Are you a refluffer?

[interwyrm]

And thus a crude stone age weapon is exactly the same as a carefully crafted steel weapon. By hearing those description I, and probably most other people, expect the steel weapon to be way better than the stone one and having them performing exactly the same is in my eyes, lame.

This is exactly why you don't let the players see your DM notes. If you keep things "under the hood" then you get the "cool" from the description and lose the "lame" from inconsistent mechanics.

I'd be more displeased if, as a player, I went up against a fearsome primitive tribe, and they were all using refined steel weapons.

 

[Pbartender]

In D&D magic is science. All spells and magic items always work the same way, always require the same components and are always of the same rank.

Perhaps, but that's all mechanics. Changing the description of the spell, so long as that description reasonably matches the effects of the description, doesn't change that predictability of the mechanics in any way.

To put it another way...

In science, the same procedures should always produce the same results. That is the very basis of the scientific method -- reproducibility. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't multiple methods of producing the same results.

Consider D&D's "scientific magic" more like cooking a recipe. Look it up in a cookbook, and you can find detailed, step by step instructions for baking bread. But, not everyone uses the exact same recipe, depending on where and who they learned to bake bread from. In the end it's all bread -- flour, yeast and water baked in an oven -- but the baguettes and challah and pitas all look and taste different because of the slight variations in the recipe. Even amongst specific bread recipes you get differences. Not every loaf of sourdough is exactly the same.

Magic is the same way, in my view. A Magic Missile is Magic Missile no matter who casts it, but variations in casting and teaching techniques from one Master Wizard to the next can make the special effects of their specific Magic Missiles look quite different.

 

[pawsplay]

Re-skinning is a useful skill. "Refluffing" sounds like an activity similar in nature to wheel-re-inventing. I can always write my own rules or fluff; when I buy a book, I expect some of the work to be already done for me by a good craftsman. I'm not particularly loyal to fluff text so much as disinclined to purchase stuff I don't see as ready-to-use. I rarely reskin, I think mainly because I don't see a lack of novelty as much of a problem. One goblin is pretty much the same as any other, unless it's not.

Apart from that, I tend to be fairly loyal to a game setting, so I would not be friendly to re-skinning in a way I find damaging to the imaginary world. "But it has the same stats," does not fly for me.

 

[Derren]

Consider D&D's "scientific magic" more like cooking a recipe. Look it up in a cookbook, and you can find detailed, step by step instructions for baking bread. But, not everyone uses the exact same recipe, depending on where and who they learned to bake bread from. In the end it's all bread -- flour, yeast and water baked in an oven -- but the baguettes and challah and pitas all look and taste different because of the slight variations in the recipe. Even amongst specific bread recipes you get differences. Not every loaf of sourdough is exactly the same.

Magic is the same way, in my view. A Magic Missile is Magic Missile no matter who casts it, but variations in casting and teaching techniques from one Master Wizard to the next can make the special effects of their specific Magic Missiles look quite different.

Except that Magic Missiles all do exactly the same thing. They are not slightly different like your collection of breads in your post. A baguette isn't just a long pita. The green, round magic missile is exactly the same as the red pyramid shaped one. No difference at all mechanically.
And thats why I don't like refluffing. Such things should also have a mechanical difference and not just be exactly the same thing with a different texture.

I'd be more displeased if, as a player, I went up against a fearsome primitive tribe, and they were all using refined steel weapons.

You know what would please me as player the most? When I went up against a fearsome primitive tribe whose weapon were inferior to mine which was noticeable in combat, except for the one who used a scavenged "modern" weapon who was more though than the rest not because of being some "elite chieftain primitive", but only because he used a better weapon. That of course would mean that only his attack and damage was better, not his HP, etc.

 

[interwyrm]

To use an (very simplified) analogy, physics/gravity is a science because all things fall down with the same speed (barring air resistance). If things would fall with different speeds, hover or even fall upwards for no discernable reason, physics/gravity wouldn't be a science. And exactly that form of unpredictability is missing in D&D magic.

D&D isn't the real world. The rules are not theories developed, refined, and accepted through empirical observation. The rules are made up to provide a groundwork conducive to fun. As previously stated, changing the fluff is *within the rules*. Even if it weren't explicitly stated as alright, rule 0 means that the DM can change it if he likes. There isn't even a danger of unbalancing the system because all that is changed is the description. Cool isn't a balance factor.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

Aaaaaarrrrrrrgh!!!!!!

correct response?

