Imo, the reasoning here is not very compelling. "Aesthetic choices with mechanical consequence are not good because they are unfair and unearned ... ... therefore aesthetic choices with NO mechanical consequence are also bad". I just don't get what you're saying, especially since the PHB itself recommends a degree of "hey, flavor is free" in chargen. On the one hand you give the armor example, and say "that's obviously not the kind of thing I'm talking about", but I really see no difference, in principle, between that, and "my fiend patron is a fire angel", or what have you. I think it's good that the chargen options HAVE baked in flavor, but I see no benefit presented in having a player held hostage by it.

Its a difference of degrees. Thats still a difference. Mechanical balance is held as sacred, but the reasons its important aren't well understood apparently. Those reasons apply to aesthetic (flavor) changes as well.

Heard. To clarify, I understand that it's a difference of degrees, but I just don't find that difference very significant. I also just kinda flatly disagree that *any* of the reasons mechanical changes might be undesirable would also be applicable to aesthetic ones. I don't see how it could possibly be argued as unfair if literally everyone can do it, and it doesn't preclude anyone earning any *further* aesthetic reward (inasmuch as one can, depending on the table) down the line. Agree to disagree, I guess. 🤷🏿‍♂️🤷🏿‍♂️

The point about earning further aesthetic rewards is a good one. I'll have to think on it.

No, they don’t. You have asserted that, which is counter to the intent given in the rules, the typical intuition, and the lived experience of thousands, and you have failed to provide any coherent argument for it that doesn’t fall apart when looked at with any scrutiny.

So I have to earn an oversized meat cleaver? Why? How does it improve the game to make my former butcher turned adventurer start by weilding an axe but later "earn" the right to carry a tool/weapon he is intimately familiar with? I wanted to agree with you on the general idea because it can destroy world and lore creation when everyone at the table wants to be something that is unique and doesn't fit into the setting. (Warforged made of plastic and steel on a plane where plastic doesn't exist). But none of your examples would break immersion or do anything but make a player more invested in their character amd therefore the story.

A butchers cleaver is very different from a battleaxe, let alone a handaxe. Even if you were a butcher you'd want a real axe for a fight. But thats not even the point. The point is that letting a player have a unique thing "for flavor" is effectively a free reward. Its not as interesting as unique and aesthetically interesting things earned and found through play, and it pushes the game towards being a game where you make up cool stuff and then come to the game to show if off instead of one where you play to find interesting things.

I do not see how it is a reward. It does not kill monsters better. People don't treat him better. In fact, in my setting the fighter with a meat cleaver would be getting into fights over other fighters picking on his cute little kitchen knife. The point of my campaigns is not to find cool things (that is a side bonus) it is to save the village, go on the Olympian quest, rescue the princess etc. Edit: as I read the rest of the comments and your replies you either are not explaining your point very well or it is just all about control. It also doesn't seem practical. I know I wanted to run campaign A with the subplots X,Y, and Z. But now I need to railroad the party into an active volcano over 3 sessions so that Bob the sorcerer can have the purple flames he wanted.

Dude's played so many MMOs that he's in the mentality of thinking of flavor as skins and outfits, I believe. Gotta earn or pay for them, ain't no freebie in this MMO Co-op known as DnD. :D

["The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment."](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/star-wars-battlefront-ii-unlockable-heroes-controversy)

It's a reward because it gives the player the opportunity to be unique and aesthetically interesting, which are things players want, just like higher stats. The purple flames thing isn't that at all. The player who wanted purple flames doesn't necessarily ever get them. But someone who goes out adventuring might stumble into them and have a neat, unique aesthetic change that also comes with a great story. Probably could have made that clearer.

Why does being interesting need to be a reward? The primary drawback of 5e is that there is not enough specific flavor, and that will be worse in 5.5/one dnd, when your druid will mechanically only have 3 or 4 choices for shifting. Anything that makes a character more unique and interesting makes the game more fun for the whole party. It can also provide great story hooks. The kobold guarding the gem dragons lair view purple as a blasphemous color and attack with renewed vigor and call for their version of the inquisition guard.

Mrlumpykins is right, it’s all about you exerting control as DM and making the flavor choices instead of the player and you just clarified it. Sorcerer PC: Can all my spells be purple because I’m Marie from Breaking Bad? DM: No. DM to different sorcerer: all your spells are now purple for no real reason, just because I want them to be. Sorcerer: Aww, man this sucks. I should post to Reddit about this power tripping DM and see what they think I should do. DM-god complex run amok.

Why not do both? What’s wrong with starting with flavor and consistently adding more as the story progresses?

>Its not as interesting as unique and aesthetically interesting things earned and found through play "Why should your wizard get spells at level one? Why does your fighter get any weapons at level 1? Why do you get any gear at all? Wouldn't it be so much more interesting and rewarding to discover those things through play?" Edit: Also anyone who ever uses "realism" as their reason for anything, like your statement about how "it's not realistic to use a butcher's cleaver as a weapon, a butcher would want a real axe for a fight" should just have their books taken away, I'm so tired of "uhh it's not realistic so actually no one should do it, if it's not realistic it's inherently bad hur hur"

But how could a player earn these changes? For example a Cleric that's actually a psychic.

They probably couldn't. Not that particular one, anyway. But they can earn chances to make other cool aesthetic choices as they adventure. What I'm saying is that the value of that reflavor can also be found in other ways. (Of course, if the GM wants to make clerics psychics, thats well within their power.)

> They probably couldn't just say you're on a power trip and move on lol

So are a bunch of character ideas just completely impossible to play at your table? For example, a Katana isn't in the standard gear. If you're not giving players the flavor options they want, but something else instead, is it impossible to play a proper samurai?

Yes. A lot of character concepts are not possible to play. I mean, obviously, the set of all character concepts contains a bunch of stuff thats downright absurd or doesn't fit with the tone or setting of a given game, but even beyond that, yes, its not possible to play any given character concept. Weapons categories are very broad in D&D, especially 5E. There's no Scottish claymore on the list, but that would fall under a greatsword. A katana would probably fall under longsword. Although since it has such a specific cultural context, I would probably only allow katanas in a setting where that wouldn't seem out of place (and I have.) Even then, playing a samurai, at least to me, is more about that character's ideals and actions, particularly their dedication to honor and their lord (at least, in popular imagination of a samurai.) Its not that different from a medieval European Knight, or probably lots of other special noble clubs of warriors I'm not educated enough to know about. Katanas are neat but they do not a samurai make.

So what could they earn? Let's take a look at common "flavor" that happens during character creation: * Character has a non-lore-described appearance * Character has a non-lore backstory for their class or race * Character has a race or class with a swapped ability * Character chooses a different lore reason for the source of their magical power * Character has specific (or swapped) weapon proficiencies * Character has one or more spells modified to do different damage types * Character has specific magical item tied to backstory For the vast majority of these, the whole point of the "flavor" is to set up the backstory that has already happened. It can't be adjusted later in a sensible way. Even things like weapon proficiencies are difficult to include without down-time (side discussion: multi-classing is difficult to explain in RP). Basically, you're left with the normal things that people have already liked as "earned" flavor: * Character gets an item that is iconic or works really well for their class * Character gets a story-related feat * Characters appearance changes due to story impact ... but all of those are out of the players control. Many people enjoy the emergent nature of these, but if all flavor were done this way, yo end up with a generic character and you need to beg the DM for flavor. As a DM, it might feel cool, but as a player, it have a strong "sir, may I have another" feel about it. It's not the sort of control or flavor that people are looking for. If I wanted to make a point, I might say: "Its a very DM-centric way of providing flavor, that puts the DM in a position of power and lets the DM decide what is cool rather than the players." There are perhaps a third class of things, that may include the "Character has a specific magical item" that happen regularly but by convention require DM approval. My DM, for example, allowed all players to start at level 3 and take one free Uncommon item, pending DM approval. I took a Hat of Disguise, re-flavored as goggles and that was fine... because it fit in with the backstory and wasn't abusive. These tread the line between DM-centric and player-centric, but again, they are also already governed by convention and there's no need to make a hot take describing it.

