| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is almost impossible to continue having this conversation if people are going to continue to use the word "fluff" to talk about narrative text, rather than a deliberate attempt to delegitimize narrative writing in game design when developers of this game have politely explained why that is hurtful language to them. It is clear that when the voices that continue to use the word as if it was neutral, but insisting as well that it is an aspect of the game that they wish to just toss out and ignore, that James Jacobs reasons for asking us not to use this word are justified.
I see what you're trying to say. I don't think it's necessary. If everyone at a table agrees, it's fine to color outside the lines and do both. Pre-historic technology clashing with high-tech space opera sounds fine to me. #workedfortheewoks
Yes. if everyone at the table agrees. But it isn't something that one player should just feel entitled to do completely on their own and without consulting anyone else at the table.
I think the intent of the conversation though is that its a nice-to-have when core rules make this an easier process for tables by strongly signaling what is "fluff" and what is game mechanics. I agree that sentiment, which I think is contrary to yours.
Ultimately for some it won't matter because they can implement their visions anyway.
Yes, that is contrary to my sentiment. I feel that having the defaults in place is valuable. And that separating that out into two locations is ineffective and will do more harm than good. It makes the default flavor harder to find if nothing else.
Also, I think my base assumption is that when folks customize, they do so with "intention and thought put into it." So I'm not sure were we're really going here...
The reason for the debate is because there are some on this thread that want to remove the flavor entirely and leave only generic mechanics, and others that claim that having the flavor and the mechanics together means that the flavor must be enforced as rigid and unchangeable rules. Both of those ideas have problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is almost impossible to continue having this conversation if people are going to continue to use the word "fluff" to talk about narrative text, rather than a deliberate attempt to delegitimize narrative writing in game design when developers of this game have politely explained why that is hurtful language to them. It is clear that when the voices that continue to use the word as if it was neutral, but insisting as well that it is an aspect of the game that they wish to just toss out and ignore, that James Jacobs reasons for asking us not to use this word are justified.
I'll take that as a "No, I cannot", then.
It is almost impossible to continue having this conversation if people are going to continue to use the word "fluff" to talk about narrative text, rather than a deliberate attempt to delegitimize narrative writing in game design when developers of this game have politely explained why that is hurtful language to them. It is clear that when the voices that continue to use the word as if it was neutral, but insisting as well that it is an aspect of the game that they wish to just toss out and ignore, that James Jacobs reasons for asking us not to use this word are justified.I'll take that as a "No, I cannot", then.
What is a wizard?
Without a narrative conception of what that is, a body of rules about "spells" and "spell slots" are completely meaningless. There are certain narrative constraints that are inherent in all rules that speak to topics like the genre of the game and the tone of the game that are all completely modifiable, but are just as relevant as the rules themselves.
I am not arguing that it is wrong to change narrative text to fit the the game that you are trying to run, but that in doing so, you are actually modifying the game itself in a way that can be understood as changing the rules as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is a wizard?
A "wizard", for me, is all the mechanical abilities found and defined in its section of the CRB.
Without a narrative conception of what that is, a body of rules about "spells" and "spell slots" are completely meaningless. There are certain narrative constraints that are inherent in all rules that speak to topics like the genre of the game and the tone of the game that are all completely modifiable, but are just as relevant as the rules themselves.
If I replace the word "spells" and "spell slots" with "gorbles" and "gorble spots" the game still plays mechanically the same, so I do not agree with this set of statements. But furthermore, it's just not true that they are 'meaningless' when they are explicitly defined to have a meaning. The number of gorble spots you have determines how many gorbles you can cast per day. It has meaning.
I am not arguing that it is wrong to change narrative text to fit the the game that you are trying to run, but that in doing so, you are actually modifying the game itself in a way that can be understood as changing the rules as well.
I do not believe that statement is true.
Also, as politely and civilly as I can articulate this, the wishes/desires/feelings of the developers do not matter to me whatsoever. So, if it bothers of offends them that I refer to non-mechanical aspects as 'fluff'... so much the worse for them I suppose.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately, I'm not sure why the debate has to happen. Some folks think thing A. Some think thing B. There's more than enough community space for both groups to coexist. Is the point of the debate to stamp out the thinking of one of the groups? If so, isn't that something akin to mere cyberbullying?
