Time to bring back the prose?

Libramarian said:

Reflavoring spells is pretty much the lowest form of creativity possible in the RPG medium, imo. If players are putzing around with that, to me that's a sign of a boring, disempowering, rail-roady campaign.

The more 5e steers games away from creative reflavoring towards creative problem-solving and creative story-telling, the better. They're much more fun.

I hope that 5e doesn't so much as mention reflavoring, reskinning, refluffing or anything like that.

Click to expand...

Disallowing reflavoring just leads to duplication. Why do we need Fireball and Iceball if they are identical in every way except for fire or ice?

Scribble said:

Two books? One is a sit and read the book of D&D rules, and the other an at the table reference book stripped of all color and flavor.

Click to expand...

The book or DDI. If someone's reference is a spreadsheet, a database isn't that far removed!

An alternate to Minigiant's block...

Fireball
Arcane 3
Range: Long (400 ft.)
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: 5d6 fire damage in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Save: Dexterity 1/2

After casting the fireball spell, a glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the caster's fingertip. Unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the max range of 400ft, blossoms into an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar. Every creature and unattended object within the 20-ft.-radius spread of the explosion is dealt 5d6 fire damage unless they make a Dexterity saving throw for half damage.

The explosion creates almost no pressure. It does, however, set fire to combustibles and can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.

If the fireball spell is prepared at a higher spell slot than 3rd, it deals an additional 2d6 fire damage per level higher than the 3rd.

This creates a mini-stat block for the spell that gives the important details, but then discusses the effect in detail below.

shidaku said:

Disallowing reflavoring just leads to duplication. Why do we need Fireball and Iceball if they are identical in every way except for fire or ice?

Click to expand...

It is going to depend on the spell but basically because fire and ice should have different mechanical effects when feasible (and/or different strengths and limitations). It is also significant because allowing reflavoring essentially means there is no "fireball spell" but rather an "energy attack spell" that the user can tailor to his needs....afterall what is to stop me from casting fireball one round and ice ball the next if i am allowed to reflavor however I want. For some this works just fine, for others it simply puts too much world creation stuff in the player's court and is seriously disruptive to immersion. It all depends on what you are after in a game. But when you decide to go one way or the other it is going to impact peoples' experience of the game. So the designers do need to keep that in mind when they make their decision.

Morrus said:

The book or DDI. If someone's reference is a spreadsheet, a database isn't that far removed!

Click to expand...

You know, this spreadsheet nonsense is just as hyperbolic as saying that you are advocating that the books should read as novels.

Bedrockgames said:

It is going to depend on the spell but basically because fire and ice should have different mechanical effects when feasible

Click to expand...

Different mechanical effects is reason enough for different spells. But it should go a little further than Fireball does ongoing 5 fire and Iceball slows to half speed. If you have two spells that are mechanically identical to a large extent, then one of them needs to get the boot. And if you only have one spell to provide a certain effect, then there's really no reason that players shouldn't be allowed to say that their fireball is actually a blinding ball of radiant energy that does ongoing 5 radiant. Nothing mechanical has changed, only the appearance of the spell and the player's level of involvement with the game.

It is also significant because allowing reflavoring essentially means there is no "fireball spell" but rather an "energy attack spell" that the user can tailor to his needs....afterall what is to stop me from casting fireball one round and ice ball the next if i am allowed to reflavor however I want. For some this works just fine, for others it simply puts too much world creation stuff in the player's court and is seriously disruptive to immersion. It all depends on what you are after in a game. But when you decide to go one way or the other it is going to impact peoples' experience of the game. So the designers do need to keep that in mind when they make their decision.

Click to expand...

Lets say the decision must be made when you first select the spell, of course, perhaps this could allow a player to take several versions of "Energy Ball", one each time they gain a new spell of that level or higher. Which while all having the same effects, would provide utility for multiple situations. There are already numerous abilities in previous editions that allow for power reflavoring. If nothing mechanical is affected, why not let players more accurately reflect their desired character?

I'm not sure how being able to cast "Iceball", with the same mechanical effects as "Fireball" breaks immersion. Likewise I'm unsure how a arcane caster who is able to cast Cone of Cold couldn't figure out how to cast Cone of Fire. It's just one element in place of another.

I favor greater creativity at every point in D&D. I see no reason to tell players that casting a ball of fire is the only way their ice-themed half-ice elemental wizard is going to get a blast effect. Duplication and lack of flexibility only increases bloat and limits player creativity.

Hey we just disagree shidaku. For you putting more of that stuff in the players court makes the game better. For me it takes away from the game. I see your points but don't agree with them. At least they don't achieve what I am after.

If that is what you want by all means go for it. Just understand that isn't going to appeal to everyone.

Bedrockgames said:

Hey we just disagree shidaku. For you putting more of that stuff in the players court makes the game better. For me it takes away from the game. I see your points but don't agree with them. At least they don't achieve what I am after.

If that is what you want by all means go for it. Just understand that isn't going to appeal to everyone.

Click to expand...

No, it won't, but they can't please everyone all of the time. I'd be fine with re-flavoring being at the DM's discretion with appropriate "how-tos" in the DMG, but not explicitly written out in the PHB.

Morrus said:

I don't see a tiny bit of effort being a problem for an intellectual game. If I objected to effort, I wouldn't be playing RPGs at all. I'll gladly sacrifice a little effort for more immersion.

When we get to the point where people object to a paragraph of text ("turgid walls of text") it saddens me a little. Whatever happened to our game?

Click to expand...

The game isn't reading the rulebooks. The game is playing at the table with one's friends.

The intellectual effort we're all putting in shouldn't be dedicated to extracting the mechanics out of badly-written rulebooks. It should be dedicated to deploying those mechanics to create exciting, engaging, moving, dramatic, and challenging heroic fantasy adventures.

I can't help but feel that some of those on the "prose" side of this dicussion are confusing preparing for play with the play of the game.

pemerton said:

The game isn't reading the rulebooks. The game is playing at the table with one's friends.

Click to expand...

Ah. Thanks. I was having badwrongfun! Now I know I'm doing it wrong, I can revise the error of my ways.