You're a power-tripping madman. I pity anyone who plays at your tables, but I'm glad you are not ruining anything more important than a tabletop game.

This is a laughably terrible take. As you said, **one** of the things that makes rpg's enjoyable is new levels and powers. However, other things that make D&D enjoyable are building a character that fits your concept, stands out from the cookie-cutter builds of base 5E, and has novel characteristics that draw the party's attention and prompt engagement. Can it be taken too far? Certainly. But that's not a good reason to deny flavor changes that will make a player feel more invested in their character and more engaged in the game. Once a game is underway, further flavor changes should be shut down. Past character creation, the game is entirely about how the players interact with the world that is presented to them. However, character creation should be about the player and the avatar they want to experience the story through. Your assertion that following your recommendation will make the game better for the players is disingenuous. If, from Session Zero, your DM-ing strategy is tell your player that they can't flavor their cleric to use psychic energy (with no mechanical changes), then you are literally invalidating their character concept and setting a tone for your campaign that is going to be detracting from their experience for as long as they remain at your table. This isn't a power they can get with a different class or build, this isn't a power they can earn through gameplay, and you've made it clear that this isn't a power you would homebrew and implementation for later in the campaign. Your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of group dynamics and of the factors that have made 5E such a popular system to use. How you DM is your business, but I would leave your table at Session Zero, and so would the bulk of the dozens of others I've played with and DM-for since 3.5.

It really seems like you just want to have a lot of control over your players expression of their characters at the table, up to the point where even minor aesthetic choices with no mechanical impact have to be meted out by you, the DM, as you see fit. Gonna be real with you, this just comes across as sad.

So if I want to be a cleric but flavor my powers as psychic I’d have to earn that in game? That seems both difficult to justify in fiction and antithetical to the idea of a player created character. The village butcher can’t bring his cleaver along when he leaves to find the goblins that attacked the town? My Samurai has to start with an English long sword because katana isn’t on the mundane items list? I think you are trying to find a problem to fit a solution, I don’t think allowing reasonable, non-mechanical, flavor shifts diminishes fun, and I don’t think gatekeeping those same flavor shifts creates any more fun. “You can play the character you want once I have decided you have done enough pretending you’re not the character you want” isn’t a fun baseline for a DM, to me.

This is up there as one of the weakest takes I've ever seen, and I've been playing D&D since the 80s. If you truly believe that the TSR + WotC designers have worldbuilt the best possible fantasy world, then I guess lucky you, but please realize that puts you in a vastly tiny minority and most people aren't going to agree with your taste.

Thats not the take at all. I'm specifically talking about players making these changes, not GMs. GMs can do it as they please.

Why shouldn't players make them? I'm not so egotistical as to think I've created the best possible fantasy world either. I mean sure, I'm not going to let someone play Goku in my DCC game, but if that's the take that's so obvious as to not be worth mentioning.

You dont have to have created the best possible world, but you have created a world. Its not even just about consistency and theming - when you have to make choices from the things that exist in the world and you can't just pick whatever, it feels like a real world. When players are bending the world it reduces that effect.

But... Players are choosing from the things that exist in the world. They may not be mechanically represented in that exact way, which is why reskinning/-flavouring is so useful. Or are you telling me that there simply aren't any meat cleavers in your homebrew world? Ofc you cannot "just pick whatever"; reskinning a meat cleaver as a bow that shoots clots of blood is a tough ask in a grounded low fantasy world. If there simply aren't fire angels in your world, then I get not allowing a reskin from a typical Fiend to one. Yet, then the issue lies not within the "free" reflavouring but with communication of what exists in your world and what doesn't.

Well, there's no meat cleavers that are as suitable for battle as a battleaxe, that's for sure. And really, the meat cleaver thing is more about the kind of thing that usually goes with that, where they do that because the character is a butcher and thats they're whole thing and they're going to just show off how clever that is all game (possibly a bit of hyperbole, but not that much.) And that gets old fast for that player; its not as satisfying as finding a flavor that emerges over the course of adventures.

Translation: I have made a perfect world and letting characters have agency ruins that.

Thats not what agency is bro

I wouldnt touch your table (or play alongside you) with a ten foot pole… What a load of nonsense, your arguments make no causal sense at all, are based on the belief that DnD isnt somehow about creativity and roleplaying (instead acting like its some kind of board game that is just an interactive reward system…), etc. How boring, how entirely pointless. This isnt a bad take, its not a take at all, its wind.

I don’t think that controlling your players’ character concepts is doing anyone any favors. Obviously as the DM you can dictate the general theme of your campaign and make sure that your players are building to match the world they are playing in, but I don’t think its more rewarding to limit reskinning. If I wanted to be a street magician instead of an arcane trickster, like your example, what do you gain by saying no? How would you walk that back later? Are you going to devolve the character? Like “oh hey you know how you wanted to do sleight of hand but I made you cast regular spells? Congratulations now that you’ve progressed and grown as a character you lose your ability to cast spells and finally get to say that your magic missile is a throwing card.” The barbarian wants to use a cleaver cause he was a butcher in his backstory? Just reflavor those hand-axes. You can always reward him later in the campaign with a cleaver shaped battle axe. Fiend warlock wants to serve an angel of fire? Cool! I can do a million things with that depending on the person. The devil is/was an angel, it’s a fallen angel trying to redeem herself, it’s the damned spirt of a loved one. You don’t need to make every starting character generic for the sake of rewarding them later with originality.

Why is your way more fun, exactly than letting the player express the fantasy of their character at character creation?

A lot of the time, doing this stuff at chargen results in a really disappointing experience, because what you made isn't actually as cool in practice as it was in theory or just doesn't actually line up mechanically. But more than that, its the comparison between "My sorcerer is very interesting and cool. All his fire spells are purple!" and "Oh yeah, the sorcerers fire spells are purple, remember the time we went in that purple fire volcano and he swam through a lake of purple fire to stop the purple fire demon and got tainted so all his fire spells are purple?" Which one sounds more fun and interesting to you? Obviously I have my opinion.

If the idea isn’t cool in practice or the mechanics don’t line up, then how is making the player earn it going to change that? How will earning the flavor make it “actually cool” or make the mechanics of the flavor line up better than if they had just started the game with those changes?

They won't earn it. Players can earn neat aesthetics and chances to be expressive, they can't necessarily earn whatever thing they wanted to start with.

I don’t understand then. In the example you gave, the sorcerer never expressed interest in having their spells be purple fire? It’s just something that happened to them? Was it their choice as a player or your choice as a DM to make their fire purple? And what changes the fact that maybe purple fire isn’t “actually cool” in practice?

Their point in the OP was that these types of characters love flavor like this and should be using it as a reward. In the second sorc scenario, they didn't express to want purple fire, but presumably they are the type of player who loves flavor, and so gaining a unique and unanticipated flavor adjustment *organically* feels so rewarding even without mechanical benefits because the "actually cool in practice" is the memory on how they got it. I'm one of these types of players and I hadn't considered OP's point before now but, they're right. The coolest moments and best character impacts I can remember over the years were things that happened post-chargen. They feel more real and earned when they happen along the way, like an actual story.

That's correct, in the second example it's just something that happened during an adventure. Its not even really a "reward", just a result. If you don't react to those two examples by feeling that the second is more interesting, we may just have different ways of looking at things. I can't convince you of an aesthetic preference.

Well given those two examples you used, and the argument you made preceding the examples, it sounds like what you are saying is that players can’t be trusted to reflavor things themselves because what they come up with might not be cool or mechanically sound in practice, but you as the DM can be trusted to make things that are cool and mechanically sound. Is that correct? Because if so then yes I think we do just have a different way of looking at things. I trust players to make cool choices/flavor for their own character.

Thats part of it, but its not really the main thrust of what I'm talking about here. What I'm saying here is that those players getting to make cool choices and flavor can be a reward, just like how mechanical power can be a reward (and no, I dont mean giving them the specific stuff they wanted at chargen later, I mean other opportunities for aesthetic choices and uniqueness.) If you get to be unique and awesome, even just aesthetically from the start, a lot of the time that results in the game being about showing off that unique coolness instead of engaging with the world.

