Fluff, context, and how to write clear rules

[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

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

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.

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.