| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
We need to stop using the term "flavor text" in forum debates.
The term “flavor text” is often used by players to dismiss sections of roleplaying game rules that they perceive as non-mechanical, narrative, or ignorable. However, this distinction is both unofficial and misleading—and ultimately harmful to rules clarity and good-faith interpretation.
According to numerous developers and designers of modern RPG systems (including Pathfinder), all published text in a rulebook is rules text unless explicitly labeled otherwise. Descriptive prose, thematic explanations, and context-setting language are not ornamental—they are part of the game’s intended guidance and mechanics. They inform how rules are meant to be applied and understood in actual play.
The idea of “flavor text” as a separate category is not found in most rulebooks. Instead, it originated in internet debates, where it was conveniently invoked to ignore or downplay inconvenient parts of the rules during arguments. This practice fosters selective reading, undermines authorial intent, and leads to unnecessary disputes over what “counts” as a rule.
Furthermore, game designers frequently use natural language, tone, and narrative description as part of communicating mechanical intent—especially in systems that rely on referee adjudication or narrative play. Disregarding that language as mere “flavor” strips the game of nuance and results in rigid, out-of-context rulings that do a disservice to both players and GMs.
In short:
If we want to respect the game, its designers, and our fellow players, we should treat all text in a rulebook as meaningful—because it is.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, this. It drives me nuts when people claim "X doesn't work the way it says it does because that part is flavour text." What are you basing that on except that you want to argue the opposite of what the book says and the only way to do it is to just ignore that part?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was introduced to flavor text by Magic: The Gathering. For example, the Elfsworn Giant card has flavor text:
Elfsworn Giant
Mana Cost of 3 mana and 2 green mana
Picture of a giant in a forest.
Creature – Giant
Common
Reach (This creature can block creatures with flying.)
Landfall — Whenever a land you control enters, create a 1/1 green Elf Warrior creature token.
He upheld his vow to the elves by watching their woods and blazing their trails.
Power/Toughness 5/3
The card has three sections in italics. The first, "(This creature can block creatures with flying.)" is called reminder text. It reminds the player what the Reach ability does. The second, "Landfall," is an ability label. Landfall means that the ability that follows triggers when the player plays a land card. The ability says that itself, but the label makes it more obvious. The third, "He upheld his vow to the elves by watching their woods and blazing their trails," is officially called flavor text. It tells a one-sentence story about the Elfsworn Giant. If we removed all the text in italics from the card, the card would function exactly the same, but a player would have more difficulty understanding how to use its abilities.
“Flavor text” is not a recognized category in official rulebooks.
The official rulebooks do have stories. For example, page 4 of Player Core has
“I think it’s heading your way!” Ezren called out a warning from the nearby alley, but it was too late.
Without so much as a whisper, the translucent elven warrior charged from the shadows, its blade passing through Kyra’s side without meeting any resistance. It was almost as if it were just an illusion.
But the pain it caused was quite real.
“By Sarenrae’s light!” Kyra exclaimed, falling to her knees and clutching her wounded flank.
This was the third night they had spent searching the back alleys of Caliphas for the legendary ghost that had preyed upon the townsfolk for months ...
That is for flavor.
But I presume that we are talking about the first sentence of most feats and features. For example, Acrobatic Performer says,
Acrobatic Performer Feat 1
General, Skill
Prerequisites trained in Acrobatics
You're an incredible acrobat, evoking wonder and enrapturing audiences with your prowess. You can roll an Acrobatics check instead of a Performance check when using the Perform action. If you are trained in both Acrobatics and Performance, you gain a +1 circumstances bonus on Acrobatics checks made to Perform.
The first sentence, "You're an incredible acrobat, evoking wonder and enrapturing audiences with your prowess," is narrative rather than mechanical. But it is not a story about an acrobatic performer. Instead, it is instructions on how to visualize the ability. It is not a mechanical rule in which "evoking" and "enrapturing" are effects in the game mechanics, but it clarifies the roleplaying of the mechanical parts. The character shows off Acrobatic prowess to conduct a Perform action with an Acrobatics check. Mechanically, they can do this even when the performance is singing, which would be confusing without some narrative. But we can visualize this as like a rock star strutting across the stage to add dynamic motion to their songs or an orator pounding his fist on the podium for emphasis.
REACTIVE STRIKE [reaction]
Trigger A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
You lash out at a foe that leaves an opening. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action. This Strike doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn’t apply to this Strike.
The sentence "You lash out at a foe that leaves an opening," sketches the reaction the fighter takes. "Lash" means Strike and "opening" means the triggering effect. A Strike is pretty clear narratively, but making a Strike during a reaction requires additional narrative explanation. Once again, this first sentence is not a mechanical description but it is also not flavor text.
