This mentality needs to die

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If anyone is interested in the DM's own thought on the session (not necessarily the issue discussed here), this post on the WotC forums contains links to DM commentary: Robot Chicken Videos - DM commentary.

 

[Lanefan]

I've decided that in my future games this power will be called, "Kind Of A Purplish Image Of Flames That Outlines A Target Creature But Doesn't Generate Any Actual Heat And You Could Cast It On An Object, Like A Door, If You Really Wanted To But It Certainly Won't Melt Ice".

KOAPIOFTOATCBDGAAHAYCCIOAOLADIYRWTBICWMI for short.

And if you can't clearly say the full name of the power by the end of the next player's turn, the effect fizzles - right?

Lan-"how much light do these flames give out anyway - can I use them to illuminate the hall?"-efan

 

[Aberzanzorax]

i think there is often too much of a distinction between "flavor text" and "rules text".

In simulationist play why not have flavor text be just as important? After all, the flavor text describes what is happening.

Unfortunately, when the flavor text is poorly written (Dark fire that isn't a flame? Faerie fire that isn't a flame?.......and the description of the power isn't particularly evocative....) then poor flavor becomes just as bad as an unclear or imbalanced rule.


i think the real issue here COULD BE (on a more meta level) that flavor text is made to play second fiddle. If it were "balanced" then it would be clear if, e.g. a fireball temporarily lit up a room or melted ice.


For me, I don't think this is just "I wanna use my power to do something extra, or that it shouldn't" I think some of this is "why can't I use this hot torch to set fire to that dry hay?" If powers are "real" rather than just "fighting mechanics" they should behave in certain ways in and out of combat.



Remember Adnd where a round was seconds in combat and minutes outside of it? Weird.

 

[Umbran]

In simulationist play why not have flavor text be just as important? After all, the flavor text describes what is happening.

Well, for many, the flavor text describes one example of what can happen - it isn't necessarily written in stone that it works that way, and only that way.

You certainly can use flavor text in that way, but you have to be rather careful when doing so - flavor text is not generally written with the same care and attention to detail as rules content, largely because it isn't intended to be a solid basis for rules-interpretation. Flavor text is not play tested in the same way rules-content is.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Remember Adnd where a round was seconds in combat and minutes outside of it? Weird.

The AD&D round was one minute. Usually activities outside of combat or pursuit were measured in turns which were 10 minutes.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

@ Exploder Wizard. Thanks. Your memory is better than mine.


@ Umbran. Agreed, sort of. What you've described is entirely accurate. However, two comments:

1. I'm dreaming of a game where flavor text IS given as much priority as rules text. I think that would be a game I'd really enjoy.

2. I agree flavor is poorly balanced compared to rules due to the lower priority it is given. However, rules have varying degrees of quality and balance (many of the splats in 3e have very dubious rules). This has been such the case that our group no longer feels comfortable with "anything goes" rules wise or "use these certain books" or somesuch. Instead, we use common sense when examining appropriateness. I think that, while flavor is even more "imbalanced" the same approach could be taken.

 

[billd91]

Unfortunately, when the flavor text is poorly written (Dark fire that isn't a flame? Faerie fire that isn't a flame?.......and the description of the power isn't particularly evocative....) then poor flavor becomes just as bad as an unclear or imbalanced rule.

Well, foxfire isn't a flame either but it's a commonly accepted term. Same with St. Elmo's fire.

There's a balance that should be struck between a descriptive name or description of the effect and a certain amount of art. Using the term fire for something that gives off a glow but doesn't actually create heat is pretty reasonable.

 

[mudbunny]

WotC just put up the first three episodes of DM commentary by Chris Perkins on the RC video casts.

Part 1 [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdFClW2WVmI[/ame]
Part 2 [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIgdG6FL8ac[/ame]
Part 3 [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAiEFBgsCls[/ame]

 

[lin_fusan]

Lan-"how much light do these flames give out anyway - can I use them to illuminate the hall?"-efan

Heh, I seem to remember a player asking me back in my 3e (or was it 2e) days if Faerie Fire could be used to illuminate a "dungeon" (since by noun definition, it is a single object), such that every creature would be negatively illuminated and thus easier to hit.

My answer was that a Disintegrate spell hits a single object, such as a party. Everyone roll a Fort save.

 

[Scribble]

2. I agree flavor is poorly balanced compared to rules due to the lower priority it is given. However, rules have varying degrees of quality and balance (many of the splats in 3e have very dubious rules). This has been such the case that our group no longer feels comfortable with "anything goes" rules wise or "use these certain books" or somesuch. Instead, we use common sense when examining appropriateness. I think that, while flavor is even more "imbalanced" the same approach could be taken.

The issue I see is something I mentioned up-thread (I think it was this thread at least...)

Everyone's world view is slightly different. How one person interprets flavor might be different then how another does.

Just like if I told you look for the "big" house, that one is mine... You might have a different view of what "big house" means then I do. It's probably better for me to just get to the point and give you an address.

I think the same is true for game rules as well... The rules are the address. Get them right, and the players can muck around with whatever description works best for them (be it yours, or their own) without messing up game play.