Flavor Text is a disturbing trend that grew out of Magic Cards and Post TSR D&D as video games were phased in as the principle source of roleplaying theory.
The idea of flavor text is that you have mechanics first, and then use flowery language to add descriptors to a spell, ability, or some component of the game, such as a monster, player character race, or character class.
This allows the rapid import and export from video game to table top and back again. But this is not a good thing for roleplaying. This is a trend that needs to go the way of those car brands no one remembers. For one thing, video games are getting more complex. AIs are getting stronger and design teams are able to import larger bodies of writers and physics engines, so even if we wanted to simplify a mechanic for export to a video game, there's really no point - the game engines of the future will largely be simulationist and heavily story based, as my most recent MMO experiences tell me.
So video games aside, there's the original core of roleplaying. You have two directions, the D&D at the beginning, and White Wolf heading in the story telling direction, a bit like Amber and Nobilis, and then you have Dice mechanic rules heavy systems, a good example being hackmaster and some of Steve Jackson's table/board game intensive systems.
In many of these systems, the flavor text is more comedy than function, and you might stack an angelic power on top of a demonic power, and then throw in a lycanthrope riding a wave of hornets with bonuses from slime necromancers to fight off the ice druids and their zombie plant hordes.
But this concept, that flavor text isn't important, it doesn't work well for roleplaying. Flavor text as a concept needs to go away. Instead, descriptions have to have weight to them. Things like Alignment, if used, have to be used with awareness that they influence the decisions a character makes. Things like character class backgrounds, and their themes, like a Necromancer, Paladin, Druid, Thief, or Cleric of some Holy Power or Warlock of Dark forces, these things shouldn't be seen as a bundle of bonuses, because that's not really roleplaying. It's gaming, yes, but not a viable story. It is absurd.
Everyone has their opinion on the matter. this is mine.
"You got video games in my RPGs!"
"You got RPGs in my video games"
Destined to fight forever. Blood in the streets.
I'd get the idea of some of the fun of play being players choosing (from the choices the mechanics give them) the one that better suits a certain fiction, rather than what is just spreadsheet optimal.
But too often this is a call to ignore mechanics entirely for putting fiction first always - and that just ends up with a prima donna at the table who brow beats anyone who doesn't imagine the same way they do.
I don't really see a lot of true flavor text in 5th. To my mind, true flavor has no effect with its inclusion or exclusion. Usually, rules consist of what is both flavor and mechanic text. For example the "fire" in Fireball is flavor in that it provides a description that can be imaged, but is also mechanical in that it may interact with resistances and vulnerabilities. Some have indicated that a weapon name, such as "longsword" is purely flavor, when mechanically there are some magic weapons that can only be swords. Others may use that designation to make rulings on impovised actions with that weapon. Usually, I have people use the term "that's just flavor text" for anything in the rules thay may be inconvenient if included in the ruling. Still, players will use this flavor text to gain side-effects if it is benificial to them. A good example of this is setting the grease from a Grease spell on fire. Unlike the Web spell, it does not include specific rules detailing how it reacts to fire, so it only has the flavor text of coating the person/ground with grease [which may or may not be flamable] to lend itself to being set on fire.
Flavour and mechanics can work together.
Flavor text is a blurb of text that tells a mini-story and is separate from the rules. It's been there from the beginning. Look at 1e sourcebooks and anywhere you see samples of game play or a little quote from a character, that's flavor text. In MTG flavor text was usually a humorous blurb of text put on the bottom of a card to fill space when the mechanics didn't require the entire text area of the card. Flavor text in video games is usually in the form of quotes in loading screens or random dialog from NPCs like in JPRGs when townsfolk spout random things that usually have nothing to do with the story and can be totaly ignored.
The only problem I have with flavor text, is when it sheds doubt on the rules. I don't like having flavor text in a description of a spell for example, when it confuses me about the actual effect of the spell. Take for example the 5e version of the Command spell:
Command
You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn. The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it.