For a player who thinks of Pathfinder as a series of mechanical effects, the narrative first sentence looks like mere flavor. But its real purpose is to add natural-language narrative clarity to the following mechanical description in game terminology. It is more like the reminder text and ability labels on Magic cards than the flavor text on Magic cards. For the rest of us who read the narrative sentence, we know that it uses non-jargon language and thus is poor for rules discussions about mechanics, but it is good for adding narration to an action, "I strut up to the stage and dramatically throw my cape back over my shoulder as I begin my story about a cinder rat. I motion its scurrying over the fire planes with my whole body." (I recently played the Tell a Tale section of Spoken on the Song Wing in which the PCs participated in a storytelling contest. The rogue who told a story about a cinder rat would have done better to roll Acrobatics, but she lacked Acrobatic Performer feat.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's frequently a carryover from D&D, which has a long history of conflict between description and mechanics, eventually made explicit in 4E. This was a huge problem at tables where spellcaster players would break the game based on extrapolation. For example, Fireball being able to melt soft metals would turn into arguments that if it did so it must have reached a certain temperature which must accomplish a bunch of other things like damaging armor, scorching lungs, etc.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Because there's a pretty clear distinction between what's a mechanically parse-able clause and what isn't, and the first sentence or clause of many spell descriptions (or, well, of any description of -anything-) has no mechanical meaning.
You push into the target's mind and daze it with a mental jolt.
You plant fear in the target...
Freezing sleet and heavy snowfall collect on the target's feet and legs...
I could probably go through almost every spell in the game and do this. They're conventionally written by giving a narrative effect and then explaining the mechanical cashout. The narrative portion has no obvious effect on how you parse the spell.
That being said, I agree that when the mechanical cashout is vague or poorly written, the flavor can be a guidepost to figure out what was probably intended. But that's not the same as saying these sentences above have a mechanical meaning.
Seriously, this. It drives me nuts when people claim "X doesn't work the way it says it does because that part is flavour text." What are you basing that on except that you want to argue the opposite of what the book says and the only way to do it is to just ignore that part?
The opposite is usually the worse offense—it's easy to use flavor text to argue a spell should do more than it actually does. The examples from Agonarchy illustrate the problem well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish the Control Water spell had an extra sentence of narrative text to help parse what “raise or lowering the water level in an area” means. Especially one that covers a situation where the starting body of water is not big enough to extend beyond the area of a spell. Like this is obviously the spell for parting the Red Sea, but what about raising the water level of fountain or well above its container’s edge? It feels like one more narrative sentence could have helped a lot here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with this. While I do think flavor text as a subset of rules text exists, flavor text is ultimately not in opposition to the mechanical description of an ability, or at least shouldn't be. Often, it's not even all that separate, and many abilities start off with flavorful descriptive text that immediately segues into more specific rules elements.
With this in mind, I do think that the entire text of an ability should give a clear description of how it works. If an ability's description is vague, flavor text or not, then it needs a more complete description. If any text, flavor or mechanical, needs to be interpreted in a certain way to suggest how something might work, then the text needs to be clearer too. However, if the argument is "this ability makes no sense if you ignore this bit of text I've designated as flavor text, even though the ability makes perfect sense when you read it in full", then yeah, that's not a very convincing argument. Behind that kind of argument I think lies a misunderstanding of what might constitute flavor text and a needless attempt to compartmentalize an ability in ways that don't make much sense, though thankfully I haven't seen as much of that in a while.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't much agree with this. I find "flavor" "descriptive" "fluff" or whatever you want to call it mixed with rules text often doesn't help the DM/GM adjudicate the ability in play.
It also creates underwhelming abilities with great flavor text and names. Take something like the Godbreaker monk level 20 ability. All kinds of flavor text, in practice you are highly unlikely to land all three blows with the current MAP rules. Thus maybe you hit once or twice, then miss the third strike ending the ability. If you miss the first one, you really wasted your time. Is this ability worth taking over something more powerful like Golden Body? I doubt it. The flavor text sounds great.
As a DM having to tease out the meaning of flavor text is not something I want to be arguing over at tables. It is unclear in meaning, especially unclear as to how it applies or possibly overrides contradictory rules, and unreliable for rule adjudication.
Unclear rules just lead to arguments at tables, slow down play, and make require house rules as each table is likely to interpret unclear "rules" like "flavor" text differently. Some may be very permissive, others may not. If the flavor text contradicts the rules text, then what do you follow? The rules say specific trumps general, so the game rules seem to indicate that you would follow a specific rule over anything general like flavor text. I know that's how I would do it.
I don't like flavor text creating arguments and unclear rules at all. I follow specific rules text first and foremost when rules text conflicts with flavor text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The card has three sections in italics.
