Fluff, context, and how to write clear rules

[Talakeal]

Spun off from my other thread.


I noticed that a lot of games write their rules so that the first sentence of an entry (or the first paragraph of a longer entry) will tell you what an ability does using slightly "fluffier" language, and then the following sentences will tell you how it does it using slightly "crunchier" language.

For example:

"Cure light wounds channels a flash of positive energy which wipes away the subject's injuries. The subject heals 1d8 points of damage."

The problem here is that people often do one of the two extremes:

1: Ignore the first sentence entirely as "just fluff" and assume they can change or ignore it as they like.
2: Take the first sentence literally and ignore the second sentence as it suits them, such as claiming that cure lights heals *all* injuries because the first sentence doesn't put in a limitation.


Of course, ignoring or changing the first sentence also has pitfalls. For example, if you attempt to cast the spell in an area where positive energy is dampened or when used to heal someone who is immune to positive energy, can the GM say the spell fails? If the players have a spell or magic item that detects positive energy, can they use it to locate hidden people when they cast a heal spell?

Some newer systems actually put the first sentence in italics, which makes the initial reading clearer, but it makes the issues about how the rules interact with other things even worse.

Going back and looking at how my rules are written, I am noticing a lot of people don't connect the parts of the rule in the same way that I do. For example, if a spell has multiple uses, and use two mentions a limitation, does that same limitation also apply to rule number three? Does anyone know if there are any concrete rules of english for determining context in such a manner?


And then there is the broader question of what is fluff?

Is it setting details?
Is it cosmetic descriptions?
Is it something else?

And likewise, many people assume it is safe to freely ignore or change what they consider fluff. But is that ok?

For example, if all orcs in the setting have green skin, do I need GM permission to play a red orc or can I just do it? If a wizard who is paranoid about orcs has created a magic mouth spell to sound an alarm if anyone with green skin approaches his tower, will my red orc set it off? Or is it cheating for the wizard to base a spell around "fluff" in the first place?


And of course, then we get to text that isn't really fluff or crunch, and isn't technically true either, but it still a normal part of speech.

For example:
Metaphors "Drizz't is a killing machine."
Generalizations "Dwarves are craftsmen who live in the mountains."
Poetic exaggerations "Nobody can deny that Smaug is the most terrifying beast who ever lived."
Figures of speech "That old wizard sure has a bee in his bonnet!"
Homonyms "If you play baseball with the vampires, make sure you don't get hit by a bat!"
Unclear wording "That old druid sure is strong as a bear."
In character deception "The village blacksmith is a kindly old elf woman." when in truth she is a wicked shapeshifting devil only pretending to be a kindly old elf.


And because of the above, I find that people often have drastically different interpretations of both the RAI of a rule and sometimes even the RAW. This is especially bad when someone is out to twist the wording for their advantage, but it often happens with no ill intent. And as someone with a processing disorder, I often find that I am in the minority when it comes to the interpretation of ambiguous RAW.


Anyway, apologies for the long semi-rambling post, these are just issues that I have noticed in a lot of rules discussions, and which were brought to the forefront in my last thread.

Anyone have any advice, ideas, or thoughts to toss on the pile? Thanks!

[JNAProductions]

It depends how malleable the fluff is.

In my D&D games, for instance, I tend to treat classes, feats, spells, etc. as bundles of mechanics you can use with default fluff, but said fluff can be changed while keeping the mechanics largely intact.
An atheistic Cleric, for instance, would be fine at my tables. As would a calm Barbarian, an angry Monk, etc. etc.

Since you're designing your own system, ask yourself what parts can be changed and what's set in stone. It should be relatively easy for someone looking over the system to figure out what's what.

A simple way of doing this could be:

Name Of Ability
Fluff Text-explicitly just the default, and able to be changed.
Main body of rules text, cannot be changed without a houserule or some other ability modifying it.

[OldTrees1]

1) You don't need to wax poetic when writing rules text.
Rules text is a subset of speech and does not need to include everything that speech can include.


"Cure light wounds channels a flash of positive energy which wipes away the subject's injuries. The subject heals 1d8 points of damage."
Okay so it
A) "Channels energy". Should I expect the game will differentiate between channeling, evoking, vs conjuring energy?
B) Causes a "flash". What kind of flash? Is it a visible flash or merely waxing poetic about the immediacy (EX: gone in a flash).
C) Positive energy is used. I expect that might have some in game consequences.
D) "wipes away" is unnecessarily poetic for rules text.
E) removes "the subject's injuries" probably just means healing them, unless more severe wounds (arrow in the knee impairing walking) are labeled "injuries" in the game

Consider these alternative as examples of being less poetic in the rules text.

"Positive energy heals the subject's injuries. The subject heals 1d8 points of damage."
"Positive energy heals the subject's injuries of 1d8 points of damage."
"Positive energy heals the subject 1d8 points of damage."


2) You can use formatting to provide example flavor that is not rules text

"Positive energy heals the subject's injuries. The subject heals 1d8 points of damage."
- Jozen's hands briefly glow with a dim red light as they channel positive energy into Mialee. Mialee's stomach wound starts to knit together.


3) Expect groups to replace some of your example fluff. Remind the players this is done with GM approval.
Accept that the point of example flavor is that groups might replace it with something that fits their campaign better. However have robust sections about the GM having rule 0 and about players and GMs working together to adjust/expand the game to fit their group.

By default the Cure Light Wounds from my #2 does not specify anything about a glow. However the example fluff included a dim red glow. If a player wanted it to appear as their Bard giving a motivational hug and pep talk infused with positive energy, that is up to the player and their GM.

It is also up to the player and their GM whether they want to change it from 1d8 to 1d4+2. Because the group can change the rules in addition to using their own examples.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm very firmly on the side of not making a distinction between "fluff" and "crunch". If it's written, it's just as much rule as anything else. Yes, that makes descriptive rules just as important as numerical ones. You can certainly change those descriptive rules...but that's just as much homebrew as changing the mechanics. And most invocations of "that's just fluff" are isomorphic to "that rule is inconvenient and I don't want to follow it." Which is garden-variety special pleading.

In fact, changing the thematic text is often more problem-inducing than changing the mechanics (unless your system is super tightly coupled, in which case that's your problem and it will break if you sneeze anyway, so don't do that).

This also relies on the idea that not all characters are describable in any given system. And that's ok. Refluffing a class, feature, spell, etc. is a change. It may be an ok change, it may be a minimal change. Or it may have large worldbuilding ripple effects. And none of those are solely in the purview of players. The setting and narrative constraints take precedence over player desires, at least unless the DM (who has power over it all) decides to change those constraints.

Also, anyone who reads a two-sentence ability as two separate things is reading wrong. Seriously. The unit of context for RPG rules is at minimum the paragraph, and usually the entire ability. That's how basic natural language works. Rules are not a programming language. You can't pick them apart clause by clause and force individual weight on parts not designed for it. The whole description, standing as a whole, has meaning. Individual bits, taken alone, do not. Doing so is called "proof texting" and is a basic form of flawed discourse. And any argument that relies on that kind of invalid parsing can be discarded out of hand, just like anyone who insists that 2 + 2 = 'apple pie'.

Another similar issue is insisting that any given word must have one and only one meaning in all contexts. Words are polysemic. Context gives meaning; words outside of context have no fixed meaning. Take, for instance, the word "cleave". It can mean "to separate" (I cleft the table in twain) or it can mean "to join together" (his tongue cleaved to the roof of his mouth). Only context can tell the difference. This means you cannot take a word from one ability and assume that the meaning it has there is the same as when its used elsewhere.

As for writing clearly, parsimony is your friend. Refrain from needlessly increasing the raw density, especially when it comes to nested, (parenthetical) subclauses, and verbosity of your verbiage. :smallbiggrin: Because all rules are rules, you have to be careful to not add rules you don't actually want. If it's not actually important (thematically, world-building, mechanically, or otherwise) that the healing spell evokes a flash of light...don't write it down.

[Pauly]

My requirements.
1) Numbering is a good thing. Maybe not as far as the old Avalon Hill legalistic style which took things a bit too far to be easily readable. But major concepts should be numbered. This helps the reader know which rules are separate ideas and which are subsets.
1.1) One very good method for keeping ideas nested properly without numbering is the use of indentation.

2) Fluff and rules need to be differentiated. The rules need to be consistent with the fluff.
2.1) For the “cure light wounds” example I would write the rules effects as: Positive energy. Creates flash of visible light. Heals 1D8 HP.
In addition I would rewrite the fluff to say “wipes away some effects of injury” to ensure that it cannot be read as healing all wounds.

3) Consistency of language. I have seen rules that use “movement” to refer to tactical movement within a scene and strategic movement between scenes within an area and operational movement between areas of activity. With different conditions and rules for the different types of movement, leading to confusion as to which rules for “movement” apply in each situation. It is better to use, say, “movement” for tactical movement, “travel” for traveling between scenes and “journey” for long journeys between areas.pick one word for each concept and only use that word when discussing that concept.
3.1) Don’t use synonyms even if that synonym has no specific meanings in the rules yet. Years ago I remember a controversy in a game (iirc it was a GW game maybe WH40K) where the original rules used “strike” as a synonym for “hit. A year later a supplement came out that used “strike” as a different keyword and people didn't know if the “strike” in the original rules meant “hit” or “strike”.
3.2) Remember that most people reading the rules will be players. Players have an investment in having the rules understood in a way that is most beneficial to their character. Do not rely on “common sense” or other non objective tests, rely on using clearly unambiguous language.

4) Read this, https://files.libcom.org/files/Politics%20and%20the%20English%20Language%20-%20George%20Orwell.pdf and take it to heart. It is in my view the best advice for using precise language ever written.

5) Fluff is important. It creates flavor and excites the imagination. Personally I hate it and would prefer the raw unvarnished rules, but most successful modern rules incorporate it into the text which shows that I am in the minority. I prefer for it to be in sidebars or chapter headings. Don’t skimp on the fluff. I remember 1e and 2e Shadowrun as being very good examples of how to integrate fluff into the rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm very firmly on the side of not making a distinction between "fluff" and "crunch". If it's written, it's just as much rule as anything else. Yes, that makes descriptive rules just as important as numerical ones. You can certainly change those descriptive rules...but that's just as much homebrew as changing the mechanics. And most invocations of "that's just fluff" are isomorphic to "that rule is inconvenient and I don't want to follow it." Which is garden-variety special pleading. Amen to this.

Also, anyone who reads a two-sentence ability as two separate things is reading wrong. Seriously. The unit of context for RPG rules is at minimum the paragraph, and usually the entire ability. That's how basic natural language works.
Rules are not a programming language.
You can't pick them apart clause by clause and force individual weight on parts not designed for it.
Which renders a goodly portion of GitP and other internet rules discussion moot.


Another similar issue is insisting that any given word must have one and only one meaning in all contexts. Words are polysemic. This is, to me, the same point as "English is not a computer language" more or less.

If it's not actually important (thematically, world-building, mechanically, or otherwise) that the healing spell evokes a flash of light...don't write it down. KISS principle.

[NichG]

My design philosophy about what rules are and what they're for has diverged a lot from what I had considered a sort of common sense understanding of it.

Specifically, I consider that any specific text which is provided from the system or GM to the players is (and 'is for making') a way of handing over something about the world to the players for them to be able to treat as true (or 'as true as presented' in the case of things explicitly attributed to NPC speakers) when making decisions on behalf of their characters. E.g. they should be able to reason about the world as if its true, know how something works enough to 'run it themselves', etc. Not all things which are true about the world need rules text, and importantly the point of the rules text is to let the players reason on the basis of it but not to form a literal contract that both sides agree to adhere to. Even when rules appear to be very much like code in order to improve clarity, fundamentally what they are is communication between people, and not code.

The reason to write something in a system should always be first and foremost that you want the players to be able to take what you wrote seriously. This is in contrast to a view of rules text as existing to establish 'how the game is to be played', or programs or laws of physics that determine independent of the human participants at the table what happens next.

So if I write a pair of sentences like 'This spell instantly heals minor injuries. It recovers 1d8 hitpoints.' there is actually a lot going on there. The first sentence isn't just to set the mood, it establishes for example that if you were to cast it on someone with a cut you would expect to see the cut close; if someone was bleeding, you'd expect the bleeding to stop; if a sprained ankle was slowing them down, or a bruised finger was making them more clumsy in the workshop, you'd a priori expect this to be a possible way to resolve that; if you saw someone go into a house with injuries and leave without them, you might reason that this spell was used.

The second sentence is to further establish concretely what constitutes a minor injury, just how many castings someone might need, etc, but that second sentence only really functions in the context of lots of other text establishing things like what hitpoints are, how many of them a character has, how they recover on their own, what are the consequences of hitpoint loss, etc.

Because rules are communication and not programs, there isn't this sense of one sentence overriding the other. You might interpret that the first sentence implies that your wounds should be healed regardless of your hitpoints, but there's no 'aha gotcha' there - that just means you didn't understand what I said and that I didn't communicate correctly what I was trying to communicate in a way that you understood it. So when a conflict like that occurs, there's not a 'right answer of how to proceed'; rather, the source of the rule didn't succeed in what they were trying to do (get the recipient of the rule to understand how their ability works), and iteration and clarification needs to take place if they still want to do so. But in that case it's also the option of the source of the rule to say 'you have no guarantee about how this works, try it out and make your own theory' if communication proves impossible.

The main point here is that its to the rule source's benefit to communicate clearly, because what the rule source should want is that the player can make plans, take over some of the burden of running the game, etc. But the thing that makes a rule 'binding' is that if the rule source is inconsistent about what they promise versus how things end up being run, the act of issuing a rule stops being a way to accomplish these goals - the rules would just not be trusted, players would always have to ask the GM or just make up their own theories about the world, etc.

What does that mean with regards to fluff, after all of this?:There is no separation between fluff and crunch with regards to how true they should be.

Fluff is one way of communicating intended-to-be-taken-as-true knowledge about the world, and crunch is another way of doing the same thing. They are distinct communication strategies, not things with distinct functions. Some players may understand a 'fluffy' way of explaining something better, others may understand a mechanical explanation better, but at the end of the day both approaches are there to try to get the players on the same page as you about some aspect of how the world is. So there's no fundamental reason you couldn't have a system which is entirely 'fluff' or a system which is entirely 'crunch', its just that doing so might be unapproachable to certain subsets of players or would do a poorer job of communicating what you want to communicate.

To refer back to things about poetic or metaphorical text in rules, it again comes down to clarity of communication and achieving mutual understanding. Don't say things in rules text that you don't want people to take seriously as being 'true'. But do say true things in different ways, in order to help people find a way of thinking about them which they can easily understand.

I wouldn't use stuff like 'that druid is as strong as a bear' because if its not communicating a literal truth about the druid then there's nothing left for it to actually communicate when phrased that way. So its either literal or empty. Its not 'you shouldn't use fluff', its that that particular fluff does a bad job of actually serving the purpose of communicating rulestext. 'Dwarves are craftsmen and live in the mountains' on the other hand does communicate something even if its not 'literally every dwarf'. But even then, it doesn't cost much to say 'Most dwarves' or 'Many dwarves' or 'Traditionally, dwarves'

[Easy e]

I think doing some research on technical writing would be helpful here.

As an exercise, try to write out the steps for making a cup of coffee. Then have some one follow the steps as written without interpretation and see what the end result is. The results can be hilarious and messy.

This will give you insight into how to write tight rules for a game system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think doing some research on technical writing would be helpful here.

As an exercise, try to write out the steps for making a cup of coffee. Then have some one follow the steps as written without interpretation and see what the end result is. The results can be hilarious and messy.

This will give you insight into how to write tight rules for a game system.

But that's mostly because that exercise defies everything about (as NichG says) communication between people.

Natural languages are not intended to be "followed as written without interpretation." That's actually a meaningless statement--there is no meaning without interpretation. In fact, literal "RAW" is the least meaningful way to read text. It's guaranteed to not be the reading that actually fits and works in the context of the game. Legalistic text obfuscates more than it clarifies; "tight" rules actually have more loopholes and breakages than more natural language. Humans are not computers; ambiguity is necessary for communication.

Personally, I'd find a rule set that pretends to not need interpretation to be an exercise in hubris. "Rules as contract" is just not something that works. "Rules as communications" actually does. You can't harden that against malicious actors without breaking it for the actual user base. And since malicious actors only hurt themselves...they break it they buy it.

Rules don't make good weapons or shields. No printed words do.

In general, I'm in total agreement with NichG here.

[Jakinbandw]

I think doing some research on technical writing would be helpful here.

As an exercise, try to write out the steps for making a cup of coffee. Then have some one follow the steps as written without interpretation and see what the end result is. The results can be hilarious and messy.

This will give you insight into how to write tight rules for a game system.

Practicing how to program is also useful here. In many ways, fluff can be seen as a commented out section used to explain what exactly a section of code does at a glance.