So, when is a command directly harmful to a creature? If I tell a creature to drop its grenade, is that directly or indirectly harmful? If I tell it to drop its weapon, while the rogue gets behind it for a coup de grace, is that directly harmful? If I tell it to step inside a dangerous device, and I then head over to the lever to activate it, was that directly or indirectly harmful? Can I command the creature to approach the dangerous huge spider? Or step in the path of an approaching lava flow?
This spell has always frustrated me with its fuzzy flavor text. Its been like this in nearly all editions of D&D, and every single time it brings players to the forums to ask for clarification.
Imaculata wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
When the description is primary, and the mechanics are seen as samples, the usefulness of the effect is greater for DMs and players alike. Usefulness can be weakening or making something more powerful, depending on the circumstances. Essentially, if Mechanics flow from the "flavor text", instead of flavor text originating from mechanics, then the possibilities become more vast and frequently logical. Like the grease spell, or the obvious "fire spells ignite things". I noticed something odd about firebolt vs. bonfire cantrips.
Look close:
Fire Bolt
Duration: Instantaneous
You hurl a mote o f fire at a creature or object within
range. Make a ranged spell attack against the
target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A
flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being
worn or carried.
This spell’s damage increases by 1d10 when you reach
5th level (2d10), 11th level (3d10), and 17th level (4d10).
Create Bonfire
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within
range. Until the spells ends, the bonfire fills a 5-foot
cube. Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast
the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or
take 1d8 fire damage. A creature must also make the
saving throw when it enters the bonfire’s space for the
first time on a turn or ends its turn there.
The spell’s damage increases by 1d8 when you reach
5th level (2d8), 11th level (3d8), and 17th level (4d8).
Here we have a Firebolt, that has the flavor text side effect of setting combustables on fire. For example, you could start a pile of wood on fire, creating a bonfire that would last hours, and even longer if you feed the flame. Then we have create bonfire, which creates an extremely temporary fire, that vanishes when you stop concentrating. It looks like a fire but the text actually indicates it snuffs out and no where does it ignite combustables,
so that means you literally cannot start a bonfire with a spell that is intended to start a bonfire, while on the other hand, because of the wording, a cantrip intended to attack monsters, is perfectly good at starting bonfires, even though it has nothing to do with it.
This leads to all sorts of arguments. I remember one New Years we had in NorCal, and we were out on some Acreage and our LARP group wanted to start a bonfire. When we tried starting it with gasoline, it created a large instant fire that burned out for as long as we kept applying gasoline (don't try this at home) maybe a minute or so. But it would always burn out. When we switched to more traditional methods from our boyscout days, the fire sustained itself.
I always thought when someone calls something flavour text it just means "Damn, the other guy was right, this rule exists, but I don't want to admit my mistake so I'll call that part of the rule flavour text".
shintashi wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
I actually prefer it when an abillity, feat, or spell literally spells out what the ability/feat/spell does first, rather than hiding what it does in flowery descriptive text. No times was that more apparent than when I had a new player (her first game) in my last campaign. She played a druid, and when she cast a spell and I asked "what does it do?", she had to read and interpret a paragraph every time. I also had a veteran player get frustrated when he misunderstood the Ranger's favored enemy's granting advantage on certain rolls to include attack rolls (because it says I have advantage when hunting).
shintashi wrote:
I didn't realize there was any flavor text in 5e. It's more a description in plain English with a few codified terms that you can easily understand without reading the rules.
98% of everything that happens in an RPG is flavor text. Without it, the games wouldn't be worth playing.
GM: The packet of 10 hit points tries to eliminate some of your hit points. (rolls dice) It removes 5 of your hit points.
Player 1: I try to remove some of its hit points. (rolls dice) I fail to do so.
GM: Three more discrete packets of 12, 10, and 8 hit points arrive. The 12-point packet has a higher probability of removing your hit points than the others have, and you have less chance to remove its hit points directly. What do you want to do?
Player 2: I expend a single-use ability to remove hit points from all of them at once. You need to make a Class 2 saving throw for each of them
I suspect the first thing everyone would do, if faced with four hours of that, is to start imagining some flavor text on top of those lifeless descriptions.
The point being, most of the lines people draw between what is and isn't flavor text are just expressions of personal preference, not rigorous paring away of all non-mechanical text. If you're rigorous about it, you'll be left with a very simple dice game that few would recognize as an RPG. If you're not rigorous, then it just comes down to "here's the amount of flavor text I like."
