, from a standpoint of pure RAW, it does not state in the "Requirements" section that yo
What does your viewpoint have to do with it, what argument, and what is this conforming you type of?
The fact you're being defensive says a lot...those 1st Ed reprints came out a few months ago, they're so choice, I highly recommend you pick them up. *said like Ferris Bueller*
Not being defensive, I was just poking you .
You could at least buy me flowers first!
Flowers, just for you.
Not being defensive, I was just poking you :-P.[/quote]You could at least buy me flowers first! [/quote]Flowers, just for you.
What does your viewpoint have to do with it, what argument, and what is this conforming you type of?
The fact you're being defensive says a lot...those 1st Ed reprints came out a few months ago, they're so choice, I highly recommend you pick them up. *said like Ferris Bueller*
Not being defensive, I was just poking you .
You could at least buy me flowers first!
Flowers, just for you.
Those would have been perfect about 10 years ago.
Not being defensive, I was just poking you :-P.[/quote]You could at least buy me flowers first! [/quote]Flowers, just for you.[/quote]Those would have been perfect about 10 years ago.
Now it is flavor rich without the use of words like "must".
This had also occured to me, that the real problem with the description is the usage of the word "Must." Also, while I agree that it could be misconstrued as law, from a standpoint of pure RAW, it does not state in the "Requirements" section that you MUST be familliar with it, ergo, to enforce such a stricture is incorrect. As always, however, DMs are not perfect, and I can imagine that many could do so, wrongly, in this case.
Yup...people keep talking about flavor being the rule, which I will never understand, because the book explains the difference in no uncertain terms.
Certainly I can imagine all sorts of terrible things done by bad DMs, but at a certain point I realize that no amount of rules will stop bad DMs from doing terrible things.
So while I have no problem with rephrasing the flavor to make it more appealing, I don't think the rules need to be written with the aim of preventing bad DMs from doing terrible things. The rules already make the two most important things clear (in my mind):
1) Fluff and flavor are separate from mechanics and rules. 2) The rules aren't in charge. If you dislike things, if certain aspects of the rules annoy you or your players or make the game less fun, then change them!
Also...do I detect a....ahem...budding romance?
This had also occured to me, that the real problem with the description is the usage of the word "Must." Also, while I agree that it could be misconstrued as law, from a standpoint of pure RAW, it does not state in the "Requirements" section that yo
The 1e example is just as bad, in a way. It drains the heat from the target(s) to deal dammage, ergo, if I were to enforce the fluff as rules, it could not damage anything which did not have heat (we'll say we're in a snowy wasteland fighting skeletons or somesuch things.)
The heat of a snowy wasteland and bones have quite alot of heat actually. Absolute 0 is about -459 Fahrenheight. A snowy wasteland of maybe -30 degrees is hot compared to that.
So even the bones of skeletons have quite a bit of heat to drain.
Its a compulsion. Sorry.
The heat of a snowy wasteland and bones have quite alot of heat actually. Absolute 0 is about -459 Fahrenheight. A snowy wasteland of maybe -30 degrees is hot compared to that.So even the bones of skeletons have quite a bit of heat to drain.Its a c
The 1e example is just as bad, in a way. It drains the heat from the target(s) to deal dammage, ergo, if I were to enforce the fluff as rules, it could not damage anything which did not have heat (we'll say we're in a snowy wasteland fighting skeletons or somesuch things.)
So even the bones of skeletons have quite a bit of heat to drain.
Its a compulsion. Sorry.
Oh, I am fully aware of that fact. I wasn't clear enough in that post, but that particular section was meant to be seen as rediculous, something that I could do, were I bad DM (perhaps I should include that little clause?)
Although if I were to continue that line of horrid logic, it would bring up the question of that spell doing the same amount of damage against skeletons in freezing temperatures as it does against humans in temperate ones, but the short answer is that fluff is not to be taken as law.
So even the bones of skeletons have quite a bit of heat to drain.Its a compulsion. Sorry.[/quote]Oh, I am fully aware of that fact. I wasn't clear enough in that post, but that particular section was meant to be seen as rediculous, something that I
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Oh, I am fully aware of that fact. I wasn't clear enough in that post, but that particular section was meant to be seen as rediculous, something that I could do, were I bad DM (perhaps I should include that little clause?)
Although if I were to continue that line of horrid logic, it would bring up the question of that spell doing the same amount of damage against skeletons in freezing temperatures as it does against humans in temperate ones, but the short answer is that fluff is not to be taken as law.
I actually enjoy discussing with people the technicalities of what should REALLY happen, but I never bring it into play. The fidelity of the rules are not meant for that level of detail.
I actually enjoy discussing with people the technicalities of what should REALLY happen, but I never bring it into play. The fidelity of the rules are not meant for that level of detail.
"With a few arcane words of power,you conjure a cloud of gas from a nameless, reeking Abyssal layer where the very atmosphere is death to mortals and demons alike.
Try "this spell conjures..." rather than "With a few arcane words you conjure..." Also drop the unnecessary modifiers "nameless" and "reeking" & drop every thing after the word "layer."
Lose the imperative. Lose the 2nd person p.o.v. Stop imagining you're Tolstoy. Leave the playing to the players.
Try "this spell conjures..." rather than "With a few arcane words you conjure..." Also drop the unnecessary modifiers "nameless" and "reeking" & drop every thing after the word "layer."Lose the imperative. Lose the 2nd person p.o.v. Stop imaginin
"With a few arcane words of power,you conjure a cloud of gas from a nameless, reeking Abyssal layer where the very atmosphere is death to mortals and demons alike.
Try "this spell conjures..." rather than "With a few arcane words you conjure..." Also drop the unnecessary modifiers "nameless" and "reeking" & drop every thing after the word "layer." Lose the imperative. Lose the 2nd person p.o.v. Stop imagining you're Tolstoy. Leave the playing to the players.
I don't think anyone is imagining that. Both your modifications and those which were presented are good, and I would be happy with them either way. Fluff text in the book is not law. If you want to say that you conjure a glowing hand grenade which, upon thrown, causes the spell's effect, that's entirely up to you. If you want to imagine that it causes small cracks and fractures in the ground which spew forth toxic vapors, that's entirely up to you.
