PDA

View Full Version : Fluff, huh. What is it good for? [All]



The Big Dice
2011-02-27, 12:22 PM
Carrying on a discussion that sort of started on this page (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188574&page=3) and was seemingly not in danger of derailing the thread, but I felt it does deserve a thread of its own.

The obvious first question is, what is fluff?

Roleplaying games are usually divided into two separate types of content. Crunch is the hard, mechanical stuff. The nuts and bolts of playing the game. Fluff, on the other hand, is the softer stuff. The things that aren't rules but that tend to deal with the playing a role side of roleplaying games.

These two things aren't set in stone, though. Some games have a certain amount of crossover between fluff and crunch. Others separate the two more or less completely.

The discussion started up because someone suggested refluffing the Whirling Frenzy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#rageVariantWhirlingFrenzy ) Alternate Class Feature for Barbarians into something that can be done with a bow.

I took the position that Whirling Frenzy makes it implicit just by the name that you can't use it with archery. Whirling and being frenzied being states and actions that make shooting arrows with any kind of consistency near impossible.

Now this is purely in the realms of YMMV, and that's fine. But I think, once you start refluffing, where do you stop? It's a Whirling Frenzy refluffed for archery. It's a Wizard that doesn't use verbal, material or somatic components. It's not a spell, it's a class feature.

What does the Playground think?

Lord Raziere
2011-02-27, 12:27 PM
well there are some things that more open to refluffing than others, and I agree with you upon the Whirling Frenzy thing, that and barbarian, they aren't really intended for ranged types anyways, for ranged fighting you go to the ranger.

other than that refluffing is more an art than a science.

PersonMan
2011-02-27, 12:31 PM
I think that fluff is really mutable. If you don't like something, you can probably refluff it(unless it's a mechanical thing). That's as far as it goes, however. Yes, spells are class features-but stilled, silent spellcasting is mechanical-unless you accept that your silent, stilled spells don't work if you're tied up or Silenced. Essentially, you can change the fluff all you want, but if you change it in certain ways you get things like material-less casting that still needs materials.

Trog
2011-02-27, 12:38 PM
The nice thing about the separation of fluff and crunch, to a large degree, is that it allows for more creative depictions of actions.

Take in 4e where, without fluff description of powers, the action seems a lot more crunchy. That is, the game system shows through more without the fluffy descriptions. Which for a game meant to emerge one in another world isn't good, I suppose. So long as the underlying crunch is valid and works the fluff can be whatever you want it to be. In that way it can be nice to repurpose certain effects by changing the fluff even though the game effects (crunch) stays the same.

Take that separation away and you have to make a rule to account for every nuance of description and while that might be possible it isn't a game I'd want to play in.

The Rose Dragon
2011-02-27, 12:39 PM
Depends on the game, really. GURPS, for example has no fluff that you can divorce from the mechanics, but it has almost no fluff to begin with, and if you make fluff the skill of First Aid into calling healing bolts of lightning from the sky, then you are probably better off looking into an advantage.

((Strangely, the more fluff a game has, the easier it is to change that fluff.))

Dienekes
2011-02-27, 12:42 PM
As I said a few times in the other thread my personal belief is:

Mechanics are meant to give you a framework and to be fairly balanced so that everyone can have fun.

Fluff is meant to explain those mechanics, in one possible way. They are also meant to be fun, but if they ever get in the way they can be fairly easily scrapped.

If a player has a concept that involves using mechanics in a way that makes sense for them, but the fluff doesn't allow then change the fluff. Ultimately the game is for the players. Changing a class abilities name and description don't unbalance anything and they can cause more fun than not.

Really I don't see a downside in letting the Whirling Archer work. The player gets a cool archery benefit (and with archery in dnd it's probably needed) and so long as the mechanics don't change there's no problem.

That is the major disagreement I have with your argument. There is a difference between saying "my barbarian gets really angry" or "my warrior poet lets himself sink into battle focus" and homebrew both examples are perfectly legitimate interpretations of the rage mechanics. The only thing getting in the way of the player seeing his level 1 barbarian as a calculating intelligent warrior is the GM claiming that the ability is called rage therefore he must be a screaming idiot with foam coming out of his mouth.

Also, homebrew is another useful tool but "it's a Wizard that doesn't use components" is altering the mechanics not refluffing. As is making a spell a class ability. Homebrew is trickier than refluffing sure, my own feeble attempts are testaments to that. But one of the great thing about tabletop games as opposed to video games is that we are not constrained by arbitrary rules and fluff. We can change things as we like, so I guess I don't see why anyone would cut off one of the benefits of the system.

Eldan
2011-02-27, 12:43 PM
As long as the rules are the same, I have no problem whatsoever with refluffing anything as anything else. If you want, take an archer and call the arrows silent magical missiles that work in antimagic field. Sure.

Saph
2011-02-27, 12:46 PM
I've always thought that the distinction between fluff and crunch is a bit artificial, and doesn't add anything to the game. I mean, the rulebooks don't actually have much distinction between the two. It's not like they're written in different coloured text or anything. If you "refluff" something, you're changing the rules just as much as if you alter the numbers.

So I don't see much distinction between altering one or the other. In both cases, it's a matter of a) does it make sense? b) is it balanced? c) will it create more or less work in the long run?

Of course fluff is mutable. The rules are mutable too, and so are the numbers, and everything else. Even the system is mutable: we can stop playing one RPG and start playing another. So saying that fluff is mutable is a bit meaningless, really.