...
The third, "He upheld his vow to the elves by watching their woods and blazing their trails," is officially called flavor text. It tells a one-sentence story about the Elfsworn Giant. If we removed all the text in italics from the card, the card would function exactly the same, but a player would have more difficulty understanding how to use its abilities.
I'm actually going to disagree with this slightly. And the topic of this thread that there is no flavor text at all.
I mostly agree with the statements, logic, and sentiment involved. So let me explain before rushing to judgement.
Pathfinder2e does have flavor text in its rules. But it is not ignorable.
The example from a Magic: The Gathering card with official flavor text isn't the same as the flavor text that we have in the Pathfinder2e rules. That text, "He upheld his vow to the elves by watching their woods and blazing their trails," does not, in fact, give any additional meaning or help understanding any of the rules text of the card. It doesn't explain what being a creature means, how landfall works, or what Reach allows. It doesn't even mention anything about being a giant. There is also nothing on the card's rules that indicates what relationship anything on this card has to elves or woods or vows or trails.
That is pure, non-mechanical, flavor text.
Pathfinder2e doesn't have non-mechanical flavor text. It does have flavor text. But the flavor text in the PF2 rules is important. It does help to give a framework of how to interpret the rest of the mechanical rules.
I fully agree with the examples given regarding Acrobatic Performer and Reactive Strike. The flavor text there is not superfluous and irrelevant. Removing that text would make the rest of the ability harder to understand and interpret properly. I tend to call it 'the RAI sentence', because that is its purpose: to give a narrative example of what the ability is intended to allow a character to accomplish.
-----
There are three actual problems that I find this to have.
One, as noted, is people trying to argue some legalistic rule technicality in the rule text that then completely reverses or invalidates the RAI sentence - which is then justified by disparagingly calling the RAI sentence, 'just flavor text'.
Another one is people being resistant to re-theming an ability. Remember this thread where someone read the flavor text for Witch
You command powerful magic, not through study or devotion to any ideal, but as a vessel or agent for a mysterious, otherworldly patron that even you don't entirely understand.
And asked why it is a requirement that a Witch not know who their patron is or be able to understand them according to the rules.
And finally, there is the problem of people assuming flavor and enforcing rules that don't even actually exist. My best example of this is Scrolls. The RAI text for Scrolls is "A scroll contains a single spell that you can cast without having to expend a spell slot." Neither the RAI flavor text, or the rest of the scroll rules say anything about having to be written text. The typical fantasy description of a Scroll being a piece of parchment or paper with eldritch writing made with special inks is flavor text from previous TTRPG games. It isn't even part of the PF2 rules or official flavor text. But when someone points that out, there are a ton of people trying to enforce flavor as mechanics. Flavor text that doesn't even exist. No, the Skim Scroll feat doesn't make the case because specific does not define general: the flavor text for a specific feat does not create a general rule that all other abilities have to follow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't much agree with this. I find "flavor" "descriptive" "fluff" or whatever you want to call it mixed with rules text often doesn't help the DM/GM adjudicate the ability in play.
See, I brought up control water because it is an example of a spell where trying to just present explicit rules text ends up creating a nasty mess. Spells, feats, abilities need narrative text that create a general sense of scope around what a thing can do without having to resort to writing an essay defining every contingency. One extra sentence in Control water that was more narrative in describing the spell in action would have gone a very long way in making the spell functional as a 5th rank spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I brought up control water because it is an example of a spell where trying to just present explicit rules text ends up creating a nasty mess. Spells, feats, abilities need narrative text that create a general sense of scope around what a thing can do without having to resort to writing an essay defining every contingency. One extra sentence in Control water that was more narrative in describing the spell in action would have gone a very long way in making the spell functional as a 5th rank spell.I can't much agree with this. I find "flavor" "descriptive" "fluff" or whatever you want to call it mixed with rules text often doesn't help the DM/GM adjudicate the ability in play.
Stuff like this exists all over the game. It would be great if the flavor text and the rules text matched up well for every ability, but that doesn't happen all the time. As a DM, I will use the rules text before trying to interpret the flavor text.
In PF2, even what is rules text and what is flavor text isn't clear. The stunned condition was unclear at first what was flavor and what was rule text. Now when I read it, the part that says you can take no actions I view as rules text and applicable to all actions whether free, reaction, or action.
These games have always been written in a way where at least a few abilities flavor and rules text don't match up very well. That's where you have to figure out how you will run it as a DM when flavor and rules don't match.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see clear instances of flavor text that has no direct bearing on the actual rules. For instance, the text in Needle In The God's Eyes that says "With sinews of bronze and thews of iron, you leap to the heavens, piercing the arrogant eyes of the gods" isn't an actual requirement that you need a god as a target of the ability. It's pure 100% flowery text and it's removal ends up with an ability that works the same as with it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we start calling it descriptive text and ditch the word flavor.
