| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the perpetual GM, I can allow whatever I want at my table. But I might get to play sometime, and I also sometimes like reading cool stories from other tables. Unfortunately, a lot of groups seem to feel constrained by the flavor of things as presented in the book.
So Paizo: please expressly include your blessing and suggestion for players and GMs to reflavor stuff where it doesn't change the rules mechanics. Point out that you don't need archetypes and feats for this.
I want an alchemist with a cooking background, whose elixirs are pastries and whose bombs are molotovs made from flavorful liquors.
I want an animist druid whose spells are flavored as all kinds of nature spirits coming forth from the environment to enact the effects on their behalf.
I want an "Eastern Medicine" practitioner whose Heal checks are massage and qigong with a healers kit flavored as acupuncture needles and the like.
I want a capoeira "dance fighter" whose martial arts are busting a move to lay down the hurt and who doesn't need an expressly defined fighting style feat to do this.
I want a wizard who uses handpainted ivory tiles as spell foci to evoke magic matching the concept shown on the tile.
I want players to feel free to do all these things without being told they have to be pointy hatted smelly bat guano fireball chucking wizard 12345 off the assembly line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue that this shouldn't be necessary but I've seen people argue against fluffing using buff spells on yourself as a magical martial techniques because you technically could've memorized "create food and water" instead
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally i have always fluffed my spells at will, though a lot of the time kinda dries away as the narrative of merely casting a spell can slog down our already precious time ^^;
Though i see your point that Paizo should include a note that not all spells need to see the same, but still keep the same mechanic in the sense that a wizard or anyone with spellcraft will recognize a spell even though the effect looks different.
Forexample not all clerics uses the same prayer as a somatic, not all manifestations of these prayers looks the same. Would a Cure Light Wounds from a good god look like the same as a evil god? While the good gods healing lights the wound and blind your eyes in a ray of goodness and painless reconstruction, while the evil version would be painful as your flesh and veins warps back into exsistance as it closes the wound.
No. I disagree with the whole premise of this thread. As a player you should play with groups and GMs whose tastes align with your own. The rulebook should not be used a bludgeoning weapon to force a GM to play a style of game he doesn't want to play.
But let's say that the book should cover it. There's a lot of topics it needs to cover, let's elevate reflavouring to being a topic that should be covered. It should do nothing more then point out that the rules and flavour text as written are a starting point. That some groups enjoy the game as written and would find it less enjoyable if players or GMs start deviating too far from what is presented in the book. It should also acknowledge some groups will enjoy the game much more if they remove all existing flavour and replace all of it with their own ad-hoc during gameplay. It should mention both styles, and everything else in between, are perfectly valid and GMs and players should play the game in whatever way most ably allows them to enjoy the game. This would provide advice to all players of the game (Whether or not they call themselves a GM) and make them aware of what options are available to them (if they needed it specifically called out). It does not encourage or force either playstyle so neither the "no reflavouring" crowd nor the "reflavour everything" crowd can use it to try to force others to play the game their way.
[EDIT]: This post has been written under the belief that the first post was very strongly hinting that they wanted the core rulebook to say X so they could then use it to get GMs to allow X when otherwise that GM would not allow it. If that belief is wrong then this post will be less on point than it otherwise could have been.
Dracoknight: you seem to be discussing spell manifestations.
Fuzzypaws' topic is far more widereaching than that.
Like a character Healing not because of a healing spell but because of activating nanobots or infusing the subject with restorative microbes or slapping a bandaid on an injury and having hp come back.
Well its just a part of flavor, i did put my note that you dont exactly need the system to support the means of flavor. And the point of spell manifestations is a example on how this flavor can be incorperated.
At least that is how i understood the topic at hand that the player and the GM both is INFORMED that this option is actually an "optional option" for their game and/or character rather than whatever example and theme the corebook or other splashbooks describe.
So on the matter of spell manifestations is exactly one of these "flavor" moments, an example that i pointed out to illustrate just how easy it is to have different flavor incorperated.
