Taking 20 Podcast - Ep 205 - Flavor is Free

Episode Date: December 17, 2023

There are two types of changes players and GMs can make to rules, spells, effects, weapons, and other aspects of tabletop RPGs:  flavor or fluff changes and mechanical or crunchy changes.  In this episode I talk about the difference, why one should be allowed almost always and why the other type of changes should be approached with caution.   #dnd #pf2e #DMTips #FlavorIsFree   Resources: 3D Crafts & Curios etsy store - https://etsy.com/shop/3DCraftsAndCurios  Flavor is Free - https://tabletopbuilds.com/flavor-is-free/  Know Direction Podcast Article - Energy Type Rundown by Dustin Knight:  https://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2021/05/foxs-cunning-energy-type-rundown/

This week on the Taking20 Podcast. Another reason to allow this is because it encourages creativity and personalization. Some players think about their character and say, wouldn't it be cool if the laser pistol was carved to look like a dragon belching a beam of fire? Yeah, it would be cool. Let them do it. Thank you so much for listening to the Taking20 Podcast, Episode 205, encouraging DMs to allow Flavor in Their Games. I want to thank our amazing sponsor, 3D Crafts and Curios.

Brenton, frankly, has been such a blessing to this podcast, and I'd love to give him some love in return. Please go to their shop at etsy.com slash shop slash 3D Crafts and Curios, and please buy some of their amazing 3D printed items. They have DM screens and dice jails and all sorts of neat stuff. It's all available in a myriad of colors and would make a great gift for the gamer in your life. While there, you can use the coupon code TAKING20, that's TAKING20, to get 20% off your order through the end of the year. I'll include a link in the resources

and we'll be sure to share it on social media this week as well. Secondly, I want to thank Michael Mills for his generous donation to the podcast. He had a great topic idea when he donated and I'll be covering that in one of my first episodes in 2024. Finally, I want to thank our other sponsor, German Food. Where I live has a history of a lot of German immigrants, so there's some great places to get German food locally. I'm not going to crack any jokes about them, though, because German food jokes are just the worst. This is the usual spot where I ask you to share the podcast,

or like, or donate, or come to the website, or whatever. No big ask this week. It's the last week of the year for the podcast, so instead of my usual asking you to do something in this time slot, I want to say from the bottom of my cold, dead heart how grateful I am for your listening to, supporting, and dedication to my podcast. All of you are the driving force behind the success that I have had, and I am incredibly humbled by the time you've invested in listening to the show, your generous donations, and for helping it grow. My goal from the outset of this podcast has been to create content that's informative, inspiring, entertaining even, and probably chock full of bad jokes to make you groan and shake your head.

of bad jokes to make you groan and shake your head. To those of you who have blessed me by writing in with your comments and questions and suggestions and feedback, you have shaped this show in more ways than I can express, and I am truly grateful for your willingness to share your thoughts. I have some ideas for ways the podcast can continue to expand, and I'll be putting those out on social media probably in the coming weeks. I'd love to hear your feedback and thoughts on these ideas to improve the podcast. Canadian author Charles DeLint once said, The family we choose for ourselves is more important than the one we were born into. Those people have to earn our respect and trust, and they don't have it handed to them simply because of genetics.

And in that vein, thank you for being part of this podcast family. I cherish your support, I cherish your feedback, and I look forward to continuing to share our passion for playing and running tabletop RPGs in 2024. Until then, I hope every game you play in is better than the last one, or more succinctly, may your next game be your best game. Before I get started in the episode proper, by the way, I apologize for the speed of episode 204. After I uploaded it, I listened back and I must have been caffeinated out of my wazoo. I'll try to slow this one down just a little bit and make it more understandable. this one down just a little bit and make it more understandable. Welcome to the last episode of 2023. Fear not, or fear much. I'll return on January 14th with the next episode. I might have

a surprise episode in between, but my plan is to take a few weeks off to get my spring college classes ready and get through the holidays with my sanity intact and help my wife through a minor medical procedure. And of course, you know the definition of a minor medical procedure, one that's happening to someone else. For those of you who are so inclined, she would greatly appreciate any thoughts, prayers, and good vibes you could send her way just after the first of the year. To start this conversation on flavor, we need to come to an agreement on a couple of terms. The first of these is, what the hell is flavor? For the purposes of this episode, the the hell is flavor? For the purposes of this episode, the word flavor represents how elements of the game are narratively described.