The only reason I'm in this debate is because someone has, or seems to have, said that "narrative text"/fluff/non-mechanical text cannot be separated from mechanical rules text and I am trying to demonstrate why that statement is false.
People are obviously free to play however they wish.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the point of the debate to stamp out the thinking of one of the groups? If so, isn't that something akin to mere cyberbullying?
That is certainly what it feels like to me. Especially with people insisting on using derogatory terms for the rules text that they don't like despite being informed that it is in fact considered derogatory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the point of the debate to stamp out the thinking of one of the groups? If so, isn't that something akin to mere cyberbullying?That is certainly what it feels like to me. Especially with people insisting on using derogatory terms for the rules text that they don't like despite being informed that it is in fact considered derogatory.
How about instead I call it "text that I personally think is unimportant and totally ignorable"? I want to make sure that I use the correct shibboleths.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Raiztt, if you don't respect the developers and their work enough to even bother writing flavor instead of fluff, I have no idea why you expect them to respect you enough to do the much more complicated task of dilenieating rules to your preferences.
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?
Clerics and deities, champions and codes. A paladin being able to lie has direct impact on the mechanical actions they can take in the story. Whether you think that's a problem I guess is a separate issue. But even if your premise is correct... If drawing the distinction is as easy as you claim, than what needs to be changed? Are you even taking a stance on the original formatting topic, or are you arguing just to argue?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raiztt, if you don't respect the developers and their work enough to even bother writing flavor instead of fluff, I have no idea why you expect them to respect you enough to do the much more complicated task of dilenieating rules to your preferences.
I'm not asking them to do anything so I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I respect that the devs have created a very solid mechanical system for playing the sorts of TTRPGs that I like to play.
Clerics and deities, champions and codes. A paladin being able to lie has direct impact on the mechanical actions they can take in the story. Whether you think that's a problem I guess is a separate issue. But even if your premise is correct... If drawing the distinction is as easy as you claim, than what needs to be changed? Are you even taking a stance on the original formatting topic, or are you arguing just to argue?
I'm arguing to argue because someone said something that I think is false.
But also, that wouldn't be a counter example to my argument because deities can be reflavored to just "sun god" (rather than whoever the sun god is in galorion) and codes are entirely matters of convention.
Creative Director
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about instead I call it "text that I personally think is unimportant and totally ignorable"? I want to make sure that I use the correct shibboleths.Is the point of the debate to stamp out the thinking of one of the groups? If so, isn't that something akin to mere cyberbullying?That is certainly what it feels like to me. Especially with people insisting on using derogatory terms for the rules text that they don't like despite being informed that it is in fact considered derogatory.
If that's your intent, then just know that's a sentiment that delegitimizes and marginalizes a significant part of what we at Paizo do, what we take pride in, and what has helped us survive as a company for two decades. Flavor text is an inextricable element of all that we do, and we at Paizo see the blending of flavor text and rules text as a benefit rather than a hinderance.
My suggestion would be to call it flavor text. That is the "correct shibboleth." That way you'll have a better chance to engage with the majority of the other Pathfinder gamers and all of the Paizo staff without hard-coding language and sentiment into your posts that make us much less interested in engaging in a conversation.
I'm okay if you aren't interested in the flavor text we produce, and I love the fact that folks come to the game ONLY for the rules, just as I love the fact that there are folks who come to the game ONLY for the flavor. But using language that doesn't marginalize the hard work of the Paizo staff is an important way to not marginalize the Paizo staff.
|
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
To speak to the original post's title though, we can't use italics to set apart flavor text because we already have a pretty integral use for italics in the game to denote magic items and spells apart from the rest of the text—and also still use it for book titles and occasionally for emphasis in dialogue.
Also, from a readability stance, italics are harder to read, particularly over long stretches. That's the main reason why you don't often see long blocks of text in itallics more often—it's a basic and fundamental typesetting readability/accessibility concern.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm arguing to argue because someone said something that I think is false.