A better question to ask would be, is there a better format for describing game effects that conveys interesting flavor without obscuring the rules?
Steve
i think a lot of us have situations where the title of an ability or class is terribly misleading into what it actually does in a game. Almost all my new players take the insight skill, for example, but then no one takes it later on, because insight in 5e is the same as Human Perception in Cyberpunk, while Insight in something like a Psionic or Divination sense implies myriad notions and useful abilities like intution, danger sense, 6th sense, precognition, and luck.
A lot of people have been claiming the Warlock is a fun class but totally not what they think of as the name. In the B movie, Warlock II, the Warlocks were Druids. For some reason, 5e turned one of their Monk Classes into the Ninja class, and turned the Knight or Cavalier class into a background. Now we have Chaotic Evil Half Orc Paladins and Lawful Good Aasimar of Yog Sothoth. We have spells that in the right hands, function normally, but in the hands of Microgamers or Powergamers, either end up being nullified (like the bonfire spell that can't start a bonfire) or stacked in hideous ways (like the chromatic orb wielding tempest priest assassin fighter sorcerer who's trying to eek out over 500 damage with level 1 spells)
See, it isn't that flavor text always makes things stronger or weaker. It isn't that we are better off saying 'this spell does 10d6 damage in a 20 ft radius out to a range of exactly 90 feet" or saying "this spell explodes filling the area with fire hotter than a furnace".
A Spell or Class should be able to tell you a lot about what it does, and inspire you for various uses based on how you want to interpret it, but it shouldn't be Willow Offgood's Fortune Reading.
Descriptive Text should not be so ambiguous it becomes this:
Different DMs will interpret the flavor text of an ability or spell in different ways. For example, the text for fireball mentions that it is an explosion of flame. However, is there really anything preventing the fireball effect from being a tornado of burning embers, or a pillar of fire that lashes out with flaming tendrils? If you take the text as rules, yes, if you take it as flavor, no.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Huscarl wrote:
Huscarl wrote:
Huscarl wrote:
i think part of it is intuiting a physics engine in place, either printed rules or the DM's fiat.
When DM's who tend to be anti player are in charge of NPC operating systems, they tend to be more generous in the manifestation of the imagined mechanics. There are countless examples of this, such as the difference between using a generic weapon with a high strength modifier, and using a high strength to drop some ridiculously heavy object on an enemy. Gravity is one of those physics engine components that gets used alot. Mechanics can often be very 'mechanical' but soundly depend on physics like collision detection and distance. Like when you use thunderwave and Warlock Eldritch blast to push a bunch of high hp characters into your friendly neighborhood wizard's prismatic wall. Those are super mechanical, but they recognize things like area effect, space, and distance.
important theories about background and alignment can also come into play. Social class can mean a free meal, or a free army. Someone in an adventure i was in a while ago was like "can i borrow a +1 rapier from someone in my church? i have the acolyte background", normally, the DM would say no, but our DM is mr. Yes, so he was like "sure! Take a donkey with you while your at it". Whether or not I approve of these embellishments, my point is something with no game mechanics can translate into mechanics.
I once caused serious problems for a Dragon using a Sneeze cantrip at the same time he was trying to use his breath weapon. There once was a psionic power that merely duplicated any damage you did to one side to the other, it wasn't very high level, but when used on something like an aberration or star fish, it was deadly. Alignment can be a major concern, but so can the color of your clothes or a signet ring.
On the opposite end, i had a player who got mad because he was trying to gut a giant deer with a hunting knife (he didn't have a hunting knife), then wanted to make a Survival:Specialization Area Cave Spelunking and fungus Recipes Check for his forestry game cleaning skill. I tried to explain to him that if he gutted and cleaned a 500 lb animal the wrong way, the insides could poison or destroy the meat, making him sick. He said he didn't care that was too much detail. 10 minutes earlier he (not I) was obsessing about Compass readings vs. the planet's rotation and tilt vs. 90 and 100 degree angles of axis.
Details are sometimes non mechanical, until they are.