DeltaEmil
2011-02-27, 12:47 PM
Whirling Frenzy itself has mechanically no restriction that it must be used in melee, nor does Rage. In fact, refluffing is not even needed, and it's not and will never be against the spirit of the rules. You can use rage for your mighty composite bows and thrown weapons (and the picture of a strong guy throwing some deadly weapon so hard that it kills another guy is an accepted and popular scenario, as is that only he is strong enough to pull a freakish bow and starts killing people in anger after those people tried to marry his wife while he was away), and whirling frenzy, which is just meant as a nice alternative for those who don't want to deal with the hit point-increase because of the Constitution-modifier.
Just clinging on a random name to argue that it's not supposed to work like that is laughable. If they would have called it Combat Focus, Battle Rush, Martial Celerity, Uber-Frenzy or something like that, should there really also be a discussion about how a randomly chosen, not important fluff definition of a mechanical construct?

However, the example of a wizard not needing to use verbal, somatic or material components (if he doesn't have the necessary metamagic feats, of course) is not the same, because those are clear-defined rules-restriction. This is not refluffing.

Refluffing would be something like that instead of speaking eldritch words, he has to sing an eldritch song or speak an audible prayer to nature spirits, instead of wobbling with your hand, you have to eat a symbolic frog in a specific ritualistic way, and instead of using material components, you have to use fleeting incenses of various herbal plants mixed together to cast a spell. If the material component would have costed more than 1 gp, then the incense has to mechanically cost the same. That's refluffing.

The Big Dice
2011-02-27, 12:52 PM
I've always thought that the distinction between fluff and crunch is a bit artificial, and doesn't add anything to the game. I mean, the rulebooks don't actually have much distinction between the two. It's not like they're written in different coloured text or anything. If you "refluff" something, you're changing the rules just as much as if you alter the numbers.
That depends on the rulebooks you're reading. Legend of the Five Rings has pretty clear distinctions between rules sections and story sections of the books.

In fact, the first edition Way of the Clans series were almost entirely fluff, with only one full chapter, sidebars in a second chapter and an appendix containing any rules information at all.

However, the example of a wizard not needing to use verbal, somatic or material components (if he doesn't have the necessary metamagic feats, of course) is not the same, because those are clear-defined rules-restriction. This is not refluffing.
Actually, that's exactly the advice I've seen given regarding Psionics. Refluff it as magic and you're good to go.

Yukitsu
2011-02-27, 12:54 PM
This comes more from my experience as a war gamer than an RPG player, but fluff ends where mechanics begin.

Saph
2011-02-27, 12:57 PM
That depends on the rulebooks you're reading. Legend of the Five Rings has pretty clear distinctions between rules sections and story sections of the books.

In fact, the first edition Way of the Clans series were almost entirely fluff, with only one full chapter, sidebars in a second chapter and an appendix containing any rules information at all.

Sure. But as a GM, if I'm trying to decide the outcome of something, I'm going to be using both. I'm just saying that I don't think it's helpful to treat one as fixed and the other as mutable, since in most consistent campaign worlds the two will generally interlock anyway.

Or to put it another way: If a player tells me he wants to refluff something, I'm going to look at changing the content of the rulebooks. If a player tells me he wants to change the crunch of something, I'm going to look at changing the content of the rulebooks. It's the exact same process either way.

The Rose Dragon
2011-02-27, 12:59 PM
Or to put it another way: If a player tells me he wants to refluff something, I'm going to look at changing the content of the rulebooks. If a player tells me he wants to change the crunch of something, I'm going to look at changing the content of the rulebooks. It's the exact same process either way.

Yes, but one changes the game, while the other changes the roleplaying. The exact same process, but different results. Just like game theory and acting are different things.

The Dark Fiddler
2011-02-27, 01:01 PM
However, the example of a wizard not needing to use verbal, somatic or material components (if he doesn't have the necessary metamagic feats, of course) is not the same, because those are clear-defined rules-restriction. This is not refluffing.

Even then there's still a tiny bit of room, if you have a nice DM. Perhaps instead of having to speak the words himself, the wizard's spells make a noise that substitute for the verbal components. No actual verbal components, but the effect is the same.

...kinda drawing a blank for the other two, though. I'm sure somebody else could think of examples if they tried.

Eldan
2011-02-27, 01:02 PM
Actually, I agree with Saph here, up to a point. Both is written in the rulebook, after all, and both has large effects on what works or doesn't work in the game.

However, generally, the assumption is that the designers tried to design the rules in a balanced fashion, while the fluff is written to be appealing. Changing something from a competence bonus to a circumstance bonus (random example) can have further ramifications when a player then finds another competence bonus to add.

DeltaEmil
2011-02-27, 01:02 PM
Actually, that's exactly the advice I've seen given regarding Psionics. Refluff it as magic and you're good to go.That's because there is already a transparency rule for how psionics and regular magic interact.

Combining Psionic And Magical Effects

The default rule for the interaction of psionics and magic is simple: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. This is known as psionics-magic transparency.
Psionics-Magic Transparency

Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics.

When the rule about psionics-magic transparency is in effect, it has the following ramifications.

Spell resistance is effective against powers, using the same mechanics. Likewise, power resistance is effective against spells, using the same mechanics as spell resistance. If a creature has one kind of resistance, it is assumed to have the other. (The effects have similar ends despite having been brought about by different means.)

All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa.

The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura).

Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas. That's why refluffing psionics and magic as being essentially the same is absolutely normal, and nobody would really blink an eye about it.

Saph
2011-02-27, 01:03 PM
Yes, but one changes the game, while the other changes the roleplaying. The exact same process, but different results. Just like game theory and acting are different things.

The game and the roleplaying are closely linked with each other, though. You can divide them up if you want to, and it's a valid way to look at it, but I don't think it makes any sense to see one as mutable and the other as immutable.