The text in the book doesn't impose its will upon you, or any other player. There is nothing preventing you from deciding how the spell appears visually or what your character does to conjure it, as long as it doens't interfere with the mechanics.
Agreed. Cheers!Try "this spell conjures..." rather than "With a few arcane words you conjure..." Also drop the unnecessary modifiers "nameless" and "reeking" & drop every thing after the word "layer." Lose the imperative. Lose the 2nd person p.o.v. S
Third (fourth?) repetition: yes, EXPERIENCED players know that. New players and DMs do not make such distinctions, particularly not when the spell description which we recognize as (badly written) fluff is referred by the rules as the spells "additional effects." A minimalist take on the spell description eliminates that hazard, promotes imaginative play, and is, by definition, the most open-ended, table-neutral way to handle it. There's no rationale for the inclusion of unnecessary fluff text unless you think your particular imagination needs a kick-start, and even that doesn't justify its inclusion in the core.
Third (fourth?) repetition: yes, EXPERIENCED players know that. New players and DMs do not make such distinctions, particularly not when the spell description which we recognize as (badly written) fluff is referred by the rules as the spells "additi
There's no rationale for the inclusion of unnecessary fluff text unless you think your particular imagination needs a kick-start, and even that doesn't justify its inclusion in the core.
Everybodies imaginations especially new players need kick-starts (now and then)... and they also need it being obviously flavor text (even more than long time players). Stripping imaginative flavor text .. does no promote imagination...it promotes bland.
Everybodies imaginations especially new players need kick-starts (now and then)... and they also need it being obviously flavor text (even more than long time players). Stripping imaginative flavor text .. does no promote imagination...it promotes bl
The core, by definition, is that which can't be discarded and still be playing D&D. This d20 are core. The four major class archetypes are core. Races are core (though their implementation is being debated).
If it can be removed, and still leave something recognizably D&D behind, it's modular, not core. Prestige classes. Gridded combat. Alignment restrictions. And unnecessary fluff.
The core, by definition, is that which can't be discarded and still be playing D&D. This d20 are core. The four major class archetypes are core. Races are core (though their implementation is being debated). If it can be removed, and still leave s
The core, by definition, is that which can't be discarded and still be playing D&D. This d20 are core. The four major class archetypes are core. Races are core (though their implementation is being debated). If it can be removed, and still leave something recognizably D&D behind, it's modular, not core. Prestige classes. Gridded combat. Alignment restrictions. And unnecessary fluff.
Anything in the core books, as far as fluff goes("necessary" or not), can safely be ignored. And even new players can do it, because I did, my group did, and most of the people I know did. We decided that the planes presented in 3rd Edition were silly, we decided that Dragonborn had tails, we ignored, added, and adjusted fluff as necessary, we had no problems, and it still resembled Dungeons and Dragons, because it was.
If the fluff is neutral, fine. If the fluff is specifc, fine. Either way, new players and DMs will do what they want. I believe you put far too little faith in the imaginative prowess of new players.
Anything in the core books, as far as fluff goes("necessary" or not), can safely be ignored. And even new players can do it, because I did, my group did, and most of the people I know did. We decided that the planes presented in 3rd Edition were si
We decided that the planes presented in 3rd Edition were silly, we decided that Dragonborn had tails, we ignored, added, and adjusted fluff as necessary, we had no problems, and it still resembled Dungeons and Dragons.
And elves are dwarves in some campaigns, I guess, ooh, let's go to town...
And elves are dwarves in some campaigns, I guess, ooh, let's go to town...
And elves are dwarves in some campaigns, I guess, ooh, let's go to town...
Primarily the North Pole and the Elder Scrolls (well, the opposite in ToES, but you know what I mean.)
I know of the North Pole, but what is this Elder Scrolls business and why should I care of its implications on the D&D game?
Primarily the North Pole and the Elder Scrolls (well, the opposite in ToES, but you know what I mean.)[/quote]I know of the North Pole, but what is this Elder Scrolls business and why should I care of its implications on the D&D game?
Hyup. And I can't imagine going to a restaurant, opening the menu, seeing the choices, and proclaiming:
"This is totally rediculous! They can't just force us to eat this stuff! Look at this burger! It says that it comes with mayo! I hate mayo! My immersion...um...I mean appetite is totally ruined!"
But how about if the available decorations and condiments ae are: Mayo Mayo with pickles mixed into it Mayo with ketchup mixed into it Mayo with onions mixed into it Mayo with mustard mixed into it Mayo with tomatoes mixed into it ...and so on...
In other words, your choices are plain, with mayonnaise, or with mayonnaise and more stuff.
And you don't want plain, but don't want mayonnaise AT ALL.
Answer: you don't buy that edition of a burger.
But how about if the available decorations and condiments ae are:MayoMayo with pickles mixed into itMayo with ketchup mixed into itMayo with onions mixed into itMayo with mustard mixed into itMayo with tomatoes mixed into it...and so on...In other wo
I know of the North Pole, but what is this Elder Scrolls business and why should I care of its implications on the D&D game?
It has no implications on DnD, its just a setting where Elves and Dwarves are the same thing, sort of.
Heck, someone could run a game in TES and it woudl still resemble DnD, because fluff is mutable. That's what campaign settings are.
Regardless, my point is that you can take anything beyond the mechanics out of core and it can still resemble DnD. Even with some of the mechanics missing or changed (say, spell points as opposed to spells per day) it still resembles DnD.
It has no implications on DnD, its just a setting where Elves and Dwarves are the same thing, sort of.Heck, someone could run a game in TES and it woudl still resemble DnD, because fluff is mutable. That's what campaign settings are.Regardless, my p
I believe you put far too little faith in the imaginative prowess of new players.
Because I don't think they need to be told how to visualize their own spells, since I think they can do that on their own?
Bizarro world called. They'd like their Superman back.
Because I don't think they need to be told how to visualize their own spells, since I think they can do that on their own?Bizarro world called. They'd like their Superman back.
I believe you put far too little faith in the imaginative prowess of new players.
Because I don't think they need to be told how to visualize their own spells, since I think they can do that on their own? Bizarro world called. They'd like their Superman back.
Because you think that lengthy descriptions inhibit their creativity, and that new DMs and players will take that as law.
