D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Nemesis Destiny]

I tend to agree with this. And unfortunately I don't think there's a way to write a prose-founded spell description(as opposed to the more clinical 4e writups*) without being forced to use a singular interpretation of the spell. You either take a singular fiction and run with it(which is fine in certain regards), or your remove the fiction entirely(or dilute it to the point of irrelevance).

*There was good prose to 4e powers, aside from the names, many of them had very evocative fluff, but they were clearly secondary, stemming from 4e's duplication of the MTG spell card design style.....which being an avid MTG player, appealed to me greatly, and it's got a pretty hefty amount of flavor and fluff to it, it's all just secondary and optional. I completely understand that some people want the fluff to be mandatory and primary to D&D.

I just have to ask those people: whose fluff are we going with, there's quite a bit. If we must have primary and mandatory fluff, I want it to be specific. Generalized fluff is worse than clinical fluff-less-ness, at least with a clinical mathematics you can add anything. Generic fluff is so boring it IMO, makes it more difficult to be creative with it, since you're not working from nothing and creating your own, you're working from a foundation so poor you almost have​ to eliminate it to get creative.

I agree with this post.

I don't want to see specific fluff in Next, especially if it's mandatory as written, with the rules elements baked into the flavour. I personally really dislike the prose-style rules elements, and prefer a stat-block that I can rename, and reflavour. I enjoy the creative exercise, and I think it's one of the things about 4e's design that really jumped out at me. It really helped with class flexibility.

The big problem I have with prose-rules, is that sometimes they're clear, sometimes they're not, and unless you love it the way it's written, they always get in the way of player or DM creativity. I like some of the prose itself (though it'd be better if they got the MtG team to write it), but I'd prefer it to be separate from the mechanical effects, yet supportive of the thematic elements and completely open to reflavouring. I recognize this is a highly contentious viewpoint and pretty much one of the defining characteristics of the 3.x vs 4e divide, so not likely going to happen in 5e.

 

[Guest 85555]

I agree with this post.

I don't want to see specific fluff in Next, especially if it's mandatory as written, with the rules elements baked into the flavour. I personally really dislike the prose-style rules elements, and prefer a stat-block that I can rename, and reflavour. I enjoy the creative exercise, and I think it's one of the things about 4e's design that really jumped out at me. It really helped with class flexibility.

The big problem I have with prose-rules, is that sometimes they're clear, sometimes they're not, and unless you love it the way it's written, they always get in the way of player or DM creativity. I like some of the prose itself (though it'd be better if they got the MtG team to write it), but I'd prefer it to be separate from the mechanical effects, yet supportive of the thematic elements and completely open to reflavouring. I recognize this is a highly contentious viewpoint and pretty much one of the defining characteristics of the 3.x vs 4e divide, so not likely going to happen in 5e.

i think this is a very important point of division between preferences and something I have seen cause problems within groups that otherwise are largely on the same page. Some people want the player to refluff a spell effect to suit their sense of the character or what is going on. Others don't. Usually I find both groups assue their preference to be shared by others (at least in my case, I assumed this and the people I have disagreed with seemed to assume it as well). Whether or not the system explicitly statesyou can refluff, some players and GM see it as a wholly good thing for players to have the power to do so. My own experience is I find it really bothers me as a player when the players get to decide if their delayed blast fireball spell is a blast of flame or explossion of frost. If it were a spell called elemental control it wuldnt bother me upbut omething about changing the lavor of the spell to suit the payers senseof what fits really, really bothers me. I don't know why it bthers me so much, but it is one those things that, since I first encountered it has felt like a grain of sand in my eye. At the same time, people i have played with who prefer player refluffing, seem to get annoyed when it isn't allowed.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

i think this is a very important point of division between preferences and something I have seen cause problems within groups that otherwise are largely on the same page. Some people want the player to refluff a spell effect to suit their sense of the character or what is going on. Others don't. Usually I find both groups assue their preference to be shared by others (at least in my case, I assumed this and the people I have disagreed with seemed to assume it as well). Whether or not the system explicitly statesyou can refluff, some players and GM see it as a wholly good thing for players to have the power to do so.

Until 4e made it explicit, I have never assumed this. In fact, it was rather implicit due to the specificity of the rules text and its descriptions, that every in-game construct, be it a spell, item, or whathaveyou, were all "set in stone." In early 4e, I assumed this as well. I also initially hated the game. When I did realize this, it was like flipping on a light switch.

My own experience is I find it really bothers me as a player when the players get to decide if their delayed blast fireball spell is a blast of flame or explossion of frost. If it were a spell called elemental control it wuldnt bother me upbut omething about changing the lavor of the spell to suit the payers senseof what fits really, really bothers me. I don't know why it bthers me so much, but it is one those things that, since I first encountered it has felt like a grain of sand in my eye. At the same time, people i have played with who prefer player refluffing, seem to get annoyed when it isn't allowed.

