Just had a long discussion with a player of mine regarding something I have seen quite a bit. Specifically Half Elf --> Elf Atavism --> Ancient Elf. This ultimately ended with us assuming while agreeing to disagree that there is a unspoken advanced age requirement on this heritage while also saying that it must be an elf that never settled in one spot for too long because it never gained an environmental adaptation. But honestly, im somewhat confused. I read over the entry and searched for Ancient in the Lost Omen Players guide and it stated this one type of elf group contained Ancient Elves. It also went on with a feat to state that it could only be taken by an elf with a environmental adaptation. So this almost comes off as Ancient Elves may be their own proper heritage itself rather than the very minor niche of old as hell elf that comes from a heritage of elf that never adapted to their environment.
I also went back to 1st Edition to see if there was any mention of an elf of this nature and didn't find any. The heritage also seems like it may be intended to just show a elf that didn't commit to an adventurer life until recently and dabbled since then... but this leads into what type of elf were they? So there seems to be a bit of thematic conflict here or im simply missing something. Are there young Ancient Elves as well? Are they their own species? Do all elves who walk away from their preferred terrain for a couple hundred years turn into Ancient Elves and convert their racials? Maybe im over thinking this but they seem like an odd choice for a heritage if they are not their own proper subspecies with young and old members.
This isn't intended to be a discussion on the initial Elf Atavism ruling, but me trying to understand the theme of what an Ancient Elf is really intended to be in the lore.
Any discussion is greatly appreciated.
Creative Director
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
An "Ancient Elf" is an elf who starts their adventuring career at an older age. In 2nd edition, there are no rules that adjust ability scores for your character depending on their age—it's pretty much just flavor if you want to play a young adult or an elder of any ancestry.
In the case of elves, though, they have VERY long lives, and if you want to play an "ancient elf," someone who might be several hundred years old, then the Ancient Elf heritage is a good choice for you. The heritage itself is meant to represent an elf who, over the course of their centuries of life before they finally decide to focus on a specific class or career, had something of a "false start" if you will from another class.
ANY elf can be an ancient elf, in the same way any of them could be Forlorn. They aren't their own "species."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So with that in mind, what makes them incompatible with something like the Wandering Heart feat? Have they been away from their original heritage for so long they no longer adapt? The main question my friend asked was what if you are simply a 400 year old wood elf? The main disconnect is that Ancient Elves do not have an Environmental Adaptation like their other kin.
|
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So with that in mind, what makes them incompatible with something like the Wandering Heart feat? Have they been away from their original heritage for so long they no longer adapt? The main question my friend asked was what if you are simply a 400 year old wood elf? The main disconnect is that Ancient Elves do not have an Environmental Adaptation like their other kin.
You can be an elderly, 400 year old wood elf and not be an ancient elf.
The ancient elf isn't meant to be the only way to play an older elf, just a way to play an elf who's spent some of their life tinkering with another class other than the one they chose to, after a long time, settle down with.
In a way, it's kind of a nod to the game's legacy in prior editions, where elves had a much more open number of multiclass options compared to other "demihumans" (as they were called at the time).
They don't have a hard-coded rules environmental flavored element to the heritage because of game balance, pretty much, but they can still have non-rules environment elements. An ancient elf woodland elf would still look like other woodland elves, for example.
And since wandering heart enhances those rules elements, there's nothing for that feat to enhance if you're an Ancient Elf.
It might have made more sense for "Ancient Elf" to be presented as an Ancestry Feat, similar to how we presented Forlorn as an option, but that's not the route we chose.
To me, it sounds like the best option in the case you mention would be to just choose to play an older woodland elf and go from there. You can still multiclass, but you'll have to use a class feat instead of your ancestry feat for it.
I appreciate the detailed response. Sounds to me like a lvl 1 only Ancient Elf ancestry feat to let it grab a 2nd elf heritage could give that option of a old elf that still retains their mechanical adaptations as well as thematically shows that late start flavor Ancient Elf was built to show.
The only other question id have left to make sure I understand the lore of elves. Are there some elves in the lore that actually do not have any particular adaptation one way or the other?
Also, I guess this solidifies it that Half Elf --> Elf Atavism --> Ancient Elf is not something that makes thematic sense.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the detailed response. Sounds to me like a lvl 1 only Ancient Elf ancestry feat to let it grab a 2nd elf heritage could give that option of a old elf that still retains their mechanical adaptations as well as thematically shows that late start flavor Ancient Elf was built to show.
