| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, not everything that isn't mechanics is flavor. Some of that is statement of intent.
We often talk about trying to understand what is intended with some feat or ability or effect. Having those intent statements changed to a font or format that is going to be ignored is going to make that harder.
For example, Turpin Rowe Lumberjack:
The Archetype general description is:
You are a feller of trees and a skilled axe wielder, trained in the art of forestry by the hard-working loggers of Turpin Rowe.
which is about half flavor and half description of the intent of the archetype.
The first line of the dedication feat is:
Your logging training has made you intimately familiar with all aspects of forestry, and you have trained extensively to reach around trees and utilize their bulk to your advantage.
Which is entirely intent. This is describing what you should expect to get from the mechanics of the feat. And if the mechanics rules are not clear, then we can look to this intent statement to make rulings for our games that will allow the characters to match with the intent.
And while the flavor can be changed as needed, none of the rules text is optional.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a significant problem distinguishing between flavour text, introductory text, and rules text. Yes there are a few little quirks, but this is not a major concern for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think there is any text in the core rule book that is not supposed to also help you understand the rules of the game, even if it is text that is adding a narrative to the ability or rule. There might be some confusing descriptive text that is fit for errata, but I don’t think putting it in italics would be helpful or useful if the text isn’t helping make clear the intention of the rule.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
One problem with this is that it relies on the assumption that this delineation even exists as far as Paizo is concerned.
Like I get where the OP is coming from, but as far as I can tell the whole notion that you should ignore the first sentence of most feats and character options because it's "just flavor" is pretty much entirely an invention of certain people in the community and not something I've ever seen Paizo publicly endorse or use as a point of clarification.
So I think it's plausible that Paizo would look at this problem and simply say that all of the text is relevant, which is why it's there.
... There's even some historical precedent to back it up. PF1 notably did separate descriptive text from benefits text in feat descriptions (though not spell descriptions). Removing that layer of separation was a design choice in PF2, suggesting if anything that part of the goal was to break down this assertion.
All extremely speculative, but I'd be surprised if Paizo changes the way they format feats and spells all that much.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
One problem with this is that it relies on the assumption that this delineation even exists as far as Paizo is concerned.
Like I get where the OP is coming from, but as far as I can tell the whole notion that you should ignore the first sentence of most feats and character options because it's "just flavor" is pretty much entirely an invention of certain people in the community and not something I've ever seen Paizo publicly endorse or use as a point of clarification.
So I think it's plausible that Paizo would look at this problem and simply say that all of the text is relevant, which is why it's there.
... There's even some historical precedent to back it up. PF1 notably did separate descriptive text from benefits text in feat descriptions (though not spell descriptions). Removing that layer of separation was a design choice in PF2, suggesting if anything that part of the goal was to break down this assertion.
All extremely speculative, but I'd be surprised if Paizo changes the way they format feats and spells all that much.
If you consider descriptive text as RAW then the rules crumble to pieces. It's because we all make the mental exercise of ignoring it that the rules are consistent.
There are the obvious cases where descriptive text is in direct contradiction with the mechanical text. This one is rare.
But then there are all the cases where descriptive text is just descriptive. Considering it prescriptive means that tons of characters are invalid because you can't reflavor rules.
Simple things like:
- "You didn’t choose to become a spellcaster—you were born one." => you can't play a Sorcerer who acquired their power because of an event.
- "The fury of a wild predator fills you when you Rage" => deers and frogs are hardly predators, so no Deer nor Frog Animal Barbarian.
- "You point your finger toward the target and speak a word of slaying." => You can't cast Finger of Death if you don't have fingers or can't point your finger at the enemy.
And so on. The descriptive text is all over the place. It can't be part of the rules without destroying them entirely.
I'm fine with it giving an intent but descriptive text is definitely not RAW and as such should be separated from the actual rules.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I realize it's not the point of your post, frogs are very much predators once they leave the tadpole phase.
|
I don’t think there is any text in the core rule book that is not supposed to also help you understand the rules of the game, even if it is text that is adding a narrative to the ability or rule. There might be some confusing descriptive text that is fit for errata, but I don’t think putting it in italics would be helpful or useful if the text isn’t helping make clear the intention of the rule.