Eldan
2011-02-27, 01:04 PM
This depends very much on the system used, though. So far, I was actually mostly thinking about D&D, which is rather rules-heavy.

If you look at something like Fate/Fudge, though, the fluff basically is the rules.

Yukitsu
2011-02-27, 01:06 PM
The game and the roleplaying are closely linked with each other, though. You can divide them up if you want to, and it's a valid way to look at it, but I don't think it makes any sense to see one as mutable and the other as immutable.

I think a lot of people view it as "I'm hacking the game/inputting cheat codes to change the way the game plays" (changing the rules of the world) as compared to "I'm picking this story arc instead of this other one" (changing your interpretation of the world). There isn't anything wrong with changing the rules of the game, but I think it has a more negative connotation to a lot of people than simply changing how the standard rules are used, hence why for most people it's useful to know the difference.

Vangor
2011-02-27, 01:09 PM
One of the elements of fluff could be as simple as the name. Certainly "Whirling Frenzy" does not sound like an archery ability, but what is the difference between that and calling it "Temper'd Haste"? Nothing mechanically, and the fluff beyond the name would largely be identical.

Now, I am not one to separate the fluff from the crunch. Not to say the fluff cannot change without altering the crunch, but I prefer when creating materials for the crunch to follow the fluff. Primarily, I do this because I enjoy one aspect of the crunch to feel different from another, to serve different purposes, which is indicated by the fluff.

For game systems such as 3.5, we refluff constantly. What is important is keeping the refluffing consistent with the fact we're interested in roleplaying aspects, too. If you lack the attention to roleplaying aspects, ignore the fluff and take the crunch as desired. Nothing wrong with using Whirling Frenzy which explicitly says in the fluff box "become an uncoordinated killing machine" as a means to fire more arrows if you don't want to use the fluff.

Siosilvar
2011-02-27, 01:12 PM
It's a Wizard that doesn't use verbal, material or somatic components. It's not a spell, it's a class feature.

As stated before, neither of those two are refluffing. You could get around the material components by buying a 2gp focusing wand (aka spell component pouch), but the others have large mechanic impacts.

Also, spells already are class features.

When it starts having a mechanical impact on the game, then it becomes homebrew or house rules instead of refluffing. Simply calling (to use the example on p110 of the PHB) the "Move Silently" skill "Footpaddin'" or "Rice Paper Walk" instead changes nothing mechanical about the game.


You can call your skills, feats, and class features whatever your character would call them.

GeminiVeil
2011-02-27, 01:24 PM
I had a similar discussion on the VoP thread. Basically was suggested to me to get rid of the fluff of it in an old game so that the VoP character didn't need to donate gathered treasure, he just didn't get a share, and reduce the treasure by 25%. The only reason I allowed the feat in the first place, though, was on condition that the fluff WAS played out. I don't think it's very VoP to not try and help others less fortunate, since it was an Exalted feat.
I personally try not to change either fluff or rules. They usually compliment each other, and I have had a few bad experiances with DM's who changed them in a poor manner. That said, sometimes one or the other can use a bit of retooling. I do agree with Saph that generally, both should be mutable except in rare circumstances. It's just not something I do very often myself. :smallsmile:

Kyeudo
2011-02-27, 01:24 PM
Fluff and Crunch can be practically the same thing in some games. In Exalted, characters can talk about Distracting Finger Gesture as easily as the players, they practically know what their Essence score is, and so on and so forth. Limits laid down in a paragraph about the setting are considered binding upon what you can do mechanically.

In others, like D&D 3.5, you have a general divorcement of Fluff and Crunch. If I want to have a magic boombox that kills people with sonic waves, I can easily represent it with a magic bow that deals sonic damage and has infinite ammo.

It all really depends on how your game runs. Some games tolerate as much refluffing as you want and so are easily portable, others are more closely tied to the setting and give you a greater sense of connection to the world.

Dienekes
2011-02-27, 01:32 PM
The game and the roleplaying are closely linked with each other, though. You can divide them up if you want to, and it's a valid way to look at it, but I don't think it makes any sense to see one as mutable and the other as immutable.

I agree with you up to a point.

I believe both are mutable, just fluff is more mutable than crunch.

When I'm faced with a fluff change my response as GM is:
Does this fit the setting? If it does it gets okayed without a seconds hesitation.

When faced with a crunch change:
Is this reasonably balanced when compared with my other players skills? Then it gets brushed in.

Of the two crunch takes a bit more thought put into it and so I do it more rarely. Though I definitely have made a few crunch changes when I game.

NMBLNG
2011-02-27, 01:53 PM
I think in RPGs there are 3 parts.

Mechanics: Something that relies of rules to function. ie, how much damage a spell or weapon does. Note that most mechanical things have some fluff associated with it.

Fluff: Something that has no mechanical or rule based effect. Like the common stereotypes of races. Often elves and dwarves don't like each other, but D&D elves and dwarves don't get penalties to interact with each other. Fluff can also include the source of magical powers or the exact manner in which combat techniques are performed.

Traits: Something that mixes mechanics and fluff, or something that is 'fluffy' in nature, but requires some mechanical backup. For instance, a player wants to play a fire mage. Now describing all your spells as fire is fine, but actually dealing [fire] damage is mechanical.



Now, I like having a division between mechanics and fluff. It lets me have a bit more flexibility in how my character appears and plays.

Frozen_Feet
2011-02-27, 02:23 PM
"Fluff" and "Crunch" are sides of the same coin. Crunch can arise from fluff, and fluff can arise from crunch; that's because both work towards the same thing: modeling events within the game. In many cases, the division exist just in the head of the player.