You can't eat the words and taste them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP is correct... a lot of the time. The full text of a rule can help clarify how everything is meant to work, and there is indeed no official distinction between so-called flavor text and not. There's just a block of rules text.
But every now and then there's a piece of text that contradicts the rest of the mechanics, or implies additional restrictions if taken too literally.
Like graystone pointed out, War of Immortals has a lot of descriptive text that cannot be taken at face value.
I know there's also been a lot of debate over how meaningful things like descriptions of Stances are meant to be for their functionality too.
It's once again one of those areas where I think inconsistency causes problems, because there are definitely times more descriptive text is used to help define an ability and other times where it makes things less clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP is correct... a lot of the time. The full text of a rule can help clarify how everything is meant to work, and there is indeed no official distinction between so-called flavor text and not. There's just a block of rules text.
But every now and then there's a piece of text that contradicts the rest of the mechanics, or implies additional restrictions if taken too literally.
Like graystone pointed out, War of Immortals has a lot of descriptive text that cannot be taken at face value.
I know there's also been a lot of debate over how meaningful things like descriptions of Stances are meant to be for their functionality too.
It's once again one of those areas where I think inconsistency causes problems, because there are definitely times more descriptive text is used to help define an ability and other times where it makes things less clear.
Enthrall is a big culprit for this where the description of the ability is one that would suggest creatures stop everything and give all their attention to the casters words but if you only focus on mechanical outcomes the spell results only in a -2 to perception and skill checks
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I broke into paizo's warehouse and ate the books but that's a seperate issueCan we start calling it descriptive text and ditch the word flavor.
You can't eat the words and taste them.
Lol let me guess, ink flavor?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the flavor text (if it exists) serves to give the person reading it an idea of what happens in the fiction when the spell, for example, is cast. The difference between "The area becomes difficult terrain and hazardous terrain. A creature that moves on the ground through the area takes 3 piercing damage for every square of that area it moves into" and the same spell that starts with "Long, sharp spikes of solid rock thrust up from the ground in the area" as the first sentence is in how the spell gets described by the player/GM and thus how it exists in the imaginations of the people playing the game- which is really where the game exists in the first place.
But the difference, I think, between "flavor" text and "rules" text is that it's not a big deal if you wanted to describe the spell using short spikes instead of long ones, or coral instead of stone, or whatever makes sense in context that's generally fine, but if you want to make the spell do more damage just because that's how you imagine it, that's more of a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol let me guess, ink flavor?I broke into paizo's warehouse and ate the books but that's a seperate issueCan we start calling it descriptive text and ditch the word flavor.
You can't eat the words and taste them.
Or maybe narrative text/narration vs. mechanical text/mechanics?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe narrative text/narration vs. mechanical text/mechanics?Lol let me guess, ink flavor?I broke into paizo's warehouse and ate the books but that's a seperate issueCan we start calling it descriptive text and ditch the word flavor.
You can't eat the words and taste them.
Even that distinction can fall apart.
Wasn't there a discussion about ravel of thorns not to long ago?Soil and water are mentioned as terrain that would double damage if the thorns grew there.
Thing is water and and soil are not mechanical terms, they are not defined, might as well not exist if we want to parse out flavor from rules even though its clearly a rule written without mechanics.
Not everything that has impact in this game comes from key terms and game mechanics. narrative like your standing in a puddle (a purely descriptive thing with no mechanical impact normally) too small to be difficult terrain on its on all of a sudden kinda matters with an ability like ravel of thorns.
Maybe the puddle was there for completely narrative reasons like two players roleplaying and one splashed water on the other and the Gm described water driping down from that PC making a small puddle on the floor before the encounter happened.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not a great example, because doubling damage under certain conditions is clearly a distinct mechanical effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We need to stop using the term "flavor text" in forum debates.
I am happy to use “descriptive text” but that takes more letters. I don’t think we “need” to stop using it in forum debates because it is something people clearly wish to debate about. It *does* exist, and it *is* problematic.
The term “flavor text” is often used by players to dismiss sections of roleplaying game rules that they perceive as non-mechanical, narrative, or ignorable. However, this distinction is both unofficial and misleading—and ultimately harmful to rules clarity and good-faith interpretation.
As above, I don’t “dismiss” it because it is non-mechanical, or narrative or ignorable. I find it oftentimes *problematic* because it is counter to the mechanical effect it purports to describe, or makes assumptions about the campaign or setting; or it makes assumptions about the situation that altogether are entirely unnecessary and/or effectively and actually “wrong”.