Pre-errata there was definitely some text portions which were extremely ambiguous.
Cloud Jump's original text was something of a mess. Giving some readers a whole different interpretation of how it was meant to work. In this instance, not only did the original text include what seemed like very clear language, but also included an example of its modified outcomes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
sometimes when flavor text are long they are their own paragraph
just make first paragraph always flavor text the rest always actual effect
Whatever the way to dissociate it, I think it'd be good to do so or at least to clearly indicate in the rules that flavor text is no rule. Experienced players (like most of us are) rarely fall for flavor text, but I've seen numerous ridiculous debates and questions brought by beginners who were expecting to get what the flavor text says or just interpreting it mechanically and not understanding it as a consequence.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever the way to dissociate it, I think it'd be good to do so or at least to clearly indicate in the rules that flavor text is no rule. Experienced players (like most of us are) rarely fall for flavor text, but I've seen numerous ridiculous debates and questions brought by beginners who were expecting to get what the flavor text says or just interpreting it mechanically and not understanding it as a consequence.sometimes when flavor text are long they are their own paragraph
just make first paragraph always flavor text the rest always actual effect
On a tangential note, I was once at a Magic the Gathering event where a judge had to be called to a table because one player was causing a fuss over an interaction.
Their beef was that the flavour text of the card indicated a different interaction between two sets of cards, which was totally not supported by the rules text of either. They were basically making the case that "Look! This happens in the lore, it says so right here, I should be able to use this card to do [whatever nonsense they were trying to justify], because it says that's what happens!"
That poor judge.
I don’t think there is any text in the core rule book that is not supposed to also help you understand the rules of the game, even if it is text that is adding a narrative to the ability or rule. There might be some confusing descriptive text that is fit for errata, but I don’t think putting it in italics would be helpful or useful if the text isn’t helping make clear the intention of the rule.Pre-errata there was definitely some text portions which were extremely ambiguous.
Cloud Jump's original text was something of a mess. Giving some readers a whole different interpretation of how it was meant to work. In this instance, not only did the original text include what seemed like very clear language, but also included an example of its modified outcomes.
That is why I said that some of it is still fit for errata, because it adds confusing elements to the game, but I don’t believe it to be superfluous text. Establishing the intention of the rules is important mechanical work to be done in a rule book because RAW is always subject to confusion and disagreement. People will always read rules with the intention of making those rules work the way that they want those rules to work. Laws end up requiring rulings with hundreds of pages of explanation for how they are supposed to work.
Don’t forget that it is a rule that GMs need to act as interpreter of the rules and that not every situation is going to be adequately covered by what is included in the rulebook. Even in cases like finger of death, I would argue that “pointing your finger at the target” is not flavor text, but intention text…not that a finger is required, but that the personal nature of the spell implies a need to do some kind of directed gesticulation to cast the spell.
I think spells and items in particular are places where this language requirement has not been as thoroughly vetted as in other parts of the rulebook, because spells and items are such modular and stand alone components of the game that conversations about the effectiveness of the rules set as a whole pretty much requires actually play experience to contextualize what the implications of narrative intention text can be, but if the text was not meant to help GMs and players understand what the rule or ability is intended to do in the game, it is text that isn’t needed in a massive rulebook.
Edit: per sorcerers, I think the intention is that sorcerers’ power is blood magic. GMs and Players are free to re-interpret narrative as freely as they re-interpret rules, or mod whatever they want, but in the game world sorcerers is an innate magical power that requires training and experience to harness. Making the power come exclusively from an event and not have that involve triggering dormant magical ability is modding the narrative of the sorcerer class. Which is fine and an encouraged thing to do, but so is GMs nodding mechanical elements of the game that don’t quite fit the narrative being told.
Treating mechanics as immutable but narrative as “fluff” to be discarded or changed by player or GM with out consideration for its effect on the gaming experience of everyone contributes to the idea that only mechanical game development is important work in game design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is why I said that some of it is still fit for errata, because it adds confusing elements to the game, but I don’t believe it to be superfluous text.
We never said it was superfluous, just that it needs to be separated from the rules to avoid situations where you don't know if a bit of text is supposed to show an intent or describe a mechanical element.
Even in cases like finger of death, I would argue that “pointing your finger at the target” is not flavor text, but intention text…not that a finger is required, but that the personal nature of the spell implies a need to do some kind of directed gesticulation to cast the spell.
The exact reason why it should be isolated from rule text, because we already have 3 different interpretations for the same sentence.
Also, what you do is not reading it as intention text, but reading it as "philosophical RAW", certainly the worst type of rules as everyone will have a different interpretation.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One problem with this is that it relies on the assumption that this delineation even exists as far as Paizo is concerned.
Like I get where the OP is coming from, but as far as I can tell the whole notion that you should ignore the first sentence of most feats and character options because it's "just flavor" is pretty much entirely an invention of certain people in the community and not something I've ever seen Paizo publicly endorse or use as a point of clarification.
So I think it's plausible that Paizo would look at this problem and simply say that all of the text is relevant, which is why it's there.
... There's even some historical precedent to back it up. PF1 notably did separate descriptive text from benefits text in feat descriptions (though not spell descriptions). Removing that layer of separation was a design choice in PF2, suggesting if anything that part of the goal was to break down this assertion.
All extremely speculative, but I'd be surprised if Paizo changes the way they format feats and spells all that much.
If you consider descriptive text as RAW then the rules crumble to pieces. It's because we all make the mental exercise of ignoring it that the rules are consistent.
There are the obvious cases where descriptive text is in direct contradiction with the mechanical text. This one is rare.
But then there are all the cases where descriptive text is just descriptive. Considering it prescriptive means that tons of characters are invalid because you can't reflavor rules.Simple things like:
- "You didn’t choose to become a spellcaster—you were born one." => you can't play a Sorcerer who acquired their power because of an event.
- "The fury of a wild predator fills you when you Rage" => deers and frogs are hardly predators, so no Deer nor Frog Animal Barbarian.
- "You point your finger toward the target and speak a word of slaying." => You can't cast Finger of Death if you don't have fingers or can't point your finger at the enemy....
None of your examples make the rules crumble. Being unable to reflavor things (or crunch and flavor being intertwined) may prevent certain character concepts but that's a player preference issue, not a rules inconsistency.
- Sorcerer powers come from their bloodline. We can infer from the retraining rules that unique circumstance might alter your bloodline after you were born but 95% of the time you're born with it. But nothing in the rules prevents you from having an inciting incident that awoke your powers, it just means you had the potential all along. You're an X-Men style mutant, not a Spider-Man or Captain America.
- Frogs are predators. Deer are not, but they certainly are on the receiving end of the rage of wild predators. I'd simply play a deer barbarian as having more flight in their fight or flight response.
- Humanoids already can't cast finger of death if they can't point to an enemy; somatic components require being able to gesture freely. (If your hand is occupied, curling one finger off your weapon for a second seems fine.) If a naga is given finger of death, than the rule about "make sure things work as intended if they don't as written" kicks in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am in agreement with the OP keep flab or text and rules separate.
Many options sound great as flavour text them when looked at objectively come off as a simple +1 to attack/skill etc. no amount of flavour text is going to make it look any better than adding one to the dice roll.
So yes my vote for keeping both separate.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Sorcerer powers come from their bloodline. We can infer from the retraining rules that unique circumstance might alter your bloodline after you were born but 95% of the time you're born with it.
Ok, so same with Mutagens: 95% of the Mutagens have drawbacks, I just happen to use the 5% without them?
Either it's part of the rules and then it's 100% of the time or it's not part of the rules and then we don't care about it. There's no rule that you apply only when you want.If your hand is occupied, curling one finger off your weapon for a second seems fine
So no Fingers of death if you wear boxing gloves?
Flavor text as part of the rules break the game, completely, entirely, without anything to salvage. All you do with Unicore is to bend the rules with lots of extreme interpretations to justify flavor text as part of... philosophical RAW? Because you don't apply it literally, you apply it with a lot of imagination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you consider descriptive text as RAW then the rules crumble to pieces. It's because we all make the mental exercise of ignoring it that the rules are consistent.
There are the obvious cases where descriptive text is in direct contradiction with the mechanical text. This one is rare.
But then there are all the cases where descriptive text is just descriptive. Considering it prescriptive means that tons of characters are invalid because you can't reflavor rules.
I think this is a huge stretch. Not sure if you actually think this way about the rules or if you are just arguing the opposing side because no one else has yet.
Just because something is RAW doesn't mean that it is prescriptive.
An example list is one case. Just because an example only lists a few things doesn't mean that other things are forbidden.
Flavor and guidelines are another case. No one should look at the 'You Might' and 'Others Probably' entries of an ancestry and feel like they are forced to play characters that meet those requirements. That is certainly not the intent of the game developers and creators. link and link for those who insist.
Simple things like:
- "You didn’t choose to become a spellcaster—you were born one." => you can't play a Sorcerer who acquired their power because of an event.
And as for the usefulness of putting such flavor text into a different font, I would point out that this description of Sorcerer flavor is already in italics and yet is still being cited as prohibitive of other options.
Treating mechanics as immutable but narrative as “fluff” to be discarded or changed by player or GM with consideration for its effect on the gaming experience of everyone contributes to the idea that only mechanical game development is important work in game design.
Rules design is only ever mechanics. The story is there to give meaning and context to your actions in-game. Unless you're aiming for high verisimilitude (which we aren't in this system) the two are almost wholly separate. This is the same system with asymmetrical rules for players and npcs all over the place while generally ignoring all of that as far as the story goes.
I'm all for providing dev intent in the rules text and flavor text (clearly marked/separated) in more places, but let's not pretend they're at all of equal importance as far as the gameplay goes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This attitude that lore is not a part of the game and thus either has to be 100% mechanical rules arbitration or it can safely be ignored by player without talking to their GM about the effect those narrative changes have on the game is why the word "fluff" is problematic for folks who invest decades in narrative game design.
PF2 strives not to have "flavor text" in their rule books. IF you want "flavorless rules" that is for something like a SRD that is not relevant to the world the game is being played in. Yes, the rules of PF2 can be modded easily to work with any setting or game world you want to play in, but the narrative intention text of those rules can be modded just as easily. Seeing one as more important to the game than the other suggests that the rule books should just not include any setting material or descriptive text to help players understand how those rules are supposed to work.
Modding rules is just as fair to the game as modding narrative. Both should be acts of cooperation between players and GMs. Narrative is not any more free game to re-design than rules are, nor potentially any less disruptive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Sorcerer powers come from their bloodline. We can infer from the retraining rules that unique circumstance might alter your bloodline after you were born but 95% of the time you're born with it.Ok, so same with Mutagens: 95% of the Mutagens have drawbacks, I just happen to use the 5% without them?
Either it's part of the rules and then it's 100% of the time or it's not part of the rules and then we don't care about it. There's no rule that you apply only when you want.If your hand is occupied, curling one finger off your weapon for a second seems fineSo no Fingers of death if you wear boxing gloves?
Flavor text as part of the rules break the game, completely, entirely, without anything to salvage. All you do with Unicore is to bend the rules with lots of extreme interpretations to justify flavor text as part of... philosophical RAW? Because you don't apply it literally, you apply it with a lot of imagination.
I mean, fine, say you can't be a sorcerer without being born with it or can't cast finger of death with boxing gloves. The game still isn't broken just because you don't like some of the consequences. You don't need to have sorcerers gain powers from an experiment gone wrong to have a functional game. Personally, I'm not a fan of reflavoring in the first place. There are plenty of character concepts that still work without needing to turn your bow into a pulse rifle.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, fine, say you can't be a sorcerer without being born with it or can't cast finger of death with boxing gloves. The game still isn't broken just because you don't like some of the consequences. You don't need to have sorcerers gain powers from an experiment gone wrong to have a functional game. Personally, I'm not a fan of reflavoring in the first place. There are plenty of character concepts that still work without needing to turn your bow into a pulse rifle.
Maybe your vision of "broken" is not mine. I consider that if I have a significant portion of the rules that are no more working (Deer Animal Barbarian, Dispel Magic, Finger of Death on non-fingered creatures, etc...) the game is broken. I consider that if I can't play a non-vanilla Sorcerer (and certainly a lot of other non-vanilla things) the game is significantly altered.
But more importantly: What's the point in defending that not being able to become a Sorcerer is fine? Just to get a point?I don't think anyone uses flavor text literally. Defending that flavor text and mechanical text are equivalent is false for most players.
This attitude that lore is not a part of the game and thus either has to be 100% mechanical rules arbitration or it can safely be ignored by player without talking to their GM about the effect those narrative changes have on the game is why the word "fluff" is problematic for folks who invest decades in narrative game design.
PF2 strives not to have "flavor text" in their rule books. IF you want "flavorless rules" that is for something like a SRD that is not relevant to the world the game is being played in. Yes, the rules of PF2 can be modded easily to work with any setting or game world you want to play in, but the narrative intention text of those rules can be modded just as easily. Seeing one as more important to the game than the other suggests that the rule books should just not include any setting material or descriptive text to help players understand how those rules are supposed to work.
Modding rules is just as fair to the game as modding narrative. Both should be acts of cooperation between players and GMs. Narrative is not any more free game to re-design than rules are, nor potentially any less disruptive.
Sorry, but that's a strawman. Separating flavor and mechanical text to clearly indicate what part of the book has to be applied literally and what part of the book is only there for descriptive purposes (which may or may not be enforced by the GM) isn't equivalent to removing all flavor text. Flavor text is important, to get an idea of what's happening, provide descriptions and sometimes rule edge cases.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I propose a third, worse option: "By RAW, deer are predators in Pathfinder."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of the rule book for a game has to be applied literally. It is a game. The mechanics and narrative of any game are intertwined. If there are discrepancies between what is possible mechanically and what is described narratively, it is an issue that requires errata. If animal instinct barbarian is narratively a power tied to predation, then it is a mechanical mistake to include non-predator animals in the option list. If it was a mistake to describe the animal instinct barbarian as requiring a predator's instinct, than the narrative descriptive text needs to be changed to a different word.
Rules as things which must always be followed literally even when they contradict everyone's expectations and desires for the game and make no sense to anyone playing is a very harmful perspective to have on the game. Players and GMs should feel as free to discuss and change the rules as they should feel free to discuss and change the narrative of a game to make it a fun experience for all. Saying mechanical consistency is more important than narrative consistency is a problematic perspective to approaching game design.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This attitude that lore is not a part of the game and thus either has to be 100% mechanical rules arbitration or it can safely be ignored by player without talking to their GM about the effect those narrative changes have on the game is why the word "fluff" is problematic for folks who invest decades in narrative game design.
PF2 strives not to have "flavor text" in their rule books. IF you want "flavorless rules" that is for something like a SRD that is not relevant to the world the game is being played in. Yes, the rules of PF2 can be modded easily to work with any setting or game world you want to play in, but the narrative intention text of those rules can be modded just as easily. Seeing one as more important to the game than the other suggests that the rule books should just not include any setting material or descriptive text to help players understand how those rules are supposed to work.
What exactly is "narrative game design"? I love the PF2e rules - emphasis on rules - basically nothing else is valuable to me personally. There is a clear difference between being someone who designs the mechanics of a game and someone who wants to write fiction. I know that the authors of PF2e absolutely love their setting... but I, a consumer/DM, do not.
For example, I use zero (0)/none of the PF2e lore, flavor, etc. Literally none of it. So, like SuperBidi I would also appreciate if there was a razor sharp distinction between what is mechanical rules text and what is flavor text or fluff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, fine, say you can't be a sorcerer without being born with it or can't cast finger of death with boxing gloves. The game still isn't broken just because you don't like some of the consequences. You don't need to have sorcerers gain powers from an experiment gone wrong to have a functional game. Personally, I'm not a fan of reflavoring in the first place. There are plenty of character concepts that still work without needing to turn your bow into a pulse rifle.Maybe your vision of "broken" is not mine. I consider that if I have a significant portion of the rules that are no more working (Deer Animal Barbarian, Dispel Magic, Finger of Death on non-fingered creatures, etc...) the game is broken. I consider that if I can't play a non-vanilla Sorcerer (and certainly a lot of other non-vanilla things) the game is significantly altered.
But more importantly: What's the point in defending that not being able to become a Sorcerer is fine? Just to get a point?
I don't think anyone uses flavor text literally. Defending that flavor text and mechanical text are equivalent is false for most players....This attitude that lore is not a part of the game and thus either has to be 100% mechanical rules arbitration or it can safely be ignored by player without talking to their GM about the effect those narrative changes have on the game is why the word "fluff" is problematic for folks who invest decades in narrative game design.
PF2 strives not to have "flavor text" in their rule books. IF you want "flavorless rules" that is for something like a SRD that is not relevant to the world the game is being played in. Yes, the rules of PF2 can be modded easily to work with any setting or game world you want to play in, but the narrative intention text of those rules can be modded just as easily. Seeing one as more important to the game than the other suggests that the rule books should just not include any setting material or descriptive text to help players
I don't view the game as automatically enriched by throwing out flavor. Part of what makes the shared story telling of Pathfinder work is that we have a shared understanding of what words mean in the story. But if you want to talk about pointless hills to die on, there's no functional difference a sorcerer whose dormant bloodline awoke because of a magical experiment gone wrong and one whose bloodline came into existence because of the experiment. Sorcerer bloodlines are notorious for lying dormant for generations before finally manifesting. It isn't like having a deity where you can clearly point to the original source.
As to your other examples, the only one which actually seems in contradiction to me is the deer barbarian and that again can get covered by the "use common sense to make things work as intended" rule. I'm not even aware of a creature without fingers that can cast finger of death, unless you want to argue an umbral dragon's claws don't count as fingers and that's silly. Not even sure what you think the problem is with Dispel Magic.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I propose a third, worse option: "By RAW, deer are predators in Pathfinder."
I'm currently running 'A Fistful of Flowers' that features Leshy PCs...
Can confirm.
Just to cast my vote in here, I'm a fan of descriptive text and intertwining it with the mechanical RAW of the spell/ability/etc. Theres a lot of things that gms just have to apply logic to, not every scenario can be accounted for in a small block of text.
That being said I do hope that descriptive text really is taken into account as being important to the mechanics.
A recent example (that I did bring up during the playtest and I hope was looked at) is the descriptive text for the kineticist earth impulse the shattered mountain weeps. Mechanically, its damage in a 20ft burst within 120 ft that also causes difficult terrain and more damage if enemies stay in the area. The descriptive text is that you conjure a massive sphere of rock that floats in the air for up to a minute and rains deadly debris everywhere. Mechanically you'd be able to do it in a regular building with 8 ft ceilings; if you take the descriptive text into account you're a lot more limited. That's the kind of thing that might be intentional (really hope it isn't), might not be. I get the feeling that he writers imagination got away from them without thinking of the mechanics (and it is an awesome visual so I don't blame them) but who knows.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Defending that flavor text and mechanical text are equivalent is false for most players.
Check for strawman yourself too. We aren't claiming that flavor text and mechanical rules text is equivalent. Just that both are important and that flavor text cannot simply be ignored. And that changing the flavor text to be in a separate location or in a separate font is going to do either a) nothing, or b) cause the flavor text to be ignored.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Defending that flavor text and mechanical text are equivalent is false for most players.Check for strawman yourself too. We aren't claiming that flavor text and mechanical rules text is equivalent. Just that both are important and that flavor text cannot simply be ignored. And that changing the flavor text to be in a separate location or in a separate font is going to do either a) nothing, or b) cause the flavor text to be ignored.
Why can't it be ignored? For example, finger of death...
"You point your finger toward the target and speak a word of slaying. You deal 70 negative damage to the target. If the damage from finger of death reduces the target to 0 Hit Points, the target dies instantly."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Defending that flavor text and mechanical text are equivalent is false for most players.Check for strawman yourself too. We aren't claiming that flavor text and mechanical rules text is equivalent. Just that both are important and that flavor text cannot simply be ignored. And that changing the flavor text to be in a separate location or in a separate font is going to do either a) nothing, or b) cause the flavor text to be ignored.Why can't it be ignored? For example, finger of death...
"
You point your finger toward the target and speak a word of slaying.You deal 70 negative damage to the target. If the damage from finger of death reduces the target to 0 Hit Points, the target dies instantly."
It can be considered and then changed deliberately. Reflavored. There is not generally a problem with that. Though as Unicore mentioned, the players will want to consider and check that the new flavor will match with the campaign setting and theme.
But are you seriously going to have your character do absolutely nothing while causing the effect? This is a role-playing game. You are describing your character's actions ... right?
But are you seriously going to have your character do absolutely nothing while causing the effect? This is a role-playing game. You are describing your character's actions ... right?
Exactly because it's a role playing game I don't need a book to tell me how to describe it, I'll describe it however I want.
IMO, the thing to be more worried about is whether or not you're strongly signaling what your IP is. Since game mechanics can't actually be copyrighted, the argument for separating "fluff" from your game mechanics is primarily to avoid the rather awkward situation of some arbitrary judge in a courtroom making the determination
That is the job of the SRD.
Check out the difference between the flavor filled Aldori Duelist from AoN (that has special licence agreement) and the Duelist from OGN that relies on the SRD alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not speaking for anyone except myself, but I do think that mechanical text at its best is also narrative text.
Rules are a prescriptive story for how to resolve actions and conflict. If you use "the rules as written" for PF2, you are adding a whole lot of narrative constraint to the game you are playing, even if you try to create some arbitrary line between "rules" and "narrative." Wizards exist in any game played with PF2 in pretty particular narrative constraints by having spell slots and requiring a spell book. It is a game where fighting dragons requires specialized heroes and not armies of untrained militia.
Again, the rules and the narrative of the game are designed to be easy to change by tables to make the game experience the desired one. Changing the narrative to fit your game is fine. But so is changing the rules to fit your game.
In both cases, it is important to think through what impact that will have on your game though. Thinking that it is fine as a player just to come in and make up your own narrative that is completely divorced from the campaign or adventure that is being run is just as disruptive as coming in thinking that your personal dislike of a particular rule, or love of a variant rule, means you have the right to force those on the game that you are playing on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But are you seriously going to have your character do absolutely nothing while causing the effect? This is a role-playing game. You are describing your character's actions ... right?Exactly because it's a role playing game I don't need a book to tell me how to describe it, I'll describe it however I want.
And I am not saying that you can't or that you shouldn't.
What I am saying is that having the default flavor and intent statements is still valuable. Not something that can be simply and completely ignored or that should be removed from the rulebooks entirely.
It is useful for people who are playing the game so that they have a fallback to rely on when their own creativity is being used elsewhere. Do you really want to have to come up with your own descriptions for every spell that you cast - and from nothing more than their mechanical effects?
The other use and benefit of the default flavor and intent is that if there is confusion about the mechanics text, the flavor and intent can help clarify that.
My setting, my worlds, my narrative. I'll handle the layering in of those things myself.
Yes. But the point is that you - and the other players playing with you - have to actually handle those things.
If you and your friends are coming up with completely separate and often incompatible narrative flavor, the game isn't going to go well.
But are you seriously going to have your character do absolutely nothing while causing the effect? This is a role-playing game. You are describing your character's actions ... right?Exactly because it's a role playing game I don't need a book to tell me how to describe it, I'll describe it however I want.
But a lot of folks like having narrative consistency to go alongside their rules consistency. Everyone is going to fall on a different place of the spectrum, but it is a spectrum. If you took the mechanics only to an extreme, you've suddenly got a number crunching system with no particular genre mooring. I don't really want to play in a game where a player can decide Finger of Death is actually a swarm of nanobots they fart out and there wizard is actually a technomage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This would be wrong per most of the rulebooks (everywhere they say, [and I paraphrase] 'feel free to customize').My setting, my worlds, my narrative. I'll handle the layering in of those things myself.Yes. But the point is that you - and the other players playing with you - have to actually handle those things.
If you and your friends are coming up with completely separate and often incompatible narrative flavor, the game isn't going to go well.
And you are still not understanding what I am saying.
Yes. Customize. Of course you should make your game your own.
But you have to do it with intention and thought put into it. If all of the players at the table are customizing in different directions, then the story you are telling won't make much sense.
So sure. Re-skin PF2 to look like Starfinder. Adapt it to a prehistoric low technology setting. But work it out with the other players so that you don't try to do both at the same time.
I am not speaking for anyone except myself, but I do think that mechanical text at its best is also narrative text.
Rules are a prescriptive story for how to resolve actions and conflict. If you use "the rules as written" for PF2, you are adding a whole lot of narrative constraint to the game you are playing, even if you try to create some arbitrary line between "rules" and "narrative." Wizards exist in any game played with PF2 in pretty particular narrative constraints by having spell slots and requiring a spell book. It is a game where fighting dragons requires specialized heroes and not armies of untrained militia.
That is certainly a respectable position to take. Speaking for myself, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. My setting, my worlds, my narrative. I'll handle the layering in of those things myself.
EDIT: I should note, several of the core rule books (and at least one Lost Omens book) take some pains to lay out the customizability of the ruleset and how GMs can change things like narrative "fluff" (which is why I say Paizo would like to eat their cake and still have it at the same time). It's also why I think these conversations are kinda moot. It's pointless for anyone (not you specifically or at all) to nerd rage about integrated "fluff" when Paizo has written many, many sentences walking that fluff's existence back to reinsure folks with their own settings (or even own versions of Lost Omens/Golarion) that they can customize as they like. So despite being at opposite ends of the spectrum there's hardly anything to converse about let alone argue over...
Jacob, from your previous posts, it makes it clear that you feel no issue with changing either the narrative or the rules to fit the game you want to play. My argument is that that is the intended way for the game to be played, but it becomes more complicated to play it that way when people see "rules" as some fundamental feature of a game that have to be respected as is, but "narrative" is something entirely irrelevant to understanding or using those rules, so it can be discarded without consideration for the changes that will make on the game as a whole.
But a lot of folks like having narrative consistency to go alongside their rules consistency. Everyone is going to fall on a different place of the spectrum, but it is a spectrum. If you took the mechanics only to an extreme, you've suddenly got a number crunching system with no particular genre mooring. I don't really want to play in a game where a player can decide Finger of Death is actually a swarm of nanobots they fart out and there wizard is actually a technomage.But are you seriously going to have your character do absolutely nothing while causing the effect? This is a role-playing game. You are describing your character's actions ... right?Exactly because it's a role playing game I don't need a book to tell me how to describe it, I'll describe it however I want.
It's the DM's job to create/dictate/currate the world and set the genre and world building - it sounds like you're just abdicating being a DM to the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My argument is that that is the intended way for the game to be played, but it becomes more complicated to play it that way when people see "rules" as some fundamental feature of a game that have to be respected as is,...
Can you give me a concise example from PF2e where rules and fluff cannot be disentangled?