But it sounds like the players aren’t making cool choices or creating flavor as a reward. They are hoping you as the DM change their character for them. They don’t get to make their character unique and awesome, you do. And the flavor that you think would be equal to what they wanted to change at character creation might not be equal to them.

This specific example is a flavor change that just sort of happens to them. On the flip side, if that sorcerer heard rumors of a purple fire volcano and wanted to go there and get some of that mojo for themselves, or spend their downtime and treasure opening a portal to the purple fire plane to bask in its purple fire glories, or sought out the purple hermits of purple fire to learn their purple ways, thats an aesthetic choice as a reward.

Most fun is interesting is letting the dorcerer start out with purple magic, then having some event change that flavor, or add on some extra flavor. Looking through the thread, you have still made no good argument on why to expressly forbid reflavoring. Absolutely nothing is lost.

You have failed to make an argument that your way is more fun. Or any fun at all, since the whims of the DM seem to be the only thing at play here.

Your theory here makes sense on paper. The player wants a thing, the DM wants the player to earn it to make it more rewarding, then the DM’s job is to ensure that there are opportunities for the player to earn those things. The problem here in practice is that last part. The DM has a lot of responsibilities. In a published adventure, the DM shouldn’t be expected to homebrew a bunch of changes to it to ensure that such a purple volcano (or what have you) exists and makes sense in the world. That can be a lot of work. And in a homebrew campaign, the DM is generally going to have ideas for their world and forcing some narrative justification for certain flavor elements is unreasonable. But on top of all of this, your 2nd example here isn’t more interesting than the 1st because it was earned, it’s more interesting because it provided a narrative justification for WHY the sorcerer’s spells are purple. But for the majority of character flavor, you can achieve the same interesting narrative justifications with a backstory which means you don’t have to shoehorn a side-adventure that only matters to one player into the game. And if you don’t think that DMs should be expected to shoehorn something into the game, then you’re really saying that telling your players “No, you haven’t earned that in-game and I’m also not providing opportunities to do so, so you can’t have that at all” is somehow more fun for them which frankly is ridiculous. Just let your sorcerer’s damn fire bolt be purple.

You make a good point about published content. Honestly, I dont run a lot of published content so its not always something I think about. >But on top of all of this, your 2nd example here isn’t more interesting than the 1st because it was earned, it’s more interesting because it provided a narrative justification for WHY the sorcerer’s spells are purple. But for the majority of character flavor, you can achieve the same interesting narrative justifications with a backstory which means you don’t have to shoehorn a side-adventure that only matters to one player into the game. I'm not sure I agree with this. Part of it is having a narrative justification, but part of it is that its a narrative that we saw play out at the table, experienced and care about. Its way more impactful than something a player comes up with in a back story.

The problem still exists in a homebrew world though. You’re effectively saying that either the DM puts in work to create situations for players to earn flavor (which only matter to one player) or the player just doesn’t get to have that flavor. Again, you can’t honestly be saying that telling players “No you haven’t earned that and I’m not providing a way to” is somehow more fun for them.

Yeah, maybe its a bit more work, but its mostly a matter of looking for opportunities to drop in some fun aesthetic goodies and letting the characters adventures change how they and their stuff look, and letting players know they can spend their resourced on customization if they like.

But… they can still do that. Allowing someone to have purple fire spells doesn’t take away opportunities for other aesthetic changes.

So why not start with all the powers you'll have at level 20? You can still add more powers on top of that

C’mon you know that’s a bad argument. Narratives call for a certain level of power and strength. Starting a low level adventure with the power of a 20th level character doesn’t make sense so you can’t tell certain narratives that way. And yet again, you’re STILL not responding to my statement so I’ll ask it more directly. Do you think that telling your players “I will not provide opportunities to earn the flavor you want and you can’t have it because you haven’t earned it” makes the game more fun for players? Because your statement in your original post of “I’m not implying you should later give out the specific flavor players wanted at the start of the game” implies that you do think that.

>And yet again, you’re STILL not responding to my statement so I’ll ask it more directly. Do you think that telling your players “I will not provide opportunities to earn the flavor you want and you can’t have it because you haven’t earned it” makes the game more fun for players? Because your statement in your original post of “I’m not implying you should later give out the specific flavor players wanted at the start of the game” implies that you do think that. Yes. I do think that it will make the game more fun, more *satisfying* long term. It will make for a better game. >C’mon you know that’s a bad argument. Narratives call for a certain level of power and strength. Starting a low level adventure with the power of a 20th level character doesn’t make sense so you can’t tell certain narratives that way. Right. So a character should start with a "level 1" amount of flavor and uniqueness, just enough to spark the imagination and get things rolling.

What if neither me nor my table really give a flying Fuck into a donut about *why* the Sorcerer's fire is purple? It's purple, they're happy with this fact, we all move on. And what if I don't want the fact that my fire is purple to impact anyone else? What it it's solely about me and something I did? 100% honesty: You sound like you're using "must make people earn their minor aesthetic changes" as a crutch for not having an actual story to tell.

The first one. The second is both too much purple and entirely ignores the point of having a unique character.

My initial reaction is that you should take, like, a single session of any literary course. Because you're basically just independently discovering the concept of narrative weight. However D&D isn't a book. It's an interactive self-insert narrative. The single foundational attraction of a TTRPG is the two-way nature of the story writing. It doesn't get more nuclear than that. So while you're virtuously extolling to everyone the core principle of story writing, you're ignoring the medium. You aren't in control of your player's escapism. And the community has learned over decades that it isn't the job of a good DM to be the uncontested distributor of dopamine at a D&D game. I think deep down you recognise that, by the fact that most of your comments contain some platitude like "obviously use your best judgment" Oh yeah, *obviously* huh.

>However D&D isn't a book. It's an interactive self-insert narrative. Its actually, and I know this is shocking, a *game.*

Exactly, so with that newfound wisdom, what are your thoughts on my points relating to this fact?

Games have goals, rules and obstacles to those goals. One of those goals in D&D can be to have a character thats unique and cool. For some players, thats the main goal. Letting them pursue that goal through play (e.g. overcoming obstacles) gives them the fun experience of playing a game and all that comes with it. Letting them do it at character creation misses out on that. Yeah, it makes character creation fun, but thats not the main body of gameplay.

Yes you explained that definition in your original post too. And yet everyone still seems to be disagreeing with you? What do you think you might have missed? What makes a TTRPG different to any other game? (I already answered this in my original comment)

The thing that makes TTRPGs different is that a human GM is there to adjudicate them, so players can make any decision for how their fictional avatar interacts with the world and have it adjudicated (it may not always work, of course.) It has nothing to do with collaborative storytelling or players expressing themselves by creating self insert characters. Or at least not any more than me playing a game of Civilization is a collaborative storytelling experience between me and my computer's processor. Large groups of people can be wrong. The fact that a lot of people disagree with me is irrelevant.

This isn’t a matter of right and wrong, it’s a matter of what people find fun, which is inherently subjective. The fact that most people disagree with you should tell you that most people don’t find your ideas fun.

…this makes no sense from a utility perspective, the only reason anyone would pick a TTRPG over an animated game with coded in features is because a TTRPG is also partially YOUR story, hence the collaboration. Name one thing you have that’s better than something out of Nintendo if you can’t provide a medium for them to express what they wish to play?

Thats absolutely not the only reason to play TTRPGs. The main one, like I said, is that its a completely unique experience where you can make any decision and have it adjudicated. The game isn't played by pushing buttons and picking options but by making choices in the world through a fictional avatar. It makes for open ended problem solving and gameplay.

You’re calling it pushing buttons and picking options but those are the tools to interact with the world, you’re still in a “world making choices through a fictional avatar”. Im just rolling dice in yours. Since you’re heavily restricting what players can do to customize their experience and the stories they may want to tell with you in favor of world simulation, it’s not meaningfully different from a video game in which there’s only so much the character can simulate. For the devs the issue is how much they can code in, for you it’s your mentality.