It also feels like you are arguing against a misunderstanding of what people are saying here.
The only person who has presented the idea that flavor description and mechanics rules are inseparable is SuperBidi - who presented it as a strawman. It was proposed for the sole intent of arguing against as a way to justify separating flavor text from the mechanical rules entirely.
No one else here is proposing that flavor text is inseparable. Just that it is important for anyone who is playing the game with other people - whether you use the default flavor text presented in the books or whether you and your friends make up your own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raiztt, if you don't respect the developers and their work enough to even bother writing flavor instead of fluff, I have no idea why you expect them to respect you enough to do the much more complicated task of dilenieating rules to your preferences.Clerics and deities, champions and codes. A paladin being able to lie has direct impact on the mechanical actions they can take in the story. Whether you think that's a problem I guess is a separate issue. But even if your premise is correct... If drawing the distinction is as easy as you claim, than what needs to be changed? Are you even taking a stance on the original formatting topic, or are you arguing just to argue?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?I'm arguing to argue because someone said something that I think is false.
But also, that wouldn't be a counter example to my argument because deities can be reflavored to just "sun god" (rather than whoever the sun god is in galorion) and codes are entirely matters of convention.
Cool, well given you're not arguing that anything about the books needs to change and ultimately this is a matter of opinion, I'm comfortable just saying "you do you." Maybe you're technically correct but it has no practical bearing on the topic if whether flavor text should be italicized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm arguing to argue because someone said something that I think is false.It also feels like you are arguing against a misunderstanding of what people are saying here.
I have taken Unicorn to be saying that the specific narrative context that PF2e implements is inseparable from its mechanical rule set.
I.e.: I have taken them to be saying "If you change narrative aspects of [God X], then the mechanical rules will not function".
I am arguing that statement is false in so far as it includes the word "specific". I am not arguing that the rules can exist without some context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you're technically correct but it has no practical bearing on the topic if whether flavor text should be italicized.
Flavor text should definitely NOT be italicized. It would be difficult to read.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To speak to the original post's title though, we can't use italics to set apart flavor text because we already have a pretty integral use for italics in the game to denote magic items and spells apart from the rest of the text—and also still use it for book titles and occasionally for emphasis in dialogue.
Also, from a readability stance, italics are harder to read, particularly over long stretches. That's the main reason why you don't often see long blocks of text in itallics more often—it's a basic and fundamental typesetting readability/accessibility concern.
Would employing a different font be possible? Having a Paizo-standard Flavour text font would resolve the issue equally well as anything else.
The ability to separate rules text from narrative text is not relevant to whether the narrative informs the implementation of the rules. Players and GMs can separate any rules and any narrative text from other text in the book, and should feel free to do so. But the rules of PF2 are written to enable a RPG game played in the world of Golarion.
Those rules are flexible and modular and easy to hack, but Paizo is not trying to write flavorless rules just because. They are writing a game that exists in a world that players can take and leave as they wish.
It is not Paizo's job say this text should inherently be seen as some kind of holy code, and this other text can be tossed in the garbage.
Isn't it a bit late for changes in format for the Remastered books ?
Though I like the idea of distinguishing more the mechanical stuff.
Since they're supposed to be out in October I'm willing to bet it is completely impossible to make any changes. It takes a long time to print and bind this many books. But, I could be wrong.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would employing a different font be possible? Having a Paizo-standard Flavour text font would resolve the issue equally well as anything else.To speak to the original post's title though, we can't use italics to set apart flavor text because we already have a pretty integral use for italics in the game to denote magic items and spells apart from the rest of the text—and also still use it for book titles and occasionally for emphasis in dialogue.
Also, from a readability stance, italics are harder to read, particularly over long stretches. That's the main reason why you don't often see long blocks of text in itallics more often—it's a basic and fundamental typesetting readability/accessibility concern.
It would be possible, but would make formatting and styling and laying out our products EXTRAORDINARILY difficult and time-consuming. In fact, any sort of "let's format flavor text different" would because it would require an entirely new set of development/editorial passes by people expert in and trained in knowing what the difference between the two is and where to draw the line, and would open up the door for more errors across the board since that time would also take away from what we've already got set aside for editing and development.