…
In short:
“Flavor text” is not a recognized category in official rulebooks.
The full body of a rule’s text informs its interpretation and use.
Ignoring descriptive or thematic text invites misinterpretation and bad-faith rules lawyering.
I’m not sure that any or all of this is true, except that the full body of a rule’s text *informs* its interpretation and use. I would counter this to say that removal of what is clearly “descriptive text” might, in many cases, actually ease both use and understanding. I would counter this to say that I’ve seen more weird arguments about how fla…descriptive text is interpreted.
If we want to respect the game, its designers, and our fellow players, we should treat all text in a rulebook as meaningful—because it is.
Yes, it is all meaningful. But we need to have open and honest discussions as to the usefulness and appropriateness of those meanings. And I would disagree that flavor text is meaningful or useful in *my campaign* or among *my group*. I don’t want it, and they don’t need it, and I would much prefer the space, time and resources applied to creating it be requisitioned elsewhere.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even that distinction can fall apart.
Wasn't there a discussion about ravel of thorns not to long ago?
Soil and water are mentioned as terrain that would double damage if the thorns grew there.
Thing is water and and soil are not mechanical terms, they are not defined, might as well not exist if we want to parse out flavor from rules even though its clearly a rule written without mechanics.
Not everything that has impact in this game comes from key terms and game mechanics. narrative like your standing in a puddle (a purely descriptive thing with no mechanical impact normally) too small to be difficult terrain on its on all of a sudden kinda matters with an ability like ravel of thorns.
Maybe the puddle was there for completely narrative reasons like two players roleplaying and one splashed water on the other and the Gm described water driping down from that PC making a small puddle on the floor before the encounter happened.
"Water" and "soil" aren't keyword terms, no. But in Ravel of Thorns, they -are- a part of the mechanics. It's the same as how a valid burst for Entangle in 1E must contain vegetation.
You can pull things that aren't part of the mechanical "scaffolding" created by the basic rules and conditions into said scaffolding in this way. No one should think that's impossible. Likewise, spells and similar effects can sometimes create new mechanics wholesale and introduce rules for them—Usurp the Lunar Reins (Kineticist L18 feat) is a good example of this. The problem comes when someone particularly foolhardy or stubborn reads this
The moon has always been connected to the tides, and now you can grasp that connection. You can create massive amounts of water and control these tides, subverting even the moon's sovereignty over the oceans and seas. Choose an area 50 feet long by 50 feet wide within 500 feet, and choose two different effects from the options provided below. The effects take place in the listed order...
and then asks why Usurp the Lunar Reins doesn't let them control gravity, because the tides are a gravity thing, right?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I broke into paizo's warehouse and ate the books but that's a seperate issueCan we start calling it descriptive text and ditch the word flavor.
You can't eat the words and taste them.
I get fed scrolls regularly. Again because of rigid insistence on flavor text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not a great example, because doubling damage under certain conditions is clearly a distinct mechanical effect.
It at least shows that mechanics can depend on descriptive text to known when something applies.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because some narrative text is misleading doesn’t mean narrative rules text should be ignorable. Some rules text is as well, and that should referred to Errata. Establishing the scope of abilities is worth doing, especially for abilities that might be more difficult to tie down to concrete rules text.
As far as players have the freedom to alter game mechanics for making a new narrative for their character, I think it is pretty ok for players to ask their GMs about either kind of change and for that to happen on a table by table basis. Players will be debating this stuff as long as these kind of games are being played by human beings and not guided through AI or algorithms that have 0 tolerance for adjustments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It at least shows that mechanics can depend on descriptive text to known when something applies.
That's not a great example, because doubling damage under certain conditions is clearly a distinct mechanical effect.
no, it just shows that not all rules text needs to refer to strictly defined rules elements... which no one ever said.
You say soil isn't a game term. Sure, but neither is "is" or "grows" or "on" or "for" or "the" in the same sentence. Nothing remarkable here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It at least shows that mechanics can depend on descriptive text to known when something applies.
That's not a great example, because doubling damage under certain conditions is clearly a distinct mechanical effect.no, it just shows that not all rules text needs to refer to strictly defined rules elements... which no one ever said.
You say soil isn't a game term. Sure, but neither is "is" or "grows" or "on" or "for" or "the" in the same sentence. Nothing remarkable here.
The entire entry is descriptive text (sometimes it uses game terms sometimes not) there is no flavor text was where I was going. Drawing the line and calling sections flavor can be subjective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe narrative text/narration vs. mechanical text/mechanics?
How is this meaningfully different from "flavor text" versus "mechanical text"?