Many 2nd edition spells have few or no numerical mechanics, but within the words, powerful options exist.
shintashi wrote:
shintashi wrote:
while i do not agree with the OP i would like to see a more consistant approach to wording throughout the rules text. take Command Spell as an example used earlier, the player does not know the direct motivations of the target, it is up to the DM to make that judgement, so it is best to use the vague language so as not to give away too much to the players. now if the DM is being fair and a Command doesnt go as initially intended by the player then that should be a red flag to the characters involved that something fishy is going on in the story. if players and DM do not have that trust then no rules are going to help that! flavor text creates a genre expectation that all players, including the DM can relate to. look at 3e d20 modern, gamma world, d20 star wars, and d&d. unified system with different flavor text throught so each should have a different feel. in the end i would like to see a simplified flavorless rules set that can be applied to any genre but d&d is not that and was never intended to be.
Imaculata wrote:
I babbled too long. I have revised it for simplicity.
Well, here's the thing. If the text is descriptive, the text can provide the DM their own version of what the effect is. What the alignment means. What the class is supposed to be able to achieve. 4e was a tragedy of mismatched Titles. Duel in the Heavens: 3d10 + slide target 5 squares. Rune of the Penultimate Step: The target is stunned. Deific Vengeance 4d10 + weakened for 1 turn. Weapon of the Gods: +1d6 radiant damage & -2AC. Divine Armor: +2 AC and 5 Damage Resistance for encounter.
A spell should probably do what it sounds like it does. A class should probably be what it is, rather than a template of mechanics for achieving numerical advantage.
If a game has solid rules, the DM can fill in the blanks based on descriptions, no matter what edition or revision.
BRJN wrote:
shintashi wrote:
shintashi wrote:
shadowknave wrote:
Noon wrote:
Yeah, at a certain point the DM might be saying 'hey, you're wearing armour from that mage armour spell! Disadvantage on stealth checks for you!'
Now if the rules were the DM gets to choose from a list of effects and that was one, you could think 'Oh, in that system the DM can make mage armour give disadvantage to stealth and I (like)(dislike) that system'
But anything like the DM just pulling it out of thin air...bleh.
Noon wrote:
shintashi wrote:
I think the biggest problem with many RPG's today is that they read like technical manuals.
arnwolf666 wrote:
BRJN wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
strider13x wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Huscarl wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
[quote="Noon"]Again, if a spell listing gave a list of effects the GM is to choose from and/or a strength to the spell the GM is to choose from, making his choice based on the fiction at that moment, I get that. That's good.[/quote}How can it be good (or, as good), when it can't possibly cover every siuation. A list to choose from is too liniting for many spells; and, inhibits the craetivity of the player.
Noon wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
I've removed content from this thread because flaming/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here.
Let's remember that while we're disagreeing, we all love the same game. Please remember to keep your posts respectful and within the limits of the Code of Conduct.
Roll those beautiful polyhedrals!
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Wow, MtG went back in time to put flavor text in my 1e PHB, DMG, & MM! Damn you MtG!!!!!!!!
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Death to inconsistent rules, regardless of the source or reason.
Orethalion wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Being vague is not good, it doesn't enable creativity: it's bad, and enables arguments.
Being generic is good, and enables creativity. The two are not the same thing.
Yunru wrote:
Vague = bad
I don't know why you think spells have to be badly written to be open-ended.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
draegn wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
draegn wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
dave2008 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
draegn wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
draegn wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
draegn wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Yunru wrote:
So, everyone's in agreement that clearly worded rules that do not iinhibit player enterprise are the ideal? Great!
Brimleydower wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
[quote="lawrencehoy"]
Noon wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Noon wrote:
Open-ended is sort of a misnomer. There is no truly open-ended system because the DM always acts as a stopper to prevent abuse and to enforce the desired flavor for her campaign. Under the definition of open-ended that have been used so far in this thread, the most perfect open-ended system would have only one spell, called "spell." It does what the DM lets you do with it based on the slot you used to cast it.