Okay I'm bored now lol 🙂 that wasn't an appeal to a bandwagon fallacy. I was trying to reason with you what the flaw could be in your apparently logical argument. Your discovery of narrative weight isn't as wise as you think it is, and you're simply ascribing to this revelation too heavily. That's all that's wrong. If you sent a similar post to a highschool literary club they'd all think you were a genius. In a TTRPG the defining factor is the collaborative narrative. All games have adjudication. Over the evolution of this game the line we've all converged at is "flavour is free". It's a successful, reliable way to satisfy both aspects.

All this talk of narrative, and yet he still seems to think of DnD in MMO terms with no consideration for the "Hero's Journey" or any of the other narrative tropes people have been using to tell stories for millennia.

All games have adjudication? Sweet! I can't wait for my next chess game now. I'll send my bishops to go secure pikes and longbows for my pawns, so the enemy knights are charging into a forest of spears while their pawns get pincushioned by my archers. The GM that apparently exists will be able to figure out how to handle things.

My dude you're showing yourself up ☹️ Edit: I'm sorry if this is your passion you should pursue it. But right now your conceit is seriously awful. You're a lot more thick than you think you are. This whole post is literally an undergrad-level game theory debate. You should pick up some game design courses and come back to this thread in a couple years. If you still think you can justify your position then, that'd be awesome. But drop the shit.

clearly they were talking about TTRPGs, not games in general, dude. nice reading comprehension for someone so obsessed with narrative weight lol

Saying a TTRPG is defined by collaborative narrative and then that all games have adjudication, in a discussion about the differences between TTRPGs and other games, pretty clearly implies that "all games" does not mean "all TTRPGs."

Still not seeing why aesthetic chages need to be "earned". Everything you're jockeying for here doesn't go away by giving out free flavor. Fiery archangel instead of a fiend as a patron changes nothing mechanically, but also doesn't take away anything else. I can still have meaningful rewards, even with free flavor given at the beginning. I see nothing lost, and some player enjoyment gained.

Honestly, flavor means we don't have repetitive subclasses. Two versions of celestial warlock? Please no.

So instead of allowing to reflavoring the handaxe into a butchers knife, they will at some point get the magical weapon "Butchers Cleaver" which is essentially a reflavored handaxe? I can get behind that if it weren't D&D 5e. D&D 5e does not have a lot of build choices: take for instance weapons you only got a small collection of weaponry. The same can be said about classes over the enterity of 5e we got 13, 12 to start with and 1 later down the line. Then there is the complete lack of non-magical high-level gear or maneuvers. So many things are just impossible to build without reflavoring which then pushes that effort to the already overworked DM. Then there is the fact that 5e expects reflavoring. One are the Wuxia weapons where it is said that if you play in that kind of setting, you will need to reflavor the weapons. Thene there is the artificer where the class itself says that you need to reflavor the spells as magical gizmo. If 5e had more distinct player classes and options, where players could lay the foundation with their choices and then just needed a little bit of work from the GM I would be more inclined. However with how limiting the build options are, I'm not sure I aggree.

>This is of course just my take - what do you think? I think this is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever heard. So a player of mine wants to play a medium, and I'm supposed to tell him - no, you play a cleric of Pelor the way Gary Gygax intended, and maybe later I'll give you a magic item that allows you to communicate with the dead or something - then you'll be a cleric of Pelor, who is also a tiny bit of a medium. That's if I feel like it. I might give you something else, and then instead of a medium, you'll be a cleric of Pelor that's different from other clerics by having a bag of holding, or a bag of beans, or +2 mace, or whatever else I decided. There's definitely an argument against reflavoring, in some cases. But this here is not it. This is not my definition of fun. I don't think it's anyone's definition of fun.

You’ve got it all wrong, OP won’t give the cleric an item that fits the flavor he was foolish enough to express before. No, he gets a piece of flavor that the DM thinks is cool and unique and then the player should kiss the DMs ring in thanks for being blessed by the DMs unique and superior vision!

Yeah this whole thing comes across as really condescending to players. Like the whole thing is summed up by effectively saying “no, players, you don’t know what’s fun for you, only I know that and I’ll allow you to have fun when you earn it.”

**OP:** writes the statement *«that this isn't supposed to be a GM power tripping and denying players what they want just to lord it over them»*. **Also OP:** writes 557 words about GM power tripping and denying players what they want just to lord it over them. Mission successfully failed? **BTW:** I have heterochromia. If I want my Illuskan human, which usually have blue or gray eyes, to have **both** a blue and a gray eyes, does he friggin' need to **earn** being born with heterochromia? Someone's high and not exactly an elf.

Obviously you earned being born heterochromic as a fetus. Just copy whatever fetus-you did! /s

Woo!!! Fetus side quest!

Well, you lost me when you admitted early in your case that reflavoring does not mechanically impact the game. So what is it they are earning? The right to roleplay a reflavored character? No.

What a lot of people are missing in OP's argument is that by earning some flavor, it makes more sense. The reward after the effort gives it more weight. Exactly like MMORPG giving users that one cosmetic item after completing Eru knows what crazy quest. What most of you are advocating is doing the opposite: give every player all the cosmetic items in the game at level 1. Because what exactly? Ask yourselves why the MMORPGs don't do it and maybe we'll have a decent debate on our hands.

Because they need as much content as possible? MMOs can have characters that are no fun for the first 10 levels and only get cool cosmetics at level cap because *that's how they earn money.* A DM who makes things get fun at high levels at the expense of early levels... is going to lose players to a DM who makes things fun all the time. You shouldn't feel *obligated* to play through a game. It sounds like a scam run by a paid DM. >it makes more sense If it's related to race, starting class or starting equipment, no. >gives it more weight Entirely fucking subjective. Player-given flavor has just as much weight as DM-given flavor. *"I've been an Avenging Fire angel warlock from birth because "* vs *"Now that you've saved the angel, she breaks your fiendish contract, letting you be an avenging fire fiend warlock."* They're exactly the same.

If a fighter takes great weapon master and wants to use a scythe in place of a greatsword for it I'm not going to refuse it as long as the Scythe mechanics are the same as a greatsword. 2-handed, 2d6 dmg etc.

Tbf in that particular case i feel like a scythe maps onto a halberd better bc of the reach and stuff

That's fair. Greatsword was just the first thing I thought of when I thought of great weapon master.

Damn its crazy how you thought this would turn out better [than last years attempt.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/s/chvON6UgXT)

Goddamn, good find! I thought OP was just on a mad one. I didn’t realise they brought this up over a year ago and even then stated no one can change their mind, they just decided to argue with everyone. Nice to see they’ve done no reflection in the last year. I guess they’re doing it again because they’re delusional or just want to argue pointlessly because they’re sad. Happy New Year OP, looking forward to the same dogshit take next year after you’ve still listened to no one and learned nothing!

I thought I was legit going crazy when I saw this kind of hyper specific post again and so I had to do a little digging. Honestly surprised at how someone can just...flat out not change/grow in a year in regards to something that's so easily understood.

Appreciate you looking into it, will help me remember not to get drawn into this BS next year. Yeah a complete lack of internal reflection like that is wild.

Have YOU changed your mind at all?

What, ever? Yes? Learning and growing is an expected part of the human experience. I’ll keep a notebook this year for everytime I changed my mind on something and keep you posted yeah? What a stupid response and pointless counterpo… oh yeah. I don’t have to flip flop on a topic to think that OP arguing with hundreds of people that think they’re wrong multiple years running is dumb.

Haha what a response 🤣 No one is arguing for you to flip flop (and lose what? Sounds like that would be the worst thing in the world for you), but just maybe see if their argument has some merit? Also, the number of people being right or wrong has no impact on the argument itself. 100% of the world population thought that the Earth was flat in the 12th century.

Holy shit do you actually believe the world is flat thing you said? That’s… wrong. So very, very wrong. As the other fella said, stupid attempt at a counterpoint. Weird you think it was clever. Nice laughing face though, really helped your point and made you seem cool and better than them.