The only other question id have left to make sure I understand the lore of elves. Are there some elves in the lore that actually do not have any particular adaptation one way or the other?
The basic idea is that an elf who lives long enough in a place will grow and change and adapt to that place. The change takes place over centuries and is very drawn-out and subtle, and isn't exactly the same for every elf in every case. An extreme example is how aquatic elves gain the ability to breathe underwater and swim well, but in most cases it boils down to physical appearance. In some cases, such as in the case where an elf has moved from one region to another and is in the process of re-adapting, or where an elf for whatever reason doesn't really feel a strong spiritual connection to the environment, they can go for decades or even centuries without a noticeable adaptation. In some cases, they have a very strong one. There's a LOT of room in between all the extremes for anyone to build their elf character how they want.
Sounds to me like a lvl 1 only Ancient Elf ancestry feat to let it grab a proper elf heritage could give that option of a old elf that still retains their environmental adaptations.
I think it's be easier to make an ancient elf feat with a prerequisite like Ancestral Longevity [at least 100 years old] that just grants the multiclass feat at 1st. That way, you'll have base ancestry intact and you can change any future feats requiring ancient elf to requiring the feat instead.
Sounds to me like a lvl 1 only Ancient Elf ancestry feat to let it grab a proper elf heritage could give that option of a old elf that still retains their environmental adaptations.I think it's be easier to make an ancient elf feat with a prerequisite like Ancestral Longevity [at least 100 years old] that just grants the multiclass feat at 1st. That way, you'll have base ancestry intact and you can change any future feats requiring ancient elf to requiring the feat instead.
It would have to be a homebrew replacement of Ancient elf as a heritage to a ancestry feat at this point but yea, that likely would have been a cleaner thematic implementation for the concept. I don't think that's something an Errata would change, but it would be awesome if a change like that would be possible. It also sounds like 200 years + would be more fitting however. It would make it functionally incompatible with Half-Elves since that flavor doesn't quite match up.
I don't think that's something an Errata would change, but it would be awesome if a change like that would be possible. It also sounds like 200 years + would be more fitting however.
Oh, I wouldn't expect it to change since they have already gone a different direction, but if you're in the market for some houserules I thought it might work for you. ;)
On the at least 100 years old, it was just the example from another feat with an age requirement: whatever cutoff works for you is good. Myself, I don't really see an issue with 1/2 elves with it: for instance, being 120 and 1st level would fit the theme IMO.
Yea, generally speaking errata is very conservative. It would be cool to be able to see some major changes like this when it is discovered it could be a better option long term. But eh, it is what it is. I don't play Pathfinder Society myself so a house rule is easy enough for me. I just tend to avoid doing too much houserule/homebrew because in the past I tended to go overboard with it.
I think the flavor of ancient anything is that when u can live to 600 years old your perspective on life and time is vastly different from younger races. You will piss away 250 years just doing whatever when u know u have 300+ left. Sure, a really old half elf could pull that off but they still wont have that 600 year max lifespan perspective.
For me now, im just curious how much making Ancient Elf a ancestry feat would suddenly incentivise many more elf characters to just grab it for that easier access multiclass. Sure, its limited till lvl 4 and first rank dedications are more about proficiancy but I could see a good number of players just grabbing a fighter dedication or something for the profs and the average age of elf adventurers changes.
Part of me can see the benefit of it being a heritage rather than a feat. But the other part of me thinks it would be fine. Inner conflict. Lol
Because ultimately in the end its not like a character cant just grab the dedication at lvl 2 and get their adaptation themes. Making it a feat would allow them to get their dedication and two class feats at lvl 2. That could open up some early level unintended stuff and builds with 1 more possible class feat. So yea, its not a no consequence change.
As it is now, Ancient elf is there for people with complex character concepts that dont really feel that their actual elf heritage is all that mechanically important to them. Which is quite limited in scope at the end of the day but eh, it gets the trope accross if you dont later regret not having more elf like ancestry traits.
An "Ancient Elf" is an elf who starts their adventuring career at an older age. In 2nd edition, there are no rules that adjust ability scores for your character depending on their age—it's pretty much just flavor if you want to play a young adult or an elder of any ancestry.
In the case of elves, though, they have VERY long lives, and if you want to play an "ancient elf," someone who might be several hundred years old, then the Ancient Elf heritage is a good choice for you. The heritage itself is meant to represent an elf who, over the course of their centuries of life before they finally decide to focus on a specific class or career, had something of a "false start" if you will from another class.