I'm also just generally having a hard time understanding why we're splitting hairs to this extent: flavor text is a perfectly cromulent way of describing the bits in abilities that don't directly translate to mechanical rules, and often an ability will have flavor text and mechanical text in the same sentence. If we're unhappy about some flavor text being misleading, it might help to cite examples of those, as Bluemagetim did with enthrall and the bit about creatures giving "undivided attention".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe narrative text/narration vs. mechanical text/mechanics?How is this meaningfully different from "flavor text" versus "mechanical text"?
I'm also just generally having a hard time understanding why we're splitting hairs to this extent: flavor text is a perfectly cromulent way of describing the bits in abilities that don't directly translate to mechanical rules, and often an ability will have flavor text and mechanical text in the same sentence. If we're unhappy about some flavor text being misleading, it might help to cite examples of those, as Bluemagetim did with enthrall and the bit about creatures giving "undivided attention".
I think it would be more helpful if the people supporting this viewpoint provided a reason why the flavor text is part mechanical text. What are they looking to do that a DM isn't letting them do because they are focusing on the mechanical text?
I'm not sure what the point of the post is myself.
What flavor rules text is RD wanting DMs to follow that isn't being followed?
We're debating something without context of what the actual problem is.
I know I'm not overruling flavor/descriptive or whatever someone wants to call it to make something more powerful than it is. I'm not sure what this post is based on. Usually when a player is trying to push flavor or descriptive text over the rules, they want to break something in their favor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still remember the discussion from a while back about whether a boomerang returns or not. The "flavor text" seemed to contradict the rules text and people swore you could have your cake and eat it too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be more helpful if the people supporting this viewpoint provided a reason why the flavor text is part mechanical text. What are they looking to do that a DM isn't letting them do because they are focusing on the mechanical text?
I'm not sure what the point of the post is myself.
A classic example of this is fireball, where a lot of people assume that you're tossing a big ball of fire at something and would thus be stopped by, say, a window. In reality, the spell states:
A roaring blast of fire detonates at a spot you designate, dealing 6d6 fire damage.
So the fireball explodes specifically at the spot where you want it to explode, allowing you to cast it so long as you have line of sight, window or no window. One could argue that this isn't really flavor text because it's mechanically relevant in this particular situation, but that is the point. Although some text is meant more for flavor than other text, all text is part of the rules, and there is very little value in trying to compartmentalize individual bits of text from one another as if they were separate.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still remember the discussion from a while back about whether a boomerang returns or not. The "flavor text" seemed to contradict the rules text and people swore you could have your cake and eat it too.
Yeah this is the one I was thinking of too. People saying it doesn't return back to you on a success. The description says this:
The boomerang is a carved piece of wood designed to curve as it flies through the air, returning to the wielder after a successful throw.
The whole thing was completely absurd and hinged both on "flavour text so it doesn't count", but also "successful throw isn't in the rules so doesn't do anything", as if the meaning isn't clear.
People try to hold up the rules too a technical writing standard and they're really not written that way.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be more helpful if the people supporting this viewpoint provided a reason why the flavor text is part mechanical text. What are they looking to do that a DM isn't letting them do because they are focusing on the mechanical text?
I'm not sure what the point of the post is myself.
A classic example of this is fireball, where a lot of people assume that you're tossing a big ball of fire at something and would thus be stopped by, say, a window. In reality, the spell states:
A roaring blast of fire detonates at a spot you designate, dealing 6d6 fire damage.So the fireball explodes specifically at the spot where you want it to explode, allowing you to cast it so long as you have line of sight, window or no window. One could argue that this isn't really flavor text because it's mechanically relevant in this particular situation, but that is the point. Although some text is meant more for flavor than other text, all text is part of the rules, and there is very little value in trying to compartmentalize individual bits of text from one another as if they were separate.
There's nothing in fireball saying it's excused from the normal line of effect rules. So a window (or wall of force) would still stop it.
But it did change a bunch compared to first edition (and D&D editions before it) where it had a lot of extra text:
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
Which, when you think about it, is kinda odd. It's an area blast that needs a line of effect, just like any other area blast really. But for example Flame Strike didn't have any special mechanics for trying to cast it through a small hole.
Of course in D&D 2ish, fireball was volume-based, not area-based, so if you used in a narrow corridor you could get blowback. It's a case of a spell that had it's rule/flavor text refined every edition to be more practically usable at the table.
But the "glowing bead" flavor is kinda burned into people's memory I guess.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1 there was "flavor text" that could be at odds with the mechanical description/effect of the rest of the rules text.
To me that is the issue that arises. All of it is "rules text" but some text that is more descriptive, and some text is more a mechanical explanation of function.
I think PF2 has done a lot better about not having conflicting/misleading descriptive text, but I'm sure it still exists in places.
