When the Rules Limit "Cool"

[Retreater]

First, let me start with that this isn't a gripe against a specific system, because it's happened with all modern versions of D&D and adjacent rules. Second, let me add that I don't have the exact spell and effect listed, but the gist is correct.
A couple weeks ago I was GMing for my brother-in-law in a game of PF2. It was his first session as a cleric, and he had picked out a list of spells he thought were going to make him be a badass.
Finally, staring down a white dragon, the party was growing desperate, he called out to the gods in dramatic fashion and cast something named like "Terrifying Visage." He read aloud the flavor text "You become wreathed in halos of burning flame as chains swirl around you, imprisoning souls of the damned as they scream in the presence of your god's divine power."
Reading this aloud, he had saved this in his back pocket for the most desperate moment, calling on his god to terrify the dragon into fleeing from his dying companions.
"Uh ... That just gives you a +2 to Intimidate checks," one player sheepishly commented after looking up the spell effect.
And just like that, the game was less cool for the new player. Magic lost some of its mystery.
Now I take some of the responsibility. As GM I should have let it happen as cool as it was in his imagination, at least just this first time.
But why do designers write flavor text like this? Why make something so mundane as "+2 to Intimidate checks" sound like the very gods are thundering through your character? Either make your magic sound trite, or if you're going to make it sound badass, have it actually do something badass.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I would say that it stems from countless GMs blasting games for being incomplete. It places a heavy burden if the GM has to assign values to spell effects in mid-session.

 

[aco175]

Spell description gone bad. Kind of like having the DM describe the critical hit your PC just laid down and then you roll 4 points.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Spell description gone bad. Kind of like having the DM describe the critical hit your PC just laid down and then you roll 4 points.

My players refer to that as 'crit shrinkage'

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But why do designers write flavor text like this? Why make something so mundane as "+2 to Intimidate checks" sound like the very gods are thundering through your character? Either make your magic sound trite, or if you're going to make it sound badass, have it actually do something badass.

My guess is that they write the descriptions first, and then go back and determine the mechanical effects based on game balance, without ever going back to revise the description.

If you're specifically talking about Pathfinder, then I'd further guess that it was originally a high-level spell, but they toned it back so that it would be more available as a pre-requisite for crafting a magic item to boosts Intimidate checks.

 

[pemerton]

What was the result of the Intimidate check?

 

[Umbran]

Or, perhaps there's another way to look at it?

Typically... would the GM normally have even allowed the cleric to even try to intimidate the dragon? Or would the dragon just laugh, because... dude, you're just this guy, and it's a frelling dragon. In "roll the dice only when there's a question about success", trying to intimidate the dragon probably requires more than a jaunty walk and steely gaze.

The spell description gives a reason why this isn't dismissed by the GM as having no real chance of success, and moves it into the realm where you can at least try....

 

[GMMichael]

A couple weeks ago I was GMing for my brother-in-law in a game of PF2. It was his first session as a cleric, and he had picked out a list of spells he thought were going to make him be a badass.

"Uh ... That just gives you a +2 to Intimidate checks," one player sheepishly commented after looking up the spell effect.
And just like that, the game was less cool for the new player. Magic lost some of its mystery.

Now I take some of the responsibility. As GM I should have let it happen as cool as it was in his imagination, at least just this first time.
But why do designers write flavor text like this? Why make something so mundane as "+2 to Intimidate checks" sound like the very gods are thundering through your character? Either make your magic sound trite, or if you're going to make it sound badass, have it actually do something badass.

1) Rules don't limit cool - GMs do by enforcing such rules.

2) There was probably a lot of pressure to make PF2 cool. Spell descriptions may have been one of the avenues for this.

3) If it's a D&D/Pathfinder-esque world, most people have probably seen it all. I'm sure a dragon has. Some guy with fire and chains and souls isn't really that intimidating, relatively speaking.

I'm seeing something like this:

 

[kenada]

But why do designers write flavor text like this? Why make something so mundane as "+2 to Intimidate checks" sound like the very gods are thundering through your character?

4e separated the fluff from the mechanics, but people apparently didn’t like that. Instead, we get mechanics mixed in with flavor text (for good or ill). However, PF2 is usually pretty good about keeping its descriptions terse, so this one is surprising.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Because game mechanics ruin story.

We have game mechanics, because any RPG is partly a game. By definition. And people play RPGs because they enjoy playing the game part of an RPG. That's why so many people spend so much time demanding more game mechanics, or new ways to use the game mechanics we have. More feats, more classes, more subclasses, more races, more this, more that. Rolling dice and reaching numbers and moving "pieces" around a board (whether physically or in their minds) are the fun part of the game for many people. For some, it's the ONLY part of the game worth playing. And as we all know... a game that is inherently unfair or inherently unbalanced just isn't fun to play (for the most part). Everyone needs to know going in that if they are going to play a game... they have just as much of a chance at success as anyone else playing too. And striving for success makes the game have meaning. But what does that mean? It means the game has to be designed and built to have that balance. To have that fairness. Without it... it's not a game worth playing.

The only problem is... stories are unfair. Stories are unbalanced. Stories require drama-- and drama is the striving for success in times when life isn't balanced and life isn't fair. But in an RPG... when half the game is designed and built to HAVE that balance and fairness... you lose a whole crapton of drama because of it.

Would it have been dramatically powerful for the cleric to pull out this spell they wanted to use and defeat the dragon? Absolutely. But the game can't just give the cleric that ability, because it would make the game unbalanced. And it would make the rest of the players less inclined to play because they would know that their precious game mechanics no longer really mattered. The game part of the RPG didn't matter. Only the story did. Thus the spell can't make a dramatic shift in the story to scare off the dragon, it can only be a part of the balanced mechanics. Thus a mere +2 bonus.

Now if you have a group of players who are dramatists by nature and who are in it for the story... and they know in their bones when it is appropriate to succeed and when it is dramatically necessary to fail so that the future success is sweeter... they would only need game mechanics for random inspiration for their dramatic ideas. The old "Why do you need game mechanics to play D&D at all?!?" question. And the answer of course being that 99% of the people who play D&D aren't dramatists by nature.