 

[Derren]

D&D isn't the real world. The rules are not theories developed, refined, and accepted through empirical observation. The rules are made up to provide a groundwork conducive to fun. As previously stated, changing the fluff is *within the rules*. Even if it weren't explicitly stated as alright, rule 0 means that the DM can change it if he likes. There isn't even a danger of unbalancing the system because all that is changed is the description. Cool isn't a balance factor.

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? Or take the sunflower spitting fireballs. Now you have a limited source of ammunition for spellcasting. And don't tell me a tuba is as easy to handle than a typical implement. It certainly is much harder to conceal/carry and when you have to blow it also much louder.
See how "fluff" can effect things in game despite "just cool looks"? That also a reason I am against random refluffing for coolness. You never know when the new fluff can be an advantage/disadvantage. And I don't like to tell my player to "just play nice and don't use this rather obvious advantage".

Thats why imo instead of refluffing existing things you should make up new stuff instead. Because things working exactly the same, just look different is imo silly and very often do not work out anyway. Let the storm cleric have his special storm spells no one else has instead of just giving him what everyone else has with a different texture and many problems preprogrammed when he wants to be creative with his powers.

 

[interwyrm]

Except that Magic Missiles all do exactly the same thing. They are not slightly different like your collection of breads in your post. A baguette isn't just a long pita. The green, round magic missile is exactly the same as the red pyramid shaped one. No difference at all mechanically.
And thats why I don't like refluffing. Such things should also have a mechanical difference and not just be exactly the same thing with a different texture.

By this logic, monsters which do 1d8 slashing melee damage should have longsword claws.

You know what would please me as player the most? When I went up against a fearsome primitive tribe whose weapon were inferior to mine which was noticeable in combat, except for the one who used a scavenged "modern" weapon who was more though than the rest not because of being some "elite chieftain primitive", but only because he used a better weapon. That of course would mean that only his attack and damage was better, not his HP, etc.

How would you even know the quality of the weapon. Maybe the primitives are just stronger than your character, thus compensating for their inferior weaponry. It *would* be immersive and fun if one scavenged a superior weapon and did better damage than the rest.

 

[Barastrondo]

Except that Magic Missiles all do exactly the same thing. They are not slightly different like your collection of breads in your post. A baguette isn't just a long pita. The green, round magic missile is exactly the same as the red pyramid shaped one. No difference at all mechanically.
And thats why I don't like refluffing. Such things should also have a mechanical difference and not just be exactly the same thing with a different texture.

Man, that's like saying all battle axes have to be single-edged Nordic-style affairs with a wooden haft and Celtic knotwork for decoration, because they all have the same speed factor and damage dice.

I mean, I guess I can see the value of it for some players, because then you know if an orc has got a double-bitted affair with a stylized dragon's head, then it's not going to be the same rules as the single-edged Nordic-style battleaxe that the PHB stats represent, but it's really not the game for me.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

1. The trog's "jabber-jabber"
2. The guard's realmspike
Mechanically, both weapons are "spear/1d8/x3". Only the fluff has changed.

And thus a crude stone age weapon is exactly the same as a carefully crafted steel weapon. By hearing those description I, and probably most other people, expect the steel weapon to be way better than the stone one and having them performing exactly the same is in my eyes, lame.

Criminy. I'm assuming you're not being disingenuous here. Fair enough, your point is valid assuming we're playing with rules that support a difference between stone age and iron age weaponry... though if your playing core D&D, there is in fact no differentiation. And I clearly stated that for the example.

So, try again.

1. The guard's realmspike is 6ft long, steel tip affixed to a sanded oak shaft with rivets, and a red tassle dangles from the neck.
2. The orc's urgsticker is 6.5ft long, with treantwood shaft surmounted by a pitted duskiron point collared with tiny spikes and vulture feathers.

Mechanically, both are "spears/1d8/x3", though I don't tell the players this, of course, just as I wouldn't tell them if the orc's spear was poisoned or magical.

Exactly how is this different than the Merlin's Magic Missile versus Sauron's Sorcerous Slap of Force issue? By most reckonings, there's no difference save the presentation.

I sincerely don't understand the viewpoint that a fluff difference must reflect a mechanics difference, and am very much trying to.