ANY elf can be an ancient elf, in the same way any of them could be Forlorn. They aren't their own "species."
That doesn't really answer what they were asking regarding Half Elves and the fluff intent of the heritage. Since a Half Elf doesn't live for hundreds of years, they get up to 150. And if that is enough, it begs the question why dwarves, gnomes and halflings don't benefit ;) :P (next up, ancient heritages for all -grins-)
But yeah I agree with not codifying age mechanics at character creation. It was always overly fiddly with no real gain outside of minmaxing imo. If I want to create a feeble older man I can make the choice to drop str , dex and con myself :).
At my table I will continue to rule that ancient elf is for full blooded elves only as age is a part of the physical trait restriction that Elf Atavism has for me, but I will never begrudge another for ruling differently even if that becomes an official ruling at some point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're kinda barking up the wrong tree to get James Jacobs to make a mechanics ruling. He's mostly the "fluff" guy (and does a great job of it, mind you!) but, your question is also one of fluff. RAW, there no limits, and is thus a valid choice. Your objection is is purely a flavor one (fwiw, while I wouldn't deny a player at my table to take it, I do actually agree with your stance).
Id take it basically as "your concept of an Ancient Elf is pretty spot on, but it's up to you whether it's kosher to take with Elf Atavism"
And if that is enough, it begs the question why dwarves, gnomes and halflings don't benefit ;) :P (next up, ancient heritages for all -grins-)
Look at the leshy once... "As spirits, they do not age" so your 10,000 year old 1st level leshy can't figure out what a 200 year old elf can? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if that is enough, it begs the question why dwarves, gnomes and halflings don't benefit ;) :P (next up, ancient heritages for all -grins-)Look at the leshy once... "As spirits, they do not age" so your 10,000 year old 1st level leshy can't figure out what a 200 year old elf can? ;)
Some of them literally are cabbage-headed so it takes awhile to learn.
The first 9,000 years was just to attain sentience, with the next 1,000 developing sapience. Now they're ready to adventure!!!
Yeah keep me on the record for a version of an "Ancient" heritage for all ancestries. I already do that in my home games. For some ancestries, too, it's a pretty tough choice, as there are some decent Heritage options.
Although, it's wonky with half-elves and half-orcs. In those cases I tell my players it becomes a 1st level Ancestry Feat.
And if that is enough, it begs the question why dwarves, gnomes and halflings don't benefit ;) :P (next up, ancient heritages for all -grins-)Look at the leshy once... "As spirits, they do not age" so your 10,000 year old 1st level leshy can't figure out what a 200 year old elf can? ;)Some of them literally are cabbage-headed so it takes awhile to learn.
The first 9,000 years was just to attain sentience, with the next 1,000 developing sapience. Now they're ready to adventure!!!
Good thing all leshy are created as adults then. ;)
|
And if that is enough, it begs the question why dwarves, gnomes and halflings don't benefit ;) :P (next up, ancient heritages for all -grins-)Look at the leshy once... "As spirits, they do not age" so your 10,000 year old 1st level leshy can't figure out what a 200 year old elf can? ;)
Don't leshies have an INT penalty? Maybe they don't retain 10,000 years worth of information very well.
Don't leshies have an INT penalty? Maybe they don't retain 10,000 years worth of information very well.And if that is enough, it begs the question why dwarves, gnomes and halflings don't benefit ;) :P (next up, ancient heritages for all -grins-)Look at the leshy once... "As spirits, they do not age" so your 10,000 year old 1st level leshy can't figure out what a 200 year old elf can? ;)
"The heritage itself is meant to represent an elf who, over the course of their centuries of life before they finally decide to focus on a specific class or career, had something of a "false start" if you will from another class."
I'm not sure what int would have to do with it at all [we're talking about an 8 vs a 10]. If anything, a lower int would seem a good reason for having that 'false start' and not picking up the the first class.
|
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
An "Ancient Elf" is an elf who starts their adventuring career at an older age. In 2nd edition, there are no rules that adjust ability scores for your character depending on their age—it's pretty much just flavor if you want to play a young adult or an elder of any ancestry.
In the case of elves, though, they have VERY long lives, and if you want to play an "ancient elf," someone who might be several hundred years old, then the Ancient Elf heritage is a good choice for you. The heritage itself is meant to represent an elf who, over the course of their centuries of life before they finally decide to focus on a specific class or career, had something of a "false start" if you will from another class.