[Quertus]

IMO, refluffing is game balance for idiots. And, let’s face it, most people really don’t grok balance well enough to be trusted with the task of balancing new content. So if they can just reskin existing content, their new Creation should be balanced, right?

Well… maybe.

Suppose I wanted to play an Ogre. But there’s no stats for Ogre. But there are for Dwarf. And a Dwarf is tough, clumsy, and good at fighting, just like I want my Ogre to be. So I just stat out a Dwarf, call it an Ogre, and it’s fine, right?

Well… maybe.

Dwarves aren’t exactly the same height and weight as Ogres. So we’ll have to change that. Is that “just fluff”, or does it affect game balance? Does the system give dwarves any bonuses / abilities, like crafting bonuses, or seeing in the dark? If so, should Ogres have those? Have we upset Game balance with these changes?

And we’re also saying that Ogres are as smart and strong as Dwarves - have we said something about our world that isn’t true?

Or we can change absolutely nothing, and say that this particular X has the exact stats of a Y. But if your Dragon looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and has the stat block and generic code of a duck, isn’t it really just a duck?

All that said, I think that the concept of “refluffing” is orthogonal to the question of writing clear rules, and (unless someone sees something I’ve missed, or Talakeal has experiences that make this relevant) should be dropped from this conversation.

[Easy e]

But that's mostly because that exercise defies everything about (as NichG says) communication between people.

Natural languages are not intended to be "followed as written without interpretation." That's actually a meaningless statement--there is no meaning without interpretation. In fact, literal "RAW" is the least meaningful way to read text. It's guaranteed to not be the reading that actually fits and works in the context of the game. Legalistic text obfuscates more than it clarifies; "tight" rules actually have more loopholes and breakages than more natural language. Humans are not computers; ambiguity is necessary for communication.

Personally, I'd find a rule set that pretends to not need interpretation to be an exercise in hubris. "Rules as contract" is just not something that works. "Rules as communications" actually does. You can't harden that against malicious actors without breaking it for the actual user base. And since malicious actors only hurt themselves...they break it they buy it.

Rules don't make good weapons or shields. No printed words do.

In general, I'm in total agreement with NichG here.

So, Technical Writing as a field has no or few practical applications for writing clear game rules? I have a feeling I am misinterpreting your point.

My feedback is not about creating a system that can not be broken, as that is impossible. It is about making a process that is clear to the reader to implement. This is not about creating legalistic interpretations, it is about having a reader know what to do. This might be a few words, or it might be a lot.

Go look at the instructions for cooking food in a microwave. Those are great examples of how to do technical writing that is clear without being legalistic.

[Segev]

On the one hand, I am often in the camp of the "fluff is free" side of such discussions. You want your magic missiles to be literal mini-missiles fired from the back of your veritech-shaped warforged artificer? I see no problem with this; they still auto-hit and do 1d4+1 force damage each. On the other, I also think that it is important to consider the "fluff text" when analyzing any relevant ambiguities in how a given feature, ability, or power is intended to work. Geas says that the subject is compelled to follow the imposed quest; is that just fluff, with the only actual compulsion being a piddly (for a creature powerful enough to make a high-level character care enough to use this spell) amount of psychic damage once per day if they refuse? Consider particularly that geas is often a "NPC spell," something the DM has his distrustful BBEG cast on the PCs to ensure they follow their end of the bargain, too. Are PCs really that threatened by the once per day psychic damage, that they'd go through with the geas on that alone? No, I think that the spell saying it compels obedience is an important consideration! I do not think it mere fluff.

Rules do what they say they do. Changing the fluff is changing the rules; it IS homebrew. If you want your misty step to be you dissolving into a swarm of wasps and flying to the new location and reforming, that generally is "fluff" and is "free," but the DM still is in his rights to say "no" to that homebrew variant on the spell. And, if he does approve the homebrewed fluff, there may be instances where the fluff matters to what's happening in the setting. Your mini-missile magic missiles probably make more noise than the classic silvery darts, making them more likely to draw attention from a distance. They also probably could be used as some sort of signal flare if you wanted, where it'd be harder to draw attention to the presumably-silent silvery darts.

So, yeah, I guess I agree that even changing fluff is "homebrewing," but it's usually pretty easy to tell the difference between homebrewing unimportant parts and important parts of the rules text. That doesn't invalidate "fluff" from being part of the rules, and thus any ruling that relies on disregarding something as "fluff" is, itself, a homebrewed house rule that is changing the rules, not "merely" reading the RAW. i.e., you can't dismiss "fluff" as not being relevant to the rules in a discussion of the RAW.

[KorvinStarmast]

Clear writing, in an of itself, is its own challenge.
The secret to that is: revise, revise, revise, until only the words that are necessary remain on the page, presented in an-easy-to-follow sequence. Go back to writing 101 and remember what a clause is for, what a sentence is for, and what a paragraph is for.

Stick with the basics and build upwards.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, Technical Writing as a field has no or few practical applications for writing clear game rules? I have a feeling I am misinterpreting your point.

My feedback is not about creating a system that can not be broken, as that is impossible. It is about making a process that is clear to the reader to implement. This is not about creating legalistic interpretations, it is about having a reader know what to do. This might be a few words, or it might be a lot.

Go look at the instructions for cooking food in a microwave. Those are great examples of how to do technical writing that is clear without being legalistic.

Not no practical applications, but fewer than you might think.

Technical writing works really well for things that have very clear, single-path or checklist style procedures. Where following those procedures guarantees (or at least mostly guarantees) success, and there are clear troubleshooting steps. TTRPGs are not like that at all. Game rules actually are more like default values and processes to bootstrap an initial conversation about what the table's actual rules (the only ones that matter) should be. As well as a large chunk of inspiration. If you're "following the rules" for the sake of following the rules, you're doing it wrong. The whole idea is to take that starting point and figure out rules that actually work for your particular table. And if the table's playing well, no one else can tell you that you're playing wrong. Expecting the players to implement the system checklist style is exactly missing the entire purpose of a TTRPG, that thing that sets it apart from a board game.

Each form of writing has specific audiences and purposes in mind. TTRPG writing is not Technical Writing. It's its own thing. It's not Legal Writing either. Or Fiction Writing. It has overlap with all 3 of those, plus a bunch of other semi-related fields.

[Easy e]

Sure, it is about using the right tool for the job.

That said, I think the key is to sign post when you are switching hats. For example, the rules should be technical writing, how you resolve the process of success. The Narrative/setting needs fiction writing. The FAQ should apply legalist writing styles. Character Creation should be technical. Spell and ability lists are legalistic. Which style you decide to use where is really up to the author, but the writer should not mix styles in the same text blocks or areas.

If you want to mix fluff in with the technical, than you need to call it out as being such. A special box-out, a side panel, Heading title, etc. It is when the styles overlap and mix in the writing where confusion comes in. For example, in early versions of Shadowrun, there was a sideboard on each page with characters commenting on what was on the page, in character and in the game universe. However, it was not mixed with the actual rules, but cut-out in the sideboard.

Mixing fluff, technical, and Legal styles in one text is a surprisingly common issue in many very popular games, where they mix the fluff with the technical and the legalistic with no clear distinction or sign-posting. I imagine it is trying to create more readability, but it instead leads to confusion.

[Segev]

Sure, it is about using the right tool for the job.

That said, I think the key is to sign post when you are switching hats. For example, the rules should be technical writing, how you resolve the process of success.

TTRPGs are all about those times where there is no way to have foreseen the particular situation well enough for the rules to unambiguously cover it. That's why they aren't quite suitable to that kind of technical writing. That way lies 3.5, and weird rules interactions that lead to nonsense and Pun-pun.

That said, there is room for the concepts to be applied. Honestly, I think commentary from the writers in some places where they just spell out what they were thinking and imagining the rule being used for would be good for a large number of rules. Especially class features and spells and feats, where some example of what it is the writer intended it to be doing will go a long way towards clearing up whether they meant X or Y when there's ambiguity in the wording.

I would be unsurprised to learn that the writers pictured ink blot magical darkness from the darkness spell, but vantablack nonmagical darkness, even though the rules only support either magical and nonmagical ink blot, or magical and nonmagical vantablack. (Which you prefer or think the rules do call for is irrelevant; the ambiguity exists well enough that we have lengthy arguments over it.) Creators writing examples of use and discussing some consequences would go a long way towards spelling out what they were envisioning when they wrote the rules, though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

TTRPGs are all about those times where there is no way to have foreseen the particular situation well enough for the rules to unambiguously cover it. That's why they aren't quite suitable to that kind of technical writing. That way lies 3.5, and weird rules interactions that lead to nonsense and Pun-pun.

That said, there is room for the concepts to be applied. Honestly, I think commentary from the writers in some places where they just spell out what they were thinking and imagining the rule being used for would be good for a large number of rules. Especially class features and spells and feats, where some example of what it is the writer intended it to be doing will go a long way towards clearing up whether they meant X or Y when there's ambiguity in the wording.


Yeah. TTRPG rules have intrinsic, critical ambiguity. In fact, ambiguity is important and necessary. Trying to be "clear" just encourages "legalistic" readings that make a hash out of the actual language and meaning and encourage antagonism and (the bad kind of) rules lawyering. Ie weaponizing rules against people. And that sucks.

But I definitely agree that having things like
* worked examples with commentary
* commentary on intent
would definitely be helpful. That's what should take up a lot of the DMG (or other GM-side sections). Even having them in the player-facing side is useful. A simple "example of play". Etc.

For games with online presences, I'd say they should have some in the text itself and then crap tons more on web pages. Don't clutter the entire book with explanations, but give end notes on where you can find that commentary.

[MoiMagnus]

Specific rules exist within the greater concept of the game I think an important part is to remain consistent with it.

For example, if your game is very "video-gamey", one would expect magic to have a lot of "special effects" that are just fluff and no actual effect, with the possibility of being reskined. There, the "fluff" is here for the aesthetics, the style, etc.

On the other hand, if your game goes toward the other opposite, the "fluff" is giving worldbuilding elements to the GM to determine how corner cases get resolved. It is giving potential ideas of novel utilisation of said abilities to the player. Pushed to the extreme, the mechanics described after the "fluff" are just one suggestion of usage of the ability.

But you need to determine where you are on this scale. And IMO for D&D, the mantra "spells only do what they say" and "if a feature was meant to be used that way it would say so" definitely pushed the game towards the former. When you are encouraged to precisely restrict what every feature and spell does, you need to discard the vague descriptions as "mostly irrelevant gameplay-wise".

[Kurald Galain]

Of course, ignoring or changing the first sentence also has pitfalls. For example, if you attempt to cast the spell in an area where positive energy is dampened or when used to heal someone who is immune to positive energy, can the GM say the spell fails? If the players have a spell or magic item that detects positive energy, can they use it to locate hidden people when they cast a heal spell?
In my view, in a roleplaying game, all parts of the description are equally valid. That means a "yes" to all of your questions quoted (and that also means a spell detecting green creatures will not detect a red orc; and that players need DM permission to contradict the established setting). I realize that not everybody shares my view, so this is something you should make clear to players on the very first page of your rulebook.


Some newer systems actually put the first sentence in italics, which makes the initial reading clearer, but it makes the issues about how the rules interact with other things even worse.
Writing it like this suggests to me that the flavor text is actually not a rule, and in my view roleplaying games shouldn't do that.

But if you do want to do that, the important part is consistency. I am reminded of Magic: the Gathering, which is very clear on which parts of a card are mechanics and which are not; for example, if the picture on a card depicts a bird in flight, but the card doesn't show the "flying" keyword, then mechanically this creature does not fly. However this will confuse a certain kind of player, so the best answer (as WOTC found out many years ago) is to have the picture not contradict what the card actually does. Only have the art for a creature depict flight if the creature has flight.

For instance, don't do this:

Scrying
This powerful divination spell allows you to exactly locate the target you're looking for.
You may ask three yes/no questions about a building, and the DM will answer truthfully.
Why not? Because three yes/no questions will not, in most cases, allow you to exactly locate anything. So this quickly creates a disconnect between players who read the italics (and ignore the second part) and players who read the rules text (and ignore the first part), and that could easily have been avoided. Flavor text doesn't have to be exact, but at least it shouldn't contradict.

But yeah, in my view, RPGs shouldn't distinguish between "rules text" and "flavor text" in the first place.

[lesser_minion]

I'm very firmly on the side of not making a distinction between "fluff" and "crunch". If it's written, it's just as much rule as anything else. Yes, that makes descriptive rules just as important as numerical ones. You can certainly change those descriptive rules...but that's just as much homebrew as changing the mechanics. And most invocations of "that's just fluff" are isomorphic to "that rule is inconvenient and I don't want to follow it." Which is garden-variety special pleading.

Yep. When it comes to fluff vs. crunch, the 'fluff' establishes facts about the reality you're trying to model. The 'crunch' is a suggested way to model those facts. I don't think it's useless to distinguish them, but the two components are both essential.

[Pauly]

But that's mostly because that exercise defies everything about (as NichG says) communication between people.

Natural languages are not intended to be "followed as written without interpretation." That's actually a meaningless statement--there is no meaning without interpretation. In fact, literal "RAW" is the least meaningful way to read text. It's guaranteed to not be the reading that actually fits and works in the context of the game. Legalistic text obfuscates more than it clarifies; "tight" rules actually have more loopholes and breakages than more natural language. Humans are not computers; ambiguity is necessary for communication.

Personally, I'd find a rule set that pretends to not need interpretation to be an exercise in hubris. "Rules as contract" is just not something that works. "Rules as communications" actually does. You can't harden that against malicious actors without breaking it for the actual user base. And since malicious actors only hurt themselves...they break it they buy it.

Rules don't make good weapons or shields. No printed words do.

In general, I'm in total agreement with NichG here.

Rules are not natural language.

Context changes from table to table.

The goal is not to harden against malicious actors. The goal is to have consistency between tables. Most disputes over rules interpretation are not malicious.

Ambiguity is not your friend. If you take the sentence “I found my son using a pair of binoculars.” it can be interpreted to mean I was using the binoculars or my son was using the binoculars. Adding more context - “We were camping in Africa. One morning my son went missing. I found him in the veldt a mile from the camp using my pair of binoculars” does not clarify the central ambiguity. It is better to aim for ambiguity free writing for rules.

RAW is a useful tool for interpreting rules because it relies on objective meanings. If applying RAW leads to an illogical or contradictory outcome that is not the fault of RAW. It is a fault of the text. It isn’t the reader’s job to have to guess what was in the mind of the author.

Most of the bad press RAW gets is when people selectively apply part of the RAW. Funnily enough most RAW irregularities I’ve ever come across are solvable by RAW when you look at all the applicable rules, not just the little part the player advocating the interpretation is looking at.

Games Workshop are the posterboy for writing ambiguous, unclear and contradictatory rules. They rely on natural language and players guessing the context.

[Mechalich]

Yep. When it comes to fluff vs. crunch, the 'fluff' establishes facts about the reality you're trying to model. The 'crunch' is a suggested way to model those facts. I don't think it's useless to distinguish them, but the two components are both essential.

Differentiation between fluff and crunch is important to setting-agnostic systems, like GURPs or FATE, where the rules are inherently abstracted and at least in theory two identical abilities/skills/traits could have completely different fluff when deployed in different games that have different settings. By contrast, games with an explicit attached setting do not have this differentiation, since 'fluff' is a description of aspects of the world and those descriptions are presumed to be true (though many game studios had a bad habit of producing inconsistent or outright contradictory fluff, or of writing fluff using weasel wording and unreliable in-universe narration in a perverse desire to have things both ways).

D&D, in a fashion that is both frustrating and extremely typical of the market leading system, has the worst of both worlds. It is theoretically setting agnostic but in practice there is an extremely strong implied setting (the overarching meta-setting of various planes of the D&D multiverse and all the stuff that contains) leading to fluff that both is and is not descriptive and different layers of fluff that may overlap or supersede each other, depending on specific circumstance, ie. some things drawn from the overall D&D multiverse remain true in the Forgotten Realms, but others don't, and this has to be determined in each individual case.

[Telok]

The only issues I ever have is with consistency and communicating the style in which things are written.

Use of one style in the document, be that 'italics fluff with bold keywords' or 'every single word is hard and fast rules' or whatever, is critical. No random switching between a fluff/rule divide and an all-is-rules. Create a single style guide gor your document and stick to it. This doesn't rule out deciding to mix a non-rules page, paragraph, or sentence in the start/middle/end of a rule. But you have to be consistent.

Communicate your method of communication. If you use a technical style with keywords tell the readers that and accept that any misuse or misunderstanding of the keywords in the document need to be fixed. If you want everthing down to the setting fiction and metaphors to be rules then say so and own up to the resulting cluster ****. If you want to claim "natural language" then you'd better explain what you mean and be willing to do lots of clarifications and explanations because "natural" languages are all sorts of sloppy loose noise filled jibber jabber.