I don't disagree with the notion that shorter, more concise descriptions would suit just fine. I disagree that they are problematic as written (outside of a couple exceptions, I'll admit.)
EDIT: I'm also amazed that I suddenly have superpowers. Bizzaro Superman AWAY!
Because I don't think they need to be told how to visualize their own spells, since I think they can do that on their own? Bizarro world called. They'd like their Superman back.[/quote]Because you think that lengthy descriptions inhibit their creativ
Hyup. And I can't imagine going to a restaurant, opening the menu, seeing the choices, and proclaiming:
"This is totally rediculous! They can't just force us to eat this stuff! Look at this burger! It says that it comes with mayo! I hate mayo! My immersion...um...I mean appetite is totally ruined!"
But how about if the available decorations and condiments ae are: Mayo Mayo with pickles mixed into it Mayo with ketchup mixed into it Mayo with onions mixed into it Mayo with mustard mixed into it Mayo with tomatoes mixed into it ...and so on...
In other words, your choices are plain, with mayonnaise, or with mayonnaise and more stuff.
And you don't want plain, but don't want mayonnaise AT ALL.
Answer: you don't buy that edition of a burger.
I'm not getting how this relates to flavor text at all. Flavor text is totally optional and mutable. There is no such thing as an option that you don't have when it comes to flavor text. There is no such thing as imposed flavor text.
No matter how many times people insist on saying it, flavor text never makes you do anything.
But how about if the available decorations and condiments ae are:MayoMayo with pickles mixed into itMayo with ketchup mixed into itMayo with onions mixed into itMayo with mustard mixed into itMayo with tomatoes mixed into it...and so on...In other wo
There is no such thing as an option that you don't have when it comes to flavor text.
Save one: not having it imposed on one in the first place. And I'd argue flavor and fluff are *more* essential to the D&D experience than mechanics. If the next playtest comes out and elves get a +1 charisma bonus there might be some discussion, but most people would simply accept it. If in the next playtest they announce that elves are secretly a sub-race of Tanari, and that dwarves are from a different star system, people would burn down WotC's office building.
Save one: not having it imposed on one in the first place. And I'd argue flavor and fluff are *more* essential to the D&D experience than mechanics. If the next playtest comes out and elves get a +1 charisma bonus there might be some discussion, but
Save one: not having it imposed on one in the first place.
It is not imposed upon you. It is not wrong or incorrect to handle the fluff differently than as it is printed.
Actually, and I am loathe to agree with someone here about this, fluff can be imposed. Fluff that is mechanically enforced is imposed. It limits your ability to alter the fluff without having to alter the mechanics. Now different aspects of the game have different levels of mechanical fluff enforcement, but spells do actually have some of that. The place where I see it most is in the spell components.
It is not imposed upon you. It is not wrong or incorrect to handle the fluff differently than as it is printed. [/quote]Actually, and I am loathe to agree with someone here about this, fluff can be imposed. Fluff that is mechanically enforced is im
Save one: not having it imposed on one in the first place.
It is not imposed upon you. It is not wrong or incorrect to handle the fluff differently than as it is printed.
Actually, and I am loathe to agree with someone here about this, fluff can be imposed. Fluff that is mechanically enforced is imposed.
I would argue that, at that point, it is no longer fluff because it is mechanically imposed.
It is not imposed upon you. It is not wrong or incorrect to handle the fluff differently than as it is printed. [/quote]Actually, and I am loathe to agree with someone here about this, fluff can be imposed. Fluff that is mechanically enforced is im
Save one: not having it imposed on one in the first place.
It is not imposed upon you. It is not wrong or incorrect to handle the fluff differently than as it is printed.
Actually, and I am loathe to agree with someone here about this, fluff can be imposed. Fluff that is mechanically enforced is imposed.
I would argue that, at that point, it is no longer fluff because it is mechanically imposed.
It's a kind of quazi-fluff. Look a the wizard's spell-book. Mechanically enforced fluff. It limits the way you can refluff the storage of learned spells. You could certainly refluff it into carving the spells into your own flesh, or stiching them into your robes, but it does place an artificial limit on the range of refluff.
It is not imposed upon you. It is not wrong or incorrect to handle the fluff differently than as it is printed. [/quote]Actually, and I am loathe to agree with someone here about this, fluff can be imposed. Fluff that is mechanically enforced is im
I would argue that, at that point, it is no longer fluff because it is mechanically imposed.
This, prettymuch.
The fluff = Its a book. The crunch = An item in which a wizard puts their spells.
The fluff can be anything you want it to be, as long as it follows the crunch.
This, prettymuch.The fluff = Its a book.The crunch = An item in which a wizard puts their spells.The fluff can be anything you want it to be, as long as it follows the crunch.
Professor, I want to ask a simple question. Have you actually had a moment where one of your players was offended or halted by the fluff? I'm just curious where all this passion comes from
Professor, I want to ask a simple question. Have you actually had a moment where one of your players was offended or halted by the fluff? I'm just curious where all this passion comes from :)
I just read the OP (I hope the discussion didn't stray a lot since that...) and this was something that kept bugging me. Mind you, I like fluff and flavor and it's especially usefull for new players - but there are sometimes when it goes a bit too far - especially when you try to play something different from the core fantasy concept of the PHB.
I remember what I really liked, was the way it was presented in Whitewolf RPGs like "Vampire: The Masquerade" or "Hunter: The Reckoning" where you had a small flavor text in italics - a one-paragraph story to describe a condition where the trait / ability was used and what effects it produced and following that, the mechanical part of the trait - and how it works on the game table.
I would love to see something like that. Fluff and flavor should stay to make a fantasy book look fantasy but separating them from the game elements is a very good step.
Hey, I just read the OP (I hope the discussion didn't stray a lot since that...) and this was something that kept bugging me. Mind you, I like fluff and flavor and it's especially usefull for new players - but there are sometimes when it goes a bit t
Professor,I want to ask a simple question. Have you actually had a moment where one of your players was offended or halted by the fluff?/] I've had many (dozens? Hundreds?) of moments when players or DMs have treated fluff as default Truth From On High, as rules. I bet you have too. I think hurts imagination. On that, YMMV.