Example is D&D skill system; all skills follow the same basic rules. Only "fluff", or what they represent within the game, separates them from each other; but if you go around changing that fluff, it has equally deeprunning impact on a character with ranks in that skill as changing the skill formula would have.

Another example would be refluffing a fireball as a ball of lightning; same amount of dice might be thrown, but there's a perceptible change in the game world. A GM might feel the need to add some other effect to quantify this within the system - ping, you've just reached the source of how D&D rules, or RPG rules in general, come to existence!

I hear talk about "refluffing" on these boards mostly in the context in D&D - and I think it's less because fluff is any easier to change than crunch, but because the people here are so familiar with D&D mechanics. d20 has a rule for pretty darn near everything - there are existing guidelines for almost every effect you could think of. So it's obviously easier to just pick a pre-existing effect and name it differently than come up with unique crunch. Should be no surprise, since the system itself is built to be modular.

But it isn't, at its core, any different from all other houseruling. The math's just been done already. If working with other kinds of systems, refluffing like that might not make sense, or there might be nothing to refluff. I own a game called "Tähti" focused around playing members of a futuristic Finnish Girl Pop Band. The game rules go thusly: the GM and players pick up fortune cookies and direct the game based on the fortunes. There... just isn't a divide between "roleplaying" and "game" parts. It's a small-scope, well defined box of its own - add or substract much, and it ceases to be the same game at all.

Ernir
2011-02-27, 02:59 PM
IMO?
Crunch is the syntax of the equation, fluff is the name of the variables.

navar100
2011-02-27, 03:34 PM
I'm playing a Chromemagus. I manipulate the colors of the rainbow to fool the senses. I give them power to hurt my enemies.

(I'm not even going to play an Initiate of the Seven-Fold Veil.)

I'm playing a Pathfinder Sorcerer with Arcane Bloodline. Because there are so many good spells to choose I'm overwhelmed. For roleplay purposes I'll have my spells known be based on a theme of colors to help choose which spells to take. At low level this means mostly Illusion spells like Silent Image, Color Spray, and Hypnotic Pattern. However, Ray of Enfeeblement is black. Rainbow Blast from Spell Compendium is a perfect fit. Minor Globe Of Invulnerability is a protective white bubble. Disintegrate is green. Then there's the ultimate joy of casting Prismatic Spray.

Even my bloodline spells fit.
Identify - Perceive the colors of a magic object
Invisibility - Suppress my colors
Dispel Magic - Destroy the color of magic
Dimension Door - Hop the rainbow
Overland Flight - Glide the spectrum
True Seeing - Perceive the true colors
Greater Teleport - Travel the rainbow
Power Word Stun - Fill your mind with color
Wish - Manipulate colors as I see fit

Fluff enhances the roleplaying experience so that the game mechanics are not just a bunch of letters and numbers.

faceroll
2011-02-27, 07:45 PM
I've always thought that the distinction between fluff and crunch is a bit artificial, and doesn't add anything to the game. I mean, the rulebooks don't actually have much distinction between the two. It's not like they're written in different coloured text or anything. If you "refluff" something, you're changing the rules just as much as if you alter the numbers.

So I don't see much distinction between altering one or the other. In both cases, it's a matter of a) does it make sense? b) is it balanced? c) will it create more or less work in the long run?

Of course fluff is mutable. The rules are mutable too, and so are the numbers, and everything else. Even the system is mutable: we can stop playing one RPG and start playing another. So saying that fluff is mutable is a bit meaningless, really.

I feel largely the same way, and alter rules/fluff as GM to achieve the desired results.

Otodetu
2011-02-27, 08:59 PM
Whirling Frenzy itself has mechanically no restriction that it must be used in melee, nor does Rage. In fact, refluffing is not even needed, and it's not and will never be against the spirit of the rules. You can use rage for your mighty composite bows and thrown weapons (and the picture of a strong guy throwing some deadly weapon so hard that it kills another guy is an accepted and popular scenario, as is that only he is strong enough to pull a freakish bow and starts killing people in anger after those people tried to marry his wife while he was away), and whirling frenzy, which is just meant as a nice alternative for those who don't want to deal with the hit point-increase because of the Constitution-modifier.
Just clinging on a random name to argue that it's not supposed to work like that is laughable. If they would have called it Combat Focus, Battle Rush, Martial Celerity, Uber-Frenzy or something like that, should there really also be a discussion about how a randomly chosen, not important fluff definition of a mechanical construct?

However, the example of a wizard not needing to use verbal, somatic or material components (if he doesn't have the necessary metamagic feats, of course) is not the same, because those are clear-defined rules-restriction. This is not refluffing.

Refluffing would be something like that instead of speaking eldritch words, he has to sing an eldritch song or speak an audible prayer to nature spirits, instead of wobbling with your hand, you have to eat a symbolic frog in a specific ritualistic way, and instead of using material components, you have to use fleeting incenses of various herbal plants mixed together to cast a spell. If the material component would have costed more than 1 gp, then the incense has to mechanically cost the same. That's refluffing.

This is correct.

Tael
2011-02-27, 09:30 PM
Why re-fluff at all? I see no reason why my archer can't spin like a mad man while he rains death on his enemies. :smallyuk:

huttj509
2011-02-27, 10:45 PM
The reason fluff is discussed as easier to change than crunch, is because you only need to ask one question before changing it:

Does it fit with the style/flavor of the campaign.

No questions of power changes relative to another class, no worries about changing availability of prestige class prerequisites, no questions of whether it might make encounters more difficult for you to balance.

However, some seemingly innocuous changes can have mechanical consequences.

Calling an ability by a different name? Sure.