RPGs are a type of technical document. They tell people about a series of processes to play a game and then step through the processes. Ideally it's a bit like a recipie book. Sufficent information on the steps to take to use your tools to get the desired result. The best ones contain stuff outside the discrete recipies/processes that tell you about the processes and ingredients so you can trouble shoot when things go wrong. The worst ones say things like "add milk until it turns light brown" without saying that you can't use fat free and that not actually the color but the cooking temp that's critical.

You can totally write stuff like "a fireball fills a room and does 8 dice of damage". It's perfectly fine natural language and may even be appropriate for some games and groups to have it written that way. But try to know your audience too. Especially if you've produced similar materials for them before. If they're used to having a few more details you might lose some of them when you change styles that way.

[Segev]

The kind of ambiguity that is unavoidable is not the kind illustrated by, "I found my son using a pair of binoculars." That is sloppy when you are trying to write what something is and does. The kind of ambiguity that is unavoidable is the sort where you cannot think of every contingency. Spelling out what the rule does in plain terms will cover most cases if worded clearly. Goong into precise and realistic detail is counterproductive because it forces creative use into word-twisting rules-lawyering. And there will always be unforeseen interactions and ways to use the RAW. Not wasting time on over-precise wording helps ensure the unforeseen interactions are less likely to have counterintuitive results. The extra breadth to the gray zone between the rules and the 'fluff' that describes what and how the thing works, conceptually, will leave more room for natural-feeling resolution between the effects.

That's not to justify incomplete rules. But to say that over precision leads to 3.5's problems. They are not insurmountable! 3.5 is a goods usable system. But 5e chose a different set of problems in order to solve the extreme legalism of 3.5.

[Vahnavoi]

"Fluff versus crunch" is a bad distinction that typically conflates multiple issues. A paragraph like "Cure light wounds channels a flash of positive energy which wipes away the subject's injuries. The subject heals 1d8 points of damage." does not have any "fluff versus crunch" split in it. It is just two sentences' worth of non-contradictory statements, where the last sentence clarifies the first; barring further information, one ought to assume they all are meant to be true and thus constitute game rules.

People who look into texts like that and try to split them into "fluff" and "crunch" are making arbitrary distinctions between which rules matter and why. Typically, one dividing line is natural language versus formal language, especially math. This is an error, because rule priority does not care of mode of expression. "Referee has final say over game matters" is both top priority rule and a natural language statement, the fact that it contains no math is irrelevant. Another related dividing line tends to be how easy it is to change rules, which is even sillier; I'm much better at formulating new rules in English rather than math, but it would be insane to use that to decide which rules matter. I could, for example, trivially change "channels a flash of positive energy" to "injects one dose of short-lived nanomachines", changing the entire genre and implied setting in the same go. The ease of doing so does not justify ignoring the original premise.

Rule completeness is a separate matter. Nearly all tabletop roleplaying games are incomplete, as are many physical sports and children's games. This means there may be unanswered questions. This is neither pathological nor a problem when rules already tell you who can give binding answers to such questions. It is beneath least concern especially when natural language already suggests a logical outcome. Ambiguity is only a problem when it leads to contradictions, and this rarely happens in play without deliberate and blatant equivocation.

[Duff]

I'm inclinded to say the fluff usually helps the table to answer questions about how things work. That then matters for deciding on niche or corner cases.

Your healing example is good. The Fluff tells us there's a flash (so quite visible to other people in the room, will take specific effort to try and hide it) of positive energy. So, while the GM can decide on specifics to suit the needs of the story, positive and negative energy auras will probably make a difference.
Can I use the flash to signal at night?
Sure, not very far, not very fast, but for 30 meters or so, no worries

If a lock needs some positive energy channeled into it to unlock will this do it?
Yes

If the lock need negative energy to unlock, and I cast this at the same time the Lich touches it, will the 2 cancel out?
Ummm ... Maybe? Thinks about it and decides on some sort of roll for timing and compares the negative energy damage with the healing amount to see what feels right or suits the scene


I would say it's fine to change fluff quite a bit, but run the changes past the GM.
"I don't want to heal with positive energy, which comes from the positive plane, I want to pull life from the earth itself"
"Sure, that means instead of a flash, you get a smell of plants. But be aware, if you're ever cut off from the earth, you're going to have issues with healing"
Can I heal using time energy to just speed up natural healing?
No. That'd be a different spell because heal spells meant there's no scarring, no infection etc. But if you want to make up a time based one, we can have a look at what would work.
Or a different GM in a different game "Sure, why not have healing spells speed up the healing?"

[stoutstien]

IMO as long as intentions are clear I could care less about the rest. I don't care if rules are read similarly at different tables or if the follow a set pattern as long as the intent is plain.

I'm more bothered by poor font choices than actual text choices.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you're "following the rules" for the sake of following the rules, you're doing it wrong. Sounds like something Dave Arneson might have said.

Each form of writing has specific audiences and purposes in mind. TTRPG writing is not Technical Writing. It's its own thing. It's not Legal Writing either. Or Fiction Writing. It has overlap with all 3 of those, plus a bunch of other semi-related fields. Tell me about it. After spending more than a few years having to write formal documents in Militarese (a peculiar jargon within American English) and preparing volumes of staff work that had to go up to the Pentagon, my creative writing skills atrophied.
To remedy that I wrote a little fanfic to stretch the mental muscles.

and (the bad kind of) rules lawyering. Ie weaponizing rules against people. And that sucks. Arneson felt similarly.


But I definitely agree that having things like
* worked examples with commentary
* commentary on intent
would definitely be helpful. That's what should take up a lot of the DMG (or other GM-side sections). Even having them in the player-facing side is useful. A simple "example of play". Etc.
Yes. Examples of play are a good thing to help the whole table learn the game.


But yeah, in my view, RPGs shouldn't distinguish between "rules text" and "flavor text" in the first place. We have a winner. :smallsmile:

Rules are not natural language.

Context changes from table to table.

The goal is not to harden against malicious actors. The goal is to have consistency between tables. Most disputes over rules interpretation are not malicious. I like your post in general, but do not agree with the bolded part. Each table is its own instance of the game.

Most of the bad press RAW gets is when people selectively apply part of the RAW. Funnily enough most RAW irregularities I’ve ever come across are solvable by RAW when you look at all the applicable rules, not just the little part the player advocating the interpretation is looking at.

Games Workshop are the posterboy for writing ambiguous, unclear and contradictatory rules. They rely on natural language and players guessing the context. No disagreement there.


"Fluff versus crunch" is a bad distinction that typically conflates multiple issues. A paragraph like "Cure light wounds channels a flash of positive energy which wipes away the subject's injuries. The subject heals 1d8 points of damage." does not have any "fluff versus crunch" split in it. It is just two sentences' worth of non-contradictory statements, where the last sentence clarifies the first; barring further information, one ought to assume they all are meant to be true and thus constitute game rules.

People who look into texts like that and try to split them into "fluff" and "crunch" are making arbitrary distinctions between which rules matter and why. Typically, one dividing line is natural language versus formal language, especially math. This is an error, because rule priority does not care of mode of expression. "Referee has final say over game matters" is both top priority rule and a natural language statement, the fact that it contains no math is irrelevant. Another related dividing line tends to be how easy it is to change rules, which is even sillier; I'm much better at formulating new rules in English rather than math, but it would be insane to use that to decide which rules matter. I could, for example, trivially change "channels a flash of positive energy" to "injects one dose of short-lived nanomachines", changing the entire genre and implied setting in the same go. The ease of doing so does not justify ignoring the original premise.
Rule completeness is a separate matter. Nearly all tabletop roleplaying games are incomplete, as are many physical sports and children's games. This means there may be unanswered questions. This is neither pathological nor a problem when rules already tell you who can give binding answers to such questions. Referees, for example.

It is beneath least concern especially when natural language already suggests a logical outcome. Ambiguity is only a problem when it leads to contradictions, and this rarely happens in play without deliberate and blatant equivocation. It's that last part that surely creates friction but that's an issue with human nature: trying to get an edge.

[Pauly]

I like your post in general, but do not agree with the bolded part. Each table is its own instance of the game.
.

I’ll try to clarify. The point of using precise and unambiguous language is that if I go to your table or you cone to my table we are both playing the same game. There is always going to be some friction over house rules and interpretations, but the areas we both concur should be many and the areas we disagree should be few.
My experience of playing games with sloppy and ambiguous rules *cough* GW *cough* is that sometimes the differences are so great as to effectively be playing different games even though the text is the same.


The kind of ambiguity that is unavoidable is not the kind illustrated by, "I found my son using a pair of binoculars." That is sloppy when you are trying to write what something is and does. The kind of ambiguity that is unavoidable is the sort where you cannot think of every contingency. Spelling out what the rule does in plain terms will cover most cases if worded clearly. Goong into precise and realistic detail is counterproductive because it forces creative use into word-twisting rules-lawyering. And there will always be unforeseen interactions and ways to use the RAW. Not wasting time on over-precise wording helps ensure the unforeseen interactions are less likely to have counterintuitive results. The extra breadth to the gray zone between the rules and the 'fluff' that describes what and how the thing works, conceptually, will leave more room for natural-feeling resolution between the effects.

That's not to justify incomplete rules. But to say that over precision leads to 3.5's problems. They are not insurmountable! 3.5 is a goods usable system. But 5e chose a different set of problems in order to solve the extreme legalism of 3.5.

Please forgive me if I misunderstand you. When I talk about ambiguity it is when text can mean 2 or more things. What you seem to be talking about is more to do with gaps in the rules where the rules are either silent or incomplete.
Generally speaking it is better for rules to be concise and plainly written. The more technical specific rules tend to be those dealing with specific situations, or to distinguish between similar but different cases. It is up to the designer to establish how much detail they want in their rules, and it is up to the player to find rules they are comfortable using.
However complexity =\= ambiguity. If someone has difficulty writing unambiguous rules then it will be more apparent in a longer more rules heavy ‘crunchy’ text than in a shorter lighter rules set.

[Segev]

I'm more bothered by poor font choices than actual text choices.

Ugh. You just reminded me of a megadungeon I purchased a while back called "The Temple of Jing." It has an interesting gimmick: rules for running it in both PF1 and in 5e. It makes it clear that the two stat blocks can be distinguished by a slight font difference in the header and by the header of the PF rules being in blue ink.

The font difference is almost non-existent, and the blue ink they used looks to be the same color as the black ink when printed on the colored paper they chose to use for the "parchment" effect of the book.

I genuinely am amazed that the writer didn't take one look at the first proofs for this and decide on major changes to the inking color, at least, of the "blue" text. Because it is quite impossible to tell them apart under any lighting I have tried, and you have to squint to detect a difference in the fonts. I can't tell, block to block, which is which. And the blocks are in that in-line paragraph-like shorthand, so it takes real effort to parse them, and THEN you can try to guess which edition which block is for!

All of which would've been avoidable if they'd used white paper, or if they'd examined their product and realized they needed a different color ink than whatever "blue" they went with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I’ll try to clarify. The point of using precise and unambiguous language is that if I go to your table or you cone to my table we are both playing the same game. There is always going to be some friction over house rules and interpretations, but the areas we both concur should be many and the areas we disagree should be few.
My experience of playing games with sloppy and ambiguous rules *cough* GW *cough* is that sometimes the differences are so great as to effectively be playing different games even though the text is the same.


I personally place very little value on inter-table consistency. In fact, in many cases the value I place on it is negative--I positively want variation. If you want such consistency, that's what Organized Play is for, which has its own large set of rules.

At most, having consistency on the basic resolution mechanics (yeah, we're using 1d20 + mods, and here's how we calculate the mods) is enough to be "playing the same game". I do not expect (and even expect the opposite) that building a character outside of the context of a table and trying to import them will work gracefully. I expect every character to be built and played within the context of a single table and post session 0 (where the rules are defined that matter for that table at least at character creation). And I expect that players will affirmatively ask the table[1] about things that are central to their characters before committing to them. And then abide by the table's rulings on the matter. Regardless of what process they used to get there (whether it's text-based or personal aesthetics or anything else).

The rules that work for one table and even one campaign will not work for others. This is not a game like WH40k, where you're expected to play at a bunch of tables in a competitive fashion, where I agree consistency is vital and ambiguity is a strong negative. It's also an open-ended framework designed to be modified and adapted at run-time.

IMO, TTRPG rules are a set of default starting values and don't and shouldn't bind anyone. Unless, of course, they agree to be so bound. And even then, they're bound by the interpretation their table happened to choose, not whatever the internet hive mind declares is "RAW". Because to be very clear, forum RAW is also an interpretation, one that is not simply just "reading the text". In fact, it's one of the worst (textually speaking) interpretations in many cases. It does absolute violence to context, it demands words to only have one meaning, it extrapolates general rules from specific ones (ie exactly back to front), and always takes the maximally player-entitled and DM-abnegating position.

[1] more than just the DM, although the DM has a least a good chunk of say.

[stoutstien]

Ugh. You just reminded me of a megadungeon I purchased a while back called "The Temple of Jing." It has an interesting gimmick: rules for running it in both PF1 and in 5e. It makes it clear that the two stat blocks can be distinguished by a slight font difference in the header and by the header of the PF rules being in blue ink.

The font difference is almost non-existent, and the blue ink they used looks to be the same color as the black ink when printed on the colored paper they chose to use for the "parchment" effect of the book.

I genuinely am amazed that the writer didn't take one look at the first proofs for this and decide on major changes to the inking color, at least, of the "blue" text. Because it is quite impossible to tell them apart under any lighting I have tried, and you have to squint to detect a difference in the fonts. I can't tell, block to block, which is which. And the blocks are in that in-line paragraph-like shorthand, so it takes real effort to parse them, and THEN you can try to guess which edition which block is for!

All of which would've been avoidable if they'd used white paper, or if they'd examined their product and realized they needed a different color ink than whatever "blue" they went with.

Yea it's a important thing that is overlooked. Kevin Crawford makes some questionable choices with format as far as where info is located but at least it's readable and flows well page to page so once you understand the method it's a breeze to find stuff even if the book(s) are ~400 pages in dense info.

Also glossy pages can go die in a fire.

[Pauly]

I personally place very little value on inter-table consistency. In fact, in many cases the value I place on it is negative--I positively want variation. If you want such consistency, that's what Organized Play is for, which has its own large set of rules.

At most, having consistency on the basic resolution mechanics (yeah, we're using 1d20 + mods, and here's how we calculate the mods) is enough to be "playing the same game". I do not expect (and even expect the opposite) that building a character outside of the context of a table and trying to import them will work gracefully. I expect every character to be built and played within the context of a single table and post session 0 (where the rules are defined that matter for that table at least at character creation). And I expect that players will affirmatively ask the table[1] about things that are central to their characters before committing to them. And then abide by the table's rulings on the matter. Regardless of what process they used to get there (whether it's text-based or personal aesthetics or anything else).

The rules that work for one table and even one campaign will not work for others. This is not a game like WH40k, where you're expected to play at a bunch of tables in a competitive fashion, where I agree consistency is vital and ambiguity is a strong negative. It's also an open-ended framework designed to be modified and adapted at run-time.

IMO, TTRPG rules are a set of default starting values and don't and shouldn't bind anyone. Unless, of course, they agree to be so bound. And even then, they're bound by the interpretation their table happened to choose, not whatever the internet hive mind declares is "RAW". Because to be very clear, forum RAW is also an interpretation, one that is not simply just "reading the text". In fact, it's one of the worst (textually speaking) interpretations in many cases. It does absolute violence to context, it demands words to only have one meaning, it extrapolates general rules from specific ones (ie exactly back to front), and always takes the maximally player-entitled and DM-abnegating position.

[1] more than just the DM, although the DM has a least a good chunk of say.

My experience as a player was that I got involved in a lot of pick up games when I started RPGs and I also play TTMWGs. So I value inter table consistency highly, at least as far as how the mechanical effects are applied.

Things like settings/tone/campaigns are malleable, and I don’t expect 100% consistency on those factors. Although with published material consistency helps integrate new players. It also helps players who want to immerse themselves in the setting by reading the source material.
Sometimes making changes to the setting carries wider implications than the person making the change thinks. If we take the green orc/red orc example from earlier in the thread. If the skin color of the orc is purely cosmetic then there probably isn’t too much harm in changing it. However if the setting requires orcs to ge green skinned because they photosynthesize and green is the only color that works and orcs derive mechanical advantages from being green skinned then changing an orc from green to red may require much deeper surgery with lots of flow on effects.
If you’re not worried about inter table consistency then it probably makes no difference, but if it is a concern then you need to think about the consequences before saying the PC can have a red orc.

However in terms of writing a set of rules and/or setting as opposed to playing a set of rules and/or setting inter table consistency should be the goal. People who genuinely try to play the game as written should be able to seamlessly move from table to table.