I'm just curious where all this passion comes from
Honest concern particularly for new players, who I want to adopt the game I love by the millions. It is my only real concern. If you could convince me that mechanically identical classes, mechanically enforced fluff, and a warlord required in every party would get D&D under more christmas trees next year, I'd back those proposals in a heartbeat. I teach writing for a living. Bad writing --intrusive, imperative, 2nd-person, overly modified purple prose -- turns readers off. It's bloat of the worst sort.
Honest concern particularly for new players, who I want to adopt the game I love by the millions. It is my only real concern. If you could convince me that mechanically identical classes, mechanically enforced fluff, and a warlord required in every
If you could convince me that mechanically identical classes, mechanically enforced fluff, and a warlord required in every party would get D&D under more christmas trees next year, I'd back those proposals in a heartbeat.
Now I am very confused. Have we been reading a different playtest packet? Because my packet doesn't have mechanically identical classes. My packet doesn't have any mechanically enforced fluff (other than things like the Wizard's spellbook, which, Shedo points out is really just an example of a "Thing in which spells are stored", and is also such an integral part of what makes a D&D Wizard that removing it would be silly). My packet doesn't have a warlord at all, and certainly doesn't require one in every party.
Now I am very confused. Have we been reading a different playtest packet? Because my packet doesn't have mechanically identical classes. My packet doesn't have any mechanically enforced fluff (other than things like the Wizard's spellbook, which,
I was providing examples of things I've opposed, sometimes vehemently. The point being, I'd embrace them all if they would get more people playing d&d.
I was providing examples of things I've opposed, sometimes vehemently. The point being, I'd embrace them all if they would get more people playing d&d.
Except no one is demandin g mechanically identical classes. No one is demanding mechanically enforced fluff. No one is demanding a Walord required for each party.
You're launching a crusade against nothing.
Except no one is demandin g mechanically identical classes.No one is demanding mechanically enforced fluff.No one is demanding a Walord required for each party.You're launching a crusade against nothing.
So why bother arguing situations that have never come up?
You say you oppose them vehemntly, which means they likely have been brought up before...and now you hide behind subjunctive, saying they haven't happened. Why are you wasting time opposing something no one is arguing for?
So why bother arguing situations that have never come up?You say you oppose them vehemntly, which means they likely have been brought up before...and now you hide behind subjunctive, saying they haven't happened. Why are you wasting time opposing som
Off topic, but to get back to it: Xrylene had argued - is arguing - for mechanically identical classes on two threads. Rampant has suggested the Warlord should be in core, effectively demanding it be included as a base archetype in every party. In this thread, I've demonstrated how fluff becomes tangled with mechanics, yet arithezoo and others think that's fine, thus arguing for mechafluff.
Moving on now.
Off topic, but to get back to it: Xrylene had argued - is arguing - for mechanically identical classes on two threads. Rampant has suggested the Warlord should be in core, effectively demanding it be included as a base archetype in every party. In
Off topic, but to get back to it: Xrylene had argued - is arguing - for mechanically identical classes on two threads.
Quote it
Rampant has suggested the Warlord should be in core, effectively demanding it be included as a base archetype in every party.
You're doing that thing again where your logic is completely random and not understandable at all.
Having it in core doesn't make it demanded for every party. Otherwise having the Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, and Monk in core is equally as demanding.
In this thread, I've demonstrated how fluff becomes tangled with mechanics, yet arithezoo and others think that's fine, thus arguing for mechafluff. Moving on now.
And people have shown you fluff doesn't mean anything if it's clearly seperated like it is in 4e and Next atm.
Quote itYou're doing that thing again where your logic is completely random and not understandable at all.Having it in core doesn't make it demanded for every party. Otherwise having the Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, and Monk in core is equally as
I've demonstrated how fluff becomes tangled with mechanics, yet arithezoo and others think that's fine, thus arguing for mechafluff. Moving on now.
You've said that DMs (particularly bad ones, or perhaps new ones, though I entirely disagree with this point) enforce the rules as fluff. We are actually saying quite the opposite. What Arithezoo and others are saying is that the fluff, no matter how it is written, is not the same as crunch.
You've said that DMs (particularly bad ones, or perhaps new ones, though I entirely disagree with this point) enforce the rules as fluff. We are actually saying quite the opposite. What Arithezoo and others are saying is that the fluff, no matter h
I've demonstrated how fluff becomes tangled with mechanics, yet arithezoo and others think that's fine, thus arguing for mechafluff. Moving on now.
You've said that DMs (particularly bad ones, or perhaps new ones, though I entirely disagree with this point) enforce the rules as fluff. We are actually saying quite the opposite. What Arithezoo and others are saying is that the fluff, no matter how it is written, is not the same as crunch.
You know what isn't very fun? Being told that something has been demonstrated to you (when it hasn't) and then being told that you think such a thing is fine. Good times.
Shedeo is correct. Flavor and mechanics are different things. You can have cases where they overlap and intersect (such as the wizard's spellbook), but in the case of spell descriptions (which is the topic here), there is a clear separation. The flavor matches the mechanics, but that is not the same thing as "tangled". All it means is that the flavor makes sense.
Once again: are there any DMs out there who are confused with Next's presentation of spell flavor? Did any of you feel that it was presented as a rule instead of as fluff? How about players?
If a significant number feel that it was confusing, it would be a reason to make the explanation clearer. So, for example, the section on Magic could say, "The first part of a spell description is labeled flavor. This section includes details of the spell's history, a description of the effects and method of casting, and other tidbits. It is entirely optional; it isn't a part of the rules. Rather, it is an example for DMs and players alike to put the spell into the framework of the fantasy world. As always, feel free to change or ignore anything to better fit your own tastes."
But to be honest, I don't think there will be many people who were confused. In my own experience, not only can people easily tell the difference between flavor and rules, they tend to enjoy having some flavor alongside the mechanics. It makes the book much more interesting (less dry), and gives wonderful ideas to spark creativity. Sort of like a good cookbook. To me, a good cookbook contains plenty of pictures and brief descriptions of the dishes. Far from forcing me to cook a certain way, this serves to get me excited about the dishes as well as spark my own ideas.