For example, describing what happens when the sorcerer casts magic missile. Paraphrasing the spell description from 5th edition, it's three glowing darts of magical force that hit a creature within range, each one dealing 1d4 plus 1 force damage to the target. It says nothing about how these darts manifest, what they look like, or what happens when they manifest outside of requiring verbal and somatic components. So we know words are said and movements involved, but not what they are. They are in effect undefined parameters about the spell, and regardless of what they are, the spell functions as written. So flavor means descriptions, and motions, and magic words,

and colors, and non-mechanical descriptions, and the effects can be whatever the player or the DM wants them to be. And here's the neat thing. They don't even have to be the same for every caster. One caster says the words Zasorius and Arcane Runes swirl around her extended hand, coalescing into blue darts surrounding her finger until she points, sending them unerringly into the chest of her target. Another caster could say Seluna and the skin ripples with purple moonlight bursting out of his clasped hands into the shape of three arrowheads that spiral to the target. While a third may say

shavalanta and the air ripples with blue-tinted waves emanating from their head towards the target. You know how much damage each one of those descriptions do? 1d4 plus 1 for each dart. The dart could look like literal darts or arrowheads or ripples or waves in the air or chickens. They could even look like miniature frying pans that make a quiet wang sound when they hit. Cleric powers, for example, could manifest in different appearances. The cleric of Myleke, the goddess of the forest, casting a cure spell may look like it covers the wound in a magical image of tree bark growing over the damage and then falling off and disappearing. Meanwhile, a cleric of Lyra,

goddess of joy, may laugh during the entire casting of the cure spell, causing the flesh to stitch back together. If you're running a cleric, think about how it would look when a deity of the sea, blood, of light, of arcane magic, or whatever in-game deity your cleric worships, what does it look like when they provide healing for yourself or others? The effects are the same, but the appearance and color may be very different. So flavor is just that, a little personalization of the effects and descriptions and attacks and other elements that has no mechanical effect on gameplay. The way you attack, the way your weapon looks or feels, or the shape or color of an item or spell effect. These are purely creative and non-numerical changes, and another term you could

use for them is fluff. On page 116 of the 5th edition sourcebook, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, under the section Personalizing Spells, players are encouraged to personalize the appearance of their spells. She lists multiple themes or flavors that you could use depending on the character's background, where and how they learn the spell, their class, the source of their magic, and so forth. That's flavor. Let's contrast that with mechanical changes. These are changes to spell mechanical effects, dyes, and damage rolls, and have a potentially dramatic effect on the game. Changing a longsword's damage from 1d8 to 1d12, or changing it from slashing to piercing damage, is a mechanical change.

Changing magic missile to affect all enemies in a line rather than a single target is a mechanical change. target is a mechanical change. Changing a cleric's channel energy or three-action heal to heal a flat 55 points of damage rather than scaling by 1d8 per spell rank is a mechanical change. Mechanical changes have in-game and at-the-table effects on gameplay. A cleric whose channel looks like a shining yellow burst with filigree patterns doesn't change the fact that it heals whatever d8 hit points to all living and undead creatures within 30 foot bursts. See your own game system for the mechanics of channel energy and three action heals. Another term for mechanical changes could be crunch. So you see the difference. Flavor changes don't impact game rules as written, but mechanical changes do.

At this point, I want to call attention to a great article about flavor that does a deep dive on the concept. It's on a website called tabletopbuilds.com. I'll put a link in the resources for the episode. It goes way more into depth than I have time to do so here. Please give that a read if you want more details about this concept. So why does it matter? Why should I spend an entire episode talking about flavor versus crunch?

