Are you a refluffer?

[Trihelios]

Only when the players are "nice" enough not to be creative with the new fluff. Lets go back to the example of the cleric healing by lightning. What happens when he casts that lightning into a pool of water? AoE healing? Nothing (which would be lame considering the fluff)? How does metal affect his healing?

So is the original fluff somehow immune to such abuses?
If so, then why?
If not, then what point are you trying to make?

 

[Derren]

And mechanically, there is no difference between eating a baguette or a pita. With either, your stomach fills up with carbohydrates and you stop being hungry. They taste different and they look different, but they both produce the same result. In that sense, yes, a baguette is just a long, narrow pita.

They are made different, they cost different, etc. Yes, when you are only in combat doing Xw6 damage and thats all you do with your powers then there is no difference. Have fun reflavoring.

But when someone starts using those powers more creatively the different flavor has an effect.
For example, in a typical D&D combat it doesn't matter if you cut someone at range or shoot magic bolts at him. But when you for example try to cut a rope or otherwise damage an object while not being seen, the reflavored variant has a huge advantage over the vanilla power.
If you are fine by that, ok. I have a problem with the same spell having such a big advantage just because the player had the "luck" to reflavor his spell correctly. And I won't simply say "that doesn't work" because then you lost all immersion you wanted to gain with reflavoring in the first place. Nor do I want to tell my players not to be creative and to stick with combat only so that this doesn't happen.

So is the original fluff somehow immune to such abuses?
If so, then why?
If not, then what point are you trying to make?

So using a power outside combat to do something else than Xw6 damage to an enemy is now an abuse? Or how should I understand this post? Otherwise read above.

 

[Pbartender]

They are made different, they cost different, etc.

Yep. That's right. And that's all descriptive flavor that has no real bearing on the actual rules the object uses for whatever it's designed to accomplish.

For example, in a typical D&D combat it doesn't matter if you cut someone at range or shoot magic bolts at him. But when you for example try to cut a rope or otherwise damage an object while not being seen, the reflavored variant has a huge advantage over the vanilla power.

Actually... If you read the rules on attacking while using stealth, characters gain no advantage (or disadvantage) whatsoever based on the description.



The point is: You can use the description to inform the rules, or you can use the rules to inform the description. Both are valid ways to design RPG elements. Reflavoring does the latter, using rules that already exist, and gives us multiple description for the same rules mechanic. House ruling does the former, using descriptions that already exist, and gives us multiple sets of rules to simulate the same descriptive effect.

 

[Derren]

Actually... If you read the rules on attacking while using stealth, characters gain no advantage (or disadvantage) whatsoever based on the description.

I still think that cutting something at range is a bit more stealthy than shooting glowing energy bolts at it (or send some faeries after it). Mind you, that can happen outside of combat when, for example the PCs want to sabotage a hanging without being discovered, etc.

In the end, a different flavour will have an effect in game. The question is only if you gloss over this effect (stealth outside combat, needing ammunition, faeries getting fried by defensive spells before reaching the target, etc) or not.

 

[Derren]

Derren, if you get a chance to answer my question (post #108), I'd love to hear your opinion.



I'm not trying to ascribe intent, so forgive me if it sounds like that.

However, the way you talk almost sounds like there's an antagonistic relationship between you and your players. You seem to be very concerned with giving them anything not allowed by the rules. If I'm wrong, let me know.

In my games, the rules are simply a loose structure to allow my friends and I to pretend we're elves. We're not trying to build a nuclear reactor; it's okay if we're flexible. If occasionally the players get something extra in a situation due to an amazing description or sweet roleplaying, I'm happy to give that.

You see, there's a unspoken social contract between my players and I: we're there to have fun; don't ruin other people's fun. No one's going to try to screw over someone else by overdoing the flavor on some power to eek out some extra effect. I don't play with people like that because I know I won't have fun with them (they're not looking for "my kind of fun"). Also, I have no problem saying no to things. Luckily, my players know when too far is too far and I never have to say no.