You've said that DMs (particularly bad ones, or perhaps new ones, though I entirely disagree with this point) enforce the rules as fluff. We are actually saying quite the opposite. What Arithezoo and others are saying is that the fluff, no matter h
You know what isn't very fun? Being told that something has been demonstrated to you (when it hasn't) and then being told that you think such a thing is fine. Good times.
This, basically. I could go into detail, but it doesn't need to be said.
Long story short: Fluff doesn't equal mechanics.
This, basically. I could go into detail, but it doesn't need to be said.Long story short: Fluff doesn't equal mechanics.
mecanics say you only need 1 hand to cast a spell, so should fluff descriptopns of casting a spell only incluse actions that can be done with one hand?
Shoeld fluff be written with mecanics in mind ?mecanics say you only need 1 hand to cast a spell, so should fluff descriptopns of casting a spell only incluse actions that can be done with one hand?
mecanics say you only need 1 hand to cast a spell, so should fluff descriptopns of casting a spell only incluse actions that can be done with one hand?
Yes, fluff should be written with mechanics in mind. If a spell deals fire damage, the fluff should not talk about a blast of cold.
But the fluff doesn't need to be limited by the bare requirements of the mechanics. For example, while you need 1 hand to cast a spell, there is nothing that says you can't use both hands. So take Burning Hands, for example. The traditional way this spell is cast is to place both hands together into a fan (with thumbs touching). Perhaps this is the easiest way to learn how to cast the spell, but it is certainly possible to cast it with a single hand (or even using fancier techniques, like "breathing" out the fire).
Yes, fluff should be written with mechanics in mind. If a spell deals fire damage, the fluff should not talk about a blast of cold.But the fluff doesn't need to be limited by the bare requirements of the mechanics. For example, while you need 1 han
Saying that mechanics and fluff are separate, and that we should be able to just ignore or drop the fluff if we or our players don't like it, is fine. But that perspective doesn't apply if the core rulebooks make us read fluff just to find out what the spell does or how a rule works.
I suggest spell listings with a very cold, AD&D-esque bit of info right at the start of the description, to get the mechanics out there immediately. There can then be a fluff example (or 2 or 3 even, I don't mind).
But having fluff used to describe the workings of a spell/rule make it very annoying to use as a reference.
Edit: Har, har, snark, har. Apparently I'm wasting everyone's time. Adios.
Saying that mechanics and fluff are separate, and that we should be able to just ignore or drop the fluff if we or our players don't like it, is fine. But that perspective doesn't apply if the core rulebooks make us read fluff just to find out what t
Saying that mechanics and fluff are separate, and that we should be able to just ignore or drop the fluff if we or our players don't like it, is fine. But that perspective doesn't apply if the core rulebooks make us read fluff just to find out what the spell does or how a rule works.
I suggest spell listings with a very cold, AD&D-esque bit of info right at the start of the description, to get the mechanics out there immediately. There can then be a fluff example (or 2 or 3 even, I don't mind).
But having fluff used to describe the workings of a spell/rule make it very annoying to use as a reference.
Thank goodness that's not how it's presented in the packet.
Thank goodness that's not how it's presented in the packet.
Saying that mechanics and fluff are separate, and that we should be able to just ignore or drop the fluff if we or our players don't like it, is fine. But that perspective doesn't apply if the core rulebooks make us read fluff just to find out what the spell does or how a rule works.
I suggest spell listings with a very cold, AD&D-esque bit of info right at the start of the description, to get the mechanics out there immediately. There can then be a fluff example (or 2 or 3 even, I don't mind).
But having fluff used to describe the workings of a spell/rule make it very annoying to use as a reference.
Edit: Har, har, snark, har. Apparently I'm wasting everyone's time. Adios.
Was your Edit in response to Jenk's comment? Because he is correct: the current packet doesn't make you read fluff just to find out what the spell does or how a rule works. But if you really want to leave when presented with evidence, go ahead.
I will use Fireball as an example:
"You hurl a spinning ball of fire with a pea-sized point of flame bright as the sun at its center. The ball streaks to its target and detonates with an explosion of flame and a low roar. Effect: Choose a point within 50 feet of you. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius cloud centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 5d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one. The fire ignites unattended flammable objects and damages objects in the area."
See? Totally separate. The first part is the flavor. It describes how you might cast the spell, how it might look and sound. The second part is the rules. It tells you how to resolve the action in the context of other game rules.
Now, your suggestion to start with mechanics and then go with some flavor? That would work. I honestly don't know which one I'd prefer. It would be interesting to see it reversed in the next packet to see what effect it has, if any, on how people take it.
Was your Edit in response to Jenk's comment? Because he is correct: the current packet doesn't make you read fluff just to find out what the spell does or how a rule works. But if you really want to leave when presented with evidence, go ahead.I wi
"You hurl a spinning ball of fire with a pea-sized point of flame bright as the sun at its center. The ball streaks to its target and detonates with an explosion of flame and a low roar. Effect: Choose a point within 50 feet of you. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius cloud centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 5d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one. The fire ignites unattended flammable objects and damages objects in the area."
See? Totally separate. The first part is the flavor. It describes how you might cast the spell, how it might look and sound. The second part is the rules. It tells you how to resolve the action in the context of other game rules.
Does it? How close must I be to "attend" an object? Is wet wood "flammable?" Is a fireball audible and/or visible?
Does it? How close must I be to "attend" an object? Is wet wood "flammable?" Is a fireball audible and/or visible?
"You hurl a spinning ball of fire with a pea-sized point of flame bright as the sun at its center. The ball streaks to its target and detonates with an explosion of flame and a low roar. Effect: Choose a point within 50 feet of you. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius cloud centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 5d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one. The fire ignites unattended flammable objects and damages objects in the area."
See? Totally separate. The first part is the flavor. It describes how you might cast the spell, how it might look and sound. The second part is the rules. It tells you how to resolve the action in the context of other game rules.
Does it? How close must I be to "attend" an object? Is wet wood "flammable?" Is a fireball audible and/or visible?
That would be the mechanics part not the fluff... He is putting "The fire ignites unattended flammable objects and damages objects in the area." in the category of "rules". You, for some odd reason, are saying it is fluff? Now if you want to say the rules aren't very clear on what it means to attend an object, well fine but that is a rule on rule argument and has no place in the discussion about fluff.