An ability looks different but remains functionally the same? Aye. (I want my fireball to be green! As long as you decide this would in no way inhibit spellcraft checks to identify the spell, similarly if you made it look like a ball of icy blue fire that trailed frost in the air as it flew, but was "so cold it burned" and did fire damage.)

An ability changes effect type? Think about repercussions (I want my fireball to be acid! Well, if it's doing acid damage instead of fire, this would have small repercussions on effectiveness against enemies, probably still allowable, but not to be freely switched back to a fire version.)

Extra attacks? Physical as opposed to magic damage (or vice-versa)? Needs less sleep/food? Uses ranged weapons where it was limited to physical before? Removes spell components? Allows featless gagged casting? Take a look at the rest of the party and get out yer calculator before proceeding. :-)

The Fluff/crunch is not a dichotomy, but a continuum. Some things (name of attack) are waaaaaaay over on the side of having no effect on the mechanical gameplay, and others (a longsword does 1d8 damage), have little effect on what the characters experience in game.

As to whirling frenzy, it has nothing to do with melee vs. range attacks. The ability as written brings forth a visual of the Barbarian constantly moving (even when standing still), and in the frenzy finding new openings to attack. The ability as stated has no limitation on bow use, so rather than imposing a new restriction (and thus needing to look at how it affects the player's power relative to others, besides, normal rage can use range weapons as well), since the conflict is based solely on the ability's name...changing the name is the most efficient solution. Ask the player what he envisions the ability doing in character, and pick a name that describes that.

NichG
2011-02-28, 04:32 AM
I generally think both fluff and crunch are 'easy' to change. The main thing, the key thing, is that they should be changed in a compatible way.

I'm not a fan of mechanics that exist independent of their fluff. If something has fluff associated with it, I'm going to hold that thing to its fluff. If a player wants to re-crunch, I will force it to also be re-fluffed if the new crunch is not intuitive for the old fluff. If a player wants to re-fluff, I will force a re-crunch if the new fluff is now inconsistent with the crunch.

And I'll generally hold people to the fluff of their abilities more than the crunch of their abilities (e.g. I'll give bonuses or let things work better than they mechanically can when the fluff should work better due to the situation, and penalties when it seems like it shouldn't work as well)

NotScaryBats
2011-02-28, 05:42 AM
Let's say a Greatsword is better than a scythe, mechanically, like does more damage, hits better, whatever. Why should I not be able to say my character wields a scythe, but use the greatsword stats? I enjoy the idea of a scythe-wielding warrior, but don't want to gimp myself. Who Is it really hurting? This is refluffing to me, and I see no reason it's a problem.

Yuki Akuma
2011-02-28, 06:21 AM
Absolutely nothing!

Come on guys, seriously. Tch.

I have nothing else to contribute. *scoots*

BRC
2011-02-28, 01:39 PM
I take a rather liberal view with refluffing. I believe that one can freely Refluff unless one expects it to Clash, either with crunch or fluff.

A clash with Crunch is where the new Fluff contradicts the Crunch. a clash with Fluff is where the new Fluff does not make sense in context of other fluff in the setting.

For example, I've got a wizard who wants to refluff their spells as Gagets. a Fireball becomes a Grenade, This could cause clashes with either Crunch or Fluff
This could clash with Crunch if the player ever decides to throw their grenade over a wall. The Crunch of the fireball spell says that a wall would block the spell, so this trick would not work. However, the fluff (It's a grenade) says that he SHOULD be able to throw it over the wall.
A clash with Fluff would be if, at one point, the party encounters a group of gnomes who are just discovering and experimenting with explosives. This does not make sense if the party "Wizard" has been throwing around perfectly reliable grenades for some time now.

Generally, It's easier to avoid Fluff Clashes than Crunch Clashes, since one is generally more familiar with the Fluff of a setting than with the Crunch of the entire game.

Now, personally I am willing to refluff if I think it will not cause any clashes, even if I'm not sure. For example, one enemy I threw my party against was a a big nasty brute, an enforcer for a gang. At first I wanted him to be wielding a sledgehammer, so I re fluffed a greataxe, but then I realized I liked the idea of him just attacking with his fists.

Now, none of the party members had DR, or any abilities that interacted at all with damage types, so I felt confident I could turn his greataxe into a hammer without it clashing. The Party had never tried to sunder, shatter, or disarm an enemy up to that point. I risked potentially clashing with the Crunch. If my party (who knew exactly what I was doing) decided to try to disarm the thug of his "Weapon", we would have a clash, since according to the Crunch they could disarm him, but by the fluff he was already fighting unarmed.

When such a clash occurs, it's up to the DM to either change the Crunch, or the Fluff. This could be as simple as just putting your foot down (Yes, I know you could throw the grenade over that wall, but since we're treating the grenade as a fireball you won't), to inventing new rules (Alright, since you're firing blind we'll have to roll to see where it lands).

Frozen_Feet
2011-02-28, 03:20 PM
.
Generally, It's easier to avoid Fluff Clashes than Crunch Clashes, since one is generally more familiar with the Fluff of a setting than with the Crunch of the entire game.


I claim this is false, or at least too broad generalization. I can see how it's true with d20, or some other extremely bloated rules structure, but most systems I've seen don't have such variety. Indeed, many systems I've seen don't even strive for any semblance of balance, or work in ways that the whole concept is meaningless. I've also seen games where all of the game system fits on dozen pages, but details of the game world take whole books to describe, where the situation is exactly opposite (it's easier to know all the crunch that whole fluff of the setting).

Even then, I claim the difference is exaggerated. The core mechanic of d20, throw twenty-sided die, add modifiers and compare to target number, is fairly simple to understand. It doesn't take much math or effort to count how much a difference +x modifier actually makes.