Because, my beloved DMs out there, if a player has not yet come to you to ask to change a spell or a weapon or a description yet, it's likely they will eventually, and I want you to be ready for it. And my piece of advice that I want you to take away, if the change is purely for flavor, I encourage you to allow it.

But Jeremy, I have enough shit to do on the daily to keep this game moving. Now I have to remember what this one PC's magic missile looks like? No, that's their job. Encourage them to describe their actions in and out of combat, and if their flame strike looks like an army of flaming angels descending from the clouds instead of just a vertical column of fire, let them describe it that way. And if they forget and don't describe it, well, then it's just the normal description of a flame strike spell. Back to why does the description of the effect matter? It doesn't. At all. It's just a re-skinning of an existing effect.

For example, I'm pretty consistent in my description of healing potions for areas where the adventure starts. I tend to run my games in a version of Galarian of the Sword Coast that's my own. Both game systems have healing potions of one name or another, and I'm consistent in my description of the lowest level version of these. These potions tend to be red and have the smell and taste of peppermint in a thin, smooth liquid whenever an adventure starts. It doesn't matter. Sandpoint, Barovia, Baldur's Gate, Absalom, Icewind Dales, it doesn't matter. As the adventure evolves and moves to different locations, more powerful healing potions may have slightly different textures, tastes, or smells. But Jeremy, if you're describing every low-level healing potion as peppermint and thin,

couldn't the players metagame and know those are healing potions? Yes, good catch. It would be a problem if I didn't let them identify the lowest-level healing potions automatically. And you may be asking, why red? I think I've done that since the first Diablo game where health and healing potions were both red. I am an old dog and I can learn new tricks, but I haven't seen fit to change that one yet. Now that we all understand the difference between flavor and mechanics, there are a few questions you may have. Why should GMs allow flavor changes at all?

There's multiple reasons. Increased player immersion and fun. Reflavoring and re-skinning these things allows players to connect with their characters easier and more deeply. They'll feel more immersed in a game world when they can customize the appearance and mechanics and narrative elements of their characters and abilities. In short, they'll feel more ownership of their character and generally will buy short, they'll feel more ownership of their character and generally will buy in more to that character, their actions, and your world at large. Say you're playing an alchemist who used to be a scientist of some sort. The bombs or concoctions could be contained in glass vials or beakers or graduated cylinders

even. There's no mechanical reason for it, and making this change doesn't cause any mechanical changes to the game. Alright, that sounds fun. Go for it. What if the alchemist comes from a military background and instead creates little aluminum bombs that go pop when he throws them and drops them on the battlefield? Class mechanics are different, but what they look like can be modified to be nearly anything you want, as long as it doesn't modify rules.

Another example I saw a player use was a reflavoring of the Barbarian Rage ability. Instead of fighting with this primal ferocity or tapping into their inner anger when they entered a rage, they reflavored it as entering a zen-like fighting state where they were stronger and slightly more reckless. They still couldn't concentrate while raging, so that mechanic didn't change. But imagine raging characters begin to smoke or their skin turns green. They enter a battle trance. They begin speaking in tongues they don't even understand. Sounds like a potential way to describe rage and it sounds fun. Rage still works rules as written. It just has a slight cosmetic change. Where I draw the line is as soon as they start to say things like,

well, since my rage is a zen-like state, I shouldn't have any negative effects when the rage ends. Okay, you lost me. That's it. You're making mechanical changes and that's no longer flavor. Players, by the way, aren't the only ones that can benefit from reflavoring like this. On the other side of the DM screen from reflavoring like this. On the other side of the DM screen,

reflavoring allows you to change the narrative around a mechanic to make an antagonist more interesting and more memorable. Suppose the characters are fighting a ghost of some sort. In 5e, ghosts have an ability called Withering Touch. It's a melee attack, 5-foot reach, does 46 plus 3 damage, but it doesn't describe what it looks like. Rather than have every ghost have the same type of hand-touch attack with no variance, imagine you thematically reflavor withering touch to match the appearance of the ghost, what they did in life, or even how they died. The ghost of a ship's captain could hit you with a