As I stated earlier with RAW most of the problem is misapplication. In my experience 95% of the “problems” with RAW are solvable by RAW. RAW is a tool and like any tool if it is used incorrectly it leads to poor outcomes. It’s still a good tool. Saying RAW is bad because some people use it badly does not invalidate RAW.

[MoiMagnus]

However in terms of writing a set of rules and/or setting as opposed to playing a set of rules and/or setting inter table consistency should be the goal. People who genuinely try to play the game as written should be able to seamlessly move from table to table.


IMO, it comes down to: are you trying to write a game or a toolbox for a GM to build a game?

And by "toolbox", I don't just mean "here is a bunch of ideas, deal with it". A good toolbox guide the GM so much for their first build that it's practically already a game. But the difference is that you don't expect inter-table consistency at all because the focus is to enable the GM to create a game that match their tastes while helping them not to fall on standard pitfalls. (The reasons why you buy a toolbox is to bit struggle recreating literally everything from scratch)

[Lucas Yew]

Fluff does let you free from the shackles of CRPG game engines' technical limitations, so it has its place.


However in terms of writing a set of rules and/or setting as opposed to playing a set of rules and/or setting inter table consistency should be the goal. People who genuinely try to play the game as written should be able to seamlessly move from table to table.

Strongly agree with this part, however.

[gbaji]

I'm going to second a comment earlier about trying out some technical writing as a test of methodology.

Here's my broad recomendations:

Fluff is fine to a point, but any term that is used should have a firm and well established definition in the games mechanical rules (ie: crunchy bits). If you say "flash", you'd better have defined what it means when a spell has "flash" in its description somewhere in the game rules. If you say "positive energy", you'd better have both "energy" and "positive" (as a type of energy) defined somewhere in your rules. This is no different than also needing rules for what a "1d8" is, or what "hps" are. Heck. If you use the term "heal", you'd better have defined what that means as well. Especially if you have different types of damage which may require different effects (e.g.: regular damage requires healing, acid damage requires regeneration, poison damage requires cure/treat poison, disease damage requires cure/treat disease, etc).

You may still be descriptive within those bounds, but IME, even if you are trying to not be crunchy, your players will just interpret it in some crunchy way anyway, and now you have endless arguments about different secondary effects of doing varioius things in the game you are running. I suppose you could be intentionally going for "interpret this however you want", but again, that really relies on the GM and players being in agreement on those interpretations.

Lack of clear definitions for things may at first make the game appear more flexible, but it'll more likely result in more arguments. Worse, the GM will almost certainly interpret the exact same language in different ways at different times and under different circumstances. Heck. I've done this myself. It always seems reasonable at the time, but when you look back you realize "well crap, I just ruled myself into a big ol circle there, didn't I?".

At the very least, even if the core rules don't define these things, it's a good idea as a GM to come up with some standard meanings/intepretations. And then make them clear to your players. And having said all of this, certainly some tables will be more accepting of flexibility than others. It's always the first rule of GMing to know your table. I've had some folks who are perfectly fine with just kinda winging this stuff, and others where they will immediately say "wait! Back in <date> when we were <doing whatever> you said <something else entirely>, so which is it?".

[Talakeal]

Thanks everyone, there have been some great replies in this thread.

Unfortunately, opinions are so mixed, the thread as a whole is pretty much a wash, some people I agree with completely, and other people I disagree with completely, so I am not sure which, if any, direction I should try and pull my writitng / reading in.


I think the attitude that always puzzles me is the argument that if cosmetic elements of the game cannot be freely changed or ignored by players at their conveniance, then that means every word of the rulebook must by 100% literal, including obvious metephors, generalizations, and figures of speech. I see it quite a bit in discussions, both in person and online, and a few people have even said it in this thread IIRC, and it always feels kind of disingenuous, like playing dumb because you didn't get your way.



So, what really got me thinking of it were two spell descriptions in my last thread. The argument got rather heated, and I would prefer not to rehash it here, but basically they had multiple paragraphs and in one a connection was drawn when it was intended, and in the other a connection was ignored when it was intended. And it feels kind of hypocritical for me to expect players to just know which was appropriate, which is why I was hoping there was some linguistic rule I could use to indicate whether or not two paragraphs / sentences are connected or not.



The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn deceptions into reality; it can change other illusion spells into real objects, shift a being's identity to match a disguise or an assumed role, or otherwise bring fantasies to life.

Cataract can mimic any other spell, regardless of school or casting value, so long as it has a suitable facsimile to build from.


So, this spell is intended to work a bit like limited wish or shadow conjuration / evocation from D&D, or to replicate the old horror comic trop where someone's disguise became real. The first bit was meant to describe what the spell does, the second line was meant to describe how it does it. So, for example, it could turn a pile of plastic coins into real gold by replicating the midas' touch spell or turn someone wearing a cat costume into a real cat by duplicating metamorphosis.

However, the reader read it as two separate abilities: 1: It can make illusions real with no limitations. 2: It can duplicate any other spell in the game, which is of course turns an already powerful spell into something completely broken.


Then the second spell:

This extremely powerful spell rewrites the subject's history, allowing them to make a different choice in their past. A character could, for example, change their mind about their career or their spouse, or undo a single terrible mistake. This can even give someone back their innocence; restoring virginity, taking back a criminal history, or breaking an addiction before it started.

While this spell has the potential to alter someone's personal timeline, it lacks the power to change the world. The experiences of people who personally interacted with the subject will be altered accordingly, but as the changes ripple outward from the subject their effects become less noticeable. Any major impact that the subject would have had on history will instead have come about in a different manner, likely by the hand of a different individual who lacked any such regrets.

The new timeline might not have turned out precisely how the chronomancer or their subject anticipated and the limits of this spell, as well as its consequences, are to be negotiated between the chronomancer and the Gamekeeper.

Each casting of this spell can add or remove a single trait of any type. This trait must have been one which the character had the opportunity to gain or lose over the course of their lifetime but did not take. This is one of the few ways that a wizard can alter a character's resource traits. Note that if a character gains the poor flaw or loses the wealthy merit their current finances should be recalculated retroactively.


This is a powerful chronomancer spell that changes one event in the past, essentially an "it's a wonderful life" spell.

My intention was that the storyline elements are to be negotiating between the player and the GM, while the ability to swap out a trait was the "mechanical" effect of the spell. However, the reader took the bit about GM negotiations and applied it to the next paragraph about trait swapping, and thus declared the entire spell was "optional" and not appropriate for a forum discussion.*




And like, I could absolutely decide that it was my bad and the spells are unclear and rewrite them so these specific issues don't come up in the future. Or I could dismiss the reader's opinions as being unreasonable and bad-faith and ignore them, but that doesn't really help the problem for the book as a whole (and, honestly, not just my book but reading and playing a lot of other games whose rules have the same issues) so it would be really nice if there was some concrete guideline on how and when to connect or disconnect separate lines in the same description.



*Honestly, the rules of forum discussion and TO don't really make sense to me, but that's a discussion for another thread.


I'm going to second a comment earlier about trying out some technical writing as a test of methodology.

Here's my broad recomendations:

Fluff is fine to a point, but any term that is used should have a firm and well established definition in the games mechanical rules (ie: crunchy bits). If you say "flash", you'd better have defined what it means when a spell has "flash" in its description somewhere in the game rules. If you say "positive energy", you'd better have both "energy" and "positive" (as a type of energy) defined somewhere in your rules. This is no different than also needing rules for what a "1d8" is, or what "hps" are. Heck. If you use the term "heal", you'd better have defined what that means as well. Especially if you have different types of damage which may require different effects (e.g.: regular damage requires healing, acid damage requires regeneration, poison damage requires cure/treat poison, disease damage requires cure/treat disease, etc).

You may still be descriptive within those bounds, but IME, even if you are trying to not be crunchy, your players will just interpret it in some crunchy way anyway, and now you have endless arguments about different secondary effects of doing varioius things in the game you are running. I suppose you could be intentionally going for "interpret this however you want", but again, that really relies on the GM and players being in agreement on those interpretations.

Lack of clear definitions for things may at first make the game appear more flexible, but it'll more likely result in more arguments. Worse, the GM will almost certainly interpret the exact same language in different ways at different times and under different circumstances. Heck. I've done this myself. It always seems reasonable at the time, but when you look back you realize "well crap, I just ruled myself into a big ol circle there, didn't I?".

At the very least, even if the core rules don't define these things, it's a good idea as a GM to come up with some standard meanings/intepretations. And then make them clear to your players. And having said all of this, certainly some tables will be more accepting of flexibility than others. It's always the first rule of GMing to know your table. I've had some folks who are perfectly fine with just kinda winging this stuff, and others where they will immediately say "wait! Back in <date> when we were <doing whatever> you said <something else entirely>, so which is it?".

Have you ever actually see a rulebook do that?

I sure can't think of any.

This seems to be an absurd over statement imo.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going to second a comment earlier about trying out some technical writing as a test of methodology.

Here's my broad recomendations:

Fluff is fine to a point, but any term that is used should have a firm and well established definition in the games mechanical rules (ie: crunchy bits). If you say "flash", you'd better have defined what it means when a spell has "flash" in its description somewhere in the game rules. If you say "positive energy", you'd better have both "energy" and "positive" (as a type of energy) defined somewhere in your rules. This is no different than also needing rules for what a "1d8" is, or what "hps" are. Heck. If you use the term "heal", you'd better have defined what that means as well. Especially if you have different types of damage which may require different effects (e.g.: regular damage requires healing, acid damage requires regeneration, poison damage requires cure/treat poison, disease damage requires cure/treat disease, etc).

You may still be descriptive within those bounds, but IME, even if you are trying to not be crunchy, your players will just interpret it in some crunchy way anyway, and now you have endless arguments about different secondary effects of doing varioius things in the game you are running. I suppose you could be intentionally going for "interpret this however you want", but again, that really relies on the GM and players being in agreement on those interpretations.

Lack of clear definitions for things may at first make the game appear more flexible, but it'll more likely result in more arguments. Worse, the GM will almost certainly interpret the exact same language in different ways at different times and under different circumstances. Heck. I've done this myself. It always seems reasonable at the time, but when you look back you realize "well crap, I just ruled myself into a big ol circle there, didn't I?".

At the very least, even if the core rules don't define these things, it's a good idea as a GM to come up with some standard meanings/intepretations. And then make them clear to your players. And having said all of this, certainly some tables will be more accepting of flexibility than others. It's always the first rule of GMing to know your table. I've had some folks who are perfectly fine with just kinda winging this stuff, and others where they will immediately say "wait! Back in <date> when we were <doing whatever> you said <something else entirely>, so which is it?".

My honest opinion is exactly the opposite. Once you set the expectation that the rules are intended to be interpreted as computer code (every term defined and used only in the same way every time), two things happen.
1. First, it becomes monstrously annoying to read and even worse to write. Because you have to continually refer to the glossary (and heaven help you if the glossary isn't kept 100% up to date) because words don't mean what you expect them to mean based on context. And systems become even more tightly self-coupled, which means fragile. And fragile is bad.
2. You inculcate an attitude of legalistic loophole-hunting among the players. And once that happens, no amount of technical writing can save you. People will find loopholes. Motivated reasoning is a big and real thing, and words can't stop that.

I take a very loose approach to rule text and have never had arguments at the table about them. I've had conversations, but they're the whole table deciding "ok, here are the interpretations, which one do we, collectively, like best" or they're "ok DM, how do you want to play this" and then the DM makes a call and everyone goes along.

Honestly, the idea that absolute consistency (either inter-temporally or inter-table) can or even should be maintained is baffling to me. Things that are the same should be the same. But most things aren't. And won't be. You rarely, if ever, get into the exact same situation later on. Circumstances and details matter. And people learn that since we decided X, X didn't work the way we wanted it to, so let's try Y now.

And if the GM and the players aren't aligned on interpretations...no amount of rules can help you. Because rules can't enforce themselves. They're just printed words. Words make really crappy weapons and shields.

[icefractal]

So, what really got me thinking of it were two spell descriptions in my last thread. The argument got rather heated, and I would prefer not to rehash it here, but basically they had multiple paragraphs and in one a connection was drawn when it was intended, and in the other a connection was ignored when it was intended. And it feels kind of hypocritical for me to expect players to just know which was appropriate, which is why I was hoping there was some linguistic rule I could use to indicate whether or not two paragraphs / sentences are connected or not.
Cataract, I read the way you intended, but only because I'm used to a lot of D&D spells doing the same thing - having an initial description that's an exaggeration, followed by what it really does. You can't just say "well, that's how it's mechanically represented", because this isn't an abstraction issue, it's a power-level issue. There's no reason that (in the mechanics of your game), Cataract couldn't turn people who are disguised as gods into real gods - it's mechanically possible. And also out of line for a spell to do, so I'm not saying you're wrong not to allow it. But then don't say that it can do it, even if you clarify "but not really" in the next paragraph.

How phrase it instead? I'd either hedge the language in the first part - which I'm not sure how to do without sounding awkward - or bring the actual effect in earlier. Maybe something like:

The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn illusions and other deceptions into reality - it can mimic any other spell, regardless of school or casting value, so long as it has a suitable facsimile to build from. This can be used to change other illusion spells into real objects, shift a being's identity to match a disguise or an assumed role, or otherwise bring fantasies to life.

Regrets Like New Fallen Snow, I didn't read it at all the way you did. It seemed like it could make essentially any change to one's personal timeline, with the limit of not changing the world significantly. There's nothing to indicate that would be limited to a single trait - in fact "change their mind about their career" directly implies the equivalent of changing class entirely, which would be a lot more difference than one trait. Even in terms of just changing negative traits, a single decision "agree to be the getaway driver" can lead to multiple traits. And for that matter, what if the thing they regret is "trusting the baron last week, which is why we're in prison now"? That's more a change in situation than a change in traits.

So when I got to the last paragraph, it was a bit of whiplash. I read it as "if you're changing traits, you only change one per casting" and/or "yes, this spell is explicitly able to change traits", still subject to the same restrictions as listed above, which would include the GM approval. If that's really all the spell can do, then the first several paragraphs need to promise less.


*Honestly, the rules of forum discussion and TO don't really make sense to me, but that's a discussion for another thread.IME, those kind of rules are pretty inconsistent anyway, I wouldn't worry much about them.

[NichG]

The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn deceptions into reality; it can change other illusion spells into real objects, shift a being's identity to match a disguise or an assumed role, or otherwise bring fantasies to life.

Cataract can mimic any other spell, regardless of school or casting value, so long as it has a suitable facsimile to build from.



Change this text to:


The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn deceptions into reality; it can change other illusion spells into real objects, shift a being's identity to match a disguise or an assumed role, or otherwise bring fantasies to life.

The power of Cataract is limited to that which could have been achieved by any other single spell, regardless of school or casting value. Furthermore, there must be a suitable facsimile of the effect to build from.


That doesn't change the degree to which you're using generalizations, metaphors, etc. But it does make your intent more clear. Treat it no differently than someone finding an infinite loop or some unintended interaction.

That's the thing - you can write however you want, but if your goal is to communicate clearly then whether you succeed or fail is a natural consequence of how you choose to write and who is reading it. The issue with writing a certain way isn't that it's a priori 'not allowed to do so in rules text', but just that you might end up failing to communicate successfully. You might also fail to communicate successfully if you write dry text like a lawyer or academic. Communication is the point, not following a fixed format of how to write rules.

Also as this is communication and you are the rules author, you are always automatically correct when it comes to how the game system should be. So you don't have to convince someone to interpret your text the way you think they should or argue that your interpretation is the rules legal one. But at the same time, the fact that they misinterpreted your intent is also something that you can't argue away - they're automatically correct about how they happened to read it. All you can do is decide whether you think that makes it likely someone else would make the same error, and therefore whether or not you want to change your text.




This extremely powerful spell rewrites the subject's history, allowing them to make a different choice in their past. A character could, for example, change their mind about their career or their spouse, or undo a single terrible mistake. This can even give someone back their innocence; restoring virginity, taking back a criminal history, or breaking an addiction before it started.

While this spell has the potential to alter someone's personal timeline, it lacks the power to change the world. The experiences of people who personally interacted with the subject will be altered accordingly, but as the changes ripple outward from the subject their effects become less noticeable. Any major impact that the subject would have had on history will instead have come about in a different manner, likely by the hand of a different individual who lacked any such regrets.

The new timeline might not have turned out precisely how the chronomancer or their subject anticipated and the limits of this spell, as well as its consequences, are to be negotiated between the chronomancer and the Gamekeeper.

Each casting of this spell can add or remove a single trait of any type. This trait must have been one which the character had the opportunity to gain or lose over the course of their lifetime but did not take. This is one of the few ways that a wizard can alter a character's resource traits. Note that if a character gains the poor flaw or loses the wealthy merit their current finances should be recalculated retroactively.