You are not describing refluffing here at all. What you have described is a fundamental change to the way Delayed Blast Fireball works. In your example, it does cold damage, which is something beyond the scope of simple reflavouring, even in 4e. In 4e and 3e, making such a critical change would require a feat at minimum (Energy Substitution, or similar IIRC). In 4e, some DMs may allow "re-keywording" powers like that, but if they do it is strictly in the realm of houseruling. Under AD&D, and probably a lot of 3.x games, this would require researching an entirely new spell.

When you refluff something, you can in no way change the way in which the rules element interacts with the game world mechanically, only how it interacts with the narrative element. Up until late 3.x, these things were assumed to be one and the same, and I think this is where your confusion lies.

EDIT: I also want to address your last point about player annoyance when refluffing is not allowed. I can certainly empathize with such players - I don't like the imagination of some designer limiting how I can describe my character, even (or especially) if I am doing it to have the narrative element of said character match my concept by making a change that, for all intents and purposes is cosmetic.

 

[Guest 85555]

Until 4e made it explicit, I have never assumed this. In fact, it was rather implicit due to the specificity of the rules text and its descriptions, that every in-game construct, be it a spell, item, or whathaveyou, were all "set in stone." In early 4e, I assumed this as well. I also initially hated the game. When I did realize this, it was like flipping on a light switch.

i was encountering refluffing as far back as 2E but certainly everyone's experience will vary.

You are not describing refluffing here at all. What you have described is a fundamental change to the way Delayed Blast Fireball works. In your example, it does cold damage, which is something beyond the scope of simple reflavouring, even in 4e. In 4e and 3e, making such a critical change would require a feat at minimum (Energy Substitution, or similar IIRC). In 4e, some DMs may allow "re-keywording" powers like that, but if they do it is strictly in the realm of houseruling. Under AD&D, and probably a lot of 3.x games, this would require researching an entirely new spell.

i was not speaking about 4e but refluffing in general(for all games). But it was simply an example because shifting from one energy type to another is something you see atvgame tables and in many systems, things like cold damage are not distinct from other energy sources

When you refluff something, you can in no way change the way in which the rules element interacts with the game world mechanically, only how it interacts with the narrative element. Up until late 3.x, these things were assumed to be one and the same, and I think this is where your confusion lies.

EDIT: I also want to address your last point about player annoyance when refluffing is not allowed. I can certainly empathize with such players - I don't like the imagination of some designer limiting how I can describe my character, even (or especially) if I am doing it to have the narrative element of said character match my concept by making a change that, for all intents and purposes is cosmetic.

i understand your annoyance. My only point is that annoyance can goes both ways on this issue. Designers who make games that dont assume refluffing are doing so to cater to player types like myself who find it frustrating. I think designers need to weigh who their audience is when making these kinds of choice. There isnt necessarily a good or bad to it.

 

[Sunseeker]

Until 4e made it explicit, I have never assumed this. In fact, it was rather implicit due to the specificity of the rules text and its descriptions, that every in-game construct, be it a spell, item, or whathaveyou, were all "set in stone." In early 4e, I assumed this as well. I also initially hated the game. When I did realize this, it was like flipping on a light switch.

You are not describing refluffing here at all. What you have described is a fundamental change to the way Delayed Blast Fireball works. In your example, it does cold damage, which is something beyond the scope of simple reflavouring, even in 4e. In 4e and 3e, making such a critical change would require a feat at minimum (Energy Substitution, or similar IIRC). In 4e, some DMs may allow "re-keywording" powers like that, but if they do it is strictly in the realm of houseruling. Under AD&D, and probably a lot of 3.x games, this would require researching an entirely new spell.

When you refluff something, you can in no way change the way in which the rules element interacts with the game world mechanically, only how it interacts with the narrative element. Up until late 3.x, these things were assumed to be one and the same, and I think this is where your confusion lies.

EDIT: I also want to address your last point about player annoyance when refluffing is not allowed. I can certainly empathize with such players - I don't like the imagination of some designer limiting how I can describe my character, even (or especially) if I am doing it to have the narrative element of said character match my concept by making a change that, for all intents and purposes is cosmetic.

No, though it was clarified later in 4e. Refluffing, even the alteration of power sources(such as a Primal Paladin, a re-flavor as a champion of natural law) to the alteration of damage types is perfectly allowed in the system. Even when it isn't, it changes nothing mechanically. Energy Substitution allows you to go back and forth, it doesn't permanently change it from one to the other. It gives you more options. There is no difference between fire and cold damage in 4e. One does not inflict penalties or ongoing damage because of it's type, that is purely in rules text of the power. Any effects cause because it is fire or cold are usually the result of Feats, racial abilities, or other factors outside the realm of the individual spell, and those interactions need to be more closely monitored in a game that allows power refluffing.