ghostly cutlass, or a hanging victim could touch you with a noose hanging around its neck, or the ghost of a woman who was betrayed opens her arms wide and attempts to embrace you. What would the effects of all of these varied descriptions of attacks be? Plus five to hit, five foot reach, 4d6 plus three damage. No mechanical changes, just narrative and descriptive ones. By allowing re-flavoring like this, you can vary the monsters you roll out against the party and make the game more fun. Another reason to allow this is because it encourages creativity and personalization. Some players think about their character and say, wouldn't it be cool if the laser pistol was carved to look like a dragon belching a beam of fire? After all, my character has always been fascinated with fantasy worlds and would probably continue to use this pistol even if something better, quote unquote,

came along. Yeah, it would be cool. Let them do it. They can be more creative with their characters and make them more customized and thematic. It encourages your players to be creative and expressive, and it encourages you behind the screen to do the same. It creates a more personalized gaming experience. Now, this Starfinder scout has a pistol that looks badass, and it speaks to something in the character's backstory or what the character enjoys. It still does 1d4 fire damage, just like a regular Azimuth laser pistol, but now the player has tailored the character into something unique, and that means they'll probably have more fun.

It encourages storytelling and world-building. By allowing players to re-flavor existing elements, you, my beloved DMs out there, can incorporate player ideas and perspectives into the narrative, creating a more collaborative and engaging storytelling experience. And of course, again, you can do this too. They may forget about random bounty hunter with a couple of pistols, but if those pistols were wrapped in elephant hide and their iron sights were ivory inlaid and they were called the Shikari, that's cool and different and players will remember that particular NPC.

By allowing players to start the game with a scimitar that has a symbol of their house etched into the blade, you're not making mechanical changes to the game. In 2E, that's still a regular scimitar that does 1d6 slashing damage. Another reason to allow flavor changes is because it promotes inclusivity and diversity. Reflavoring and refactoring in this way can allow players to represent themselves and their backgrounds in a meaningful way. It encourages players to explore different cultures, identities, and perspectives, and this fosters a more inclusive and welcoming gaming experience. Allowing the fighter to wield a polearm that's been carved with cultural

iconography, respectfully I might add, shows respect and deference to a certain culture. A player may want to pay homage to their Earth heritage. Who's to say that the drow or dwarves or halflings wouldn't have a similar set of beliefs and iconography to, say, Mesoamerican civilizations, peoples from the Tigris River Valley, Phoenician civilization, or any other culture that would fit into your world. Similarly, years ago, I had a player who wanted to play a character similar to themselves. They wanted their character to be in a wheelchair. I spoke to them one-on-one to ask how he'd like this handled in the game world,

and he said he wanted there to be no mechanical changes. Same base speed for his character, same capabilities for the character. They just happened to be in this mobility device. changes. Same base speed for his character, same capabilities for the character, they just happen to be in this mobility device. We agreed that this device was magical in very, very small ways, and it could safely traverse dungeon areas like stairs or debris or what surface that normally would interfere with devices like this. But I was very, very clear that it did not give him any sort of mechanical advantages when it came to floor traps or anything similar. Rules still worked the same, but he was able to roleplay a character that was similar to himself, and he was very, very happy about that. However, I would hesitate allowing

mechanical changes since it dramatically affects game balance. Modifications to things like spell and weapon damage amount or type, giving additional effects that aren't part of those described in the game, can have unexpected negative side effects. For example, weapons in Pathfinder 2e have one or more traits associated with them. Light maces are agile, which reduces the penalty for multiple attacks in the same round. Finesse means that you can use your dexterity modifier instead of strength modifier for attacks, and shove allows you to use an athletics-based action while wielding it. It has quite a few options when you wield it already, but imagine a player wants to take a