Does it? How close must I be to "attend" an object? Is wet wood "flammable?" Is a fireball audible and/or visible? [/quote]That would be the mechanics part not the fluff... He is putting "The fire ignites unattended flammable objects and damages
My point is that the distinction between mechanics and fluff is pretty much nonexistent. "flammable" is fluff, not mechanical...it requires a subjective call based on interpretation, aesthetics, and group negotiation. And the audible and visible character of a fireball is supposedly, yet everyone, without exception, treats it as a mechanical absolute.
My point is that the distinction between mechanics and fluff is pretty much nonexistent. "flammable" is fluff, not mechanical...it requires a subjective call based on interpretation, aesthetics, and group negotiation. And the audible and visible ch
"You hurl a spinning ball of fire with a pea-sized point of flame bright as the sun at its center. The ball streaks to its target and detonates with an explosion of flame and a low roar. Effect: Choose a point within 50 feet of you. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius cloud centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 5d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one. The fire ignites unattended flammable objects and damages objects in the area."
See? Totally separate. The first part is the flavor. It describes how you might cast the spell, how it might look and sound. The second part is the rules. It tells you how to resolve the action in the context of other game rules.
Does it? How close must I be to "attend" an object? Is wet wood "flammable?" Is a fireball audible and/or visible?
I see. It is going to be one of these discussions.
Yes, the spell description tells you how to resolve the action in the context of other game rules. It makes the assumption that the players and DM are humans (yes, a dangerous assumption, I know) with a grasp of language (and thus able to make interpretations and deductions).
Is it the most complete mechanical writeup possible? Of course not. But it gets the job done and takes up a minimum amount of space. Perhaps you would prefer something like this:
Effect: Choose a point (defined as a distinct X, Y, Z coordinate within space, see Chapter 1, subsection VII) within 50 feet (American, equal to about 15.24 m) of you (meaning your character). Each creature (defined in Chapter 2, subsection XI) in a 20-foot-radius (again, American units, equal to about 6.1 m radius) cloud (defined in Chapter 5, subsection III) centered on that point (that is, the point forms the center of the cloud) must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 5d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one. The fireball involves both visual and auditory elements. It creates light with an intensity of 1500 lumens with a duration of 1 second (see Chapter 12, subsection X). In addition, it makes a sound with an intensity of 50 decibels for the same duration (see Chapter 12, subsection XI). The fire ignites unattended (defined as objects not being held or within 5 feet of a creature) flammable (defined as things with a rating of F on the European EN 13501-1 scale, see Chapter 5, subsection XXIV for a list of examples) objects and damages objects in the area.
There will always be questions like the ones you asked. And that is why it is a good thing the game is played with a human DM who can answer them even when it isn't specifically spelled out in the book.
For example, here is what I would say:
1) You are attending an object if you are holding it or adjacent to it (that way you can quickly pat out the flames). Certain situations would make it difficult (I'd give you a Dexterity check) or impossible. For example, if you were in melee preventing an adjacent object from igniting would provoke an opportunity attack. 2) No, your fireball does not ignite the wet wood. 3) Your fireball is both visible and audible. It is a big ball of fire, and most likely makes a sound not unlike the distinctive FWOMPH sound you get when you light your stovetop after releasing a bit too much gas.
Honestly, at this point I'm not sure what you are arguing. First you brought up things that you are against that aren't happening (not sure how that relates). Now you bring up the fact that the spell descriptions (in terms of mechanics) don't cover all possible situations and facts. Where are you going with this?
Does it? How close must I be to "attend" an object? Is wet wood "flammable?" Is a fireball audible and/or visible?[/quote]I see. It is going to be one of these discussions.Yes, the spell description tells you how to resolve the action in the cont
My point is that the distinction between mechanics and fluff is pretty much nonexistent. "flammable" is fluff, not mechanical...it requires a subjective call based on interpretation, aesthetics, and group negotiation. And the audible and visible character of a fireball is supposedly, yet everyone, without exception, treats it as a mechanical absolute.
Flammable isn't subjective. You all might have to discuss whether something is flammable or not, but things aren't subjectively flammable. If your next comment is something along the lines of "everything burns" then you won't be able to play with any description of any ruling at all.
Minor Note: I've never thought Fireball made any noise, so in my games it doesn't. One of the ways I describe the difference between magical fire and non-magical fire is the lack of noise.
Edit: The poster above me is arguing along the same lines, but put way more effort into the display than I did.
Flammable isn't subjective. You all might have to discuss whether something is flammable or not, but things aren't subjectively flammable. If your next comment is something along the lines of "everything burns" then you won't be able to play with a
Effect: Choose a point (defined as a distinct X, Y, Z coordinate within space, see Chapter 1, subsection VII) within 50 feet (American, equal to about 15.24 m) of you (meaning your character). Each creature (defined in Chapter 2, subsection XI) in a 20-foot-radius (again, American units, equal to about 6.1 m radius) cloud (defined in Chapter 5, subsection III) centered on that point (that is, the point forms the center of the cloud) must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 5d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one. The fireball involves both visual and auditory elements. It creates light with an intensity of 1500 lumens with a duration of 1 second (see Chapter 12, subsection X). In addition, it makes a sound with an intensity of 50 decibels for the same duration (see Chapter 12, subsection XI). The fire ignites unattended (defined as objects not being held or within 5 feet of a creature) flammable (defined as things with a rating of F on the European EN 13501-1 scale, see Chapter 5, subsection XXIV for a list of examples) objects and damages objects in the area.
Radius? So its 2-D? Or are we talking about a sphere here? Is it effected by gravity and will thus be slightly less than spherical?
In this context how do you define "Elements" Is Oxygen an element that is needed to perform this or not? What if we are fighting in space?
Radius? So its 2-D? Or are we talking about a sphere here? Is it effected by gravity and will thus be slightly less than spherical? In this context how do you define "Elements" Is Oxygen an element that is needed to perform this or not? What if
I'm pointing out that, like everyone who blithely declares that rhetoric doesn't matter, and that you're completely in control of your semiotic landscape, you are wrong. You've been using fluff as mechanics and vice versa for years. Your similarly lackadaisical assertion that new players will easily distinguish fluff from mechanics is also wrong. Therefore, the fluff matters. A lot. And since it does, I think it needs to be as neutral as possible.