Most of the crunch problems emerge if, and only if, you insist on piling up extra rules and extra subsystems that are optional in the first place. In addition, I could claim they are changes to the crunch, they just happen to be changes introduced by some other GM. (Nevermind that they're also additional fluff.)

BRC
2011-02-28, 03:36 PM
I claim this is false, or at least too broad generalization. I can see how it's true with d20, or some other extremely bloated rules structure, but most systems I've seen don't have such variety. Indeed, many systems I've seen don't even strive for any semblance of balance, or work in ways that the whole concept is meaningless. I've also seen games where all of the game system fits on dozen pages, but details of the game world take whole books to describe, where the situation is exactly opposite (it's easier to know all the crunch that whole fluff of the setting).

Even then, I claim the difference is exaggerated. The core mechanic of d20, throw twenty-sided die, add modifiers and compare to target number, is fairly simple to understand. It doesn't take much math or effort to count how much a difference +x modifier actually makes.

Most of the crunch problems emerge if, and only if, you insist on piling up extra rules and extra subsystems that are optional in the first place. In addition, I could claim they are changes to the crunch, they just happen to be changes introduced by some other GM. (Nevermind that they're also additional fluff.)
Yeah, sorry. I'm used to talking about D20 systems, and since I tend to build my own settings I'm usually fairly familiar with the fluff.

Endarire
2011-03-01, 03:15 AM
I view crunch as a toolset. These are the hard mechanics, the things that are not easily (or should not be easily) changed by anyone. Mechanics are the common language and the foundation for the game.

Fluff is the wrapper. It's the interface. It's the color of paint on the box. It doesn't really matter what this is, so long as it fits. And it'll probably fit.

There are various types of fluff. You could rename an ability. You could describe your use of an ability in a nonstandard way, so long as it's in the rules. This is player-level fluff and changes to this are generally accepted with little thought from the GM.

Furthermore, there are setting fluff and campaign fluff. What's the history or population or misc. aspect of this region/object/creature? What color is the armor of NPC X? It's these minor details which show polish or negligence. Players should not be messing with these details, but their characters should be able to interact in ways that the setting and campaign change appropriately.

In my most recent campaign setting- a heavily modified 3.5- the world's fluff is based heavily on crunch. People are optimal characters because that's what's expected. The world runs on magic as mentioned here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10423164#post10423164).

Prime32
2011-03-01, 04:49 AM
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11217

Ravens_cry
2011-03-01, 06:44 AM
Fluff makes the game more then numbers.
That being said, I am OK with most refluffing. Its a nice way of making the game your own. Where I tend to slam on the breaks is if the action has a completely different mechanical base from something else, yet fluff wise is now very similar, or if it involves fluffing mundane and magic or magic as mundane. A rogue as a mundane healer with a keen knowledge of anatomy? Sure, why not? Calling an archer a mage? Less so. Calling a mage an archer? Still less so.

Prime32
2011-03-01, 07:35 AM
Calling an archer a mage? Less so. Calling a mage an archer? Still less so.Calling a mage an arcane archer who fires spells from a magically conjured bow? No problem.

For a minor mechanical change, maybe he treats bows as focus components in place of normal inexpensive material components.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-01, 07:44 AM
Calling a mage an arcane archer who fires spells from a magically conjured bow? No problem.

That isn't an archer though, They just looks kind of like one when they fires off a spell, no arrows are involved, basically like how a lot of pictures show a spell caster looks like they are throwing something,


For a minor mechanical change, maybe he treats bows as focus components in place of normal inexpensive material components.

That as you say, is a mechanical change there. Sure, its fairly minor, but it IS a mechanical change. Which takes it from refluffing to homebrew. Not that I don't like homebrew too, it just isn't refluffing.

true_shinken
2011-03-01, 08:03 AM
Let's say a Greatsword is better than a scythe, mechanically, like does more damage, hits better, whatever. Why should I not be able to say my character wields a scythe, but use the greatsword stats? I enjoy the idea of a scythe-wielding warrior, but don't want to gimp myself. Who Is it really hurting? This is refluffing to me, and I see no reason it's a problem.
I have a problem with that assumption. A greatsword is a greatsword, a scythe is a scythe. Your character is not the center of the game world - those are the stats for those weapons.
Say your character loses his scythe, for example. Then you defeat an opponent with a greatsword and use his greatsword. Weird, it works the same as your scythe. Or you fight someone else using a scythe, and it works differently than yours.
It just bugs me. If you really want to use a scythe, bear with it. It's not 'gimping' yourself because an RPG is not a game about winning and losing.

Tael
2011-03-01, 08:07 AM
I have a problem with that assumption. A greatsword is a greatsword, a scythe is a scythe. Your character is not the center of the game world - those are the stats for those weapons.
Say your character loses his scythe, for example. Then you defeat an opponent with a greatsword and use his greatsword. Weird, it works the same as your scythe. Or you fight someone else using a scythe, and it works differently than yours.
It just bugs me. If you really want to use a scythe, bear with it. It's not 'gimping' yourself because an RPG is not a game about winning and losing.

Indeed, I would be much more amiable to making Scythes better weapons for everyone than to refluff a greatsword as a scythe/

true_shinken
2011-03-01, 08:13 AM
Indeed, I would be much more amiable to making Scythes better weapons for everyone than to refluff a greatsword as a scythe/
Exactly. I'll probably do this to nunchuks in my next campaign.

Totally Guy
2011-03-01, 08:17 AM
Let's say a Greatsword is better than a scythe, mechanically, like does more damage, hits better, whatever.

Yep, that's a problem with the game.

Lets all say it together:

"A choice with an obvious optimal solution, for your requirements, cannot be considered a choice at all."