ANY elf can be an ancient elf, in the same way any of them could be Forlorn. They aren't their own "species."
That doesn't really answer what they were asking regarding Half Elves and the fluff intent of the heritage. Since a Half Elf doesn't live for hundreds of years, they get up to 150. And if that is enough, it begs the question why dwarves, gnomes and halflings don't benefit ;) :P (next up, ancient heritages for all -grins-)
But yeah I agree with not codifying age mechanics at character creation. It was always overly fiddly with no real gain outside of minmaxing imo. If I want to create a feeble older man I can make the choice to drop str , dex and con myself :).
At my table I will continue to rule that ancient elf is for full blooded elves only as age is a part of the physical trait restriction that Elf Atavism has for me, but I will never begrudge another for ruling differently even if that becomes an official ruling at some point.
Flavor-wise (I hate using the word "fluff" for it) it's not a great choice for half-elves. Not every choice has or needs to or can be the the best choice for everything.
And as for rules, I feel I can provide pretty solid advice, but in the interests of keeping folks from being too confused we tend to try to let actual rules rulings from Paizo come from the design team. They're busy, though, so in most cases the best person to go to for rules rulings is your GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better alternatives to "fluff" include things like "flavor" and "lore". It's best not to trivialize all of the stuff that makes "why your characters are doing what they are doing" make sense. No one wants to play a game this complicated as a pure abstraction, after all.
Like "I am a cleric of Pharasma, and I want to cleanse the world from the stain of the undead" is a more compelling reason to kick down the vampire's door than "there's a door and behind it is a vampire."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better alternatives to "fluff" include things like "flavor" and "lore".
This is a debate as old as the game itself: Fluff being a disparaging term is a matter of perspective and really isn't something to debate in this thread as it isn't a thread on "fluff" vs "flavor" or "lore". A quibble over terminology is clearly a separate topic from Ancient Elves and 1/2 elves.
|
Creative Director
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better alternatives to "fluff" include things like "flavor" and "lore".This is a debate as old as the game itself: Fluff being a disparaging term is a matter of perspective and really isn't something to debate in this thread as it isn't a thread on "fluff" vs "flavor" or "lore". A quibble over terminology is clearly a separate topic from Ancient Elves and 1/2 elves.
Be that as it may, the use of "fluff" as a term feels derogatory and diminishing to me, and when I see it used instead of more respectful terms like "flavor" or "lore" that tends to chase me away from taking part in discussions. So from a perspective of creating a friendly and welcoming place for me to take part in a discussion, it's far from a quibble to me. All I ask is for folks to keep this in mind, and to not be confused if the overuse of the word "fluff" to describe what I get paid to do ends up minimizing my interest in taking part in the back and forth. ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea of ancient elf and I absolutely love the mechanics behind it because it enables a lot of fun stuff.
But I'm admittedly a little eh on its stance as a heritage. It works for mechanical purposes, but it kind of feels weird given that heritages are described as matters of upbringing and culture and it creates this odd scenario where 'ancientness' and 'being adapted to the desert/caverns/cold' are exclusive, which feels a little weird.
That said, again, it's a really fun option in terms of the sorts of ideas it lets me play around with so I like it.
|
Be that as it may, the use of "fluff" as a term feels derogatory and diminishing to me, and when I see it used instead of more respectful terms like "flavor" or "lore" that tends to chase me away from taking part in discussions. So from a perspective of creating a friendly and welcoming place for me to take part in a discussion, it's far from a quibble to me. All I ask is for folks to keep this in mind, and to not be confused if the overuse of the word "fluff" to describe what I get paid to do ends up minimizing my interest in taking part in the back and forth. ;-)Better alternatives to "fluff" include things like "flavor" and "lore".This is a debate as old as the game itself: Fluff being a disparaging term is a matter of perspective and really isn't something to debate in this thread as it isn't a thread on "fluff" vs "flavor" or "lore". A quibble over terminology is clearly a separate topic from Ancient Elves and 1/2 elves.
I can see why people saying fluff is offensive to you. Because if flavour/lore is "fluff", surely that makes you a fluffer!
Thanks for replying to these threads; it is very much appreciated!
I really like the idea of ancient elf and I absolutely love the mechanics behind it because it enables a lot of fun stuff.