This case on the other hand is more like forum TO posturing culture, and IMO you should just ignore it. The etiquette of TO discussion isn't going to be relevant to how anyone actually plays the game, and trying to say 'the etiquette of TO applies to all forum discussion' is just a power move trying to score points against you on the internet, not anything real that needs to be listened to.

You *could* change the text slightly to say: "For example, each casting of this spell can add or remove a single trait of any type." to indicate more clearly that the add/remove trait function is a special case of the broader 'alter the entire flow of time' thing. To me that reads more clearly that this isn't like 'the only thing the spell is allowed to do mechanically is to add/remove a trait.' It's not that you have to change the text, but for people who read anything non-mechanical as 'just fluff', this would help reinforce that things like 'curing an addiction' or, say, restoring a lost limb are also mechanical things the spell can do.

Note that for this spell, the main ambiguity is going to be the whole weakening of effects not directly impacting the caster bit. If you save someone's life that would have died, by the wording of the spell I would expect them to die soon after from some other cause. But what if you used this to kill someone who had otherwise lived (say, changing the way you voted in a jury trial about their execution)? You can of course leave this ambiguity in place - its fine to say 'well you don't know, you'd have to try and see' - but you shouldn't be surprised when players pick at it either.

[gbaji]

You *could* change the text slightly to say: "For example, each casting of this spell can add or remove a single trait of any type." to indicate more clearly that the add/remove trait function is a special case of the broader 'alter the entire flow of time' thing. To me that reads more clearly that this isn't like 'the only thing the spell is allowed to do mechanically is to add/remove a trait.' It's not that you have to change the text, but for people who read anything non-mechanical as 'just fluff', this would help reinforce that things like 'curing an addiction' or, say, restoring a lost limb are also mechanical things the spell can do.

Wait. Now I'm confused. So the fluff text at the top is suposed to be inteprted as one set of things you can do (but which are negotiable) and the mechanical description at the bottom is just one narrower example? That's not at all how I interprted it either. I assumed that the "change a trait" was the mechanics, and the GM and player negotiate on how that change of trait afffects the historical issues in the players past/timeline.

But yeah. My read of it is that all you can do with it is change one trait. The rest is just describing the timeline ramifications of doing that. But now I'm totally confused.


I also get that I got some criticism for saying everything should be defined. That's just my preference. But here's the thing. If you want to include a fluff description then be consistent with it. The two examples provided had one in which the fluff clearly states an ability "can make an illusion real", but is not supposed to be taken as an actual effect of the power. Only the mechanical stuff in the last paragraph is supposed to be intepreted as "how the spell works". But in the second example, the fluff is describing one thing you can do with the spell, and how that's managed, and the final paragraph is describing yet another (but with a different management methodology).

That's terribly inconsistent. Fluff or don't fluff. Fine. But pick one and stick with it. Either everything at the top is purely desriptive and not to be taken as a mechanical description of the spell effects, or everything is a mechanical description of the spell (and you should expect anyone to interpret it as such). Going back and forth seems like a terrible way to do things.

Maybe pick something in the middle? Have actual consistent headings inside the spell description. Like you might have some math stuff (cost, range, rate, whatever), then a heading "description", with your fluff. Then "spell effects:" with the actual mechanical effects of the spell. That way no one can possibly be confused about which is which. By just streaming a series of paragraphs together, the readers can't know where the fluff ends and the mechanics of the spell begin.

[Talakeal]

That's terribly inconsistent. Fluff or don't fluff. Fine. But pick one and stick with it. Either everything at the top is purely descriptive and not to be taken as a mechanical description of the spell effects, or everything is a mechanical description of the spell (and you should expect anyone to interpret it as such). Going back and forth seems like a terrible way to do things.

Everything is a description of the spell's effects.

The issue isn't really about "fluff" vs. "crunch" its about separating where one idea ends and about whether one thing connects to the preceeding section or is a wholly separate mechanic.

The first part is what it does (turns an illusion real) the second part is how it does it (targeting a facsimile and then replicating the effects of any other spell).

It's no different than:

"Guns kill people. They do this by launching a small projectile after the trigger is pulled." Or "Firemen save lives. They do this by carrying people out of burning buildings." or "Birds fly. They do this by flapping their wings and creating lift."



Maybe pick something in the middle? Have actual consistent headings inside the spell description. Like you might have some math stuff (cost, range, rate, whatever), then a heading "description", with your fluff. Then "spell effects:" with the actual mechanical effects of the spell. That way no one can possibly be confused about which is which. By just streaming a series of paragraphs together, the readers can't know where the fluff ends and the mechanics of the spell begin.

The problem with that is

1: Not all spells have any "fluff"
2: Not all spells have any "mechanics"
and (this big one) 3: People will then get the impression that the description is irrelevant and can be ignored or changed or can't have any mechanical effects.


For example, color. Color is a classic "descriptive" element, but it is absolutely possible to have color matter mechanically, for example a circle of protection that stops things of a certain color from passing through or an alarm spell that goes off when something of a particular color approaches, or a baneful weapon that is strong against people with certain hair, skin, or eye colors.

But that's just an example, I can't imagine any sort of descriptive element that couldn't have mechanical implications under the right circumstances in a simulationist RPG.


As an example, in the Lord of the Rings game they actually do this, but it still creates a lot of confusion, honestly more than not having it imo.

For example:

Flame Burst:
Description: The caster summons forth a jet of searing flame which jumps from their outstretched palm in an attempt to slay their foe.
Mechanics: This power targets one enemy model within range. The target immediately suffers a strength 6 hit.

and then:

Flame of Udun:
Description: The balrog is wreathed in flames and able to manifest weapons of sorcerous fire.
Mechanics: The balrog is immune to any fire-based attacks or special rules such as a dragon's fire or set ablaze.


So is the balrog immune to flame burst? The description would seem to clearly indicate yes. The mechanics seem to clearly indicate no. What is the intent? Probably yes? But who can say? Someone is going to feel bad either way.


This case on the other hand is more like forum TO posturing culture, and IMO you should just ignore it. The etiquette of TO discussion isn't going to be relevant to how anyone actually plays the game, and trying to say 'the etiquette of TO applies to all forum discussion' is just a power move trying to score points against you on the internet, not anything real that needs to be listened to.

Yeah, going back over it that conversation was a heck of a lot more hostile than I realized at the time and I should probably ignore most of it.

[Telok]

The first part is what it does (turns an illusion real) the second part is how it does it (targeting a facsimile and then replicating the effects of any other spell).

It's no different than:

"Guns kill people. They do this by launching a small projectile after the trigger is pulled." Or "Firemen save lives. They do this by carrying people out of burning buildings." or "Birds fly. They do this by flapping their wings and creating lift."

Hmm. Comparing....

Cataract


The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn deceptions into reality; it can change other illusion spells into real objects, shift a being's identity to match a disguise or an assumed role, or otherwise bring fantasies to life.

Cataract can mimic any other spell, regardless of school or casting value, so long as it has a suitable facsimile to build from.


So the Cataract spell lacks a "it does this by" phrase like the examples have. Maybe just using more connecting or conditioning phrases? Perhaps change "facsimile" to "illusionary facsimile"?

The other thing I noticed is this, like several other things, mention collaboration between the GM and the player. Maybe choose an icon of some sort to put in front of the spell name or in the tags that indicates this is one of a set of things the player has to talk over with the GM before they try to use it.

[gbaji]

Cataract
The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn deceptions into reality; it can change other illusion spells into real objects, shift a being's identity to match a disguise or an assumed role, or otherwise bring fantasies to life.

Cataract can mimic any other spell, regardless of school or casting value, so long as it has a suitable facsimile to build from.

Is there another spell, in some other school, that turns illusions into real objects? Or another spell that turns a person into their disquise?

If not, then the second part is *not* a "here's how it does this" follow on to the first part. They are two completely different things.

I get where you are going with the description. The illusionist creates an illusion of an existing spell effect, creating the effect. But from a semantic point of view, this is not at all "what the spell does" and "how it does it". The second part is the entirety of "what the spell does" (it allows the caster to duplicate any other spell). Period. "how it does it" is "You cast the Cataract spell" (that's the mechanics involved, right?).

I would completely change the first part to something like this:


Cataract
The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Via use of this spell, the illusionist can create a false version of any other spell that is indistiguishable from the real thing

Cataract can mimic any other spell, regardless of school or casting value, so long as it has a suitable facsimile to build from.

I just think that going off about making illusions into real objects, and people becoming their disguises, and bringing fantasies to life, while lovely language, leads one away from the really significant restriction of "as long as the same effect can be caused by some other spell that exists in the game".



However, the reader read it as two separate abilities: 1: It can make illusions real with no limitations.

Except that's literally what the first setence says the spell does: "changes other illusions into real objects". It's a pretty reasonable read of that description that if I create an illusion of something, I can then cast Cataract and make that illusion "real". The only suggested restriction here is that it has to be a "real object", maybe.

And yes. I get that this is fluff description. Great. I can accept that. But, like I said above, here's where the problem lies:



Regrets Like New Fallen Snow
This extremely powerful spell rewrites the subject's history, allowing them to make a different choice in their past. A character could, for example, change their mind about their career or their spouse, or undo a single terrible mistake. This can even give someone back their innocence; restoring virginity, taking back a criminal history, or breaking an addiction before it started.

While this spell has the potential to alter someone's personal timeline, it lacks the power to change the world. The experiences of people who personally interacted with the subject will be altered accordingly, but as the changes ripple outward from the subject their effects become less noticeable. Any major impact that the subject would have had on history will instead have come about in a different manner, likely by the hand of a different individual who lacked any such regrets.

The new timeline might not have turned out precisely how the chronomancer or their subject anticipated and the limits of this spell, as well as its consequences, are to be negotiated between the chronomancer and the Gamekeeper.

Each casting of this spell can add or remove a single trait of any type. This trait must have been one which the character had the opportunity to gain or lose over the course of their lifetime but did not take. This is one of the few ways that a wizard can alter a character's resource traits. Note that if a character gains the poor flaw or loses the wealthy merit their current finances should be recalculated retroactively.


If I'm to take the example from the first spell (and your insisted correct interpretation), then I should assume that the first part of this spell is also "fluff description" as well. So the only thing the spell actually does is in the last paragraph: "The spell can add or remove a single trait of any type".

If that's true, then we're great. Consistency maintained. But if the second spell does allow the caster to change past events and choices beyond just changing traits, then you have a problem with the structure of your spell descriptions. Because I have no innate way to know that the description at the top of the first spell is restricted to just those things that match the statement in the final paragraph, but in the second spell it is not (in this case, you are describing two separate effects). How am I to know this?

Unless that's not the interpretation. You didn't actually clarify what I was asking about, so let me make it even more clear:

In the spell "Regrets Like New Fallen Snow", can the caster only change their traits, or can they change other historical choices?

[Talakeal]

Is there another spell, in some other school, that turns illusions into real objects? Or another spell that turns a person into their disquise?

If not, then the second part is *not* a "here's how it does this" follow on to the first part. They are two completely different things.

I get where you are going with the description. The illusionist creates an illusion of an existing spell effect, creating the effect. But from a semantic point of view, this is not at all "what the spell does" and "how it does it". The second part is the entirety of "what the spell does" (it allows the caster to duplicate any other spell). Period. "how it does it" is "You cast the Cataract spell" (that's the mechanics involved, right?).

I would completely change the first part to something like this:



I just think that going off about making illusions into real objects, and people becoming their disguises, and bringing fantasies to life, while lovely language, leads one away from the really significant restriction of "as long as the same effect can be caused by some other spell that exists in the game".




Except that's literally what the first sentence says the spell does: "changes other illusions into real objects". It's a pretty reasonable read of that description that if I create an illusion of something, I can then cast Cataract and make that illusion "real". The only suggested restriction here is that it has to be a "real object", maybe.

And yes. I get that this is fluff description. Great. I can accept that. But, like I said above, here's where the problem lies:




If I'm to take the example from the first spell (and your insisted correct interpretation), then I should assume that the first part of this spell is also "fluff description" as well. So the only thing the spell actually does is in the last paragraph: "The spell can add or remove a single trait of any type".

If that's true, then we're great. Consistency maintained. But if the second spell does allow the caster to change past events and choices beyond just changing traits, then you have a problem with the structure of your spell descriptions. Because I have no innate way to know that the description at the top of the first spell is restricted to just those things that match the statement in the final paragraph, but in the second spell it is not (in this case, you are describing two separate effects). How am I to know this?

Unless that's not the interpretation. You didn't actually clarify what I was asking about, so let me make it even more clear:

In the spell "Regrets Like New Fallen Snow", can the caster only change their traits, or can they change other historical choices?



This post is really hard to format with all the nested quotes, so try and bear with me hear if I don't go line by line.

Your suggested change to Cataract is, IMO, far more confusing, as it doesn't actually do anything to define "facsimile" or even give any guidance to what it might mean. The limit of cataract is that you need an illusion to build on, not that the other spells don't exist.


Neither spell has "fluff". They have a description of what the spell does. Cataract turns an illusion real, period. That is what the spell does, nothing more, nothing less. It then goes on to say that the mechanics of doing so will follow another spell.

Regrets like new fallen snow changes one decision made in the characters history and readjusts their personal timeline accordingly. That is what does. It then goes on to say that one of the potential outcomes of this is changing a character's traits, and then describes how to do it.



As for having a problem with how I write my spells, that is exactly my point. I fully agree that there should be some clear way to tell if ideas are written. But I don't think this is a problem unique to my spells; if I open up any of the game books on my shelf I can find the same thing.

E.g. I just opened up the D&D players handbook to a random page and the first power I saw was "animate objects" whose first sentence reads only "Objects come to life at your command." The spell then goes on to describe rules for creating and commanding animated objects, but if read in the same style as Cataract, I could easily insist that the spell can resurrect dead characters without the need for diamonds or clerics by causing corpses to spring to life at my command.



The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn deceptions into reality; it can change other illusion spells into real objects, shift a being's identity to match a disguise or an assumed role, or otherwise bring fantasies to life.

The power of Cataract is limited to that which could have been achieved by any other single spell, regardless of school or casting value. Furthermore, there must be a suitable facsimile of the effect to build from.



So this looks good, but doesn't actually fix the exploit. The exploit was that it replicated the effects of the spell, but without going through any of the costs or processes associated with casting said spell.

To use the resurrection analogy above; the problem is not that cataract can raise the dead, its that it can do it without diamonds or level loss / stat penalty.

[Jakinbandw]

Lately, I've been contemplating the purpose of fluff in my writing. I've come to the realization that it's primarily about conveying intent to the players. It serves as a way of saying, "This is what this ability is meant to be," followed by an explanation of how the mechanics handle that ability. From a balance standpoint, fluff may not hold much significance, since the same mechanic can effectively handle various types of fluff. However, looking at it from a different perspective, the fluff becomes crucial as it represents the fictional aspect we aim to simulate through mechanics. Without the fluff, the ability itself loses its essence. Mechanics are not created out of nothing; they exist solely to enable the simulation of the fluff, always playing a secondary role and requiring the context of the designer's intentions. In a crunchy game, both elements are essential: fluff to convey the vision and mechanics to accurately represent that vision.

[Kane0]

Some newer systems actually put the first sentence in italics, which makes the initial reading clearer, but it makes the issues about how the rules interact with other things even worse.

Citation needed.

In my experience the italics to dilineate between what is mutable fluff and what is game mechanic is quite a good practice.

If what you put in the fluff has a consistent effect on gameplay, it isnt fluff. Well unless youre playing really narrative-heavy or any other circumstance where DM takes priority over dev.

[Talakeal]

Citation needed.

In my experience the italics to dilineate between what is mutable fluff and what is game mechanic is quite a good practice.

If what you put in the fluff has a consistent effect on gameplay, it isnt fluff. Well unless youre playing really narrative-heavy or any other circumstance where DM takes priority over dev.

Citation that some games do this or an example of it making things worse?


I already posted an example:


As an example, in the Lord of the Rings game they actually do this, but it still creates a lot of confusion, honestly more than not having it imo.

For example:

Flame Burst:
Description: The caster summons forth a jet of searing flame which jumps from their outstretched palm in an attempt to slay their foe.
Mechanics: This power targets one enemy model within range. The target immediately suffers a strength 6 hit.

and then:

Flame of Udun:
Description: The balrog is wreathed in flames and able to manifest weapons of sorcerous fire.
Mechanics: The balrog is immune to any fire-based attacks or special rules such as a dragon's fire or set ablaze.


So is the balrog immune to flame burst? The description would seem to clearly indicate yes. The mechanics seem to clearly indicate no. What is the intent? Probably yes? But who can say? Someone is going to feel bad either way.

The big issue is future proofing. You see this a lot in Magic, where there will be older cards that clearly belong to a creature type, but don't have the tag because the tag hadn't been relevant yet.

Like, to go back to lord of the rings, most species have a key word, but "horse" isn't one of them, despite there being many horses in the game. Were they to add a character one day who say, caused terror to all horses or received +1 to wound horses, it wouldn't apply to any of the dozens of horse models already in existence until errata is introduced.

