Are you a refluffer?

[Garthanos]

No.

While things like changing the description of someone casting magic missile is neat and all (and that was a rather neat refluff of the spell earlier in the thread!), IMO it leads to the setting losing internal consistency and cohesion.

There are things that exist in the world; magic missile is one of them. When someone uses it, the characters should be able to recognize it, if arcana is one of the things they know about, because that's how things work.

For me characters know "more" about their world than what you see in the PHB. And for those with Arcana, they would also recognize distance cut and Bigbies lesser etherial punch and various other skinnings, and yes recognize them as fairly basic application of arcane forces which exploit various methods of avoiding intervening armor.

Only chaotic to the "player" who thinks he knows as much as the character.

 

[fba827]

I fluff everything I get my hands on because i'm a perv...

oh wait, that's not what you meant.

But, yes, same for monsters... why?
1) to keep things fresh for the players who already know the MM stats
2) so that i can remember (i don't know the history behind lots of these mythological creatures; so if i don't really have a mental background on it, chances are it gets refluffed to something i can remember and fits in thematically with what i need) - so maybe the goblins and kobolds and orcs and dragons have a place as is, but stuff like bulletes and ankhegs, while a staple creature, just don't have the same weight to me because i don't have a mental reference for them beyond the MM.
3) refluffing if fun (for me).

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

IMC the Lyre of Building has been reimagined as a conductor's wand: rather than responding to music, the buildings erect themselves in response to the user's oral performance and hand motions.

However, imho, the real money shot is simply giving name to basic magic items; many years ago in one campaign a simple +1 undead bane maul came to be known as The Bone Hammer. The Javelin of Penetration was just a +2 ghost-touch short spear. Really, a just minimal amount of fluffing can stimulate a sagging campaign.

Sometimes, though, my players find it little too hard to swallow. Once tried refluffing the Immovable Rod, but that met some stiff resistance. And in retrospect, it really is already a pretty solid item (and also iconic!) so I gave up on that one.


For some reason I'm now reminded of a homebrew 3.0e item, Dust of Tastelessness, which caused a permanent -10 penalty on all Innuendo skill checks.

 

[GnomeWorks]

And for those with Arcana, they would also recognize distance cut and Bigbies lesser etherial punch and various other skinnings, and yes recognize them as fairly basic application of arcane forces which exploit various methods of avoiding intervening armor.

As need as the "distance cut" reskin of MM is, it raises questions, though. Can dude still do it if he loses the knife?

Okay, so that one only raises the one question, but still. Changing the thematics of a thing gives rise to the possibility that other aspects have been changed, as well.

Only chaotic to the "player" who thinks he knows as much as the character.

There is nothing wrong with expecting consistency. If X works Y way, and always has, then it should continue to work in Y way, rather than suddenly unexpectedly working Z way. Even if you let players figure it out, it was still something they had no way to plan for, no way to consider, because it was assumed that X yields Y, not Z.

 

[ForceUser]

But I will not take something and redress it to make it "neater." I work with the tools I'm given and/or make, and work within those constraints. In my mind, it makes for a far more interesting experience, because the players know that I won't change things up just to make things interesting; they can rely on the idea that if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is - in all likelihood - just a duck.

Magic is mysterious and nobody is a complete expert on the endless variations of freakish creatures living in the corners and cracks of the world. But really, I just like treating D&D like an episode of Lost.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

There is nothing wrong with expecting consistency. If X works Y way, and always has, then it should continue to work in Y way, rather than suddenly unexpectedly working Z way. Even if you let players figure it out, it was still something they had no way to plan for, no way to consider, because it was assumed that X yields Y, not Z.

This sort of thing really depends on the group, and the DM/player "contract".

Personally, as a player my default assumptions are to expect little more consistency than some semblance of balance in the game. If the DM reskins spells cast by NPCs, I don't mind at all-- even if the rules change them somewhat. "Maelstrom of Shadowflame" is really just "Fireball" in a ring shape and [evil] descriptor. "Ghost Bite" & "Sorcerous claw" are both magic missile, while "Ghostspider Bite" is magic missile with a weak poison effect attached. That kind of stuff is cool, imho. But it also depends on how the GM has been running the campaign to date.

Honestly, I've always found the default flavor of D&D to be a little uninspired, and found a fair bit of reskinning to actually be necessary.

I'd be bored stiff with out a little fluffing by the DM. (Ahem.)

 

[interwyrm]

But I will not take something and redress it to make it "neater." I work with the tools I'm given and/or make, and work within those constraints. In my mind, it makes for a far more interesting experience, because the players know that I won't change things up just to make things interesting; they can rely on the idea that if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is - in all likelihood - just a duck.

Completely disagree, but I suppose this is a matter of what the game is to you.

If the game is a tactical simulator, then being able to easily identify threats is extremely important.

If the game is a way to tell a story about "real" characters, then refluffing the familiar to induce a sense of wonder is not only desirable... it is *necessary*.

 

[Rechan]

I reflavor everything. Right down to standard monster origins.

Bugbears? They've been when Shifters give into their animal side. They've also been the Hunters of Men - when people decide to start hunting men for sport, and become something Else.

Trolls? Hags create them during a foul ritual, combining the raw power of lightning, the unrelentingness of water, the persistence of weeds, the bitter, sharpness of cold and the emptiness (hunger) of darkness, giving it flesh and blood.

Harpies? Amazons who considered themselves more beautiful than the gods, who were struck down for their hubris.

Just to name a few.

 

[Pbartender]

No.

While things like changing the description of someone casting magic missile is neat and all (and that was a rather neat refluff of the spell earlier in the thread!), IMO it leads to the setting losing internal consistency and cohesion.

I don't quite understand this. How does it lose consistency and cohesion? The rules haven't changed. The effect is the same. It just looks different. And if the PC makes his Arcana check, he learns just that.

In that particular situation, as soon as the player started asking about it, I told him flat out that it just a Magic Missile. Everybody had a little chuckle, and he thought it was pretty cool.

If you start doing this willy-nilly, it completely - IMO - nixes the players' ability to plan and identify threats. They have no idea what's going to be thrown at them, so the world becomes - from their view - chaotic and disorganized.

I'll agree that you wouldn't want to overdo it, but sometimes it's a great way to keep things interesting. Remember, on the other side of the coin, if the players always know what's going to be thrown at them the world becomes predictable and boring.

As a corollary to this, I will make new stuff up whole-cloth if what I want doesn't exist. But I will not try to pretend and/or trick the players into thinking it's something else, and if the characters have the means to recognize it, I will give them the chance to do so.

But I will not take something and redress it to make it "neater." I work with the tools I'm given and/or make, and work within those constraints. In my mind, it makes for a far more interesting experience, because the players know that I won't change things up just to make things interesting; they can rely on the idea that if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is - in all likelihood - just a duck.

But that's just it... If I take an Ochre Jelly, for example, change all references of "acid" to "fire" and call it a Horta Lava Monster, then what's really the difference from building the same monster from scratch?

What do the players care? Either way, it's something new to them and they'll be unsure of its specific abilities until they fight it for a few rounds or make an appropriate Knowledge check.

Like you said, I'm working with what I'm given.

 

[fba827]

strange time delay double post -- ignore