Sentences that aren't clearly part of the mechanical explanation of function shouldn't be completely disregarded, especially when extrapolating beyond what is laid out by the mechanical text, but if the descriptive text isn't clear, causes questions, or contradicts the mechanical text I think you have to ignore it and use the mechanical portion as written (and again lean on the descriptive part to cover situations that go beyond exactly what is written for mechanics).
The original problem wasn't with the phrase flavor text, it was with the phrase fluff text because it was viewed as being derogatory. I can't say I disagree with the position. However, we just end up on the euphuism treadmill. Fluff is bad, so don't use it. "Flavor text" was okay, being used to distinguish between more mechanical explanatory text, and narrative/descriptive text. But now, here we are, with people railing against flavor text for the same reason as fluff text.
We can keep arguing about and saying certain phrases aren't okay, but you're never going to kill the need to distinguish between more mechanical statement and more descriptive statements.
Ultimately we need to:
1) Acknowledge that descriptive text isn't devoid of meaning or mechanical impact
2) Acknowledge that it can be in contradiction to more mechanical explanatory text
3) Acknowledge that it is impractical to wait for Paizo to immediately address all such contradictions or confusions (whether it be with descriptive or mechanical text)
4) Acknowledge that as players we need to be able to talk about portions of the rules text that appear as more descriptive and more mechanical....
4b) so that we can have discussion (such as on this board) about how the rules should be interpreted.
The example of the boomerang has been brought up.
The description of the boomerang says:
"The boomerang is a carved piece of wood designed to curve as it flies through the air, returning to the wielder after a successful throw."
The boomerang also has the recovery trait, which says:
"
Recovery weapons are thrown weapons designed to return to the thrower when they miss the target. When you make an unsuccessful thrown Strike with this weapon, it flies back to your hand after the Strike is complete, allowing you to try again. If your hands are full when the weapon returns, it falls to the ground in your space."
So, what does the boomerang do? Well, based on the description and the trait, the boomerang will always return to the wielder.
Personally, I suspect this is an editing error. Real life boomerangs do not return when they hit something, so I personally feel the description is in error, or poorly edited, or the mechanics of boomerangs were misunderstood, or the writer simply wanted boomerangs to return anyways.
Which is it? I'm not sure. As a GM, if it came up I'd likely say "No, remove that text because that's not how boomerangs work". But then again, thrown weapons are already cumbersome and someone could just use a bow instead. So maybe I'd let it slide.
But as written there isn't a contradiction within the rules. Recovery lets the weapon return on a miss, and the description lets it return on a hit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's frequently a carryover from D&D, which has a long history of conflict between description and mechanics, eventually made explicit in 4E. This was a huge problem at tables where spellcaster players would break the game based on extrapolation. For example, Fireball being able to melt soft metals would turn into arguments that if it did so it must have reached a certain temperature which must accomplish a bunch of other things like damaging armor, scorching lungs, etc.I feel like everyone will disagree with me, but I don’t see the issue here. Why shouldn’t a level 20 wizard’s fireball melt someone along with their armor and weapons? I find it so bizarre when fireballs can be used in forests, cities, or tents and damage nothing. It’s so weird. Sure, it’s convenient because it doesn’t burn the loot or key items, but g#~*+~mit, it’s strange. We have durability in items for a reason.
It makes everything more powerful and more complex than intended and turns every session into a bunch of arguing for additional power creep. It was a plague of frustration for decades and was a major part of why wizards got nerfed so hard in recent systems.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also players tend to get upset when the enemy mage melts all their cool magic items.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a reasonable middle position.
If we're having a fight because we want to do research in a library and the enemies don't want us to use their library, I would be disappointed if we'd all just throw fireballs without any consequences.
But I don't want to go so far that we start tracking damage to every item every time someone throws a fireball. Because at that point you've made fireball unplayable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a fan of narrative description myself, I've always found this distinction a bit silly as well. Isn't it all a beautiful part of the bigger whole?
Myself, I think the distinction is important because in whatever game i'm playing, that descriptive text may not apply but the mechanics stay the same unless there is a house rule. Secondly, if care isn't taken, flavor text written in a casual way can just confuse things. For instance, when you see text that says prey, is it related to Hunt Prey or not? You have to make a judgment call and use context clues since prey isn't capitalized. If flavor was clearly distinguishable from rule text, it'd be easier for everyone involved on what's meant to be a mechanical effect and what's meant to be evocative as a possible outcome of the effect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a fan of narrative description myself, I've always found this distinction a bit silly as well. Isn't it all a beautiful part of the bigger whole?
I agree it's part of a bigger whole, and that the narrative description is important. It breathes life into the world and makes it feel more real.
However, I disagree that the distinction is silly or unimportant, because we trying to parse the rules and understand how they should function, we occasionally need to put precedent on pieces of information contained within the rules.