But I'm admittedly a little eh on its stance as a heritage. It works for mechanical purposes, but it kind of feels weird given that heritages are described as matters of upbringing and culture and it creates this odd scenario where 'ancientness' and 'being adapted to the desert/caverns/cold' are exclusive, which feels a little weird.
That said, again, it's a really fun option in terms of the sorts of ideas it lets me play around with so I like it.
I fall into the same camp. The logic of the whole thing doesn't really work for me, but that is true for much of any RPG universe where very long-lived people live together with very short lived people, without there being a massive differentiation in their abilities and knowledge. As such, I'm more concerned about balance issues when it comes to Ancient Elf. As it turns out, I don't think Ancient Elf is extremely powerful, so I'd be inclined to allow it for half-elves with a reasonable backstory.
FWIW, if I use the word "fluff", I am generally talking about my own explanations for the natures of my characters, not the structure or history of the setting. My character with Adopted Ancestry has some "fluff" that builds out the reasons for his mechanics. My never-played, Ancient Elf, half-elf rogue has "fluff" which includes an age-related failing memory. Yes, he can cast some cantrips. No, he doesn't know why. He's been telling tall tales for so long, he doesn't know what is true anymore. If I ever use "fluff" to describe the setting, I apologize. I absolutely love the Pathfinder universe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did not realize people felt the word "fluff" is derogatory. I always used it since I just like soft, fluffy things!
Looks like I did me a learn today, and did not mean any offense to the devs and anyone here!
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better alternatives to "fluff" include things like "flavor" and "lore".This is a debate as old as the game itself: Fluff being a disparaging term is a matter of perspective and really isn't something to debate in this thread as it isn't a thread on "fluff" vs "flavor" or "lore". A quibble over terminology is clearly a separate topic from Ancient Elves and 1/2 elves.
Definition of Fluff:
1) light, downy particles, as of cotton.
2) something of no consequence
3) entertainment or writing perceived as trivial or superficial
4) an error or blunder
Not really a matter of perspective when it’s the actual definition, and not something to sweep under the rug every time it comes up.
|
|
Don't leshies have an INT penalty? Maybe they don't retain 10,000 years worth of information very well.And if that is enough, it begs the question why dwarves, gnomes and halflings don't benefit ;) :P (next up, ancient heritages for all -grins-)Look at the leshy once... "As spirits, they do not age" so your 10,000 year old 1st level leshy can't figure out what a 200 year old elf can? ;)"The heritage itself is meant to represent an elf who, over the course of their centuries of life before they finally decide to focus on a specific class or career, had something of a "false start" if you will from another class."
I'm not sure what int would have to do with it at all [we're talking about an 8 vs a 10]. If anything, a lower int would seem a good reason for having that 'false start' and not picking up the the first class.
Well, IMO INT means learning (as expressed by # of trained skills and esoteric topics like Arcana, Occultism, and Lore). I was suggesting that a leshy might not learn as much over as an elf does over their pre-adventuring lifetime. A leshy has an INT flaw, and elves have an INT boost.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah fluff isn't the greatest of terms, but it is colloquially used so I have a tendency to use it these days.
Although I would hope that my ruling showed that I am more lore minded than not :P.
Another way to contextualization fluff would be as in stuffing, that without the fluff the framework would both be pointless and unsatisfying :)
Definition of Fluff:
1) light, downy particles, as of cotton.
2) something of no consequence
3) entertainment or writing perceived as trivial or superficial
4) an error or blunder
Not really a matter of perspective when it’s the actual definition, and not something to sweep under the rug every time it comes up.
Well sure. But in RPG jargon, "fluff" has come to mean something a bit different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game_terms
"Fluff: The setting and ambiance of a game, as distinct from the rules/mechanics, particularly in reference to written descriptive material."
I think that most people use it somewhere in between, to cover text that is setting-related but of less importance, and that is less binding. The history and general nature of Dwarves is "lore". But there are plenty of lines like
"Your kin have instilled in you an affinity for hard-hitting weapons, and you prefer these to more elegant arms (CRB 36)"
Very few game-runners would consider that sort of thing binding. Surely not every character with Dwarven Weapon Familiarity has that same story. It is there to make the text block a better read. It is superficial, relative to other setting-related material.
Yeah fluff isn't the greatest of terms, but it is colloquially used so I have a tendency to use it these days.
Although I would hope that my ruling showed that I am more lore minded than not :P.