I don't favor a game that assumes refluffing or one that assumes everyone likes the canon as written. The game should have a canon and they should put effort into it, but it should be clearly delineated between the canon fluff and the effects of the power(back to why I hate prose-writeups of powers), in such a way it is the choice of the player to accept or reject that fluff.

 

[Manbearcat]

We're having some jargon dissonance here. My understanding (and usage) of the colloquial terminology is:

Refluffing: Describing a maneuver/power/action differently than the default assigned fluff while staying true to the mechanical constraints; keywords, power source, attack stat, defense stat, effect line.

Reskinning: Detaching mechanical constraints (usually keywords but can also be power source, attack stat, defense stat, effect line) from a maneuver/power/action and plugging in new mechanical constraints in their stead. Reskinning implies that balance is retained such that if a control effect is detached, an of-level control effect (eg - 2 to attack for slow) is plugged into the vacancy.

 

[Guest 85555]

We're having some jargon dissonance here. My understanding (and usage) of the colloquial terminology is:

Refluffing: Describing a maneuver/power/action differently than the default assigned fluff while staying true to the mechanical constraints; keywords, power source, attack stat, defense stat, effect line.

Reskinning: Detaching mechanical constraints (usually keywords but can also be power source, attack stat, defense stat, effect line) from a maneuver/power/action and plugging in new mechanical constraints in their stead. Reskinning implies that balance is retained such that if a control effect is detached, an of-level control effect (eg - 2 to attack for slow) is plugged into the vacancy.

Yeah, I was approaching this very casually, not really worried about those distinctions (but I was primarily thinking about the former). Since I am not a 4E player, I dont use much 4E terminology (and so refluffing is just a word I picked, possibly from 4E players, up to describe something I have seen at the table). This guy seems to give a pretty clear breakdown of the terms as used in 4th edition:
http://everygrain.blogspot.com/2013/01/refluffing.html

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

No, though it was clarified later in 4e. Refluffing, even the alteration of power sources(such as a Primal Paladin, a re-flavor as a champion of natural law) to the alteration of damage types is perfectly allowed in the system. Even when it isn't, it changes nothing mechanically. Energy Substitution allows you to go back and forth, it doesn't permanently change it from one to the other. It gives you more options. There is no difference between fire and cold damage in 4e. One does not inflict penalties or ongoing damage because of it's type, that is purely in rules text of the power. Any effects cause because it is fire or cold are usually the result of Feats, racial abilities, or other factors outside the realm of the individual spell, and those interactions need to be more closely monitored in a game that allows power refluffing.

There may be no explicit difference between fire and cold damage in 4e, but there are certainly interactions to watch for in terms of synergies and interactions with other things, which is why I don't see changing a damage type as simple refluffing, as ManBearCat points out.

I don't favor a game that assumes refluffing or one that assumes everyone likes the canon as written. The game should have a canon and they should put effort into it, but it should be clearly delineated between the canon fluff and the effects of the power(back to why I hate prose-writeups of powers), in such a way it is the choice of the player to accept or reject that fluff.

I can agree with this.

 

[Sunseeker]

There may be no explicit difference between fire and cold damage in 4e, but there are certainly interactions to watch for in terms of synergies and interactions with other things, which is why I don't see changing a damage type as simple refluffing, as ManBearCat points out.

Right, the infamous "Frost of Letherma" Paladin. Certainly there are, but this is why part of the DMs job is to ensure players aren't out to break the game, because unfortunately some are. DMs should always make an effort to discuss character concepts over with their players before allowing anyone to sit down at the table. I mean I did it just last night and helped a player develop a creative and interesting concept. It's a good character, but also an interesting concept.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Right, the infamous "Frost of Letherma" Paladin. Certainly there are, but this is why part of the DMs job is to ensure players aren't out to break the game, because unfortunately some are.

Indeed. I think this is why I draw the line at keywords by default; I used to have a guy in my game that would take advantage of my leniency and preference for refluffing to set up broken synergies. That said, like your example below, I have allowed some players to alter keywords in their powers, and I have had the same allowances made for me and my characters at times.

DMs should always make an effort to discuss character concepts over with their players before allowing anyone to sit down at the table. I mean I did it just last night and helped a player develop a creative and interesting concept. It's a good character, but also an interesting concept.

I think this is fine and dandy, but you're right in that you should always vet player intentions first if you're going to allow keyword changes, and a DM should always reserve the right to revoke such changes if they prove problematic. Most long-time gamers won't take issue with this, as this has long been the traditional and understood way of doing things, but not everyone is on the same page in this regard.