LordBlades
2011-03-01, 09:27 AM
On the 'scythe' vs. 'greatsword' problem (or actually the hypothetical substrate of it, since scythe is actually better than greatsword for most damage builds):

Let's say a player comes to the DM and says 'I like the flavor of the scythe, but the mechanic sucks, can I use the greatsword mechanics instead?' I see 3 ways one might go about it:

a) 'Thou shalt embrace the suckyness of the scythe for the sake of flavor, or thou shalt be forever branded as a munchkin and cast away from my game.' fail for pretty obvious reasons.

b) 'you're right, scythes do suck mechanically; let's try and fix them so they are viable weapons'

c) 'well, ordinary scythes don't work like greatswords in this world. what makes your scythe special?' I see no problem in allowing a player to customize a weapon (or armor or whatever) as long as it falls in line with the other weapons in it's class.

true_shinken
2011-03-01, 09:35 AM
On the 'scythe' vs. 'greatsword' problem (or actually the hypothetical substrate of it, since scythe is actually better than greatsword for most damage builds):

Let's say a player comes to the DM and says 'I like the flavor of the scythe, but the mechanic sucks, can I use the greatsword mechanics instead?' I see 3 ways one might go about it:

a) 'Thou shalt embrace the suckyness of the scythe for the sake of flavor, or thou shalt be forever branded as a munchkin and cast away from my game.' fail for pretty obvious reasons.

b) 'you're right, scythes do suck mechanically; let's try and fix them so they are viable weapons'

c) 'well, ordinary scythes don't work like greatswords in this world. what makes your scythe special?' I see no problem in allowing a player to customize a weapon (or armor or whatever) as long as it falls in line with the other weapons in it's class.
I see no problems with any of the three aproaches, even a. What you're doing is asking a GM to go through some trouble (checking the scythe and greatsword stats, thinking bout how it would affect other players, considering if it won't come out as a special snowflake, etc) he might not be interested in going through just so you'll deal a bit more damage while looking cool. 'Suck it up and use the weapon you want' is a perfctly valid answer in my book, one I've heard more than once, specially in 4e games (goodbye, spear as an implement).
Also, some weapons are supposed to be better than others. Let's say you want to play an Avenger with a dagger in 4e. It sucks for an Avenger, they are supposed to use big two-handed weapons. Refluffing a fullblade as a dagger is a lot more extreme than this, because it gives you actual mechanical advantages (like hiding the dagger where you cannot hide the fullblade) or it just doesn't make sense (you can't hide the dagger because it's supposed to be a fullblade).
For c, I'd probably request an EWP, but I'd make it stronger than the greatsword as well.

LordBlades
2011-03-01, 09:55 AM
I see no problems with any of the three aproaches, even a. What you're doing is asking a GM to go through some trouble (checking the scythe and greatsword stats, thinking bout how it would affect other players, considering if it won't come out as a special snowflake, etc) he might not be interested in going through just so you'll deal a bit more damage while looking cool. 'Suck it up and use the weapon you want' is a perfctly valid answer in my book, one I've heard more than once, specially in 4e games (goodbye, spear as an implement).
Also, some weapons are supposed to be better than others. Let's say you want to play an Avenger with a dagger in 4e. It sucks for an Avenger, they are supposed to use big two-handed weapons. Refluffing a fullblade as a dagger is a lot more extreme than this, because it gives you actual mechanical advantages (like hiding the dagger where you cannot hide the fullblade) or it just doesn't make sense (you can't hide the dagger because it's supposed to be a fullblade).
For c, I'd probably request an EWP, but I'd make it stronger than the greatsword as well.


For me at least, a DM that would choose option a is a DM whose game I probably wouldn't enjoy. If I went through some trouble to make the char 'X, son of Y, with a certain family history, that uses a scythe for storyline reason Z' instead of the more mechanically sound 'generic greatsword fighter', not even being willing to try and work with me to make it a bit more optimal strikes me as somewhat disrespectful.

In regards to your other point: of course, there should be a logical limit to what you can refluff (like dagger vs. fullblade example), but in a class of similar items (scythe and greatsword are both two-handed weapons) I see no problem.

Also, regarding option c, I'd see no problem either way(custom martial weapon or making it better and requiring EWP). The actual ruling would probably vary from DM to DM, but at least it shows a willingness to work with the player.

true_shinken
2011-03-01, 10:10 AM
For me at least, a DM that would choose option a is a DM whose game I probably wouldn't enjoy. If I went through some trouble to make the char 'X, son of Y, with a certain family history, that uses a scythe for storyline reason Z' instead of the more mechanically sound 'generic greatsword fighter', not even being willing to try and work with me to make it a bit more optimal strikes me as somewhat disrespectful.
That's a completely different thing. The example was 'I want a scythe, but it sucks'. And that's something I'd shut out without thinking about twice.
'I have a backstory that supports scythes; in fact, my whole family used scythes and it's the symbol of our lineage' is VERY different. I would point this player towards options b or c. Maybe he might take a custom feat for his family's fighting style, one that improved the effectiveness of scythes beyond greatswords. Or maybe we'd just consider it as a substitution level.


In regards to your other point: of course, there should be a logical limit to what you can refluff (like dagger vs. fullblade example), but in a class of similar items (scythe and greatsword are both two-handed weapons) I see no problem.
A scythe is mostly made of wood. A greatsword is mostly made of steel. Rusting monster appears. Guy with a scythe-that-is-a-greatsword has an edge over dude with a greatsword, because the rust monsters wants to eat metal.
Refluffing will almost always bump into little mechanical problems like this. Expect the guy who didn't bother you with refluffing to be really pissed off when he gets screwed by a monster that didn't attack the other guy.