This is even worse in an RPG where characters can create custom magic items and spell effects that trigger off of "cosmetic" details.

[Segev]

Yeah, for cataract, I would add, "It does these things by..." to the part that's the actual mechanics. You want the "fluff" there to be, the way it is in 5e, actually part of the rules; it really is what the spell does. But you want to specify that the mechanism is limited to mimicking other spells while using a pre-existing illusion to create the illusion of the effect, first.

This is a little awkward in most systems I know of, by the by, since the illusion would take up your action to create/manipulate, and thus you can't imitate combat spells very well. But it should work fine for longer-term effects.

That said, you may want to couch the earlier part in some qualifying words, suggesting that only some things can be made real, but not others. "If other magic can do it, then this spell can turn an illusion of it to reality," or something like that.


The other one, I would've read it as allowing you to pick one trait to change, but then you have to discuss with the DM what the actual impact of doing so is. So you can definitely make it so that Bob married Susan, rather than remaining a bachelor all his life, but it's up to the DM - in discussion with you, but ultimately his choice - whether they stayed married, got divorced, either of them died early, whether they had kids, how many kids of what sex, when they had kids and how old those kids are now, whether marrying Susan helped him become more successful (perhaps due to greater motivation) or caused Bob to be poverty-stricken his whole life due to the extra mouths to feed, etc. etc. etc.

[NichG]

.
So this looks good, but doesn't actually fix the exploit. The exploit was that it replicated the effects of the spell, but without going through any of the costs or processes associated with casting said spell.

To use the resurrection analogy above; the problem is not that cataract can raise the dead, its that it can do it without diamonds or level loss / stat penalty.

Okay so this is just entirely missing from the original by my reading (perhaps you're expecting too much of the word 'mimic'). So you just need to add a sentence 'any costs or processes associated with the corresponding spell being emulated are added to the casting of Cataract'

Honestly though, this starts to get sort of clunky at the fictional level, because in some sense it says that someone casting Cataract to effect a resurrection will somehow know what a resurrection would require, even if they don't actually know how to cast resurrection. The implication is just kind of weird if you don't spell things out.

It would be less weird if sacrifice of components/etc had some universally fungible nature, so maybe you don't use diamonds but you provide the same equivalent 'charge' in a form relevant to Cataract.

[Kane0]

Citation that some games do this or an example of it making things worse?

I already posted an example:

As an example, in the Lord of the Rings game they actually do this, but it still creates a lot of confusion, honestly more than not having it imo.

For example:

Flame Burst:
Description: The caster summons forth a jet of searing flame which jumps from their outstretched palm in an attempt to slay their foe.
Mechanics: This power targets one enemy model within range. The target immediately suffers a strength 6 hit.

and then:

Flame of Udun:
Description: The balrog is wreathed in flames and able to manifest weapons of sorcerous fire.
Mechanics: The balrog is immune to any fire-based attacks or special rules such as a dragon's fire or set ablaze.

So is the balrog immune to flame burst? The description would seem to clearly indicate yes. The mechanics seem to clearly indicate no. What is the intent? Probably yes? But who can say? Someone is going to feel bad either way.

The big issue is future proofing. You see this a lot in Magic, where there will be older cards that clearly belong to a creature type, but don't have the tag because the tag hadn't been relevant yet.

Like, to go back to lord of the rings, most species have a key word, but "horse" isn't one of them, despite there being many horses in the game. Were they to add a character one day who say, caused terror to all horses or received +1 to wound horses, it wouldn't apply to any of the dozens of horse models already in existence until errata is introduced.

This is even worse in an RPG where characters can create custom magic items and spell effects that trigger off of "cosmetic" details.

Going by the example (I have no experience in the system), it appears to be a failing on the mechanics end, not the fluff. The attack is fire; Balrogs are immune to fire; but the mechanics do not distinguish 'fire' as a variety of damage. There is a hidden or unwritten mechanic that the fluff makes apparent by its omission elsewhere.

That happened in Pokemon too, with new types and pre-evolutions being added in later generations leading to some wonkiness as time has progressed. In D&D (at least here) we call it the air-breathing mermaid. You said it yourself, that's what errata is for. If you introduce a new mechanic it's your job to make sure it's implemented properly, and that includes back-porting into applicable portions of the game that already exist. 3rd ed D&D had ability and spell tags, 5e does not. If they were to be implemented in a future instalment you would expect that any other preceding but still current material be adjusted to facilitate.

[Satinavian]

"Cure light wounds channels a flash of positive energy which wipes away the subject's injuries. The subject heals 1d8 points of damage."Here i would not read the first sentence as fluff an the second as crunch. Nor does the first sentence talks about "all injuries". Instead, in a system where injuries are modeled as damage, the second sentence quantifies the amount. However, the "flash" and the "positive energy" in the first sentence are crunch. You can't hide it easily in darkness, you can use it do (badly) replace a light source, positive energy is a thing in the game that does interact with many other elements. It is a rule keyword. None of this is fluff, regardless the overly poetic formulation.


And then there is the broader question of what is fluff?

Is it setting details?
Is it cosmetic descriptions?
Is it something else?
Fluff does not have any mechanical impact and is purely for immersion. It is there to bridge the abstract rules and everyone's imagination.


Now this easy to distinguish for a boardgame as those usually operate on a whitelist regarding game actions. But for RPGs that is difficult. What kind of stuff is never mechanically relevant ?

A good idea for writing pure fluff is qualifiers : often, rarely, usually, commonly thought as etc. That makes it pretty clear it can't be invoked/treated as rule.

Another good idea is to avoid mechanical key words when writing fluff.




And likewise, many people assume it is safe to freely ignore or change what they consider fluff. But is that ok? That is a very different question and i would say "no". Just because something is fluff does not mean it is arbitrary or irrelevant or can be changed at a whim. Fluff has an important function in the game. It should not surprise that in a game about shared imagination and immersion an element that is all about shared imagination and immersion should be handled with proper care.



And of course, then we get to text that isn't really fluff or crunch, and isn't technically true either, but it still a normal part of speech.

For example:
Metaphors "Drizz't is a killing machine."
Generalizations "Dwarves are craftsmen who live in the mountains."
Poetic exaggerations "Nobody can deny that Smaug is the most terrifying beast who ever lived."
Figures of speech "That old wizard sure has a bee in his bonnet!"
Homonyms "If you play baseball with the vampires, make sure you don't get hit by a bat!"
Unclear wording "That old druid sure is strong as a bear."
In character deception "The village blacksmith is a kindly old elf woman." when in truth she is a wicked shapeshifting devil only pretending to be a kindly old elf.Aside from possibly generalizations and homonyms none of this has any place in a rulebook. And the first would benefit from qualifiers and the last are better avoided if there is any chance of misunderstanding. But yes, people writing rules in English have it tough. There are other, way more precise languages out there.



Now to this Cataract thing.




The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn deceptions into reality; it can change other illusion spells into real objects, shift a being's identity to match a disguise or an assumed role, or otherwise bring fantasies to life.

Cataract can mimic any other spell, regardless of school or casting value, so long as it has a suitable facsimile to build from.


So, this spell is intended to work a bit like limited wish or shadow conjuration / evocation from D&D, or to replicate the old horror comic trop where someone's disguise became real. The first bit was meant to describe what the spell does, the second line was meant to describe how it does it. So, for example, it could turn a pile of plastic coins into real gold by replicating the midas' touch spell or turn someone wearing a cat costume into a real cat by duplicating metamorphosis.


The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn deceptions into reality - Introduction. Clarfied later.

it can change other illusion spells into real objects, shift a being's identity to match a disguise or an assumed role, or otherwise bring fantasies to life. - That is three different, distinct uses here. Which means the second part works on nonmagical disguises as well, and with "assumed roll" even without a proper disguise at all as long as you portray someone. The last part about bringing fantasies to life is even more open ended. As written, it basically allows you to make everything you can imagine. Which is obviously broken in countless ways but i have seen similar illusion rules that really meant it way too often, i would on a normal reading assume that really is intentional. The word "otherwise" makes it very clear again that this is different and distinct from the real illusion spell thing.

Cataract can mimic any other spell, regardless of school or casting value, so long as it has a suitable facsimile to build from. - At first glance that looks like a clarification for the "make illusion spells into real object". But wait. No, making illusion spells real and mimic real spells are completely different. This is obviously a fourth use of the spell cataract. It certainly can overlap with the first use in that the illusion spell to be made real counts as the facsimile if at the same time the spell to be mimiced creates an object. But the overlap of those uses are not large. The fourth use allows for facsimiles that are e.g. nonmagical and spells that don't create objects, the first use allows for objects not created by spells.


So yes, the spell as written does not do at all what you intended. It is a mess. Try the following :

The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn deceptions into reality. The Cataract spell allows to mimic any other spell regardless of school as long as a suitable facsimile is present. An illusion of the spell effect to be mimiced counts as suitable facsimile. At the gamekeepers discretion a disguise or counterfeit or something similar might as well.


That seems to be doing what you actually intended. And is even shorter. You could even lose the first two sentences but those seem to be your style.

Now for balancing issues i would add something like

If the casting value or any component of the cost of the spell to be mimiced is greater than for Cataract, the casting value and cost to cast Cataract is increased to match.

Or something similar matching your system. I have not read how spellcasting really works there. Still ridiculously powerful.

[stoutstien]

If you need a simple example of wonky mechanics that occur when rules get in the way of themselves just look at burning hands.

Both the name and description would indicate you need both hands free to cast this spell but the actual letter of the rules could be read to get the point where you don't even need a single free hand via war caster, casting it with an item/scroll, or potentially removing the somatic components.

This gets cleared up 100% if yoy just read it in it totality rather than trying to read it as rules.

[Jakinbandw]

If you need a simple example of wonky mechanics that occur when rules get in the way of themselves just look at burning hands.

Both the name and description would indicate you need both hands free to cast this spell but the actual letter of the rules could be read to get the point where you don't even need a single free hand via war caster, casting it with an item/scroll, or potentially removing the somatic components.

This gets cleared up 100% if yoy just read it in it totality rather than trying to read it as rules.

See this is interesting, as it ignores the fluff behind war caster where it calls out that you are not casting the spells using the standard methods. Burning hands is telling you the standard method for casting the spell, while war caster says you have trained to use it in ways other than the standard method.

So I'm honestly not seeing how this is particularly wonky. The fluff and the mechanics match up exactly as I would expect them to.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This gets cleared up 100% if yoy just read it in it totality rather than trying to read it as rules.

Reading things in the proper context absolutely fixes a majority of the honest problems here. But online discussions are seemingly allergic to context--they want to parse rules (and other peoples' statements!) down to the minimum unit, usually to further whatever point the poster is trying to make. It's not actual bad faith, because a lot of it is done without intention to deceive and just out of a desire to limit the scope. But it is bad argument and bad interpretation. Combine this with the (natural, but wrong) tendency to try to derive general rules from specific rules[1], and it's a recipe for aggressive mutual misunderstanding.

The basic unit of context for a "rules entry" is the entire rules entry, plus whatever general rules apply (including those being overridden by the specific rules entry), plus whatever other specific rules the individual entry says it affects. You need the entire hierarchy in mind at once to parse any of it successfully. Trying to read sentences (or worse, clauses) as independent things is not even wrong--it's gibberish. It's just not a way you can read these things.

Of course, this means that deeply nested hierarchies and tightly-coupled systems (especially with global parameters, which is what you get if you use keywords everywhere) are hard to deal with properly. Deep hierarchies (X overrides Y which overrides Z which overrides...) mean your context stack is deeper. Tight coupling means that an ability at a deep (ie specific) level can make changes which ripple out across the entire system, so you effectively have to keep the entire system in mind with all of its (explosively increasing) interactions.

[1] Specific rules cannot set general rules. Even by exception. Realizing this means that the Air-Breathing Mermaid issue goes away (almost) entirely. Individual specific entries do not help you reason about different specific entries unless they specifically reference those other entries.

[stoutstien]

See this is interesting, as it ignores the fluff behind war caster where it calls out that you are not casting the spells using the standard methods. Burning hands is telling you the standard method for casting the spell, while war caster says you have trained to use it in ways other than the standard method.

So I'm honestly not seeing how this is particularly wonky. The fluff and the mechanics match up exactly as I would expect them to.

I agree.

Warcaster only addresses holding weapons and/or shields in regards to somatic components. The text regarding how one casts burning hands are the somatic portion.


The issue arises when you read either in isolation as 'rules' and you suddenly cast burning hands while hanging from a rope with one hand as long as the other hand has a weapon or shield in it.

[Pex]

For me, fluff = flavor text = not rules. They are descriptive words to inspire imagination and help the player visualize what is happening. It is not a cudgel to enforce an outcome by player or DM to play gotcha. Players should not use it to get away with something they know it doesn't work that way nor by the DM to make something bad happen to a PC or deny an ability the PC is entitled to but the DM finds a threat to his power. It can be used as is or changed to suit the desire of the game. My warforged battlemaster activates a force field. All I'm doing is casting Shield spell. It follows all rules regarding casting a spell and how that interacts with the rules, but I don't say I'm casting Shield. I'm activating a force field. Out of spell slots = out of energy need to recharge. In an anti-magic field = something is jamming my signals.

[gbaji]

Regrets like new fallen snow changes one decision made in the characters history and readjusts their personal timeline accordingly. That is what does. It then goes on to say that one of the potential outcomes of this is changing a character's traits, and then describes how to do it.

Ok. But that's the problem. In the spell Cataract, you are insisting that the second part must be interpreted as a limitation to the first part (you can make things real, but only in ways that duplicate existing spell effects). But in this spell you are saying that the second part is merely an example of how the first part could be used (you can change anything in your past, and modifying traits is just one of the things you could modify).

But there is no way for a reader to guess this from the spell descriptions themselves.

If you intend something to be a restriction, then you use language like "However, the caster may only <spell effect> in ways that <restriction>" (eg: The caster may only make illusions real in ways that duplicate an existing spell effect).

If you intend something to be an example, then you use language like "One way this could be used is to retroactively change the traits a character possesses, but any choice made in the past could be changed, all subject to GM approval".



So this looks good, but doesn't actually fix the exploit. The exploit was that it replicated the effects of the spell, but without going through any of the costs or processes associated with casting said spell.

That's a flaw in the initial description though, since it doesn't say that there either.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thanks everyone, there have been some great replies in this thread.

Unfortunately, opinions are so mixed, the thread as a whole is pretty much a wash, some people I agree with completely, and other people I disagree with completely, so I am not sure which, if any, direction I should try and pull my writitng / reading in. Follow your muse, and since it's a game, Playtest! Playtest! Playtest!
Confining your play test to your dysfunctional table is a losing strategy.

If you want to grasp how many play testers you need, check out Blades in the Dark. They give a nod to all of their play testers.
In small font, the hundreds of play testers are each acknowledged by name in the published book.

FWIW, I don't feel that you wanted anything more than to start an argument: it's the old "pattern of behavior" thing.

What you need to do if you are sincere is to publish a draft, get it into the hands of a few Hundred play testers, and then actively solicit their feedback. That's how you will find out how well your rule set will be received.

I have spent some time of my life creating, updating, and revising:
Flight Training Manuals
Aircraft Operations Manuals
Aircraft Maintenance Manuals

You always send out a draft and find out, via feedback, what the users identify as the "WTF" sections of the proposed manual or revision.

There is NO Easy Button.

[Easy e]

I agree.

You have to get the draft into peoples hands and then get their feedback, and then decide what to do with it. There is no shortcut.

Sorry.

[gbaji]

What you need to do if you are sincere is to publish a draft, get it into the hands of a few Hundred play testers, and then actively solicit their feedback. That's how you will find out how well your rule set will be received.

I have spent some time of my life creating, updating, and revising:
Flight Training Manuals
Aircraft Operations Manuals
Aircraft Maintenance Manuals

You always send out a draft and find out, via feedback, what the users identify as the "WTF" sections of the proposed manual or revision.

There is NO Easy Button.

Yup. And what you should never do is argue with those providing feedback that "this is actually perfectly clear, you're just reading it wrong" or something.

It's incredibly common to write something and think it's perfectly clear (to you). But other people don't have the same brain as you, nor think the sme way, make the same assumptions, or interpret things the same. Ever. Well written instructions should be ones you can hand to 100 different people, and have every single one of them follow them in the exact same way.

Heck. I did this just yesterday. I wrote a very simple procedure doc for installing a new version of some software into a shared filesystem. The guy got to the last step and was like "what does this mean?". From my point of view, it was obvious. But that's not the point. The point is to write the document in a manner that someone else can follow it. What it means to the reader is what matters, not what it means to me. The very fact that he asked what it meant means that I didn't write it correctly. So I added more explicit language and provided exact step by step directions to follow.