So the premise of this thread as i understood it is that the rules allows spesifically for Player and/or GMs to reflavor things to look different despite it mechanically is the exactly the same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. The point is that while keeping the rules exactly the same, you can put a more personal spin on the flavor of a skill, fighting style or magic style.
Obviously this is subject to the same social contract as everything else - "don't be a jerk." No one wants to see a fartmancer, except maybe in a very specific sort of comedy campaign. But my players have always been happy to be given the option to personalize their character more, and none of them have ever tried anything outre that wouldn't fit the setting in question.
John, as kyrt mentioned this post is mostly trying to get something put in place for the benefit of newer GMs and players. It's staking out even more so that this is a game of possibilities.
I've GMed almost exclusively for like 12+ years now so it's not me trying to bludgeon my GM, and if I do get to play it would probably be under someone "raised" at my table. But hey, life happens; if at some point job offers and such resulted in a table reset, it'd be nice to do something more flavorful than the by-the-book default of my years as a 2E player in the 90s. It's all about player and GM working to let the player carve out a cool niche that still fits the tone and theme of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if at some point job offers and such resulted in a table reset, it'd be nice to do something more flavorful than the by-the-book default of my years as a 2E player in the 90s.
Then play under a GM who likes that type of game?
I'm okay if core rules say some people like reflavouring, some people don't, do whatever makes your table the most happy (not individual players, the table as a whole. If one particular player's tastes are drastically different then chances are that player isn't going to be very compatible with that table). I'm not okay with the core rules saying "GMs should let players flavour stuff however they want so long as it has no rule change".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
if at some point job offers and such resulted in a table reset, it'd be nice to do something more flavorful than the by-the-book default of my years as a 2E player in the 90s.Then play under a GM who likes that type of game?
I'm okay if core rules say some people like reflavouring, some people don't, do whatever makes your table the most happy (not individual players, the table as a whole. If one particular player's tastes are drastically different then chances are that player isn't going to be very compatible with that table). I'm not okay with the core rules saying "GMs should let players flavour stuff however they want so long as it has no rule change".
Thats why this thread ask for the core book to give a blessing to this OPTION, as in you can add it if you want to. Explain what the concept is, and that not everything is set in stone IF you want it to.
The point of adding these optional rules and mentions in the rulebook is to inform (as mention earlier) and lay the groundwork for what newbie players and GMs can work with to make their game more theirs and less "Adventure#4553".
However what this does NOT do by adding it in the book is for players to demand this option, but its so players can know about it and ask their GM if they can do so. Be it spell manifestations, fighting style, the look of a sword, the prayer of a deity, the look of a potion, the taste of a potion. Neither of these have anything to do with mechanics, and it opens up options not only for players but GMs aswell.
If this is a little sidebar in the gamemastering section intended as an aide for new GMs, maybe. It just feels a little superfluous to me, and if termed incautiously very contentious.
This is something that nearly everyone will have different views about,. I am sure I am not alone when I have set up a specific campaign and everyone seems to be onboard with the idea and then all turn up to the table with characters that are completely off theme - such an addition could exacerbate that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players should just confirm with their GM that such a thing exists in their setting. I can't just claim my PC is an earthling who has been unexplainably transported to Golarion, and expect that to be allowed because it's just flavor.
Flavor is important for tone as well. If two players are trying play serious characters that have personal attachment to the story, and a third PC just got out of Klown Kollege, that's likely to cause an issue.
Best advice on both sides is just use "Yes, and...". The player comes to the GM with the flavor, the GM says "Yes, and here's how to fit it to the setting, can you make those changes?" The player says, "Yes, and here's how my character's gonna act. Could that work?" The GM says, "Yes, and here's how you could make it work."
Can we get "Yes, and..." in the rulebook?
Seeing as the post before this (when I found it) was "Will 2e end character customization?" It seems worth it as players to ask the developers to include text calling the rules "guidelines for a group of people to shape their own story around."
When 4e gave you two sentences of flavor for every power, a lot of people took that flavor as a hard set rule for how every power HAD to work. It lead to a lot of players feeling like the whole system had less options for creating a unique character, or putting their own spin on their character's abilities.
I am all in favor of the developers making it clear that more developed mechanical options for making two different fighters, don't mean that the lore or story behind those mechanics have to be the same or be determined by a brief one sentence of narration designed to give the reader a sense of what the feat/spell/power/ability could look like in play.
When 4e gave you two sentences of flavor for every power, a lot of people took that flavor as a hard set rule for how every power HAD to work.
You're kidding, right? 4e was the king of reflavouring because nothing about the in game universe was being modeled with the rules. The rules were pure gamist and were simply there to make the most balanced game possible. Tons of people reflavoured because it didn't matter. Want your warforged to be a human? Sure. The rules are arbitrary, go right ahead. Want to have a Warforged in the Forgotten Realms? Lore doesn't matter. We won't bother telling you how to integrate the race into the setting, we'll just let you go wild hog, give you a couple of sample paragraphs for mutually exclusive options and then let you go nuts. Nothing matters about the in game universe because the rules are just for the game side of things.
It lead to a lot of players feeling like the whole system had less options for creating a unique character, or putting their own spin on their character's abilities.
Given classes had hundreds of powers, this doesn't make sense. The reason players felt like the whole system had less options, is because it did have less options. Want to make a fighter who uses a bow? Can't be done. Gotta make a ranger. Want to make a fighter who multiclasses into wizard at level 5 and then eventually becomes an Eldritch Knight? Sorry. Can't be done. Multiclassing is restricted to taking a handful of feats and then a Paragon Path. But even your Paragon Path is just a handful of powers. At your character's core you're still a fighter.
The game gutted so much out of D&D that despite printing copious books, Pathfinder Core Rules alone had as much character customisation as 4th ed's PHB1+PHB2+Martial Power (In Pathfinder terms that would be the equivalent of Core Rules, Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Combat).
Reflavouring had absolutely nothing to do with players not feeling like they had lots of options when it came to making their characters.
I've played games where the material components were removed and left for the player to flavor. I saw exactly one player do it, and they only did it with 1 character. I would rather see material components be given a larger role then a smaller one.
Why would anyone use ivory tiles which are 100 times as expensive as bat guano, and worse they provoke a danger of violent retribution from Garundi Druidic Order of the Tusk?
There have been a lot of posts lately about social contract, rulings over rules, and now re-flavoring. I think these things are best left to a game mastery guide 2, than the CRB, IMO.
Given classes had hundreds of powers, this doesn't make sense. The reason players felt like the whole system had less options, is because it did have less options. Want to make a fighter who uses a bow? Can't be done. Gotta make a ranger.
Sure but considering classes brought no lore with them does it even matter. Fighter with bow mechanics is ranger, that's all...
Your right. In a game so sterile of flavour as 4e what class you chose didn't matter. It took a lot of people a while to work it out (myself included) but when they finally did a lot of them moved on to Pathfinder (myself included). Let's hope PF2e doesn't try to follow in those footsteps.
They probably not because of Golarion-centrism.
Although I'd not cry if PF2 core rules were more like 4E rules, because now there is tons of Golarion lore to treat as a basic flavour... and it would make homebrewers feel less obliged to use standard lore.
But then feeling cold, bones of mechanics with own flavour can be too much chore for some, me probably included.
Although I'd not cry if PF2 core rules were more like 4E rules,
As someone whose group plays PF because it isnt 4e, I would very much hate this.
I am not sure how one could prevent the reflavoring of abilities, honestly. Even if the rulebook said explicitly "no, don't do that" you still have the rulebook's blessing to ignore the rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone whose group plays PF because it isnt 4e, I would very much hate this.
But difference is as I pointed out - that Golarion would still be source of flavour to this elements. It's just it will be flavour sort of independent from mechanics and easy to ignored.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would seem to me that allowing players to refluff abilities should go without saying, but it couldn't hurt to include a line or two about this in the CRB where the players can see it. This way we can head off the future equivalents of Reactionary and Fey Foundling, i.e. generic effects with highly and unnecessarily specific fluff, that leads to an overabundance of characters who were bullied-as-children-but-never-quite-developed-an-offensive-response.
It'll be especially important for using PF2 rules, which will supposedly have Golarion more heavily infused throughout, for games in different settings.
|
I want an "Eastern Medicine" practitioner whose Heal checks are massage and qigong with a healers kit flavored as acupuncture needles and the like.
The issue with this, is are you making this change for every healer's kit? Do shops in the "western" world sell both types of kits (eastern and western?) Do you have to train a particular merchant on what to purchase so you/they can put together a good "eastern" healer's kit?
If your character is from a "far away place" and you want to use their gear and mysticism, then some sort of accommodation for purchasing that equipment must be made by the GM. Which is fine. But this is not just a request for reflavoring. This is a request to modify an entire sub system within the campaign, potentially. Or the request will make it hard on yourself when looking to replace said gear.
I want a wizard who uses handpainted ivory tiles as spell foci to evoke magic matching the concept shown on the tile.
The issue with this, is that's not how the base magic works in Pathfinder. Essentially you are asking a GM to create an ad hoc archetype for you that's very loosely defined.
For most spells, these tiles can easily just be the free items in your spell component pouch. And they can easily replace the material components you might otherwise use.
But the flavor of such a thing almost demands special rules for how that works, how you make the tiles, etc.
But the flavor of such a thing almost demands special rules for how that works, how you make the tiles, etc.
Not if you divorce all flavour from the rules and just have arbitrary widgets that are pure Gamism and have no connection to the in game universe and make no attempt to model the in game universe.
But still you cannot replace material component which need to be bought or gathered
Not if you divorce all flavour from the rules and just have arbitrary widgets that are pure Gamism and have no connection to the in game universe and make no attempt to model the in game universe.
But the flavor of such a thing almost demands special rules for how that works, how you make the tiles, etc.
Most games that do this don't do very well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But still you cannot replace material component which need to be bought or gathered
You mean the 5 gp spell component pouch that sits in your inventory from 1st level and is never addressed? Yeah, it's not a new rules subsystem the GM has to deal with.
Likewise the qigong medical kit. It's literally just spending market downtime assembling a kit for the same price as the default one. No different rules on checks, no subsystems.
Not if you divorce all flavour from the rules and just have arbitrary widgets that are pure Gamism and have no connection to the in game universe and make no attempt to model the in game universe.
Wow, bitier and more hostile than usual today, aren't you?
It's not gamism. It's the literal opposite of gamism. Gamism is when you strip something down to a mechanic, say "I cast a spell" or "I roll a check" and don't flavor your actions at all.
In my experience, when people have a bit more investment in the flavor of their abilities, they are more likely to actually bring that flavor into play.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the sentiments of the OP in this thread. Sometimes, if something isn't suggested by the rules, some GMs might not feel empowered to do so.
The book should explicitly say house rules and reflavouring are options GMs can use to customize their game. It should empower GMs to make the game their own and sanction any changes they make. it shouldn't imply that the rules are unalterable and the flavour is set.
A further conversation of this is Pathfinder Society, which has partially banned reflavouring. IIRC because of an adventure with a dog companion reflavoured as a pig. But that's a different conversation...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not if you divorce all flavour from the rules and just have arbitrary widgets that are pure Gamism and have no connection to the in game universe and make no attempt to model the in game universe.
But the flavor of such a thing almost demands special rules for how that works, how you make the tiles, etc.
Well I certainly hope they go to a more technical writing style scheme for game mechanics, so they are easier to understand and harder to parse incorrectly. But I don't want them to remove all flavor from the system. That would indeed make it boring to play for those who don't want to spend the time to lay their own flavor on top of something.
That system already exists, its Hero or Gurps. I like those systems for what they are. For Pathfinder, no thank you.