I'm pointing out that, like everyone who blithely declares that rhetoric doesn't matter, and that you're completely in control of your semiotic landscape, you are wrong. You've been using fluff as mechanics and vice versa for years. Your similarly la
I'm pointing out that, like everyone who blithely declares that rhetoric doesn't matter, and that you're completely in control of your semiotic landscape, you are wrong. You've been using fluff as mechanics and vice versa for years. Your similarly lackadaisical assertion that new players will easily distinguish fluff from mechanics is also wrong. Therefore, the fluff matters. A lot. And since it does, I think it needs to be as neutral as possible.
I don't often agree with the man with a Rider Fool (not meant as an insult) for an Avatar, but this is a solid point where I do.
I don't often agree with the man with a Rider Fool (not meant as an insult) for an Avatar, but this is a solid point where I do.
Effect: Choose a point (defined as a distinct X, Y, Z coordinate within space, see Chapter 1, subsection VII) within 50 feet (American, equal to about 15.24 m) of you (meaning your character). Each creature (defined in Chapter 2, subsection XI) in a 20-foot-radius (again, American units, equal to about 6.1 m radius) cloud (defined in Chapter 5, subsection III) centered on that point (that is, the point forms the center of the cloud) must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 5d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one. The fireball involves both visual and auditory elements. It creates light with an intensity of 1500 lumens with a duration of 1 second (see Chapter 12, subsection X). In addition, it makes a sound with an intensity of 50 decibels for the same duration (see Chapter 12, subsection XI). The fire ignites unattended (defined as objects not being held or within 5 feet of a creature) flammable (defined as things with a rating of F on the European EN 13501-1 scale, see Chapter 5, subsection XXIV for a list of examples) objects and damages objects in the area.
Radius? So its 2-D? Or are we talking about a sphere here? Is it effected by gravity and will thus be slightly less than spherical?
In this context how do you define "Elements" Is Oxygen an element that is needed to perform this or not? What if we are fighting in space?
Sorry, I should have included more detail about the "Cloud" shape. It is 3D, and still involves a radius. It is not affected by gravity in any noticible way (see Chapter 5, subsection VI). Elements is described in detail in Appendix F. Magical Fire is defined nicely in Chapter 3, subsection III.
Minor Note: Your idea of magical fire being noiseless is cool. It allows for a rather eerie scene involving things like Wall of Fire. A huge raging inferno that is completely silent.
Radius? So its 2-D? Or are we talking about a sphere here? Is it effected by gravity and will thus be slightly less than spherical? In this context how do you define "Elements" Is Oxygen an element that is needed to perform this or not? What if
Sorry, I should have included more detail about the "Cloud" shape. It is 3D, and still involves a radius. It is not affected by gravity in any noticible way (see Chapter 5, subsection VI). Elements is described in detail in Appendix F. Magical Fire is defined nicely in Chapter 3, subsection III.
Minor Note: Your idea of magical fire being noiseless is cool. It allows for a rather eerie scene involving things like Wall of Fire. A huge raging inferno that is completely silent.
Glad we got those little problems cleared up. Now I can properly cast my magic spell.
@Minor Note: Adding or taking away senses from stuff is what I do with a lot of magical effects. Or swapping them out for their polar opposites, if it fits well with what you are working with.
Glad we got those little problems cleared up. Now I can properly cast my magic spell.@Minor Note: Adding or taking away senses from stuff is what I do with a lot of magical effects. Or swapping them out for their polar opposites, if it fits well wi
@Minor Note: Adding or taking away senses from stuff is what I do with a lot of magical effects. Or swapping them out for their polar opposites, if it fits well with what you are working with.
Wah? Like smelling colors? What do you mean by "polar opposites"?
Wah? Like smelling colors? What do you mean by "polar opposites"?
@Minor Note: Adding or taking away senses from stuff is what I do with a lot of magical effects. Or swapping them out for their polar opposites, if it fits well with what you are working with.
Wah? Like smelling colors? What do you mean by "polar opposites"?
Something normally hot is now cold, something sticky is slick, something rough is smooth. Something that isn't normally talked about having a strong taste (like glue) tastes of cayenne pepper and artichokes.
Wah? Like smelling colors? What do you mean by "polar opposites"?[/quote]Something normally hot is now cold, something sticky is slick, something rough is smooth. Something that isn't normally talked about having a strong taste (like glue) tastes
mecanics say you only need 1 hand to cast a spell, so should fluff descriptopns of casting a spell only incluse actions that can be done with one hand?
Yes, fluff should be written with mechanics in mind. If a spell deals fire damage, the fluff should not talk about a blast of cold.
But the fluff doesn't need to be limited by the bare requirements of the mechanics. For example, while you need 1 hand to cast a spell, there is nothing that says you can't use both hands. So take Burning Hands, for example. The traditional way this spell is cast is to place both hands together into a fan (with thumbs touching). Perhaps this is the easiest way to learn how to cast the spell, but it is certainly possible to cast it with a single hand (or even using fancier techniques, like "breathing" out the fire).
My wizard lost his hand. That makes me sad. I just found out that I can't cast burning hands anymore; because, my DM is enforcing fluff as mechanics. That makes me sadder.
Yes, fluff should be written with mechanics in mind. If a spell deals fire damage, the fluff should not talk about a blast of cold.But the fluff doesn't need to be limited by the bare requirements of the mechanics. For example, while you need 1 han
mecanics say you only need 1 hand to cast a spell, so should fluff descriptopns of casting a spell only incluse actions that can be done with one hand?
Yes, fluff should be written with mechanics in mind. If a spell deals fire damage, the fluff should not talk about a blast of cold.
But the fluff doesn't need to be limited by the bare requirements of the mechanics. For example, while you need 1 hand to cast a spell, there is nothing that says you can't use both hands. So take Burning Hands, for example. The traditional way this spell is cast is to place both hands together into a fan (with thumbs touching). Perhaps this is the easiest way to learn how to cast the spell, but it is certainly possible to cast it with a single hand (or even using fancier techniques, like "breathing" out the fire).
My wizard lost his hand. That makes me sad. I just found out that I can't cast burning hands anymore; because, my DM is enforcing fluff as mechanics. That makes me sadder.