Another way to contextualization fluff would be as in stuffing, that without the fluff the framework would both be pointless and unsatisfying :)
Oh yeah, this is why I thought fluff was used. Either way, I'm not gonna use it if James Jacobs doesn't like it, I'm a rather big fan of his work. I'm a pretty big lore nut, and it's part of why pathfinder has me coming back so much
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
James Jacobs: Spicemaster!
Flavor-Aide?
|
|
Definition of Fluff:
1) light, downy particles, as of cotton.
2) something of no consequence
3) entertainment or writing perceived as trivial or superficial
4) an error or blunder
Not really a matter of perspective when it’s the actual definition, and not something to sweep under the rug every time it comes up.
Well sure. But in RPG jargon, "fluff" has come to mean something a bit different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game_terms
"Fluff: The setting and ambiance of a game, as distinct from the rules/mechanics, particularly in reference to written descriptive material."I think that most people use it somewhere in between, to cover text that is setting-related but of less importance, and that is less binding. The history and general nature of Dwarves is "lore". But there are plenty of lines like
"Your kin have instilled in you an affinity for hard-hitting weapons, and you prefer these to more elegant arms (CRB 36)"
Very few game-runners would consider that sort of thing binding. Surely not every character with Dwarven Weapon Familiarity has that same story. It is there to make the text block a better read. It is superficial, relative to other setting-related material.
Declaring the narrative/flavor “less important” isn’t really disagreeing with what I brought up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Declaring the narrative/flavor “less important” isn’t really disagreeing with what I brought up.
I'd say that is a a pretty inaccurate description of my point. I said that some settings-related text was of less importance, and was less binding, than other settings-related text. I even gave two examples to illustrate. "Less important" is not "unimportant", which is what your dictionary definition is talking about.
"Less" is relative to something else. "Your kin have instilled in you an affinity for hard-hitting weapons, and you prefer these to more elegant arms (CRB 36)" is less important than the history of Dwarves on Golarion. Whether one is "trivial" or "fluff" compared to the other is most definitely a matter of perspective.
Further, I gave a reference to the usage of the word "fluff" in the RPG community, and how, within this community, "fluff" has a meaning that is not the same as the dictionary definition. Community-specific jargon is a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be that as it may, the use of "fluff" as a term feels derogatory and diminishing to me, and when I see it used instead of more respectful terms like "flavor" or "lore" that tends to chase me away from taking part in discussions. So from a perspective of creating a friendly and welcoming place for me to take part in a discussion, it's far from a quibble to me. All I ask is for folks to keep this in mind, and to not be confused if the overuse of the word "fluff" to describe what I get paid to do ends up minimizing my interest in taking part in the back and forth. ;-)Better alternatives to "fluff" include things like "flavor" and "lore".This is a debate as old as the game itself: Fluff being a disparaging term is a matter of perspective and really isn't something to debate in this thread as it isn't a thread on "fluff" vs "flavor" or "lore". A quibble over terminology is clearly a separate topic from Ancient Elves and 1/2 elves.
Some people do not buy the books for the non-rules elements: they are in it for the "crunch". Their lack of interest in it isn't a indicator of the quality of that non-"crunch" material. If I'm interested in making my own world and using the PF2 rules to run it, no matter how well written, engaging and enjoyable it might be to read, it's not what I'm interested in the books for those parts. Or if I'm allowed to alter the "lore" of feats and abilities to better fit my character [which I'd call refluffing], it's not set in stone material that is required to make the game run.
For instance, I don't feel constrained by the Acrobat Background saying "In a circus or on the streets, you earned your pay by performing as an acrobat. You might have turned to adventuring when the money dried up, or simply decided to put your skills to better use." Lore doesn't sound right to me and it's not an enforced flavor [like gods] that doesn't seem right to me either: hence why I'd usually say fluff. It's not a jab at you or any other writer or putting down your work. It's just part of the game that isn't a rule and isn't required by the rules.
Lore: To me lore is history, timelines and the like. Small descriptive sections don't fit this for me. Add to that that Lore is also a skill and it's just not a good fit most times.
Flavor: I've never liked the term as it seems off. It fits much better than Lore but it's still not a good fit IMO. It's like saying the rules are tasteless without them. To me it's more like spice: you add spice to taste: some like more, some less and some none at all.
Fluff: I see this as changeable parts of the game. If I'm not playing the pathfinder setting, it's history is unneeded to me. This isn't a judgement on the material itself: I just don't need it. Me not needing it isn't a judgment on the quality of the material. That and everyone here knows what I mean when I say it...