Also, regarding option c, I'd see no problem either way(custom martial weapon or making it better and requiring EWP). The actual ruling would probably vary from DM to DM, but at least it shows a willingness to work with the player.
Yes, I agree.

LordBlades
2011-03-01, 10:29 AM
That's a completely different thing. The example was 'I want a scythe, but it sucks'. And that's something I'd shut out without thinking about twice.
'I have a backstory that supports scythes; in fact, my whole family used scythes and it's the symbol of our lineage' is VERY different. I would point this player towards options b or c. Maybe he might take a custom feat for his family's fighting style, one that improved the effectiveness of scythes beyond greatswords. Or maybe we'd just consider it as a substitution level.

I'm sorry for not formulating my point too clearly. What I had in mind was something like 'the fluff of the scythe fits my char very well, but the mechanics kind of suck, could I get a better mechanic for it?' and pointing at greatsword.



A scythe is mostly made of wood. A greatsword is mostly made of steel. Rusting monster appears. Guy with a scythe-that-is-a-greatsword has an edge over dude with a greatsword, because the rust monsters wants to eat metal.
Refluffing will almost always bump into little mechanical problems like this. Expect the guy who didn't bother you with refluffing to be really pissed off when he gets screwed by a monster that didn't attack the other guy.


But on the other hand, the guy that was using a greatsword rather than refluffed scythe will be happy that his weapon is not subject to spells like Warp Wood.
The weapons might have different advantages or disadvantages, but I think they are pretty balanced against each other.

NichG
2011-03-01, 02:45 PM
There's a subtle problem with refluff-for-power, which is different than a lot of other refluff/recrunch considerations. Namely, if only one person asks to refluff for power, but other people are taking suboptimal things for fluff reasons, either that guy gets an advantage over the rest of the group or you as DM have to then go and figure out how to power everyone else up. Generally its not a huge problem if its something small, but occasionally you'll get a player who uses it to sneak stuff in you wouldn't have allowed otherwise.

"Can we say that these longswords are actually daggers that are treated as normal-weight weapons for dual wielding purposes? I just like the idea of wielding daggers, and they're mechanically useless as is..."

Later: "I'm going Thrown Weapons Master with Palm Throw and I get 8 attacks a round with longsword damage. Wait, no, its 10 now, because I'm using something that turns daggers specifically into monk weapons and flurrying!"

Something to watch for at least.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-01, 03:57 PM
These two things aren't set in stone, though. Some games have a certain amount of crossover between fluff and crunch. Others separate the two more or less completely.

Definitely a game specific thing. I'm all about refluffing in D&D. Vastly less so in say, 7th Sea. The mechanics are much more frequently tied to the setting. Refluffing is certainly possible, but you need the ST to consider the consequences, and he may say no for perfectly legit reasons that you have no idea exist, because much of the metaplot is not meant for players to read.

So yeah...fluff and crunch relationships vary quite a lot.


I took the position that Whirling Frenzy makes it implicit just by the name that you can't use it with archery. Whirling and being frenzied being states and actions that make shooting arrows with any kind of consistency near impossible.

Nah. Spinning to pop off a shot with the bow? I do it all the time. Sure, it's essentially larp archery, but I use period equipment.

I wouldn't describe my style as frenzied by any means, but what does that mean...overcome by rage and filled with speed? Frenzied seems to contain both rage and speed within it's normal definitions. Speed shouldn't be a hindrance to archery. In fact, training for speed is something you should be doing if you want to be good. Rage doesn't seem particularly beneficial, but then, this is true for a number of melee weapons as well. Arrows are precision damage, much like rapiers. Accuracy in both is far more important than brute strength. If it works with one, it should work with the other. In fact, hitting harder is generally one of the least important aspects of real combat, as opposed to hitting them in the first place.

So, I'd see the advantage as stemming mainly from the speed. Perhaps in your frenzy, time seems to slow down or whatever. Justify it however you like, but I don't see any particular reason from the name why it'd work for melee weapons but not archery.


Now this is purely in the realms of YMMV, and that's fine. But I think, once you start refluffing, where do you stop? It's a Whirling Frenzy refluffed for archery. It's a Wizard that doesn't use verbal, material or somatic components. It's not a spell, it's a class feature.

What does the Playground think?

As long as the refluffing fits the style of the campaign world, and doesn't actually change crunch, it works well. So, refluffing things as magic would go over rather poorly in a no-magic world, but yeah...you could refluff a lot of things as some kind of sorcery, provided you took pains to keep it distinct from the existing magic system for consistency reasons.

I've done the "we'll call it x". It was explicitly noted that in any case where it would matter mechanically, it would be treated as whatever it drew it's statline from.

Smokin Red
2011-03-01, 06:37 PM
I just wanted to add, that especially the renaming of "anything" is normal at least. Lots of RPG stuff gets translated and some things just don't fit in another language. (I'm from Germany and use mostly english books, I should know)
e.g. Fighter and Warrior are in german exact the respective opposite. (For the language freaks Fighter=Krieger & Warrior=Kämpfer)

So, it's just a name.

Narren
2011-03-01, 07:25 PM
I just wanted to add, that especially the renaming of "anything" is normal at least. Lots of RPG stuff gets translated and some things just don't fit in another language. (I'm from Germany and use mostly english books, I should know)
e.g. Fighter and Warrior are in german exact the respective opposite. (For the language freaks Fighter=Krieger & Warrior=Kämpfer)

So, it's just a name.

I actually always thought it would make more sense if those names were switched. A fighter is someone who fights, and a warrior is someone who engages in war. Which one sounds more skilled?