Let's look at Airburst which says:
A blast of wind wildly pushes everything nearby. Unattended objects of 1 Bulk or less are pushed 5 feet away from you. Large or smaller creatures must attempt a Fortitude save.
Should I put emphasis on the first sentence? Wind wildly pushes everything nearby, so the 1 ton bolder stars moving? No, because clearly the next sentence tells you the mechanics of what happens, items of 1 bulk or less are pushed 5ft and creatures must make a save.
So how do I reconcile the first sentence which says everything is pushed? Well, I recognize that's just a description, and not mechanics of how that actually works. That sentence breathes life into the spell. You could have the mechanics without it (although it would be very dull). But you can't have the description alone without the mechanics following it, because you would have no basis on how to adjudicate what happens.
The distinction exists innately, and there's no harm in recognizing that. And when trying to adjudicate/understand/interpret the rules recognizing the differences can help us to make decisions more fitting with the overall expectations of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the boomerang example is a good one to point to for saying “there really is no flavor text here, there might bet just be conflict between game mechanics and the narrative that explains how this weapon works, especially since it is based on a real world thing that doesn’t work the way the narrative in the book would lead many readers would interpret it to work.”
If, for game balance reasons the weapon functionally has a version of a returning rune that only works on success and failure, (as would be the case of trying to read the narrative next as pure mechanical text) not critical success or critical failure, it is a very reasonable expectation to want to see that stated more explicitly. But it is also a mistake worthy of errata to use the language of “successful throw” in the narrative explanation text of how the weapon is used that requires a GM to arbitrate on their own until that errata happens, because the idea that “description can be ignored” is a projected attitude on the game.
War of the immortals does complicate descriptive vs mechanical for the interpretation of narrative text because it is very intentionally engaging in myth telling and not literal sensory observation for its narrative detail. I would be more inclined personally, as a GM to talk to my players about needing to think along such mythical lines in wanting to reskin mythic / myth inspired abilities, rather than trying to boil those options down into something that is supposed to be gritty or “real” feeling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counterpoint: the first sentence of the Stunned condition is flavor text that should be totally ignored when interpreting it.
Flavor text is nearly universal and nearly universally nonmechanical, and exists 20% for stylistic and 80% for copy fit reasons.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's look at Airburst which says:
A blast of wind wildly pushes everything nearby. Unattended objects of 1 Bulk or less are pushed 5 feet away from you. Large or smaller creatures must attempt a Fortitude save.Should I put emphasis on the first sentence? Wind wildly pushes everything nearby, so the 1 ton bolder stars moving? No, because clearly the next sentence tells you the mechanics of what happens, items of 1 bulk or less are pushed 5ft and creatures must make a save.
So how do I reconcile the first sentence which says everything is pushed? Well, I recognize that's just a description, and not mechanics of how that actually works. That sentence breathes life into the spell. You could have the mechanics without it (although it would be very dull). But you can't have the description alone without the mechanics following it, because you would have no basis on how to adjudicate what happens.
The distinction exists innately, and there's no harm in recognizing that. And when trying to adjudicate/understand/interpret the rules recognizing the differences can help us to make decisions more fitting with the overall expectations of the game.
The first sentence is true here. The wind is pushing the boulder. The second sentence makes clear that the effect of that pushing is negligible. I don’t see a discrepancy here or a distinction between description and rules text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first sentence is true here. The wind is pushing the boulder. The second sentence makes clear that the effect of that pushing is negligible. I don’t see a discrepancy here or a distinction between description and rules text.Let's look at Airburst which says:
A blast of wind wildly pushes everything nearby. Unattended objects of 1 Bulk or less are pushed 5 feet away from you. Large or smaller creatures must attempt a Fortitude save.Should I put emphasis on the first sentence? Wind wildly pushes everything nearby, so the 1 ton bolder stars moving? No, because clearly the next sentence tells you the mechanics of what happens, items of 1 bulk or less are pushed 5ft and creatures must make a save.
So how do I reconcile the first sentence which says everything is pushed? Well, I recognize that's just a description, and not mechanics of how that actually works. That sentence breathes life into the spell. You could have the mechanics without it (although it would be very dull). But you can't have the description alone without the mechanics following it, because you would have no basis on how to adjudicate what happens.
The distinction exists innately, and there's no harm in recognizing that. And when trying to adjudicate/understand/interpret the rules recognizing the differences can help us to make decisions more fitting with the overall expectations of the game.
The first sentence is descriptively true, I agree, but it doesn't tell me anything about how to run that description.
In this case there is no discrepancy, but there is distinction between descriptive text and mechanics text. I was trying to say there was a discrepancy, only pointing out that there innately exists elements of rules that are more mechanically defining, and those that are more narratively defining.