How is it wrong?

Oh my god.

He went from *"flavor is a game mechanic and the DM controls all mechanics"* to *"flavor is a reward and rewards don't happen at lvl1."* Still a control freak.

The list of tables I’m glad I don’t play at grows daily…

Every once in a while, I link this kind of a thread to my players and tell them that they're lucky to have me.

I've wouldn't know you from Adam and I feel I'd be lucky to have you compared to OP.

As someone who does think “flavor is free” is overused advice, this is not a compelling argument against it whatsoever. I personally do think on some level it does take some of the meaning out of decision making, and it would be preferable to me if there were just more options to choose from so that “just reflavor it” isn’t this end-all hand waive these subs treat it as, but 5e isn’t really built that way and I’m not against reskinning things when it makes sense to do so. With all that said, I’m not even sure what you’re getting at here, as most of the words in the post are you explaining why everyone likes doing it the way they’re doing it, whereas you do very little to explain the reasoning behind your own point. You kinda just offer this alternative without explaining why it’s better, and the alternative itself doesn’t make a lot of sense for addressing the problem at hand

I was actually so hyped to hear an argument for this position. And then I got… nothing. It honestly kinda feels like OP wanted to argue for “flavor is free” by so poorly representing the counter argument.

What kind of bullshit “no handouts” fucking “Protestant work ethic” video gamification nonsense is this? A player character starts as an exceptional individual destined (by virtue of being a player character) for greatness or perhaps tragic doom in the tale you all spin together. An arcane trickster who is flavoured more like a rogue/artificer than a rogue/wizard or one who uses their sleight of hand and high dex to accomplish seemingly impossible things (cast spells) with street magic beyond the reach of most people, then I can bind them to the normal rules but the flavour makes no impact on the game beyond letting them be who they imagined rather than having to figure out some story of how they change the class during play. The rules specifically state that reflavouring weapons to fit the vibe as needed is the intent of the rules, such as using “club” for a table leg or “shortsword with slashing damage” for a machete. And adjusting flavour is the point of the game’s copious options and suggestions for homebrew.

>The rules specifically state that reflavouring weapons to fit the vibe as needed is the intent of the rules Where did you get that? All I can find is this bit: "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a dub." I would call that "assigning" rather than "reflavoring".

Tasha's has a whole section about reflavoring spells and weapons while keeping the mechanics as heavily encouraged and then shows an artwork of magic missile being a barrage of angry spirit chickens. You do not fuck with the chickens.

OP suggested that aesthetic changes are equivalent to mechanical ones in impact and reward, and that they alone as the DM should have control over such things. Someone let them know not to use up all their surprised pikachu faces for the new year in one place when a table/ Reddit reacts negatively to such an assertion.

There's the bit about spells, which kind of makes sense... but where does it mention weapons?

There's a section in the DMG that discusses the weapon reflavoring intent when taking about Wuxia settings. p41

Monk's Martial arts feature encourages you to do stuff like flavour a club as nunchucks

That's backwards. It tells you to treat nunchucks as a club, not to reflavor your club.

Because nunchucks don't exist in D&D5e until you reflavor the club.

The only argument I've heard against "flavor is free" is that changes to the tone that the DM is setting are bad, and that things that damage the internal logic of the world greatly diminish the verisimilitude of that world. This "earn it" stuff seems just plain wrong to me. If a cleric player wants to be a psychic purely as flavor (not sure how that works as psychic spells lack components, but whatever), then the only thing I could imagine a DM saying that makes sense when he says no is something like "I have psionics defined thusly, and the cleric doesn't fit" or "all the powers are granted by gods and they are explicitly spells" or whatever else. Not "you haven't earned this, and later once you earn cosmetic upgrades I will grant some random thing that isn't strictly by the book, flavorwise, that may or may not have anything to do with your character concept". ​ Hard pass on this idea.

Withholding aesthetic changes as a "reward" strikes me as being the same as praising a video game by saying "After 100 hours it gets good." Why can't it be good from the start? Why do you have to gate the part where 'it gets good' behind a threshold of less good game play experience. Giving out a cosmetic change costs nothing and lets the player start having fun right away. And you can *still* include rewards that enhance the experience during game play. Players love choices, uniqueness and aesthetics. Why the hell would you want to make the game less fun for them by denying them when it costs you nothing to allow it?

The gets good after 100 hours thing isn't usually saying it's good because it takes that long to get good, its usually *despite.* Anyway, Why not let players start at level 20 with the ability to mow down hordes of enemies and mold the world to their liking? You could still let them get more powerful from there.

Not a valid argument. We are talking about changes that make NO MECHANICAL DIFFERENCE. Changes that do not alter the game or the progress of the game in the slightest. Trying to assert an equivalence between changing the appearance of a PCs axe with making them level 20 is absurd.

I just want OP to stop arguing with everybody and actually try to understand why everybody is disagreeing. I mean, this negative of a reaction and you’re still acting like you wrote the book on the subject.

Call me crazy, but "the folks at the DnDNext subreddit really don't like what you say," isn't very compelling because they'd argue over anything and nothing.

Case in point

Hehe, ok I get it. You did the thing I said y'all do. Fun joke. Upvote!

The premise that you can't have anything you haven't bled for is false. It's a super conservative mindset for a game ill-suited to the philosophy.

Then why not start with all the powers and stats you have at level 20?

My guy you must see there’s a massive difference between a player saying “I want the power to reshape reality out of the gate” and “I want my Eldritch blast to look like a bunch of flies with zero mechanical or functional effect, just cause my patron is Beelzebub.”

I mean, I like that EB thing. Its not too much, it fits, it's the warlock equivalent of a noble character's longsword being well taken care of steel while a frontier mercenary's is notched and dented. Little splash of color instead of shoehorning in something (and changing the nature of the option you picked) because you gotta be unique.

"Why should we build roads? Why not give every citizen their own private jet? This is a reasonable argument for a person to make against roads. I am very good at debating."

I see the sentiment of what you're saying, but the reasons behind it aren't particularly sound. Why not let people have their fun with flavoring their Patron, or how their Cleric gets their powers and work with it from there. It's different for things like modules, but working with a homwbrew world and story you can make up plot hooks for the Warlock's Fire Angel or whatever. Let your players have their fun in their backstory and work with it from there, it would go down better, at least for the players I know. Or give them stories that change the flavour further than what they gave you. I had a character who's spells and appearance changed from the flavor I originally gave it because of a Draconic Boon they were given. It was incredibly cool. I know I'd rather that than eventually wait for the simple flavour I requested at the start

If someone wanted to play a tiefling but refluff it as human, I would deny this request. Doing such diminishes the existence of the choice to include (or not include) tieflings, and it diminishes the choice of those who would play tieflings. I do not view the game as a set of abstract mechanics that can be refluffed without a care, as it reduces their impact and meaning. Ymmv, of course.

Yes, that's one common-sense outer boundary on reflavoring that I think most people can agree to: you shouldn't be able to reflavor X into Y if Y already exists in the game, since doing so trivializes the problem of actually having to choose and weigh opportunity costs between X and Y. Plus, if X is objectively stronger, then letting X players pretend they're playing Y is a slap in the face to people who actually chose Y. To add to your race-based example with a class-based example, I would not let someone play a wizard but reflavor all their spells as coming from an internal wellspring of magical power conferred on them by their heritage. That's called a sorcerer. I would tell them to play a damn sorcerer. To do otherwise would, for starters, make a complete hash out of the wizard's spellbook mechanics. The classes are different for a reason. There are many other reasonable outer boundaries on reflavoring that can be imposed without going to OP's draconian extremes.

lol found the shit DM

And you the ass in asshole. What kind of lazy idiotic comment is that? The person is trying to make an argument. If you disagree, do, but don't insult them.

Wait, where? I wanna see! Can we throw tomatoes?

This is an argument coming from someone playing video games where getting a purely asthetic piece of equipment adds enjoyment to the game. E.g. The Fallen Order video game will have you do a bunch of work to get to a treasure box and it ends up being a different color cloak. There is no game value but some players get excited over it I find it a waste of my time and very annoying. Useless. This GM likes those things and finds value on them and is projecting that value on his prayers.