For a game that means you hand it to X different GMs to run at X different tables, and every single GM will run the game the exact same way, following the rules. If people are asking "how does this work", then the rules aren't clear enough. Period. No argument. No "you should be able to figure this out on your own". The rules aren't clear. If they were, no one would be asking you for clarification.

And yeah. This means sometimes really really spelling things out, even when you think they should be obvious. Because if there's one thing I've learned over time, it's that what is "obvious" to one person is absolutely not going to be so to someone else. That's not a "fault" on either side. It's just normal human nature.

[Pauly]

Let me add my vote to the feedback is needed pile.

One thing about feedback
- Listen to people when they tell you something is wrong.
- Feel free to ignore their suggestions on how to fix the problem.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Let me add my vote to the feedback is needed pile.

One thing about feedback
- Listen to people when they tell you something is wrong.
- Feel free to ignore their suggestions on how to fix the problem.

Yeah. "Users" are usually pretty good at pointing out problems. But some of those problems really are "them problems" (a user who is using a pitchfork as a soup spoon doesn't need to be catered to) and their "solutions" aren't actually what needs to happen at least a good chunk of the time.

Doesn't mean they're wrong or bad, just...different.

[Talakeal]

The other one, I would've read it as allowing you to pick one trait to change, but then you have to discuss with the DM what the actual impact of doing so is. So you can definitely make it so that Bob married Susan, rather than remaining a bachelor all his life, but it's up to the DM - in discussion with you, but ultimately his choice - whether they stayed married, got divorced, either of them died early, whether they had kids, how many kids of what sex, when they had kids and how old those kids are now, whether marrying Susan helped him become more successful (perhaps due to greater motivation) or caused Bob to be poverty-stricken his whole life due to the extra mouths to feed, etc. etc. etc.

That is my intent, yes.

Although thinking a bit deeper about it, one absolutely could use the spell for narrative / cosmetic details that don't have an associated trait, for example who you chose to marry or what outfit you wore when you had your portrait done.

And of course, I suppose the trait does have to be something that the subject could have acquired by making different decisions, so maybe the GM approval thing being linked to it isn't bad in either case, as while in a forum discussion a GM having the opportunity to act in bad faith is a ding against the game, irl a GM acting in bad faith can do much worse than screw with the operation of a relatively obscure spell.


Okay so this is just entirely missing from the original by my reading (perhaps you're expecting too much of the word 'mimic'). So you just need to add a sentence 'any costs or processes associated with the corresponding spell being emulated are added to the casting of Cataract'

Honestly though, this starts to get sort of clunky at the fictional level, because in some sense it says that someone casting Cataract to effect a resurrection will somehow know what a resurrection would require, even if they don't actually know how to cast resurrection. The implication is just kind of weird if you don't spell things out.

It would be less weird if sacrifice of components/etc had some universally fungible nature, so maybe you don't use diamonds but you provide the same equivalent 'charge' in a form relevant to Cataract.

My system doesn't have components or the like, just mana costs.

IMO if it is replicating a spell, it replicates the spell in its entirety, so if the spell has a clause about requiring additional mana in certain circumstances, then would also be part of the spell's effects.

But yeah, I don't suppose there is any harm in adding an extra sentence to the spell's description to make that clear.


Going by the example (I have no experience in the system), it appears to be a failing on the mechanics end, not the fluff. The attack is fire; Balrogs are immune to fire; but the mechanics do not distinguish 'fire' as a variety of damage. There is a hidden or unwritten mechanic that the fluff makes apparent by its omission elsewhere.

That happened in Pokemon too, with new types and pre-evolutions being added in later generations leading to some wonkiness as time has progressed. In D&D (at least here) we call it the air-breathing mermaid. You said it yourself, that's what errata is for. If you introduce a new mechanic it's your job to make sure it's implemented properly, and that includes back-porting into applicable portions of the game that already exist. 3rd ed D&D had ability and spell tags, 5e does not. If they were to be implemented in a future instalment you would expect that any other preceding but still current material be adjusted to facilitate.

But what do you do if that errata isn't yet available, or the game's authors deem it unnecessary? (The rules I quoted are 4 years old and that hasn't been errated yet).

And I still think this works a lot better in a board game than an RPG, where there are open ended abilities that can easily be based on "fluff" and have crunchy effects, like the aforementioned magic-math that warns you when someone with green skin approaches or a reptile-bane sword.


I also feel like people are really divided about what counts as fluff, and whether or not fluff can be ignored or changed. Heck, just look at some of the more extreme responses in this very thread. I have dealt with players who feel downright cheated if the "fluff" ever inconveniences their character, and people who get really angry about it one way or the other. I feel like trying to have a hard fluff / crunch divide makes these problems worse, not better, unless botht he game designer and the GM come down hard one way or the other.


Ok. But that's the problem. In the spell Cataract, you are insisting that the second part must be interpreted as a limitation to the first part (you can make things real, but only in ways that duplicate existing spell effects). But in this spell you are saying that the second part is merely an example of how the first part could be used (you can change anything in your past, and modifying traits is just one of the things you could modify).

But there is no way for a reader to guess this from the spell descriptions themselves.

If you intend something to be a restriction, then you use language like "However, the caster may only <spell effect> in ways that <restriction>" (eg: The caster may only make illusions real in ways that duplicate an existing spell effect).

If you intend something to be an example, then you use language like "One way this could be used is to retroactively change the traits a character possesses, but any choice made in the past could be changed, all subject to GM approval".


Exactly. Hence the thread.

In most every game I have played, spells and abilities are presented with a somewhat fluffier opening sentence / paragraph, and follow it up with a somewhat crunchier sentence / paragraph, and I have unconsciously adopted this writing style for myself.

I am really curious about why this is, and if there is some grammatical cue that can be used to indicate where something stops being elaboration on the previous idea and instead a wholly new idea.


Follow your muse, and since it's a game, Playtest! Playtest! Playtest!
Confining your play test to your dysfunctional table is a losing strategy.

If you want to grasp how many play testers you need, check out Blades in the Dark. They give a nod to all of their play testers.
In small font, the hundreds of play testers are each acknowledged by name in the published book.

FWIW, I don't feel that you wanted anything more than to start an argument: it's the old "pattern of behavior" thing.

What you need to do if you are sincere is to publish a draft, get it into the hands of a few Hundred play testers, and then actively solicit their feedback. That's how you will find out how well your rule set will be received.

I have spent some time of my life creating, updating, and revising:
Flight Training Manuals
Aircraft Operations Manuals
Aircraft Maintenance Manuals

You always send out a draft and find out, via feedback, what the users identify as the "WTF" sections of the proposed manual or revision.

There is NO Easy Button.

That would be absolutely wonderful. And I sincerely mean that.

Any idea how to actually go about doing that though?

Unless you are an established author with a huge fanbase, I have no idea how you would go about getting hundreds of people to actually playtest your game and provide feedback.

Heck, IMO, most indy games never get hundreds of players period, let alone participating in a playtest.


Yup. And what you should never do is argue with those providing feedback that "this is actually perfectly clear, you're just reading it wrong" or something.

Absolutely.

In my last thread I had people sending me characters to critique, and I was giving honest feedback on the characters; what I felt where their strengths and weaknesses, how I felt that would work in actual play, what ideas were brilliant and which were less so, and which of their tricks I felt would work by RAW / RAI and which wouldn't.

This turned out to be a huge mistake, as people took it personally, and then, afaict, were looking for an opportunity to get "revenge" by criticizing my rule-set like I had criticized their characters.


It's incredibly common to write something and think it's perfectly clear (to you). But other people don't have the same brain as you, nor think the sme way, make the same assumptions, or interpret things the same. Ever. Well written instructions should be ones you can hand to 100 different people, and have every single one of them follow them in the exact same way.

Heck. I did this just yesterday. I wrote a very simple procedure doc for installing a new version of some software into a shared filesystem. The guy got to the last step and was like "what does this mean?". From my point of view, it was obvious. But that's not the point. The point is to write the document in a manner that someone else can follow it. What it means to the reader is what matters, not what it means to me. The very fact that he asked what it meant means that I didn't write it correctly. So I added more explicit language and provided exact step by step directions to follow.

For a game that means you hand it to X different GMs to run at X different tables, and every single GM will run the game the exact same way, following the rules. If people are asking "how does this work", then the rules aren't clear enough. Period. No argument. No "you should be able to figure this out on your own". The rules aren't clear. If they were, no one would be asking you for clarification.

And yeah. This means sometimes really really spelling things out, even when you think they should be obvious. Because if there's one thing I've learned over time, it's that what is "obvious" to one person is absolutely not going to be so to someone else. That's not a "fault" on either side. It's just normal human nature.

Yep.

Although I will say I think that it is absolutely impossible to write something that everyone, or even a significant majority, of the population read the same way.

I have participated and seen way too many arguments with way too many people about rules that seem perfectly clear to both groups yet both groups come away with a different conclusion. This applies to all games, regardless of genre or publisher, as well as technical manuals at work, and most legal codes. My dad is a lawyer and my mom a paralegal, and I have more experience with most about just how vague and open to interpretation the written laws are.

Still salty about how in Lord of the Rings Shelob and the Witch King both have the rule "ignore obstacles" but because of the "fluff" almost everyone puts all sorts of unwritten limitations on Shelob when I play her because of "common sense".


And of course, I have more experience with this than most. I have NVLD, and process words differently than most people. As such, I always try and have someone else other than myself proofread my work. My parents can't comprehend the extra effort I do for this, they hated helping me with my homework when I was in school, and still criticize me for paying other people to edit my work now as an adult, but it's really necessary to see how a neurotypical person processes my words (although its not like there is any sort of consensus amongst neurotypical people either).

Heck, its an almost daily occurrence (both on the forums and irl) where I say something that makes sense to me but other people interpret differently than I meant it, and then when I go to clarify what I meant they get angry and accuse me of "gaslighting" "goalpost shifting" or "manipulating them into getting angry because I want to fight".

[gbaji]

IMO if it is replicating a spell, it replicates the spell in its entirety, so if the spell has a clause about requiring additional mana in certain circumstances, then would also be part of the spell's effects.

But yeah, I don't suppose there is any harm in adding an extra sentence to the spell's description to make that clear.

Yup. You are writing the rules. There is no "In My Opinion" here. It's "these are the rules". Write them down. The moment you say "IMO", you are allowing for someone else to have an opinion as well. Which means you are leaving it up to the GM/player to decide what is involved when duplicating another spell. If you want duplication of a spell to require the same casting costs for that spell, you have to (pardon the pun) spell that out in the rules.



In most every game I have played, spells and abilities are presented with a somewhat fluffier opening sentence / paragraph, and follow it up with a somewhat crunchier sentence / paragraph, and I have unconsciously adopted this writing style for myself.

I am really curious about why this is, and if there is some grammatical cue that can be used to indicate where something stops being elaboration on the previous idea and instead a wholly new idea.

I think that the key to including fluff is to follow some basic rules. The fluff should be "general and vague". Basically information that can't possibly be interpreted as mechanical game rules to follow. The actual description/crunch should be "specific and detailed". Let's imagine you are writing the spell "domination":


"Domination: This spell allow the caster to use the power of their mind to dominate another persons will and force them to do their bidding.

The caster will compare their <whatever> against the targets <defensive whatever> in a <specific die roll result methodology>. If successful, the target must follow any mental orders given to it by the caster. This can include any combat or non-combat actions, but the target will not obey orders that it knows will result in death or automatic injury. <follow up with additional save stuff, ways to break free, etc>"

Note that the fluff sentence at the top does not include any actual game mechanics, nor a description that can be used. "Power of the mind" is not a defined game concept (although things like "will" or "mental fortutude" might, so we should avoid those terms). Dominate is not a defined term either (well, technically we're defining what that means later on in the crunchy bits). "Force them to do their bidding" is also not a defined concept.

The point here is that the fluff is general and vague. It kinda tells us what the spell does, but provides nothing by which we could resolve the spell without further information. But then, having done that we *must* proceed to the specific and detailed. We explain exactly how one overcomes the other one with the "power of their mind" (some sort of opposed check we define). We explain exactly what it means to be "dominated" and "forced to do their bidding". Nothing that is generally stated in the fluff bits is not then detailed in game mechanic terms in the crunchy bits.


Where fluff becomes problematic is when actual game mechanic terms are used, confusing the reader as to whether this is fluff or crunch. It also becomes problematic if you include something in the fluff that isn't directly addressed in detail in the crunch. Don't say "allows the caster to project their mind into the ether", but then not have something later that describes what exactly they are projecting, and what "the ether" is. If you fail to do that, others will interpret the fluff as actual rules, and attempt to find defintitions and mechanisms to adopt the fluff into the rules.

So in the Cataract spell, when you say that you can make illusions become real, we have a problem. I'll assume that "illusions" are a defined game concept (and we can assume "real" is as well). So you've kinda described an in game mechanical effect. You could salvage this by having a specific and detailed description of how illusions can be made real with this spell, but it's missing. You just say that other spells can be duplicated. Well that has nothing to do with making illusions real, so... we have to interpret the "fluff" as "rules for what the spell does". Same deal with "make a disquise real". A disquise is presumably something that exists as a game concept (many games actually have a "disquise" skill, right?). So you're setting yourself up for misinterpretation here. The one that's going to be left as fluff (and mostly was by everyone reading it) was the whole "make your fantasies come true" (can't recall the exact wording now, but whatever). That's clearly not someting that fits into a definable game concept, so it's something most people will ignore as fluff. The only possible interpretation is that it operates like a wish spell (which, if that exists in your game, might be a way this is interpreted, so I don't know).

Point is. Don't do that. Go from general to specific. Everything generally described in the fluff should be specifically detailed in the crunch. Follow that rule and you should eliminate the vast majority of confusion and disagreement.

[Pex]

Yeah. "Users" are usually pretty good at pointing out problems. But some of those problems really are "them problems" (a user who is using a pitchfork as a soup spoon doesn't need to be catered to) and their "solutions" aren't actually what needs to happen at least a good chunk of the time.

Doesn't mean they're wrong or bad, just...different.

But when they have a spoon with a hole in it and criticize the hole they don't suddenly have a pitchfork because you can make the spoon with a hole work for you in having the soup.

[Hrugner]

If you want your fluff to do something, you're going to want to explain what that is. I'm not saying you need a line by line explanation rebuilding the world to the last atom, but certainly enough so that the effect of the fluff is constrained to the expected power level of the ability. The main things you want to preserve and define are what players may want to do that you haven't anticipated, and the unintended consequences of what they plan to do. I'd call these two things fallout and jerry-rigging.

Fallout: Write some environmental impact rules that limit the counter productive results of abilities based on their power level. Give a few keyword guidelines for things that don't have an intuitive fallout result, and constrain your plain language metaphors to keyworded fallout classes. Write it with the expectation that players would try to use the fallout as attacks. This could be for everything from forest fires to crashing through a wall.

Jerry-rigging: If players want to use an ability to do something unexpected, determine how much weaker it would be than a spell, ability, or item of the same level built for that purpose. For example, if your caster wants to use the flash of light from their cure spell to blind someone, you'd say it functions as a blinding spell 1 or 2 levels lower.

You couldn't plan for everything, but you'd avoid players trying to use fluff to juice their power level.

[Segev]

I think a part of the discussion should focus on whether the fluff/crunch divide is dealing with a situation where the alleged crunch doesn't live up to the alleged fluff. Does this mean the spell doesn't do what it says it does? Or does it mean that the alleged fluff is actually crunch land the alleged crunch is additional effects?

Geas remains a good example:

"You place a magical command on a creature that you can see within range, forcing it to carry out some service or refrain from some action or course of activity as you decide. If the creature can understand you, it must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or become charmed by you for the duration. While the creature is charmed by you, it takes 5d10 psychic damage each time it acts in a manner directly counter to your instructions, but no more than once each day. A creature that can't understand you is unaffected by the spell."

Is the damage in addition to forcing the creature to fulfill the geas, or is it the sole mechanism of enforcement? The creature is Charmed, but that status does relatively little on its own. Does he find the geas irresistible, or is he merely afraid of taking 28 damage evrey day? While the can kill, certainly, it is hardly a compulsion, especially to tougher creatures.

I think that, if the spell described the lengths to which a creature's behavior is constrained, and also the damage clause, there would be limited argument that the description of those lengths was the extent of the compulsion. But with just the damage, it doesn't seem to force the creature to do anything at all; it is just a looming threat. So people will read the 'fluff' as crunch because the spell doesn't seem to do what it says it does if the creature shrugs and lets the damage happen.

[Pauly]

There are 2 schools of thought to “fluff” (aka world building aka descriptives) within rules.
1) It is purely decorative. Therefore keep it vague and do not use any keywords to avoid people trying to interpret it as part of the mechanical rules.
2) It is part of the mechanical effect. Therefore you must only use keywords in the descriptions.