If you look at the game as a friendly environment where everyone is there to take a part in the story, then the rules seem less important to everyone's fun.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Martial exploits are inherently silly so there is less of a problem with reflavoring them. Especially as no matter what you do, certain limitation will stay (melee only, etc.)
Also, using martial powers outside of combat creatively, where the problems with raflavoring arises, is quite a lot more difficult.

Antagonistic relationship with my players? As antagonistic as the majority of 4E groups then, just where the average 4E group is concerned about combat balance over all else, I am concerned about out of combat balance. One players shouldn't be at a disadvantage, just because he has chosen not to reflavor something while an other player has some big advantages with reflavored spells.
About the "unspoken social contract", theres is an entire edition centred around the idea to micromanage everything just so that one player does not get more powerful than the others in combat. So don't tell me that such a behaviour does not happen.

 

[Beginning of the End]

For example, in a typical D&D combat it doesn't matter if you cut someone at range or shoot magic bolts at him. But when you for example try to cut a rope or otherwise damage an object while not being seen, the reflavored variant has a huge advantage over the vanilla power.

And when you want a quick flash of light and are thinking outside of the box about how to get it, the brightly lit magical bolt will be more useful than the reflavored variant.

So what?

In terms of the game world, they're not the exact same effect -- so differences in the perceived reality of the game world are to be expected. Nor are they a problem. In fact, that's the whole reason you're reskinning in the first place.

But in terms of meaningful game mechanics, they're identical.

Now, if the spell is significantly different in terms of game mechanics, then you aren't actually reskinning -- you're designing an all-out variant.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with designing variant spells, either. The game has been loaded up with spells doing similar effects for 35+ years now.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And when you want a quick flash of light and are thinking outside of the box about how to get it, the brightly lit magical bolt will be more useful than the reflavored variant.

I think one of the important things that is getting missed here, too, is:
Is the flavor actually part of the spell's power?

And it is generally not.

It doesn't matter if your Fireball explodes in a fiery-red-to-white blast or conjures a invisible fire creating burning wounds. By "RAW", the Listen/Spot/Perception DCs to detect the presence of combat is the same, for example.

So all that is left is the idea like: "Hey, it's dark, to see our attackers for a brief moment, I cast fireball". The flavor causes this to make sense, but - the DM is still making a ruling using his common sense, he is not using an actual game rule. The rules didn't suggest it would be a good idea to allow this "clever" use of a fireball spell.

 

[Garthanos]

Actually... If you read the rules on attacking while using stealth, characters gain no advantage (or disadvantage) whatsoever based on the description.
.

The description in and of itself no, because powers are "normally obvious" in some fashion... so without special effort all powers (including a basic ranged attack like a thrown knife) pretty much telegraph source and target.. I allow skills to be employed to conceal the attacks source.

For instance... lets take something martial, a character can make a stealthy quick knife throw in the middle of a crowd perhaps using bluff to get people to look elsewhere or another player may employ diplomacy or some other tactic in order to distract (It could be a minor skill challenge, has anybody mentioned how many things that can be used for?) ... at minimum a stealth roll. So people get a perception check to notice where it came from. An insight check might allow somebody to notice I was up to something when I moved in to position foiling the stealth as well. Essentially the stealth element becomes something that has to be worked towards.

Similar things can be used for stealthy use of Arcana people might get both a perception check and/or arcana check if you did it with a spell.... circumstance dictate details.

For something like Distance Cut simply having the spell leave a echoing jagged visual warp where space itself was cut during the attacks passage probably suits the core description nicely.

 

[Barastrondo]

Antagonistic relationship with my players? As antagonistic as the majority of 4E groups then, just where the average 4E group is concerned about combat balance over all else, I am concerned about out of combat balance.

I'm curious, Derren: Do you play 4e? A lot? Because I honestly think that it's pretty hard to be able to get an accurate and objective read on what the average gaming group of any game is like. (Marketing would love to be able to, but good luck with that!). Doing so as an outsider is, I have to conjecture, outright impossible.

 

[avin]

Let me get this straight... are people saying that a Wizard student who wants to impress his teacher and use their off time to create a Magic Missile variation using black light sparks is silly just because it does the same damage?

o0

I'm also DMing 4E but my games still are roleplaying games, not wargames where all that matters are combat tactics.