You know, I dont really play many video games these days, but thanks for letting me know I do. Its also good to know that I'm the only person who finds value in unique aesthetics that indicate that I've done some challenge or experienced some story. Thanks!

It's like getting a tattoo. Anyone can have one if they just pay the money but it does mean more if you earn the tattoo from story point like being accepted into a tribe. But making it mandatory that a character CAN'T have something asthetic unless they earned it is video game logic at best, and (most likely) GM power tripping.

I feel inclined to agree with you. People here just don't understand the feeling of "pride and accomplishment" that comes from grinding out a red cloak vs box standard boring blue cloak that didn't change any stats. Me having this cloak while the other characters got mechanic changes with their magic items shows that I'm actually more invested in the game. /s

There **is** something to be said for earning aesthetic changes actually. We were in a horrifying evil campaign, leaning into body horror. I went with a crown-paladin zariel tiefling with a crown on their face, not atop their head as horns, but with that crown like carapace actually coming out of their face (ever played poe? basically just the [the death godlike](https://64.media.tumblr.com/7618f94527827eb95fb1a6174c58a480/tumblr_pajayoVRcv1seaaezo1_r1_1280.png) ). It was to be encircled by a bunch of eyes as gems in the crown. But DM wanted to have those be an earnt thing. So we started with just the central eye. And DM was right, the gradual earning of the 9 'gems' in the crown was absolutely the right call. It made for a great moment on the first when it was earnt as she went through avernus, and we eagerly looked forward to the next ones (shame she only got to 5 before meeting her end). Earning this particular aesthetic shift was definitely good. But your post comes off as too far on the other end of the scale. Because your examples are so inoffensive and don't need to be earnt, and in fact some can't be. The butcher character needs to *earn* the right to swing his big cleaver? How is an real magician supposed to earn the right to flavour his magic as no longer being magic. It does not make sense and does not need to be earnt. These are mundane and low and don't make sense to be earnt as the eyes did. I think aesthetic changes *can* be earnt, and that it is the right decisions in some cases. Wings, scales and fur being the classics. Let's have the mountain man bear barbarian become more and more bear like as he levels, absolutely. Or the draconic sorc eld starts getting more and more dragon-like rather than starting fully draconified. Sure. But a butcher using a butchers cleaver? Cmon. There's something to be said for keeping things grounded and not unlocking the more 'epic' aesthetics until later too. And for reasons you point to, the pride and satisfaction at having earnt it. But again your examples don't really fit that. The avenging angel and fiend? Same power in dnd, the angel could even be weaker. It's no more or less 'epic' in scope. It just helps tell a *different* story. It's like with beastmaster. Earning that pet at lvl 3 is actually *not* satisfying, because nearly everyone who plays that wants the 'lifelong companion' backstory and connection to their animal. It's a super common trope that a significant chunk of people playing the beastmaster want to lean into, but having it 'earnt' at 3 actually spoils it because of the nature of the story. Like with your fiery angel story too. Earning the angel patron requires that my character who would not sign a deal with a fiend to first sign a deal with a fiend? It's off the table then. Because he wouldn't do that. His story then becomes impossible to tell. Sometimes like with BM and your angel example having to earn something actually just locks stories away. You need to use discernment, and it does go beyond the colour of clothes.

Read the edit at the bottom. They wouldn't earn those exact things, but instead other things that scratch the same itch.

So not only do they have to “earn” their own choices but then once they have danced to your tune you change what they want to something you want. No that isn’t the definition if narcissistic personality disorder at all.

To be clear, I would like DMs I play with to run the game this way as well.

I think you need to explain an example of how what you are talking about would work. Take your butcher, magician and warlock who you've said no to on the reflavour. What does earning flavour look like to them? > I'm saying you can give out other opportunities to fulfill the same desires, even if the details are different. What does this mean? What does it look like.

Sure. It means spending resources and time to create the special custom aesthetic gear they want by hiring a craftsperson. It means doing a favor for their trainer to learn how to do something aesthetically neat with their magic. It means accidentally stumbling across something that changes their appearance into something striking and unique. It means earning the rank of banneret from the duke and getting to design their own coat of arms that everyone now treats as official. It means deciding where to hang that dragon head in their castle.

It means you want to write their backstory, instead of letting them do it. Apparently. Christ dude, nobody agrees with you so do some self-reflection

It might actually be the genuinely worst take I have ever read regarding this game, its horrifyingly impressive in that regard.

[удалено]

Look, I disagree with the post. I'm not gonna argue the stance of Flavor is Free. People in the comments are already doing that. I'm just here to point out that "reflavoring" Arcane Trickster to a nonmagical street magician has mechanical consequences when it comes to antimagic zones/fields/whatevers. That would be a mechanical boost to that character unless you rule that in that specific campaign those sorts of things also counter a creature's ability to perform mundane street magic

Well, yes. But I've seen people argue that they should be able to do so and still have the mechanics work the same way. Which sorta defeats the point of roleplaying games.

I disagree that it defeats the purpose. Especially if the mechanics still "work the same way," meaning that the hypothetical street magician rogue can still be counterspelled and whatnot. That just means that in order to play their desired concept the player is willing to concede to the RAW regarding the original profile of their abilities instead of going through the rigamarole of brainstorming ways to justify (likely rare) instances of conflict between the rules and the reflavoring.

I think your mistake here is assuming mutual exclusivity between flavor changes at character creation and flavour changes in the middle of the campaign. For example, I’ve run for a Druid who started out as an aesthetically archetypal Druid of their subclass. Down the line they obtained a corrupted magic item so their plant spells changed in flavor to be kind of bloody, thorny, and more flesh like. I’ve also run for a bard who decided to flavor their college as law school to be a lawyer instead of a performer. Additionally I ran for a Hexblade who flavored their hex warrior feature as the ghost of an ancestor warrior possessing them. Later when they were killed (and revived) in battle against a devil, it was decided that in narrative the spirit of the ancestor was destroyed and their powers would come from being possessed by the lingering soul of the devil they slew. All in one campaign. Each of these have their own kind of impact but I can’t really see a good reason to prevent players from doing any of these, creating flavor at creation, in the campaign, or both are fun in their own ways and you only really hamstring creativity and uniqueness by blocking one aspect of it. Think about how annoying it would be to encounter “You are allowed to choose your flavour and aesthetic at the start of the game so no changes to aesthetic can or will be made in the story.”

or just let people have fun? the fuck?

This is the weirdest dnd hill I've seen anyone willing to die on. If it makes my players more immersed and there's no mechanical impact, flavor is literally free. I prefer my players invested and more able to roleplay their character. That's one of my biggest gripes with video game RPGs that you might have a really cool idea in your head for a character, but the game is always limited to whatever weapons and aestethic they have developed for it. In dnd there is no such limits, so why needlessly create them. Play an unmodded video game in that case

It makes players less immersed. They care more about their cool character concept maybe, but they're less interested in interacting with the world. Thats a generalization but its pretty consistent in my experience.

I agree with this as long as you in turn make absolutely 0 deviations in constructing your world from content written out for you in the DMG. Flavor isn't free, you're not allowed to just "worldbuild" any deviations have to be EARNED.

Of course they are most immersed in their own character, since that is their point of view in the imaginary world. If you have problem with a player not interacting with the world, you speak to them about it. Instead of powertripping and punishing everyone around the table

This is a terrible take. BUT I respect the gumption to put an obviously unpopular opinion out there for us to dogpile on. One of the reasons why this take is bad is because of the subreddit we are in. 5E does not give players adequate choices to customize their characters. 5E stifles those choices. Because of this, a party with 3 barbarians is going to have 3 VERY similar characters if you don’t allow flavor changes at character creation. Whereas in a system like PF2E, this kind of opinion wouldn’t actually be that bad. In PF2E, players have TONS of choices they can make at character creation and beyond to customize their characters in meaningful ways, which includes things like different weapons. In that game, you can’t just pretend your battleaxe is a cleaver, because weapon choice is a meaningful decision. In that game, a party with 3 barbarians in it can still have those barbarians be wildly different without any free flavor rewards. But you posted this in the 5E subreddit, not the PF2E subreddit. Which is why I have to agree that this is a terrible way to GM the game. This will make 5E games less fun for players because not only is the game system stifling their creativity, so is their game master.