James: If you feel diminishing by me saying fluff, you have my apologies as that is and will never be my intent. I've been saying fluff for these things for 30+ years now and it's the first thing to pop into my head. Add that to the other terms people have tried to replace it with often don't make sense in that context to me, they don't pop into my head. As such, I most likely will use it in the future: If we ever come up with a term that makes sense for those parts of the game, that could change but it has to be good enough to overcome 30 years of rote learning.
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just as a general comment, if someone goes to the trouble to tell us that a specific term people use to refer to something doesn't make them feel great and to suggest alternative options, and we want that person to keep interacting with us, by not accommodating them (which is almost always incredibly easy with a little effort if we're honest) then we generally make it less likely they'll choose to use their time to interact with us. This applies in all aspects of life and social interaction, just some food for thought.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it really that hard to just use terms he asked for? We all make mistakes. Better to learn and better yourself than choose to keep making the mistake
Just as a general comment, if someone goes to the trouble to tell us that a specific term people use to refer to something doesn't make them feel great and to suggest alternative options, and we want that person to keep interacting with us, by not accommodating them (which is almost always incredibly easy with a little effort if we're honest) then we generally make it less likely they'll choose to use their time to interact with us. This applies in all aspects of life and social interaction, just some food for thought.
I'm just being honest. Given some time, I'm not going to recall this and I'm going to use the term... It's just going to happen as I've used it for decades and every other place I talk games uses the term as an established concept taken for granted: I've only ever heard an issue with it here.
Now if I'm joining a thread with James in it, I might recall he doesn't like it but I'm not going to think about him in some random thread and think 'he might join so I have to remember not to use that term here'. That's not how my brain works at least: so the best I can do is apologize in advance.
suggest alternative options
That's great and all but if they don't trigger the concept in my brain, I'm not going to think of them: if you ask me to call a dog a cat, don't be surprised what I forget and call it a dog: for me, this content = fluff. I go to 4 others site and everyone uses the term fluff, my brain doesn't just switch to another term because I tabbed over to this one.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
if you ask me to call a dog a cat, don't be surprised what I forget and call it a dog: for me, this content = fluff. I go to 4 others site and everyone uses the term fluff, my brain doesn't just switch to another term because I tabbed over to this one.
I'm not saying you're doing it on purpose, but that's about as good an example of a strawman fallacy as there could be. No-one is asking or suggesting you call something an entirely different thing. If you see a dog you can probably tell, "Oh, that looks like a labrador." vs "I think that's a pit bull." That's all.
Frankly, just try. Make the effort. Don't assume you can't and won't remember. If your position is, "I'm pretty sure I'm gonna forget so whatever" and a shrug, then what people will hear is likely, "I don't care enough to bother, deal with it." If you don't mean that... don't say it. Try, make the effort and force yourself to learn. It's not hard and "can't teach an old dog new tricks" is the laziest form of excuse, from your posts on here I'm quite sure you're smarter and better than that, give others the respect to at least try and accommodate such reasonable requests. Sure, you might slip up sometimes, but try, please?
I'm not saying you're doing it on purpose, but that's about as good an example of a strawman fallacy as there could be. No-one is asking or suggesting you call something an entirely different thing. If you see a dog you can probably tell, "Oh, that looks like a labrador." vs "I think that's a pit bull." That's all.
The thing is though, for me it IS analogous. Lore isn't a generic term, it's for specific historical information about a subject: to me that's what it correlates to, not a generic term not anything in the book that's not rule. Flavor just doesn't click for me in a way that's worse worse than cat and dog: at least they are both animals. Flavor triggers an olfactory/taste association not a auditory/visual one.
Frankly, just try.
I have but with this the odd man out with the term, it's never worked. As I said, at best I might recall James not liking it but I'm sure that's as far as that'll go: as soon as I leave here, I return to other sites happily using the term and not think anything about it again. It's not you "can't teach an old dog new tricks" but "don't be surprised a dog does a trick you don't like if everywhere else he goes, people want him to do it."
I mean I can lie and say I'll never use it again here, but I know that isn't true. Try might get me through today and tomorrow but past that it starts getting more unlikely by the day until I'm sure I use it again.
smarter and better than that
Smarter and better have nothing to do with it: it's not a conscious decision but rote: a fixed, habitual use of a term for a concept. If everyone in gaming started using other terms for it, sure I could move away from it but with everywhere else using it, my brain falls back into the habit once I leave. It's even harder when the new term doesn't click with you.
