Flavor is for Cowards

31 Jan, 2026

I feel like doing a rant post today.

Up until recently, when the player left for personal scheduling reasons, I had a sprite in my Pathfinder 2e game. The sprite is classified as a "rare" ancestry in the system, essentially meaning it is not a good fit for most of your average fantasy games. I'm a big softie (and a sucker for any player who takes good notes) so I let it slide. There was immediately some chafing. Sprites fly. All of the art of pixies in the system depict them with wings. It's what they do. For some reason, despite the blatant warning from the system to think carefully about putting a sprite in your game, a sprite cannot fly until they opt to take a 1st level feat, which grants 15-feet of flight per round, after which you begin to fall. Basically a fancy jump. More feats would have to be taken to eventually reach true flight at about Level 9. Now, you could argue that my player should've read the fine print a little better, but I do think the system is being pretty stingy here, and I was far from upset with this player for feeling a bit cheated when I had to tell them that actually, according to the rules, your wings are giving you zero benefit. So I told them that until they take this feat, the sprite can only hover a few inches/feet off of the ground. Problem solved, right? Kind of. But what does hovering actually mean? Could they pass over a large chasm, or float over a river without using their swimming speed?

I think Paizo was being a coward here, and this is an imperfect solution to a problem they did not need to implement; are there no wingless fey you could allow players to be? Changelings are already in the system, for example! Or just let them get away with it, it's a "Rare" ancestry! Let's break down why this is unsatisfying, and in the process break down why the way I run these crunchier "trad" games can end up orthogonal to some of players' expectations.

To Be Resolved's On Categorization, Rule Buckets, and Diegesis, receiving such praise as "this looks like a Jordan Peterson diagram"¹, places game interactions in two areas: the diegetic and non-diegetic zone. The physics of the world are in the diegetic zone, but the character sheet is non-diegetic, for one example. I think these types of tactical skirmish games, your 4e, Lancer, Pathfinder 2e, etc, run into two common issues:

1. The rules, written to be non-diegetic or semi-diegetic, create an absurd situation if you extrapolate it to a purely diegetic set of events. The infamous "peasant railgun" is a good example, an unintended consequence of the D&D 5e action economy allowing an object to travel at near-FTL speeds if you line up enough creatures next to each-other. I call this Clown Logic.
2. The non-diegetic rules limit a diegetic consequence or solution for reasons that are unsatisfying, or unexplainable using the diegesis. A rules cockblock, put very crudely. I think our sprite problem falls cleanly into this space, and I think a lot of Pathfinder 2e can unfortunately fall into this space; "this spell is a lot less useful than it sounded at first" is a common refrain for casters in my games.

The best solution for Clown Logic is, I think, pretty obvious: use your best judgement as a GM to make a home ruling and override the Clown Logic. The rules cockblock, though, is a lot less simple, and what I wanted to focus on here. A good solution may be to invent a diegetic reason. You may explain why your wizard can't use Create Water in their lungs by saying that every living being has a small field of magic surrounding them; this can also lead the way to a compromise, maybe if they train a bunch during downtime they can turn Create Water into a Fortitude/Constitution-save spell to stagger opponents as you force them to cough up water.

The coward solution, though, is flavor. If you and your players are happy flavoring away anything you'd like, then I'm not going to stop you, but personally I never really enjoy the idea of "flavoring" the character sheet. Going back to that "Petersonian" (sorry Dadstep) RPG diagram, I think many "traditional" or tactical skirmish RPGs, however, tend towards a more one-sided approach. Now of course the diegetic zone has to influence non-diegetic, the narrative has to explain why there are goblins, how you ended up in their den, etc, but once dice start hitting the table, we get that linear non-diegetic -> diegetic progression that many dismiss as "board-gamey"[^2].

Playing a "flavored" character is introducing a consistent source of diegetic dissonance in your game. Sometimes you introduce some Clown Logic into your world; I once read a Reddit post where someone said their player will always flavor their class as a wizard, and is currently playing a fighter and flavoring every attack roll as a melee attack spell. Good on them if they're having fun but I can't help but wonder how they handle a creature resistant to non-magical damage. Are those spells just, like, not magical enough?

I confess to enjoying a bit of that board-gamey feeling. Rules interactions can be fun! I love co-operative board games so if you add in some theatrics, I'm gonna love that too. But I do think that when we're enforcing that strict hierarchy, we're flattening out some really nice opportunities. Opportunities that games like Pathfinder 2e actually give us a lot of! Just look at all these conditions they give us to apply. I once had a player ask if they could grab a bar of soap from their inventory and drop it into the gaping mouth of a monster below them. The Sickened condition was right there to support that.

I think when you choose to "flavor" instead of home-rule, you're leaning your table culture away from cool interactions between the diegetic and non-diegetic. It's not the worst evil in the world, and I admit I am being hyperbolic-for-clicks by calling it cowardly, but I definitely think it is not playing towards the strengths of a tabletop role-playing game.

Rant concluded. Keep playing your games the way you and your table likes to; I just like to hear myself talk.

EDIT: Accordingly to Binary Star Games, the peasant railgun dates back to at least 3rd Edition. I've learned something today!