light mace and add parry or backswing or trip to the weapon, and that makes it so much more powerful, and it may make someone who took a sickle or flail for the trip feat feel like their weapons have been comparatively nerfed. Similarly, imagine if one of your players wanted to change the Pathfinder 2E spell Electric Arc to be Cold Damage instead of Electricity. Oh, that's no big deal, right? Actually, that could have a huge effect on gameplay depending on your world. I did find an amazing article entitled Energy Type Rundown

written by Dustin Knight of the amazing podcast No Direction, K-N-O-W Direction. I listened to that podcast because it has great interviews and product reviews. And yes, generally it's focused on Pathfinder 2E, which is the system I play and enjoy the most. I'll put a link in the resources of this episode. Please give them a listen if you enjoy Pathfinder 2E, which is the system I play and enjoy the most. I'll put a link in the resources of this episode. Please give them a listen if you enjoy Pathfinder 2E or you like hearing good and interesting content that you can modify for your game system. In this article, he breaks down energy immunities, weaknesses, and resistances to energy damage types by level groups of 1-5,

6-10, 11-15, and 16-20. So, let's focus on these lower-level adventures since that's the most common. Let's take a look at the spell Electric Arc. Rules as written, Electric Arc does electricity damage only. According to the No Direction article, monsters as stat-blocked, only two creatures have a weakness to electricity, while 33 of them have resistance to it. If you allowed that spell to be reflavored as cold damage, 15 creatures in this lowest level block have a weakness to cold, while 35 of them have a resistance to it. By allowing this one minor change, you're making

a spell more powerful to 13 more creatures and creature types while making it weaker to two more. You've made a mechanical change to the game and there could be long-term repercussions as levels climb because two creatures have a weakness to electricity at levels to 6 to 10 but 25 of them have weakness to cold. That being said, it's your game and if you're willing to live with the mechanical differences at the table, deal with the side effects, you can always allow these crunchy changes to game rules, spells, weapons, or whatever. But my advice?

Do so with caution, and with the understanding that your interpretation of this particular modification can change if it has too many negative effects on the game. Inform your players of that, and be willing to walk back that change if you absolutely need to. Overall, allowing players to re-flavor existing elements in your tabletop game enhances the player experience. It promotes creativity and personalization, enriches the story, fosters inclusivity, and if it's a modification to fluff, will have no real

effect on game balance. It's a valuable tool for dungeon masters to create a more engaging, immersive, enjoyable, and memorable game for all players. Fluff reflavors should be encouraged, but DMs should be cautious about allowing mechanical changes, since these have long-term repercussions. Let player creativity on Fluff go absolutely wild, and I'd be willing to bet that you and your players would have fun doing it. Thank you again to everyone who listened to episodes this year. I hope you enjoy the podcast, and if you have any feedback or criticism, I would welcome it. Send it to feedback at taking20podcast.com. Don't forget to use the coupon code TAKING20

at the 3D Crafts and Curios Etsy shop for 20% off your order. Don't tune in next week because I'm taking the week off. From all of us here at... Well, okay, let me restate. From all of me here at the Taking20 Podcast, I hope you and yours have the happiest of holidays and a prosperous and wonderful start to 2024. I'll see you in a few weeks. But before I go, I want to thank this week's sponsor, German Food. I've already said that I'm not going to make any jokes about the

restaurants, and I mean it. I know some of these owners, and the last thing I want to do is make them sauerkraut. Okay, okay, you know, it may not be good to use the term kraut for someone of German descent, so I'm going to make it up to you with a replacement joke in the German language. What do you say as you're ending a conversation with a German oat farmer? Hafer, nice day. And thank you to the percentage of people who got that joke. This has been episode 205, Flavor is Free. My name is Jeremy Shelley, and I hope that your next game is your best game. The Taking 20 Podcast is a Publishing Cube Media Production.

Copyright 2023. References to game system content are copyrighted by their respective publishers.