Bad DM not bad fluff. Can't fix crap DMs with rules sadly. (unless of course the DM is giving you something else to make up for the kick in the head, then by all means.)
Yes, fluff should be written with mechanics in mind. If a spell deals fire damage, the fluff should not talk about a blast of cold.But the fluff doesn't need to be limited by the bare requirements of the mechanics. For example, while you need 1 han
@Minor Note: Adding or taking away senses from stuff is what I do with a lot of magical effects. Or swapping them out for their polar opposites, if it fits well with what you are working with.
Wah? Like smelling colors? What do you mean by "polar opposites"?
Something normally hot is now cold, something sticky is slick, something rough is smooth. Something that isn't normally talked about having a strong taste (like glue) tastes of cayenne pepper and artichokes.
Oh, cool. So stuff to enhance the weirdness of magic compared to mundane things?
@abanathie: definitely time for you to search for a sane DM. The fact that you can admit that means you realize the futility of attempting to cater the book to insane DMs. No matter what you do, they will find a way to screw you over. It is much better to cater the book to the sane DMs, who are the vast majority (I have to believe). If your story is true, I am truly sorry for you. It is unfortunate that your DM would decide to enforce something that isn't meant to be taken literally. The rules clearly state two things: 1) Spells require a single hand to cast, unless the particular spell in question indicates otherwise in the requirements section. Burning Hands does not have any requirements, so it only takes a single hand to cast. 2) While DMs are encouraged to change the rules, they should do so to enhance the fun, not detract from it.
So a DM who enforces something like this even though it makes the player have less fun is just being a jerk. Doing so and then defending it by saying, "Sorry, it is in the rules!" is being an obtuse jerk.
Wah? Like smelling colors? What do you mean by "polar opposites"?[/quote]Something normally hot is now cold, something sticky is slick, something rough is smooth. Something that isn't normally talked about having a strong taste (like glue) tastes
@Minor Note: Adding or taking away senses from stuff is what I do with a lot of magical effects. Or swapping them out for their polar opposites, if it fits well with what you are working with.
Wah? Like smelling colors? What do you mean by "polar opposites"?
Something normally hot is now cold, something sticky is slick, something rough is smooth. Something that isn't normally talked about having a strong taste (like glue) tastes of cayenne pepper and artichokes.
Oh, cool. So stuff to enhance the weirdness of magic compared to mundane things?
@abanathie: definitely time for you to search for a sane DM. The fact that you can admit that means you realize the futility of attempting to cater the book to insane DMs. No matter what you do, they will find a way to screw you over. It is much better to cater the book to the sane DMs, who are the vast majority (I have to believe). If your story is true, I am truly sorry for you. It is unfortunate that your DM would decide to enforce something that isn't meant to be taken literally. The rules clearly state two things: 1) Spells require a single hand to cast, unless the particular spell in question indicates otherwise in the requirements section. Burning Hands does not have any requirements, so it only takes a single hand to cast. 2) While DMs are encouraged to change the rules, they should do so to enhance the fun, not detract from it.
So a DM who enforces something like this even though it makes the player have less fun is just being a jerk. Doing so and then defending it by saying, "Sorry, it is in the rules!" is being an obtuse jerk.
I actually knew what I was walking into beforehand. I played with him a few years ago. I just wanted to see what stuff he could break (with justification within the packet). I'll admit though, losing my hand wasn't on the list of expected actions...
Wah? Like smelling colors? What do you mean by "polar opposites"?[/quote]Something normally hot is now cold, something sticky is slick, something rough is smooth. Something that isn't normally talked about having a strong taste (like glue) tastes
I actually knew what I was walking into beforehand. I played with him a few years ago. I just wanted to see what stuff he could break (with justification within the packet). I'll admit though, losing my hand wasn't on the list of expected actions...
I actually knew what I was walking into beforehand. I played with him a few years ago. I just wanted to see what stuff he could break (with justification within the packet). I'll admit though, losing my hand wasn't on the list of expected actions...
Heh heh. Good times, right?
It was an experience... I'll probably remember it for awhile...
Heh heh. Good times, right?[/quote]It was an experience... I'll probably remember it for awhile...
I actually knew what I was walking into beforehand. I played with him a few years ago. I just wanted to see what stuff he could break (with justification within the packet). I'll admit though, losing my hand wasn't on the list of expected actions...
Heh heh. Good times, right?
It was an experience... I'll probably remember it for awhile...
Xycon (the Lich from Order of the Stick) would probably say that a terrible gaming experience is better than a good one. When you have a good one, you focus everything on that one session. But when you have a bad one, you do everything you can to take your mind off it. Inevitably, you end up thinking back on all the other, better sessions you have had in the past. So a good session is just one thing, but a bad session lets you relive all the past sessions.
Of course, Xycon is an undead mockery of everything that is good in life, so I wouldn't take what he says too seriously.
Heh heh. Good times, right?[/quote]It was an experience... I'll probably remember it for awhile...[/quote]Xycon (the Lich from Order of the Stick) would probably say that a terrible gaming experience is better than a good one. When you have a good
I actually knew what I was walking into beforehand.
I bet you did, but then afterhand you felt like you were playing with a heavy-handed DM who wanted to see if you could single handedly take the rest of the world.
I bet you did, but then afterhand you felt like you were playing with a heavy-handed DM who wanted to see if you could single handedly take the rest of the world.
I actually knew what I was walking into beforehand.
I bet you did, but then afterhand you felt like you were playing with a heavy-handed DM who wanted to see if you could single handedly take the rest of the world.
"Heavy-handed". I see what you did there.
I bet you did, but then afterhand you felt like you were playing with a heavy-handed DM who wanted to see if you could single handedly take the rest of the world.[/quote]"Heavy-handed". I see what you did there.
. Mani the Manhammer played with what was, mechanically, a mordenkraad as his weapon (a big 2 handed mace) but it was refluffed into being his fists. We agreed I wouldn't abuse my "open hands" as long as my weapon was equipped and that, mechanically, it would function exactly like the weapon.
Divine, Weapon
I just found out that I can't cast burning hands anymore; because, my DM is enforcing fluff as mechanics. That makes me sadder. 