Anyway, I've said my peace and made my apologies. I don't see how anymore back and forth would produce any positive results so I'll be moving on.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as the fluff debate going on in here is secondary to the issue, I find it odd the dismissive nature people treat 'lore/flavour/fluff' with. The rules/crunch literally only exist to support the narrative/fluff, its a way to adjudicate actions in a story (read lore).
Crunch only exists to support fluff.
I am one of the people who mostly homebrews settings but I still find the lore in non rule books to be enlightening and a strong guiding principle behind the 'crunch' sections created to support the lore when adapting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as the fluff debate going on in here is secondary to the issue, I find it odd the dismissive nature people treat 'lore/flavour/fluff' with. The rules/crunch literally only exist to support the narrative/fluff, its a way to adjudicate actions in a story (read lore).
Crunch only exists to support fluff.
I am one of the people who mostly homebrews settings but I still find the lore in non rule books to be enlightening and a strong guiding principle behind the 'crunch' sections created to support the lore when adapting it.
You've accidentally hit on why I care- I have my own setting and so I can write around it either way (and I'm happy to make the decision myself, so its really more about balance guidance) so I just tend to want clarification, about if something was meant to be siloed away from something else- as in this case, Ancient Elf is much stronger on a Half Elf (which can start with any ancestry, including human for open racial stats) than on a base elf, so while I don't mind justifying it in my own setting, I want to know that I'm more or less in step with RAW in doing that, because I want my players to be able to enjoy a consistent experience with the rules- its one of my principles as a GM.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further, I gave a reference to the usage of the word "fluff" in the RPG community, and how, within this community, "fluff" has a meaning that is not the same as the dictionary definition. Community-specific jargon is a thing.
If using the community specific jargon calls the dictionary definition of "writing perceived as trivial or superficial" to the mind of the RPG writer who created the content and makes him feel less inclined to engage in the community that uses the jargon - then the jargon should probably be reexamined. It's not truly an RPG community if the way we talk about it makes creators feel uncomfortable or unappreciated to the point of not engaging with us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If using the community specific jargon calls the dictionary definition of "writing perceived as trivial or superficial" to the mind of the RPG writer who created the content and makes him feel less inclined to engage in the community that uses the jargon - then the jargon should probably be reexamined. It's not truly an RPG community if the way we talk about it makes creators feel uncomfortable or unappreciated to the point of not engaging with us.
I didn't say otherwise. I merely pointed out that within the RPG community, the word "fluff" has a meaning that was not covered in the dictionary definitions provided.
While I do believe everyone has an obligation to look to other people's comfort, I think it unrealistic to expect the entire RPG community to stop using "fluff/crunch" phrasing based on one person's objection in one thread in one forum.
It is, however, completely reasonable to ask that people tailor their language to the needs of those present. A request has been made. That request should be honored.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there's nothing essential about "fluff" (except the connotational dismissiveness) that cannot be replaced by something like "flavor", "lore", "narrative", "non-mechanical", etc. depending on context.
Like a while ago I became aware of Mr. Jacobs' disdain for the term, and since this is, in effect, his house I simply made an effort to stop using it and I haven't really felt the need for it since.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the lore of the D&D games that preceded Pathfinder, elves were supposed to be really good at multiclassing, and half-elves were supposed to be even better at it.
The flavor of the Ancient Elf heritage is that the elf has been around for so long that he can multiclass at 1st level.
Since half-elves are even better at multiclassing than elves are, they should be able to figure out this multiclassing trick earlier than full-blooded elves can -- so, for example, they might have it figured out after a mere 100 years while a full-blooded elf might take over twice that long. Since the new Pathfinder game no longer has aging adjustments to ability scores, this elderly half-elf if good to go and probably has longer before he dies of old age than a typical goblin PC.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there's nothing essential about "fluff" (except the connotational dismissiveness) that cannot be replaced by something like "flavor", "lore", "narrative", "non-mechanical", etc. depending on context.
Like a while ago I became aware of Mr. Jacobs' disdain for the term, and since this is, in effect, his house I simply made an effort to stop using it and I haven't really felt the need for it since.
Yeah I'm pretty flabbergasted that when one of the chief creators of the game we all love asks not to use a term he finds derogatory towards his work because it makes him less likely to engage with us, someone would continue trying to justify using it.
I can't imagine getting invited back to a lot of people's homes if I kept trying to justify something they found offensive to their face.