Also, it's too late in the process anyway for this significant of a change. It's an interesting theoretical idea, but it's not one we'll be doing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1-) Sorry if it sounded rude but english is not my main language and i thought "fluff" and flavor text were two valid ways to talk about narrative/descriptive/ elements. (And i think some guys here should consider that not everyone is very skilled at writing/reading english as well so before casting stone to me for a little error of word use, be more welcoming and inclusive to foreign people. Of course flavor/narrative elements are really an important part of the game and i enjoy them and i never asked for their removal).
Making that mistake before being informed of how the word is usually used and interpreted as is not a problem.
Continuing to use it after being repeatedly asked not to is a problem. But I don't think that you are doing that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to ignore the flavour text as it makes look so much more impressive than what the rule is.
If the flavour text is. You smash easily through objects with the force of your might. With the actual rule being + 1 to actually Sunder objects. No amount of flavour text is going to change it. Make the flavour text actually match the bonus or power of the ability.
If fonts cannot be changed maybe put the text in an another color so it stands out.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To speak to the original post's title though, we can't use italics to set apart flavor text because we already have a pretty integral use for italics in the game to denote magic items and spells apart from the rest of the text—and also still use it for book titles and occasionally for emphasis in dialogue.
Also, from a readability stance, italics are harder to read, particularly over long stretches. That's the main reason why you don't often see long blocks of text in itallics more often—it's a basic and fundamental typesetting readability/accessibility concern.
Thanks for replying to my original post. I really appreciate it as well as your work.
Two things.
1-) Sorry if it sounded rude but english is not my main language and i thought "fluff" and flavor text were two valid ways to talk about narrative/descriptive/ elements. (And i think some guys here should consider that not everyone is very skilled at writing/reading english as well so before casting stone to me for a little error of word use, be more welcoming and inclusive to foreign people. Of course flavor/narrative elements are really an important part of the game and i enjoy them and i never asked for their removal).
2-) I take note italic is not a possibility. Would there be another way to make it more obvious for dumb people like me and less risky to misunderstand what is RAW and what isn't?
Thank you for your consideration and dedication to this community.
1) Is all good, and thanks for the clarification. (To explain a bit further...)
1: DOWN (as in the stuff you get from feathers and stuff pillows with)
2: something fluffy (dandelion fluff)
3: something inconsequential
4: BLUNDER (especially : an actor's lapse of memory)
Since the first two definitions of "fluff" as a noun make no sense when applied to text, we're left with definitions 3 and 4. So when I see someone call flavor text "fluff" I interpret it as them saying it's inconsequential and/or a blunder, which doesn't fill me with the desire to continue to engage in the topic.
2) As I mention above, it's too late to implement this change in the remastered rules, and too disruptive to our work flow to do it even if it weren't too late, and would introduce more errors to our products rather than making them more clear. I don't think you're a "dumb person" at all, for the record! It might feel strange I guess, but the RAW of what we produce incorporates flavor intentionally and at a fundamental level. If you're more concerned about the legalities of what you can use in a product you're intending to publish for sale, then that's not an issue of rules-as-written and more an issue of the distinction between non-protectable rules content and protectable copy. For a home game you don't have to worry about that at all. For a for-sale publication, you'll want and need to speak with subject-matter experts and lawyers and become familiar with the license of choice (be it the OGL or the ORC or whatever) as to what is and isn't allowed for you to include.
|
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to ignore the flavour text as it makes look so much more impressive than what the rule is.
If the flavour text is. You smash easily through objects with the force of your might. With the actual rule being + 1 to actually Sunder objects. No amount of flavour text is going to change it. Make the flavour text actually match the bonus or power of the ability.
If fonts cannot be changed maybe put the text in an another color so it stands out.
Changing color is still a change. It's just a different set of buttons than "change font" or "change text style," and would impact our workflow in the same way as changing fonts would.
BUT ALSO: We don't use differently-colored text in our products to denote load-bearing elements because that's an accessibility issue—we have color blind readers and readers who use text-to-speech programs to read our products, and using color in text won't work there.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since they're supposed to be out in October I'm willing to bet it is completely impossible to make any changes. It takes a long time to print and bind this many books. But, I could be wrong.Isn't it a bit late for changes in format for the Remastered books ?
Though I like the idea of distinguishing more the mechanical stuff.
You're not wrong, and it is too late.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to ignore the flavour text as it makes look so much more impressive than what the rule is.
If the flavour text is. You smash easily through objects with the force of your might. With the actual rule being + 1 to actually Sunder objects. No amount of flavour text is going to change it. Make the flavour text actually match the bonus or power of the ability.
If fonts cannot be changed maybe put the text in an another color so it stands out.
This is actually why I think it is important to not separate "rules" text from "narrative" text and to treat the whole thing as a candidate for errata when the text of a spell or ability leads to confusion or a conflict of expectations for players. It makes the game better, rather than encouraging players just to ignore any text in x font if it doesn't help you understand the rest of the rule or entry.
When narrative text is misleading, it causes problems in the game. It is important to be able to Errata lore and narrative text and not just dismiss it.
|
Creative Director
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
And a huge THANK YOU to all folks out there who understand!
Language is fluid and definitions change over time, but words have power, and I'm a language nerd who loves that power, so thank you for coming on my WORDS OF POWER journey and focusing your power along with mine to make gaming better for all! :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen it used both ways when used specifically in the context of game rules.
'fluff' is sometimes just a total synonym for 'flavor' or 'lore'. No negative connotation at all - just like those other two words.
'fluff' is sometimes used to describe flavor and lore that is extraneous and unnecessary. An irrelevant waste of ink and page space.
Since 'fluff' has that second usage, where 'flavor' and 'lore' don't...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to chime in that before 4th edition I may have been more in favor of separating flavor text and rules, but that edition made it clear that sometimes the flavor is *more important* than the hard rules. Trying to distill everything into clear bins leads to so many problems, like friction for the imagination, difficulty reading, disconnect in the writers' heads about what the stuff means in-world, a tendency of players to more often ignore world building, etc. etc.
Feel is important. Often to an extent that you can't even comprehend until it's missing or degraded.
In short, I hope Paizo continues the way they have been. Rules have been quite enjoyable to interact with so far, and I have seen very few cases where the flavor text didn't add to the experience.
I just want to chime in that before 4th edition I may have been more in favor of separating flavor text and rules, but that edition made it clear that sometimes the flavor is *more important* than the hard rules. Trying to distill everything into clear bins leads to so many problems, like friction for the imagination, difficulty reading, disconnect in the writers' heads about what the stuff means in-world, a tendency of players to more often ignore world building, etc. etc.
Feel is important. Often to an extent that you can't even comprehend until it's missing or degraded.
In short, I hope Paizo continues the way they have been. Rules have been quite enjoyable to interact with so far, and I have seen very few cases where the flavor text didn't add to the experience.
This is an excellent way to express my thoughts on matter. When “pure narrative” text is not seen as part of understanding what the ability is, then only the mechanics end up mattering to anyone and many people don’t even read the narrative of the ability and ask if the mechanics are living up to the fantasy of the narrative. More than any structural issue, this is what made 4th edition fall flat. It gave the feeling like the whole game was all just a mechanical structure with no purpose to those mechanics except balance. I value balance and I value good mechanical design, but in a table top RPG, it needs narrative to have purpose. The underlying mechanics of PF2 are already so transparent that if you just want to use them for your own game system, it is really easy to do that, but even applying very broad basic genre tropes like fantasy character classes, spells, gods, monsters, treasure, etc is doing narrative work.
You could totally use this chassis to make modern games (per Jason Bulmahn) or sci-fi, or whatever you want just by using the +\- 10 crit system, proficiencies, some attributes, skills and feats, to do anything you want. Casting fireball as a 3rd level spell is a narrative statement as much as it is a mechanical one though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm of the opinion that "rules text without narrative text that supports the relevant thematics" is completely unreadable.
Like my eyes would glaze over when I read 4e books that had pages and pages of stuff like
Fighter Attack 1
Standard Action Melee Weapon + 1 Reach
Target: One Creature
Attack: Strength -1 vs. AC
Hit: 2[W]+Strength Modifier
By comparison the PF2 analogous ability reads:
Fighter Feat 2
Requirements: You must be wielding a melee weaponExtending your body to its limits, you attack an enemy that would normally be beyond your reach. Make a Strike with a melee weapon, increasing your reach by 5 feet for that Strike. If the weapon has the disarm, shove, or trip trait, you can use the corresponding action instead of a Strike.
The second one is much better! Narrative text helps you visualize what the ability does or how it's supposed to work, this is important for a game that's primarily played in the shared imagination of 3-6 people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I prefer the 4e method of having a descriptive flavour text above the just straight mechanical partly because that does let me feel more okay reflavouring it then if it is built into where the mechanical rules live
I just want to chime in that before 4th edition I may have been more in favor of separating flavor text and rules, but that edition made it clear that sometimes the flavor is *more important* than the hard rules. Trying to distill everything into clear bins leads to so many problems, like friction for the imagination, difficulty reading, disconnect in the writers' heads about what the stuff means in-world, a tendency of players to more often ignore world building, etc. etc.
Do you believe 3.5/PF1 had that problem? Because that system also separated descriptive lines from rules in things like feat descriptions.
If I recall correctly, PF1 only really separated it out for feats, and in that game feats were not the meat and bones of the system like they are in PF2 and 4e. In any case, it was at an acceptable level in PF1, but I find the PF2 implementation more enjoyable.
Edit: I am also saying this as someone who is *extremely* permissive regarding reflavoring rules to suit a player's concept. In the same way that having a firm grasp of the rules makes it easier to homebrew, having a good sense of the default in-world flavoring of a rules element helps know what's reasonable and logical to replace it with.
Totally uninterested in the flavor text for rules mechanics. Would save a hell of a lot of space wiping them from the face of the earth. Which I always here is at a premium. Space, that is. And space is also a good place from which to launch nukes that will eradicate the flavor text. Only. Way. To. Be. Sure.
Have the mechanics be clear. I don’t need someone else to imagine what happens, and it seems that there are more cases where the flavor text is contrary to the mechanic rather than being used where there might be confusion. To me this is the same argument as folx who say they use AI to generate their character’s names. Why?
Also, I need the Gorbler base class yesterday. With Trained skill in Deer taming at first level.
So seeing as the main questions of the thread have been fulfilled I would like to share a fun fact. The line between predator and prey are way more gray than we like to think. It is very easy to want to think of it as a binary but many smaller animals that are definitely predators can also be prey for larger animals, and sometimes some creatures are both prey and predator to each other(this is to my knowledge rare, but I can think of at least 1 example of a spider and a frog, I can't remember exactly what species but I have read up on it.) But also a lot of prey animals are also situational omnivores that will use eating smaller creatures as prey. In particular Deer have been known to eat eggs and baby birds that have fallen on the ground, but have also been known to eat fish, rabbits, and to bring it full circle... Frogs. Although often in those cases its less eating live prey and eating from already dead animals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize, there were a lot of posts between what I'm quoting and now, so someone may have pointed this out, but at least one of the examples makes the rules crumble:
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.
. . .
- 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.
And here's another example of a spell that breaks the rules if the description is literal:
A small ball of flame appears in the palm of your hand, and you lash out with it either in melee or at range.
A somatic component is a specific hand movement or gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely.
Spells that require you to touch the target require a somatic component. You can do so while holding something as long as part of your hand is able to touch the target (even if it’s through a glove or gauntlet).
One of many such described gauntlet weapons:
A scizore is a gauntlet or protective leather tube worn over the forearm and featuring a half-moon blade mounted to the end of the cap on a short pole.
So produce flame can't be cast/used with weapons in the hand by literal reading the spell despite the somatic trait clearly allowing one to cast touch spells with your hands occupied. Your knuckles aren't your palm, your finger isn't your palm, freeing your palm from a 2-handed weapon takes an action.
You can point a finger at anything wearing a closed gauntlet weapon if you read it literally even though somatic trait says you can cast somatic traits with occupied hands.