In both cases the fluff and the crunch need to be consistent with each other. Anything mentioned in the fluff needs to be shown in the crunch anything in the crunch needs to be at least alluded to in the fluff. If something is mentioned in one but not the other it will lead to confusion.

[Kane0]

I prefer #1 myself

[Psyren]

I like games that don't explicitly distinguish between flavor text and rules text; it makes it easier to identify and avoid playing with the type of people who attempt to weaponize the former into being the latter :smalltongue:

When a rulebook says something like "Rogues are ever one step ahead of danger" (CRB 67) - someone who insists on interpreting that to mean rogues must be invincible, and grinds either a game or an online discussion to a halt to litigate that point, is better avoided than engaged with.

[KorvinStarmast]

The actual problem began when someone decided to refer to fluff in the first place.

It is a term loaded with negative, or dismissive, connotation.

I like games that don't explicitly distinguish between flavor text and rules text; it makes it easier to identify and avoid playing with the type of people who attempt to weaponize the former into being the latter

When a rulebook says something like "Rogues are ever one step ahead of danger" (CRB 67) - someone who insists on interpreting that to mean rogues must be invincible, and grinds either a game or an online discussion to a halt to litigate that point, is better avoided than engaged with. Agree on both points.

[Segev]

I like games that don't explicitly distinguish between flavor text and rules text; it makes it easier to identify and avoid playing with the type of people who attempt to weaponize the former into being the latter :smalltongue:

When a rulebook says something like "Rogues are ever one step ahead of danger" (CRB 67) - someone who insists on interpreting that to mean rogues must be invincible, and grinds either a game or an online discussion to a halt to litigate that point, is better avoided than engaged with.

Honestly, these kinds of arguments seem only to arise when the alleged fluff and the alleged crunch don't line up in a way that clearly indicates the "crunch" is the "and here's how that works" of the "fluff."

"Rogues are ever a step ahead of danger, so they are proficient in Dexterity saving throws," is a clear indication that they are "a step ahead of danger" by being proficient in Dexterity saving throws.

"Rogues are ever a step ahead of danger. They can do +1d6 damage on a sneak attack," is not a clear indication of sneak attacks being somehow related to being a step ahead of danger, so it becomes important to try to figure out what is meant by being "a step ahead of danger."


Geas remains my go-to example. You can kind-of sort-of see "well, if they don't do what you set them to, they take damage...once per day...that they largely can ignore if they're powerful enough you feel the need to use a high level spell to compel them" as being the "here's how" for "You compel the target to do a particular task." But...it is only kind-of, sort-of. Because if that's all it is, there's no reason why Charmed is the appropriate condition to represent it, and it hardly is a "compulsion" so much as it is a threat. Which means that there is weight to the argument that the sentence stating you compel behavior is actually part of the crunch. It's what the spell DOES.

[Psyren]

"Rogues are ever a step ahead of danger, so they are proficient in Dexterity saving throws," is a clear indication that they are "a step ahead of danger" by being proficient in Dexterity saving throws.

"Rogues are ever a step ahead of danger. They can do +1d6 damage on a sneak attack," is not a clear indication of sneak attacks being somehow related to being a step ahead of danger, so it becomes important to try to figure out what is meant by being "a step ahead of danger."

I don't necessarily disagree, but the example I quoted is neither of these; it's not part of any one specific feature/ability entry.



Geas remains my go-to example. You can kind-of sort-of see "well, if they don't do what you set them to, they take damage...once per day...that they largely can ignore if they're powerful enough you feel the need to use a high level spell to compel them" as being the "here's how" for "You compel the target to do a particular task." But...it is only kind-of, sort-of. Because if that's all it is, there's no reason why Charmed is the appropriate condition to represent it, and it hardly is a "compulsion" so much as it is a threat. Which means that there is weight to the argument that the sentence stating you compel behavior is actually part of the crunch. It's what the spell DOES.

I agree Geas is badly worded and very unclear, but that's nothing new. I don't think even the designers came to a decision on whether it actively compels or merely threatens.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree Geas is badly worded and very unclear, but that's nothing new. I don't think even the designers came to a decision on whether it actively compels or merely threatens.

I agree on this point. And it's not the only spell in that bucket. Spells, in general, need a good scrubbing for clarity and sanity, if nothing else (ie not changing power level).

[Psyren]

I agree on this point. And it's not the only spell in that bucket. Spells, in general, need a good scrubbing for clarity and sanity, if nothing else (ie not changing power level).

I'm hopeful that's coming either after or alongside the 48 subclasses.

[MoiMagnus]

I agree Geas is badly worded and very unclear, but that's nothing new. I don't think even the designers came to a decision on whether it actively compels or merely threatens.

Which is a proof of one important point: to write clear rules, you first need to have a clear idea of what the rule will do.

"Separating fluff and crunch" is not something I consider necessary, and certainly has its drawbacks (like severely reducing lore-based creativity in favour of mechanical creativity), but it's a good exercise for designers even if the final text mix both of them. It's a way for the designer to force themself to determine clearly how the spell would work in its "normal application case".

Oh, and while I have a fair number of criticisms against the "Suggestion" spell, I think that this spell including an example of use ("For example, you might suggest that a knight give her warhorse to the first beggar she meets.") is a very good idea to give the GM an idea about what the spell can and cannot do. Complex spells should do it more often.

[Vahnavoi]

Which is a proof of one important point: to write clear rules, you first need to have a clear idea of what the rule will do.

The irony there is that a lot of time, the natural language description dismissed as "fluff" is the actual intent of a rule... and "refluffing" consequently the best way to lose all sight of what the rules are supposed to do.

[Talakeal]

Another weird one that someone brought to my attention is animate objects.

I had a spell in my game that animated a terrain feature, and the "fluff" of the spell mentioned that it brought it to life, so that reader was saying that means it is a living creature.

I looked, and animate objects in D&D also uses that same turn of phrase, and it could be read that animated objects are therefore living creatures. Heck, a literal reading of the spell could also allow it to be used as a ressurection spell that bypasses diamonds and XP costs as corpses are objects and the spell clearly says it brings objects to life.

[Vahnavoi]

The joke with that would be that the animated corpse would not be the original person.

[gbaji]

The joke with that would be that the animated corpse would not be the original person.

Yeah. "Bringing something to life" or "giving it life" is not the same as "bringing something back to life". The former just makes the object (still an object) move around as though it was alive. The latter actually brings the person (not an object) back to life just as they were prior to dying.

I think a lot of this is (ironically) a construct of RPGs actually having existed long enough for their own internal terminology to intrude into more common speach. Historically, to "bring something to life" would never have been interpreted as some form of resurrection. It just means to make it mobile and active (turning on a car engine "brings it to life"). But since RPGs have been around for a long time, and the idea of "life and death" being something manipulatable via magic has entered a more common usage, now we have people who might misunderstand that terminology.

[Kish]

In 3.5ed, Animate Objects says "imbue inanimate objects with mobility and a semblance of life."

In 5ed, which I'm guessing is what you're going by, it says "Objects come to life at your command" and then:

Each target animates and becomes a creature under your control until the spell ends or until reduced to 0 hit points.
[...]You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn, or you can issue a general command, such as to guard a particular chamber or corridor. If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures. Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete.

So yeah. Becomes a creature. A construct, it says below, but has Constitution, Intelligence (3), and Wisdom (3). Alive. Has hit points, enough intelligence to carry out general commands, and enough self-preservation to defend itself if anything attacks it. That it will automatically die within a minute arguably makes the spell horrifying, but if Heart of Darkness has a spell that uses the same description but just causes an earthquake for the effect, I'd suggest looking to Earthquake for the appropriate descriptive text, not Animate Objects.

[Talakeal]

So yeah. Becomes a creature. A construct, it says below, but has Constitution, Intelligence (3), and Wisdom (3). Alive. Has hit points, enough intelligence to carry out general commands, and enough self-preservation to defend itself if anything attacks it. That it will automatically die within a minute arguably makes the spell horrifying, but if Heart of Darkness has a spell that uses the same description but just causes an earthquake for the effect, I'd suggest looking to Earthquake for the appropriate descriptive text, not Animate Objects.

It doesn't cause an earthquake, it transforms the terrain into a creature resembling an elemental.

I didn't specifically model the spell after any D&D spell, but upon checking it does use the same format as the 5E animate objects spell, start by saying it brings something "to life" and then describing the properties of said creature.

[Kish]

Another weird one that someone brought to my attention is animate objects.

I had a spell in my game that animated a terrain feature, and the "fluff" of the spell mentioned that it brought it to life, so that reader was saying that means it is a living creature.


It doesn't cause an earthquake, it transforms the terrain into a creature resembling an elemental.

I didn't specifically model the spell after any D&D spell, but upon checking it does use the same format as the 5E animate objects spell, start by saying it brings something "to life" and then describing the properties of said creature.
So the reader you referenced is correct? I'm confused. What's the problem/weirdness here then?

[Talakeal]

So the reader you referenced is correct? I'm confused. What's the problem/weirdness here then?

That the world "life" in the description meant that the animated terrain feature was a living, breathing, organic creature rather than an elemental.

[icefractal]

How strongly defined is "living creature" in your system? And/or, how strongly defined is "elemental" and does the spell specifically say the creature is an Elemental?

Because in D&D, Elementals are living creatures - living (in D&D) doesn't imply an earthlike physiology. Demons are also living creatures, as is every creature that isn't undead or a construct.

But let's set aside any specific system and just ask on a conceptual level. And my answer would be "how are elementals defined conceptually in this setting?". But if I had to answer, it would depend on what type of elemental. Is a fire elemental living? Eh, probably not, although you could make an argument either way. Is an elemental that's made of a chunk of forest, with plants forming part of it, living? Yeah, that sounds pretty "living" to me.

So if you've already defined that elementals aren't living, then the spell just needs to reference those rules explicitly. But if you haven't, then you should - it's not something that goes without saying.

[Talakeal]

Because in D&D, Elementals are living creatures - living (in D&D) doesn't imply an earthlike physiology. Demons are also living creatures, as is every creature that isn't undead or a construct.

Huh. That's true. It's also really weird.

Conceptually, its odd that what is essentially an animate rock is considered a living creature, but constructs or not.

Mechanically its odd that they define elementals as living, and then go on to make them immune to everything that living creatures are due to their lack of biological processes.


How strongly defined is "living creature" in your system? And/or, how strongly defined is "elemental" and does the spell specifically say the creature is an Elemental?

It's not ever defined, but certain spells and effects only work on living creatures.

The rules do make it clear that spirits (including elementals), constructs, and undead are not living creatures. The spell does say that the creature created by the spell functions as an elemental; but one could invoke the "specific trumps general" and say that the "brings it to life" in the description trumps the "functions as an elemental".



So if you've already defined that elementals aren't living, then the spell just needs to reference those rules explicitly. But if you haven't, then you should - it's not something that goes without saying.

Is there a "haven't" missing here? Because this sentence reads pretty backwards to me.


Is an elemental that's made of a chunk of forest, with plants forming part of it, living? Yeah, that sounds pretty "living" to me.


It uses whatever materials the terrain it is cast on; so if you cast it in a forest it would have plants growing out of it.

IMO an elemental that had plants (which are independently living organisms rather than one biological entity) growing out of it is no more alive than a person with a prosthetic limb is a construct; but where you draw the line is a very interesting thought experiment.

[Vahnavoi]

I think a lot of this is (ironically) a construct of RPGs actually having existed long enough for their own internal terminology to intrude into more common speach. Historically, to "bring something to life" would never have been interpreted as some form of resurrection. It just means to make it mobile and active (turning on a car engine "brings it to life"). But since RPGs have been around for a long time, and the idea of "life and death" being something manipulatable via magic has entered a more common usage, now we have people who might misunderstand that terminology.

Indeed. Ron Edwards was right, D&D does cause brain damage and ruins your vocabulary as a result. :smallamused:

Anyway, the wider issue here is that "life" and "living creature" can be intuitively understood to cover any animate creature but is not well-defined in detail outside real biological sciences. The existence of non-biological life is an ongoing debate in real philosophy and science as well. In harder speculative fiction, you'd get the same problem with self-replicating, intelligent machines. They might not follow the same chemical processes as biological life, might not have cells and might not have DNA, but still perform all the functions seen in biological life, or their analogues.

For a non-realist game, there is zero issue just stating elementals are living creatures - capable of adaption, growth, response to stimuli and reproduction, with their own version of metabolism, organization and homeostasis - without having much lower-lever similarity to animals or plants. So an elemental with plants living on it would be similar to a group of symbiotic fungi living on the plant, or bacteria living inside a human. Of course, in mythologized context it's possible to say everything is alive and the issue lies solely with human perception.

[gatorized]

This is why I prefer prowlers and paragons - the powers are only defined in the broadest strokes and given mechanical effects; it's up the player to decide how those effects are achieved, what the power looks like in action, and so on. Since the players explain these things to the GM when they make their characters, there's no confusion about how any given power interacts with the world. Players also get the satisfaction of truly designing a character from the ground up, instead of picking from a shopping list of pre defined abilities.

[Segev]

"Life" has a few meanings, and the obvious one for animate objects is 'animation.' They are construct creatures while animated. I actually don't know that 5e has distinctions that say constructs are or are not 'alive,' but the fact they are explicitly constructs would cover any potential discrepancies, I think.

[Telok]

"Life" has a few meanings, and the obvious one for animate objects is 'animation.' They are construct creatures while animated. I actually don't know that 5e has distinctions that say constructs are or are not 'alive,' but the fact they are explicitly constructs would cover any potential discrepancies, I think.

D&d 5e is weird for being an odd mish-mash of extreme specificity and high ambiguity in a number of spots. There's ----. Just having a Shield Guardian in the party starts weirding out with questions of magic item attunement and raising it from the dead. The thing's written as a monster for GMs with the expectation they'll make up anything they need to happen "off screen". But if the players get their hands on one that stops being an option because the player facing rules get interpreted so much more strictly.

Cant type got go

Edit: ok, more time now. Was going to get beyond d&disms because they're trend to annoying derails from people. Lost train of thought for this though. Just gonna cut off here then.

[gbaji]

How strongly defined is "living creature" in your system? And/or, how strongly defined is "elemental" and does the spell specifically say the creature is an Elemental?

Because in D&D, Elementals are living creatures - living (in D&D) doesn't imply an earthlike physiology. Demons are also living creatures, as is every creature that isn't undead or a construct.

But let's set aside any specific system and just ask on a conceptual level. And my answer would be "how are elementals defined conceptually in this setting?". But if I had to answer, it would depend on what type of elemental. Is a fire elemental living? Eh, probably not, although you could make an argument either way. Is an elemental that's made of a chunk of forest, with plants forming part of it, living? Yeah, that sounds pretty "living" to me.

So if you've already defined that elementals aren't living, then the spell just needs to reference those rules explicitly. But if you haven't, then you should - it's not something that goes without saying.

Yup. I'd actually modify that statement a bit. Define elementals "mechanically" in the rules. It should fit into a category (living, dead, undead, construct, whatever). And the rules should also apply various effects to said things based on those categories.

I would actually tend to categorize elementals as constructs. The material they are made up of is somewhat irrelevant (as well, as whether some parts of what it's made up of may be "alive"). The actual elemental itself is some kind of magical force/being/whatever that animates a volume of some element and uses it as its body. I'm stuggling to see how that's much different than a construct. At least physically speaking. Unless, of course, you have special rules for constructs that you don't want to apply to elementals. So yeah, then maybe create a category for elementals as well. Every game concept in a game system has to (should?) be defined in some way, and tied into other rules. Otherwise, you will have endless spur of the moment rulings going on during play.

[Talakeal]

Yup. I'd actually modify that statement a bit. Define elementals "mechanically" in the rules. It should fit into a category (living, dead, undead, construct, whatever). And the rules should also apply various effects to said things based on those categories.

I would actually tend to categorize elementals as constructs. The material they are made up of is somewhat irrelevant (as well, as whether some parts of what it's made up of may be "alive"). The actual elemental itself is some kind of magical force/being/whatever that animates a volume of some element and uses it as its body. I'm stuggling to see how that's much different than a construct. At least physically speaking. Unless, of course, you have special rules for constructs that you don't want to apply to elementals. So yeah, then maybe create a category for elementals as well. Every game concept in a game system has to (should?) be defined in some way, and tied into other rules. Otherwise, you will have endless spur of the moment rulings going on during play.

My system does count corporeal elementals, undead, and automatons (robots and the like) as constructs and has rules for what that means.

What the system does not due is explicitly define alive, as that is the default state for the vast majority of characters.

Of course, there are also things that are neither living nor constructs such as spirits, vampires, tulpas, illusions, etc.

The text of the spell in question which caused the confusion was that it said it "Animated the landscape, bringing it to life in a form resembling that of an elemental." and the reader interpreted that as meaning it resembles an elemental, but is explicitly alive because the word "life" is used.