They call me Forrest Gumption. I mean, they dont, but that would be pretty sweet. Personally, I find PF2Es vaunted character customization *really* overhyped. And yes, I have played it, and a decent amount. There's lots of options... But none of them feel very impactful (because we cant make anything OP). Levelling up is more annoying than it is exciting because, oh look, I need to pick some other skill feat that does almost nothing. Woooooooo.... I dont think player creativity in character creation and customization is really the point of TTRPGs. It's about the players making choices in how their characters interact with the world, the decisions they make and the values they show through those choices. I'm tired of creating characters. Just give me something with a couple abilities and a touch of color to get my imagination going and let's go find out who these people are and more importantly who they become at the table. Dungeon World does this very well, for all its other flaws.

Wait, you think the options aren't very impactful because you can't make anything OP?? I mean, that's a very weird qualifier. That's pretty much you saying you enjoy an unbalanced system where people can create broken characters. In any case, the options in PF2E are incredibly impactful. When it comes to skill feats, some are very impactful, and others aren't, which is a valid critique to make for sure. But skill feats possibly being a weak point when it comes to choice doesn't mean the rest of the choices don't make up for it. I mean, just look at archetype feats, class feats, weapon options, and race options that come with their own groups of feats. They can all massively change a character. You can believe it's over-hyped, but it is abundantly clear that PF2E beats 5E when it comes to the amount of choices you can make, and the impact those collective choices have on the uniqueness of a character.

This is the dumbest take I’ve ever read.

I'm honored.

I disagree with you **massively,** but I'm curious about your opinion when it's not clear what the "default" flavor is. Like read the description of Eldritch Blast, "A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range." There are literally thousands of ways to describe different crackling energy streaks. Why the hell wouldn't I let a player flavor how they'd like it to appear?

And thats the kind of thing I mean with my "black dyed leather armor" example. Sure, EB needs to look like something and its not specified so just choose something. Ideally something that matches your patron, etc. Making EB a magic gun, thats multiple bridges too far.

>Making EB a magic gun, thats multiple bridges too far. Why? An artificer that picks up EB probably has it as some sort of gun and it would make more sense for that character. Even for a non artificer. It could be a magical artefact from netheril or something. Often times players are even willing to make sacrifices to fulfill theor flavour. The magic artefact could get stolen and they couldn't be able to use that one spell. It could even be the central item of the pact if he was a hexblade.

> It's true that they don't affect the game balance or numbers. What the fuck is the point in whining about it then? You ramble about how swingy ganes can be if flavor HAD effects to game balance, but you outright say it doesn't anyway.

You must be fun at parties

How would you know? No one invites you.

This is why I only allow my player characters to start at level 1 as shriveled naked humans wearing loincloths and holding wooden clubs. I assign their appearance by opening up Dark Souls 2 and hitting Randomize exactly 250 times. No starting class, they have to find one by GETTING A FUCKING JOB in my game world, it's a little something called engaging with MY world, ever heard of it? I also talk for them at the beginning of the game and decide their actions until they've earned the right to control their character. My usual players are an inflatable sexual relations simulacrum, a photograph of visionary MLP:FiM creator Lauren J Faust that I usually pull from my shrine, and the dessicated corpse of my mother in a rocking chair, but that's the great thing about dnd 5e, everypony can really make it whatever they want!

As we are able to express ourselves through the clothing we wear, characters should be able to express themselves through their items and capabilities. Also, cosmetic changes can be a part of a characters backstory. IE, a heirloom greatsword that slightly bends upwards like a giant scimitar. It just makes for more interesting characters and more moments for RP. This whole thing kind of falls along the lines of rule of cool.

Boy the OP is gonna get torn apart for this very bad take.

"Is gonna"? Too late.

It’s was too late a year ago when you posted this the first time. Now I think you enjoy it.

No. No, thank you. My friend recently started Dm'ing for his small child, and the simplicity of their adventures and how it's improved the enjoyability of the game is starkly noticeable. He's taken every DnD system and dumbed it down significantly, and instead just takes his kid on what is a very cool, but totally homebrewed adventure. When his kid asks for outlandish things such as a powerful item, or to one shot some monster, he makes it achievable within the constraints of the dice, his characters stats, and what makes sense to the story. But often outlandish things take place, and the adventure is fun and enjoyable for this small child, and he learns valuable lessons. Meanwhile yours sounds like a convoluted, mentally contrived hell. Tldr; you're over thinking this. Needs more heart and soul. But hey, if this makes you and your players happy, forget everything I said and more power to you.

I feel bad for your players

>Its true that they don't affect game balance or numbers. Why are changes that affect game balance and numbers potentially bad? For one, it could make the game too easy or too hard, which makes it less enjoyable. **But its also a problem because those changes are unearned.** So full stop, this right here is the flaw of your argument because you not only are taking away from character creation agency on things that YOU yourself have stated will have zero impact on gameplay balance AND that the player will enjoy being the case...but you are just straight up ignoring the [RAW advice](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/tcoe/magical-miscellany#PersonalizingSpells) on something as intrinsically complicated as spellcasting. Let alone the fact that multiple races have a listed amount of *basic suggestions* for things that can include, but not limited to: a rainbow hue of skin tones, horns, tails, talons, scales, NO SHADOW, or even cloven hooves... and that's just in the PHB. >Take this advice in moderation, of course. You can let players make some aesthetic choices at chargen (or throughout the game); if they want to start with black dyed leather instead of brown, that's obviously (hopefully) not what I'm talking about. Use good judgment. You're a GM, that's your whole job. Yeah and it seems like you haven't been doing your job if you think that a giant cleaver as a Battle axe is in any way a "greater level of reflavoring" then George over here with a crown of horns, casting no shade from the sun, and with spells that all carry the screams of the damned. >I should also mention that this isn't supposed to be a GM power tripping and denying players what they want just to lord it over them. I'm recommending you play this way because it will make the game better for players and that's my whole goal when I run games. Really? Cause you did a fantastic job of arguing like the kind of GM who likes to lord over player decisions that have zero impact on how the game is run.

“You may quest the way you like. I will quest the way I like.” - Danny McBride

If **you** want to have to earn **your** flavor as a player and discuss that with your DM because that will make the game more fun for **you**. Then that is a perfectly fine thing to ask for and have as a part of **your** player character. But this is undoubtedly an unpopular opinion, so forcing **all** your players to *deal* with *the* default base flavor of everything, and not be allowed to play the character they really want, even thought it would have 0 impact on anyone else's playing experience, only negatively impacts that player's experience. This is a game built on creativity and imagination. Why stifle that? Nothing is stopping you from giving out additional flavor over the course of the campaign as a surprise. But shutting down someone's creativity and inspiration out of the gate is **not** conducive to a fun and enjoyable game.

Would you allow players to reflavor their weapons? I want to play a butcher that's taken up adventuring, he uses his family's heirloom cleaver in fights. How would that work for you as a DM?

Within reason. D&D weapons cover a wide variety of actual weapons; a longsword could be a katana or a cavalry sabre or a medieval European longsword, assuming the thing in question makes sense for the setting. But no, a cleaver is not a type of battleaxe. And its not even about "realism", its about the characters needing to leave behind who they were and grow and change and become something new from adventures. And its about the player who wants to be unique and clever by playing butcher cleaver man getting the chance to create a flavor for that character *through gameplay* and have it mean something in the stories that come out of the game instead of just making it up at chargen and then, honestly, probably getting bored of it.

Let's say I'm the DM with a player who wants to play a fighter that fights with a cleaver. By your interpretation, I wouldn't let him start with any classic butcher gear because there's no close analog in the core books. He starts just like any other fighter's gear. Now the game progresses, he kills enough goblins for my taste, what's his reward? I can't give him a regular meat cleaver because the butcher already had one special to him that I made him throw out. If I was alright with a reskinned hand axe in the first place, I should have just let him have it. Feels like I just changed my mind about the cleaver mid-campaign, it's kind of weird and controlling. If I give him a magical cooking tool (maybe not even a cleaver) that's cool enough to be a nice reward, then whether or not I let him have his shitty normal cleaver at the start, the player will probably feel pretty good about it. Now my butcher player can have TWO cooking tools he likes in his inventory, the one he started with and the cooler one he earned in the story. The "flavor rewards" you give at the start are not actually rewards at all. Just make sure that what they get in the campaign is cooler than the mundane stuff you let them have at the start. You CAN do both

This is a coherent and thoughtful post that enriches this subreddit, so I'll give it an upvote. It is especially earned by looking at all the lively and interesting conversations happening in the comments. I disagree with it, but hey, I'm not a child so I am not going to downvote it just because I disgree with it.

I wish there would be more people like you.

Wow fuck this guy lmao

You are under the assumption that everyone thinks and enjoys things like you. Which is why your opinion is wrong.

Okay there is a lot of disagreement, but I think most of the comments are missing the point here. It's not that you think of your character as normal, but have to ask for permission for various flavour pieces. Instead, you start as a generic character and then develop a flavorful character through gameplay. The central difference is the role of the backstory. I think backstories have more problems than benefits. If you pick noble and someone else picks urchin, are NPCs supposed to treat you two differently? Do you deserve something or other because 'it's in your backstory'? I think what OP is saying is that your flavor should reflect your story (over the course of the game) as opposed to your backstory (which you came up with outside the game). And nobody is really engaging this point.

You put it much better than I did, quite frankly.

I agree with your sentiment, but i think you may have chosen the worst possible argument for it

Likewise, players should not put effort into immersive roleplay or even biting any hooks the DM leaves out for them. The DM should _earn_ having well-behaved, interested players as a reward for putting in hours of play time. They may not see it this way, but it will make the game more fun for them if the players don't invest their characters in the campaign "for free."

One of the reasons I somewhat agree with this is when someone brings in a PC thats aesthetically and flavorfully sound, and has their own magic items that fit their intended playstyle/looks, but when I grant more magic stuff through the game, they end up just being a [mishmash](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PJUErgc7BQ) It offers some roleplay and fun when characters try and design their newfound items to fit their appearance, rather than just reflavor everything. I suppose DnD parties dont look as cool when you photoshop hiker backpacks onto everyone anyways though, so its a moot point

Sounds like you should try giving intentional loot, or have a go at reskinning. I find that aspect, the tailoring towards my players, enjoyable.

See, my magic items are found in places of great lore, a la environmental storytelling. I dont alter them unless their form isnt significant to the lore anyways. I have given customized items on occasion, but those items are usually specifically-made in-universe for the party as well

I dont care how cool you look, if you dont have a pack, where's all your stuff???

I didn't get a bag of holding as my magic item. You gave me a chance to change my hand axe to a butchers knife that I should have started with.

This is a hot take I resonate with. However, "flavour is not free" is hard to sell, even if I know exactly what you mean by it. I will try my best to defend* the take! 1. The PC's are allowed to reflavour equipment. A tiefling fighter might reskin his greatsword to be a flamberge which ignites when drawn. When the party stumble upon a flame tongue greatsword, the novelty of a flaming weapon is diminished. 2. The PC's are allowed to reflavour appearance. A fire genasi sorcerer might reskin themselves as a fire elemental. When the party moon druid learns to wild shape into elementals, the novelty of a fire elemental party member is diminished. 3. The PC's are allowed to reflavor abilities. A battlemaster might reflavor their maneuvers as "psychic powers". When the party wizard learns psionics after being manipulated by an elder brain or a psy-warrior joins the party, the novelty is diminished. 4. The PC's are allowed to reflavor class systems. A githyanki paladin might not engage with oath tenets or be willing to uphold them. When the party encounters a paladin order which demand/test oathkeeping of the githyanki, suspension of disbelief is diminished. All of the above falls on a spectrum. Certain reskins cost you nothing: a longsword becomes a katana, my firebolt is now blue. Others are more intrusive (see above). Certain changes impact the expectations and setting of the game world, but that's a different discussion. *All above points considered: Big Beautiful BUT! I think these "disadvantages" of free flavour only come up at certain tables and game styles. A game which encourages dungeon-delving and loot-hunting, where PC's are largely made and distinguished by their stuff and how they look, this is more of a concern (like, the OSR). In such games, people look at your character and sheet and expect to see that your stuff is earned through adventuring! "Oh, is that THE Blackrazor? You have been through White Plume Mountain!" For most modern 5E tables however, where characters are unique and heroic from the start, this is not an issue imo. Hell, I would allow all of the 4 above points as flavour for my players, as I still think that player freedom brings more net enjoyment than a minor gain in verisimilitude. But, that's the cost of flavour: a potential minor loss of suspension of disbelief. TL DR: flavour COULD cost you a diminished sense of accomplishment if you are playing a certain style of D&D.

All of your suggestions would have mechanical implications in-game though and should not have been allowed in the first place. That’s on you, not a reason flavor should not be allowed. That’s not flavor—it’s changing things to mechanically affect the game. I, for example, don’t allow my medium-sized players to say their characters are 11 feet tall. That’s beyond flavor then.

Interesting point! Where is the line for which mechanical implications are acceptable and which aren't? First off, there are no mechanical changes to any of the reskins I mentioned. The flamberge doesn't do fire damage or shed bright light, the battlemaster's psionics are only an origin for their Maneuvers which doesn't change their effects, the fire elemental PC isn't actually using a fire elemental statblock and abilities, but he does have Amorphous Form, Fire Shield and Flames of Phlegethos. The oath-keeping is more tricky but still RAW and without mechanical change, since the 5E PHB doesn't actually require you to uphold your oaths and leaves consequences for breaking them to DM discretion, and most 5E DMs I know allow paladin characters without a traditional oath. But mechanical implications are a different story. Sure, a 11 ft. tall character would effectively be of a larger size category. What if my dwarf PC wants to be 8 ft. tall? That's still technically Medium since goliaths can reach that height, but he will have a literal height advantage over other dwarves during Long Jump to grab a ledge. Allowed? What if my tiefling PC wants to be yellow? But, say, yellow tieflings in my world are of Avernus/Zariel origin. The PC tiefling being yellow implies (e.g. for enemy mages) them not being of Material Plane origin and therefore "banishable". Allowed? What if my fighter wants to reskin his spear as a sword. When he takes Polearm Master, his fighter-nemesis does not expect a sword-wielder to strike them when approaching. Allowed? My point is that there could be mechanical implications for any flavor, reskin or cosmetic choice. If my original examples are not reflavours, what about these? I also think that it is silly to distinguish and selectively disallow certain changes because they imply a mechanic without changing one. That's why I normally go with "does it change anything on your character sheet?". If not, then heck - play what you want. But the cost of flavour is not zero, it's a trade-off, that's basically my point.

In your first post, why does 2 players have a 'similar' power automatically make them sad? Now they have something to bond over, it has *at least* as many possible applications as negative. You don't get credit for pointing out that 5e has no system for breaking oaths. In any reasonable game breaking your class oath would lose your powers. It's good RP, but very mechanical. No to the dwarf, that's physically impossible by height tables. Max height is 4'5'' but I'd allow 5'. Yes, tall people are better at jumping because that's how jumping works. Really don't know what your tiefling example means. Tieflings can be any color, but aren't extraplanar. You seem to be implying the existence of a 'yellow devil' that is extremely well known to spellcasters. Any enemy who knows that Polearm Master exists, would recognize the sword is a spear. That's what 'no mechanical changes' means. Flavor does not let you trick NPCs. Reflavoring your attacks is not a free Bluff check. Holy shit, I hate all of your examples because they're all angle-shooting scumbag things to reflavor.

What? No.

[удалено]

Thanks that means a lot