Of, course, open-ended abilities (whether perfectly open-ended, or open-ended in the form of containing intentional ambiguity) also place greater demands on the DM. Instead of simply administering the rules, the DM is then shoved into a position of having to make rules. Now some DMs enjoy tinkering with rules and making new rules, but not all do. Ambiguous rules push the rule-making duty on the DM the same way that ambiguous tax statutes force the Dept of the Treasury to make regulations that effectively are tax laws (note: this is not a political comment. This is simply a fact of how the U.S. government is organized and functions).
I will point out that open-endedness is also a tangent to the topic of the thread. I think. The OP was very convoluted and nearly indecipherable. However, if rules text and flavor text are kept separate, this creates a situation favorable to those who prefer ambiguous rules and those who prefer unambiguous rules. With rules text and flavor text kept separate, those like me who prefer unambiguous rules, can look to the rules text (and can reference them in the event that we need a quick reference during play). With rules text and flavor text kept separate, those who prefer ambiguity can also ignore the entire rules block and open-end the flavor text to their heart's content.
Unfortunately, 5e (even moreso than 3e before it) hates reference. It's a good game, but the reference hate built into the books and the spell descriptions are definitely flaws.
Mistwell wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
[quote="Imaculata"]
Whether an action is harmful is not relevant in the 3.5 version of the spell. It wasn't mentioned originally, and its not mentioned by my alternate version of the spell either. What it does do, is expand the freedom of the spell, while retaining the clear rules. I simply added the freedom of actions back in, but also limited it, so you can't make creatures commit suicide. This brings it more in line with the 5th edition version, but without the vagueness.
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
My player used command twice yesterday. One was "Release", because he was grappling someone. The other was "Fall" I think...or maybe "Strip". Nobody ever paused about the question of directly harmful with any of this.
There's definitely different degrees of harmfulness that can come about.
Immediately harmful: Simply completing the command always causes harm. Examples: Jumping into acid or off a cliff, stabbing yourself with your sword, running through a wall of fire, etc.
Potentially Harmful: Completing the command carries the risk of immediate harm. Examples: Provoking an attack of opportunity, testing a chest to see if it's trapped, drinking something that may be poisonous, etc.
Vulnerable Position: The command can be executed safely, but you are more vulnerable to threats after the command is executed. Examples: Dropping prone or dropping your weapon in a fight, Releasing a trapped foe so he is once again a combatant, taking off your armor.
Socially Harmful: Executing the command risks angering someone or something, which will likely cause you harm in the future. Examples: Attacking a character that was just talking to you, spitting in the king's face, snatching the queen's jeweled necklace.
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Noon wrote:
spells should simply not have expressions about being incapable of causing damage or killing things. butterflies and hurricanes chaos theory tells us some player somewhere will figure out circumstances where the most polite spell kills something. no need to try to micromanage their creativity to the point of a logic paradox.
if like you command a guy to march into a forest you haven't explored, and there's a green dragon in that grove 200 ft away, next thing you know, the command spell just marched that guy to their death. You didn't know it was a suicide order, and they didn't know it was a suicide order, and even the green dragon had no idea they were about to eat lunch. But next thing ya know, the command spell is crashing into the paradox of circumstantial homocide.
End of the day, you either like rules that encourage or require more of the DM's final say or you like rules that are more concrete and require less of the DM's final say. I'm a fan of the former myself, but I've always had some amazing DMs, so I'm appropriately biased as a result. Either way, there's nothing wrong with either approach to the game. We're now in the derailment portion of the show where people are arguing over how the spell works or doesn't work—not surprising given that the syntax and definition within the spell description has so far been contested by the same persons. With every perspective disagreeing fundamentally on every aspect of how it's approached by differing perspectives, maybe it would be better to admit the impasse, that the game can allow for all of these different perspectives to engage with the game in a different way using the same mechanic (in this case, a spell: command), and avoid the hundred or so posts that might otherwise follow as a result of trying to reconcile a different perspective's values via your own substantially different set of values. Or, if it's just a healthy back-and-forth in the spirit of understanding another approach to the topic (in which case I apologize for horribly misreading the direction of the discussion) feel free to carry on and ignore this.
Imaculata wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I came here to agree with Orethalion on something, and now I can't remember what it was. So, pick a stance and I'll put my name to it.
Cheers \/m
Macv12 wrote: