# Time to bring back the prose?



## Halivar (May 1, 2012)

This is coming from my new AD&D kick. I'm loving the Gygaxian prose in the rulebooks and the adventures. I'm wondering if maybe part of the problem with the "sense of wonder" in 4E stems from the clinical, obviously rules-lawyer writing style. HOWEVER... as a trade off, the language is more precise, and there is far less head-scratching over what the text means. It's like a lawyer wrote it (for good or for ill).

So what would you prefer?
1) A more flowery, open-to interpretation writing style, even if it means more vagueness, less precision, and possibly contradictions. 
2) A continuation of concise, concrete language using defined terms and keywords.

I'd definitely choose (1). I think 4E would not have rubbed as many people the wrong way if it didn't read somewhat like a frog dissection. Using prose to express the game rules instead of legalese using Official Terms would have removed a lot of the blatantly gamist feel (I didn't have a problem with that, but most people in my group did).

Thoughts?


----------



## CM (May 1, 2012)

Nope.

Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation, and all that. Clear language takes pressure off DMs by reducing the need for judgment calls. It in no way handcuffs the DM, however. We should all know that by now, but it's a good idea to make sure that's clear in 5e.


----------



## dkyle (May 1, 2012)

Precise concrete language all the way. I don't need to buy a "sense of wonder". I can provide my own. What I can't (easily) provide on my own is high-quality game mechanics. I have no interest in buying something that fails to precisely and concisely describe the game mechanics.

Now, the tone _could_ be less clinical, and still be precise and non-contradictory, but the more goals placed on a piece of writing, the more likely it'll come up short on them.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 1, 2012)

For all I think 4E is a much better game, from my perspective it definitely suffers from the writing having all the charm of a computer instruction manual especially in the PHB. (Essentials is much fluff-heavier).

That's not to say you need to be flowery and unclear.  Just more flavour made explicit than was in the 4e PHB.


----------



## Arytiss (May 1, 2012)

In some areas, such as flavourful descriptions of objects, monsters and certain abilities: yes.

In the vast majority of areas, no, though as has already been said being overly clinical should be avoided as well. It can result in a somewhat sterile tone which is one of the more voiced complaints about 4th ed.


----------



## steeldragons (May 1, 2012)

1 please.  I'll take the prose. One, cuz I like/enjoy it better, myself.

And B:  Anything that can take the rules-lawyering and munchkin gaming down a few notches/out of the game, even if its something as subtle as the tone of the writing, is aces in my book.


----------



## Morrus (May 1, 2012)

For me, I think that at this point if I can't sit down and _read_ it, I'm unlikely to buy it. I only have four 4E books.

Reference books just can't excite me. Dictionaries, cookbooks, IKEA instructions all leave me cold. And if it doesn't excite me, it's not gonna get bought!

So yes, prose please.

That's largely what this thread, yesterday, turned into.  So you might want to pop into that one for many extensive differing opinions on the subject.


----------



## dkyle (May 1, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> 1 please.  I'll take the prose. One, cuz I like/enjoy it better, myself.
> 
> And B:  Anything that can take the rules-lawyering and munchkin gaming down a few notches/out of the game, even if its something as subtle as the tone of the writing, is aces in my book.




I think you have it backwards.  Option 1 is a "rules-lawyer and munchkin" dream. The more ambiguity and contradictions, the more grounds there is to gain advantage by arguing with the DM.

Whereas in 4E, the DM's answer to such shenanigans is generally: "the rules very clearly state how it works; moving on".

To me, Option 2 makes for better roleplaying. When everyone has a clear picture of how the world works, they can roleplay within it more effectively. The more the world operates on DM whims and judgements, the more roleplaying becomes "try to figure out what your DM is thinking".


----------



## billd91 (May 1, 2012)

Morrus said:


> For me, I think that at this point if I can't sit down and _read_ it, I'm unlikely to buy it. I only have four 4E books.
> 
> Reference books just can't excite me. Dictionaries, cookbooks, IKEA instructions all leave me cold. And if it doesn't excite me, it's not gonna get bought!
> 
> ...




There's a time and place for more evocative prose and a time and place for straight forward explanation. The latter belongs in places where the rule structures are described explained. How to apply a modifier, what modifier applies, what a move action is, what a condition is, how a special ability is implemented in the game. The former belongs most other places as far as I'm concerned.

And fixed the typos in the link.


----------



## Scribble (May 1, 2012)

Mix of both?

I like it when I can sit down and read the books, but not being able to use them quickly and easily at the table is a real PAIN.


----------



## avin (May 1, 2012)

If there's ONE thing from 4E that should NEVER go back to Dungeons & Dragons is the medical prescription style of language.

No thanks, that should burn in hell or be exclusive DDI content for those who enjoy the style.

Books must be evocative.


----------



## billd91 (May 1, 2012)

dkyle said:


> I think you have it backwards.  Option 1 is a "rules-lawyer and munchkin" dream. The more ambiguity and contradictions, the more grounds there is to gain advantage by arguing with the DM.
> 
> Whereas in 4E, the DM's answer to such shenanigans is generally: "the rules very clearly state how it works; moving on".
> 
> To me, Option 2 makes for better roleplaying. When everyone has a clear picture of how the world works, they can roleplay within it more effectively. The more the world operates on DM whims and judgements, the more roleplaying becomes "try to figure out what your DM is thinking".




I have to disagree on some of that. The more the rule set implies precision of language, the more wrangling I've seen over the meaning of the language. We had rules lawyers back in 1e, but I saw a lot less dickering over RAW and RAI. I think a game master had more authority (as perceived by your average gaming table) to interpret and make a decision.

I do think simplicity and clarity of prose is important when laying out the specifics of the rules, but it's also possible to take things way too far in an RPG in writing for comprehensiveness and completeness.

And for my money, anything that puts a character more into the mood and in immersion is what enhances role playing. That's a strength of evocative prose.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (May 1, 2012)

Definitely the prose, although I guess it doesn't need to be over-the-top. After reading Trail of Cthulhu and some of his other work, I think Kenneth Hite would be just the person for the task.


----------



## dkyle (May 1, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I have to disagree on some of that. The more the rule set implies precision of language, the more wrangling I've seen over the meaning of the language. We had rules lawyers back in 1e, but I saw a lot less dickering over RAW and RAI. I think a game master had more authority (as perceived by your average gaming table) to interpret and make a decision.




Well, arguments over RAW vs. RAI happen because of insufficiently clear and precise language. Mistakes happen.

I think the big change is that there used to be a much bigger acceptance of the DM being the absolute arbiter of the game, and that it was OK for the DM to pretty much make up the rules as he went.

But as far as I'm concerned, that's all something to be avoided.



> And for my money, anything that puts a character more into the mood and in immersion is what enhances role playing. That's a strength of evocative prose.




But how many players actually really read the books at all, let alone at play-time? I'm not seeing much real benefit there, compared to what the DM provides at the table. Sure, if the evocative prose is in addition to well defined, precise language, that's great, but it's important to set priorities. And I think imprecision and contradictions cause much more difficulty at the table, than textbook-style language.


----------



## Dausuul (May 1, 2012)

Halivar said:


> This is coming from my new AD&D kick. I'm loving the Gygaxian prose in the rulebooks and the adventures. I'm wondering if maybe part of the problem with the "sense of wonder" in 4E stems from the clinical, obviously rules-lawyer writing style. HOWEVER... as a trade off, the language is more precise, and there is far less head-scratching over what the text means. It's like a lawyer wrote it (for good or for ill).
> 
> So what would you prefer?
> 1) A more flowery, open-to interpretation writing style, even if it means more vagueness, less precision, and possibly contradictions.
> ...




I prefer 3), a clean, economical writing style that eschews Gygaxian bloat, but also avoids sounding like a textbook or legalese. Keep it focused on the fiction of the game world; make it clear that the mechanics are a tool for shaping the fiction, rather than the fiction being decoration for the mechanics.

Good writing is tight, clear, efficient writing. Evocative prose does not require burying your nouns under masses of adjectives, or packing half a dozen four-syllable words into every line, or taking a paragraph to say what could be said in a sentence. Quite the opposite, in fact. Pick up a Stephen King novel sometime to see how it's done.

_The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed._


----------



## dkyle (May 1, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I prefer 3), a clean, economical writing style that eschews Gygaxian bloat, but also avoids sounding like a textbook or legalese. Keep it focused on the fiction of the game world; make it clear that the mechanics are a tool for shaping the fiction, rather than the fiction being decoration for the mechanics.




I guess part of the reason for my preferences is that I usually jettison the "fiction" of published RPGs in favor of my own. So I prefer there be a clear separation between the two, so I know what I can get rid of and substitute, without messing up the balance of the game mechanics. I basically want the fiction to be decoration for the mechanics.


----------



## the Jester (May 1, 2012)

I want my game books to be good bathroom reading.


----------



## P1NBACK (May 1, 2012)

I want a mixture. I want conversational tones that teach me how to play. And, I want modern, clean and well-designed layout for the crunchy bits that inform the conversation and are easy to reference during play.


----------



## sheadunne (May 1, 2012)

Both for me. I want great prose with a bulleted list at the end with all the important stuff. After I read the rules, I just want a quick reference to glance at during play. This can include a bullet at the end, "and subject to DM approval"


----------



## Remathilis (May 1, 2012)

Really? Gygaxian prose? You mean this?



			
				Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1e Player's Handbook said:
			
		

> Half-elves do not form a race unto themselves, but rather they can be found amongst both elvenkind and men. For details of the typical half-elf see ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, MONSTER MANUAL under the heading Elf.
> 
> A character of half-elven race can play as a cleric (maximum of 5th level), druid, fighter (maximum of 8th level), ranger (maximum of 8th level), magic-user (maximum of 8th level), thief, or assassin (maximum of 11th level). A character of half-elven race can also opt to become a multiclassed individual, i.e. clericlfighter, cleric/ranger, cleric/magic-user, fighter/magic-user, fighte/thief, magic-user/thief, cleric/fighter/magicuser, or a fighter/magic-user/thief. Half-elven characters who choose the cleric as one of their multi-classes aren't limited by that class' proscriptions upon weapons usable, but they are quite restricted in level. Half-elven characters who choose the thief class as one of their multi-roles are limited to the weaponry and armor of that class when operating as a thief. All earned experience is always divided evenly between the classes of the multi-classed character, even though the character is no longer able to gain levels in one or more of the classes. (See CHARACTER CLASSES, and consult the various classes for more detailed information pertaining to half-elven characters operating within the stated classes.)



The remainder of the entry is a series of paragraphs discussing the various racial traits of half-elves (charm immunity, languages, infravision, etc). 

I fail to find a sense of wonder in this paragraph. I find a huge chunk of misplaced multi-class rules and a reference to go read the Monster Manual (in a player book!) but nothing on how they look, act, fit into the world, etc.

If you want some invocation and prose, get the Metzer boxsets or the RC.


----------



## Stoat (May 1, 2012)

I've always liked the Games Workshop approach:  present the rules in a concise, straightforward manner (or at least attempt to); provide lots of evocative flavor on the side.

If I have to choose between the two, I want the rules to be as clear and unambiguous as the designers can get them.


----------



## KidSnide (May 1, 2012)

As much as I used to think that unambiguous rules relying on strong key words were a great idea, having spent the past few years with 4e books, I now seriously regret that WotC adopted that approach.  I now think that a strong separation between fluff and crunch is a huge mistake (as is that terminology itself), as it promotes the mechanics over the in-game fiction.

I don't think ambiguity should be inserted into rules that don't need it, but the game should tolerate powers and abilities (e.g. illusion and divination spells) where the effects are inherently more subjective.  

Likewise, the rules themselves should be embedded into the description of the spell.  Yes, that makes the rule books harder to use as reference texts, but the reference book approach makes the books terrible to read and, frankly, less fun to use.  If the game is to succeed, reading the rulebook has to make the reader _want to play the game_.  If the rulebook reads like a text book, that will be off-putting to too many potential gamers.

-KS


----------



## Ratskinner (May 1, 2012)

dkyle said:


> I think you have it backwards.  Option 1 is a "rules-lawyer and munchkin" dream. The more ambiguity and contradictions, the more grounds there is to gain advantage by arguing with the DM.
> 
> Whereas in 4E, the DM's answer to such shenanigans is generally: "the rules very clearly state how it works; moving on".
> 
> To me, Option 2 makes for better roleplaying. When everyone has a clear picture of how the world works, they can roleplay within it more effectively. The more the world operates on DM whims and judgements, the more roleplaying becomes "try to figure out what your DM is thinking".




I agree with your general point, wholeheartedly. However, there is certainly room for some artistic license in the game books. The....sterility...of some of the books in later editions is a bit stifling. There should be some fun and humor when reading a book for a game, IMO.


----------



## Mattachine (May 1, 2012)

*purple prose*

There is a name for the writing style of 1e AD&D: purple prose. Remember q.v.? 

Luckily for us, the new edition isn't headed back in that direction. It was a part of the game that made it more arcane, less accessible. It lent to some of the "nerd snobbery" D&D fans espoused back in the day. 

One of the reasons people liked BECMI (and didn't move to "advanced" D&D), was the clearer language.


Good writing does not need obscure vocabulary, Latinized sentence structure, and archaic expressions.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 1, 2012)

Mixture for me, too.  I think part of the problem is a well-earn distrust of "fiction" in an RPG.  Lots of folks in the 80's and 90's tried to imitate Gygax or even go him one better, when they really didn't have the skill to make it work.  So given a choice between more of that or a clinical style, I'll pick the clinical style every time.  There is nothing wrong with what Gygax did that a better editor couldn't have fixed (including the organization).

However, mainly I think that the resulting prose was bland because the person writing it didn't have much to say, but had a page count to fill.  Perhaps a game system should be consciously designed with places for a prose substance to matter?  Then maybe someone can be found to write good prose on that substance?

Ideally, I'd like a D&D with the bones lovingly crafted by the technicians, and then the prose filled out by Terry Pratchett.  Alas, no way for that now.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 1, 2012)

While I do not want to have to sift through 5 paragraphs of a spell description to find the "+1 to damage", I also do not want the dry, eye-watering 4th Ed powers format, i got about a 3rd the way through the cleric powers section of my 4th Ed PHB and had to put the book down (painful).

I've been reading the Basic Rulebook (Moldvay) lately, there's one you can sit on the crapper with for a while.


----------



## herrozerro (May 1, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> While I do not want to have to sift through 5 paragraphs of a spell description to find the "+1 to damage", I also do not want the dry, eye-watering 4th Ed powers format, i got about a 3rd the way through the cleric powers section of my 4th Ed PHB and had to put the book down (painful).
> 
> I've been reading the Basic Rulebook (Moldvay) lately, there's one you can sit on the crapper with for a while.




Personally I odnt see why player handbooks need to be great reading.  Those are setting books or other flavor intensive books.  I dont see all this fuss over having a players handbook be some kind of great novel.  You aren't probably going to use it except in character generation and leveling up.

And I'd rather have 4e's layout if i needed to look something during a game as well.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 1, 2012)

herrozerro said:


> Personally I odnt see why player handbooks need to be great reading.  Those are setting books or other flavor intensive books.  I dont see all this fuss over having a players handbook be some kind of great novel.




Never said a "novel", but I have enjoyed reading every edition of PHBs so far (still do), save the 4th Ed one.

I am not always _playing_ the game, so getting enjoyment out of the books when not playing is important to me. 

Has anyone sat down and read all of Adventurer's Vault?


----------



## herrozerro (May 1, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Never said a "novel", but I have enjoyed reading every edition of PHBs so far (still do), save the 4th Ed one.
> 
> I am not always _playing_ the game, so getting enjoyment out of the books when not playing is important to me.
> 
> Has anyone sat down and read all of Adventurer's Vault?




Actually I mine that one sometimes.  Though I often sit down with the new MME book just for ideas.

Though for me as a DM I guess I have the advantage of having more interesting books to peruse.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 1, 2012)

herrozerro said:


> 1) Actually I mine that one sometimes.
> 
> 2) Though for me as a DM I guess I have the advantage of having more interesting books to peruse.




1) Do you ever read it for pleasure (The 3rd Ed Arms & Equipment Guide was hilarious)?

2) I have a ridiculous amount of books to peruse, of all varieties, but i like to read RPG books sometimes; I hope you weren't tying to imply I have nothing better to read than PHBs?


----------



## herrozerro (May 1, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> 1) Do you ever read it for pleasure (The 3rd Ed Arms & Equipment Guide was hilarious)?
> 
> 2) I have a ridiculous amount of books to peruse, of all varieties, but i like to read RPG books sometimes; I hope you weren't tying to imply I have nothing better to read than PHBs?




1. No, But like I said I have done so with Mordinkraide's(SP) Magnificent Emporium.  Yes there is room for improvement, and singling out one of the first 4e books isn't the best example.

2. No, but my point is that perhaps a PHB isn't the best kind of book to use as an example.


----------



## Alan Shutko (May 1, 2012)

The PHB should be interesting and engaging so that people who pick it up are inspired to start playing the game.  The books used to be a gateway into the hobby, and tons of folks have anecdotes how they started playing from these books without really understanding what they were doing, because they didn't know anyone else who played. This only works if the books are actually interesting to read.

With all the comments now about "who actually reads the books anyway" I wonder why they should bother printing them.


----------



## OnlineDM (May 1, 2012)

I think some of the later 4e books hit the balance just about right for me.  Heroes of the Feywild, for instance.

There's tons of flavor in every page, every power, every magic item. And yet, the clear, "clinical" rules text is still there as well. It's a fun read, but it's also unambiguous when it comes to "crunch". That's just what I like in a game book.


----------



## herrozerro (May 1, 2012)

Alan Shutko said:


> The PHB should be interesting and engaging so that people who pick it up are inspired to start playing the game.  The books used to be a gateway into the hobby, and tons of folks have anecdotes how they started playing from these books without really understanding what they were doing, because they didn't know anyone else who played. This only works if the books are actually interesting to read.
> 
> With all the comments now about "who actually reads the books anyway" I wonder why they should bother printing them.




But where does inspiration come from?  Personally I always skip over the bits of fiction in rulebooks, they dont inspire me.  On the other hand while I dislike 3.x greatly the art of Pathfinder almost alone makes me want to play it.

for myself I find inspiration in cool mechanics, take the 4e executioner assassin, after reading through all of it's entry in the heroes of shadow all I can think of is how awesome a character I can make with all these cool jump, climb and sneaking powers.  I didn't need some prose to make the class appeal to me.  I just needed cool mechanics and I can take over the imagining of the class.


----------



## dkyle (May 1, 2012)

Alan Shutko said:


> The PHB should be interesting and engaging so that people who pick it up are inspired to start playing the game.  The books used to be a gateway into the hobby, and tons of folks have anecdotes how they started playing from these books without really understanding what they were doing, because they didn't know anyone else who played. This only works if the books are actually interesting to read.




Nothing wrong with a starter set that's more fluff than mechanics. There's still the actual rulebooks for actual rules resolution. This is about the core rules, not the other products.  Setting books, too, should be highly evocative, because in that case, the "fiction" is the product.



> With all the comments now about "who actually reads the books anyway" I wonder why they should bother printing them.




Well, to refer to the rules, of course. It's still more convenient, in a lot of cases, to have a physical book instead of something on a computer or whatever.


----------



## Morrus (May 1, 2012)

To be clear, when I say I like my books to be readable, that doesn't mean reams of torrid setting background I'll never use. It's the rules I'm talking about.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 1, 2012)

Alan Shutko said:


> The PHB should be interesting and engaging so that people who pick it up are inspired to start playing the game. The books used to be a gateway into the hobby, and tons of folks have anecdotes how they started playing from these books without really understanding what they were doing, because they didn't know anyone else who played. This only works if the books are actually interesting to read.
> 
> With all the comments now about "who actually reads the books anyway" I wonder why they should bother printing them.




That raises the question of what leads to greater understanding of the rules:

More flavorful text, which people then read ambiguously, or
Clear reference text, which lots of people don't read at all, but learn by taking the word of some guy at the FLGS?
  I don't know the answer to that one.  I hope that is an excluded middle, as I wrote it.


----------



## kevtar (May 1, 2012)

I'm gong to go out on a heretic limb and say that, in my opinion,  "Gygaxian prose" is really just poor writing. Do we need engaging text? Yes. Do we need the 1e Phb, Dmg, and Mm? No. And this is from an "old schooler" currently playing 1e AD&D (and a published author).


----------



## Stormonu (May 1, 2012)

I'd like a middle ground.  Not fond of textbook writing, but sometimes Gygax's prose gets pretentious.

I want the rules where I can easily find them, but I'd like a little injection of open-minded advice and the occasional in-gameworld reference or fluff.

If you could get it like the Revised Star Wars 2nd edition book (by now defunked WEG), that's about how I'd like it laid out.


----------



## Griego (May 1, 2012)

I plan on playing the game far more than reading the books, so I'll take clear, concise language.


----------



## am181d (May 1, 2012)

I didn't read every post, so I'm guessing someone has already said this, but I'd like the rules to be clear and well indexed and I'd like the fluff to be engagingly written and used strategically.

What you don't want is vague rules or dry flavor text.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 1, 2012)

There aren't enough game designers who are capable of writing or competent at identifying good prose to make it a reasonable goal to cram prose down everyone's throats.


----------



## Morrus (May 1, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> There aren't enough game designers who are capable of writing or competent at identifying good prose to make it a reasonable goal to cram prose down everyone's throats.




Sure there are.

And you only need one.


----------



## Scribble (May 1, 2012)

1e

*Strength*  Strength is a measure of muscle, endurance, and stamina combined. For purposes of relating this ability to some reality, assume that a character with a strength of 3 is able to lift a maximum of 30 pounds weight  above his head in a military press, while a character with 18 strength will be able to press 180 pounds in the same manner. Strength is the forte of fighters, for they must be physically powerful in order to wear armor and wield heavy weapons. Therefore, strength is the major  characteristic (or prime requisite) of fighters, and those fighters with strength of 16 or more gain a bonus of 10% of earned experience (explained later). Furthermore, fighters with an 18 strength are entitled to roll percentile dice in order to generate a random number between 01 and 00(100) to determine exceptional strength; exceptional strength increases hit probability and damage done when attacking, and it also increases the weight the character is able to carry without penalty for encumbrance, as well as increasing the character's ability to force open doors and similar portals. The tables below give complete information regarding the effects of strength. Note that only fighters are permitted to roll on the exceptional strength section of STRENGTH TABLE II: ABILITY ADJUSTMENTS. 

4e

*Strength (Str)* measures your character's physical power. It's important for most characters who fight hand-to-hand.


Melee basic attacks are based on strength
Clerics, fighters, paladins, rangers, and warlords have powers based on strength.
Your Strength might contribute to your Fortitude defense.
Strength is the key abilty for Athletics skill checks.


I usually get the feeling 1e was written as a somewhat stream of consciousness thing on Gygax's part. He just started writing about strength, and wrote a bunch of stuff he thought was interesting/important about strength and didn't bother to parse it out in any way.


There are often also times where he sort of goes into a rant about the way to play the game... And we all know what happens when you tell people how to play, or how not to play.


----------



## dkyle (May 1, 2012)

Scribble said:


> I usually get the feeling 1e was written as a somewhat stream of consciousness thing on Gygax's part. He just started writing about strength, and wrote a bunch of stuff he thought was interesting/important about strength and didn't bother to parse it out in any way.




Good example.  And another one where I don't think the 1E version is any more flavorful, or an example of high-quality prose.  It's just a lot messier and harder to read, with mechanics more appropriately placed in other sections of the book.

Having seen that, and the Half-elf section, I'm curious: what are some _good_ examples from 1E? What is it, specifically, that 5E should aspire towards?  I've never read 1E AD&D.


----------



## seregil (May 1, 2012)

I propose a mixture.

When talking about the GAME (i.e. the rules), precise language is a must. 

So the chapter called 'Combat' that describes the mechanics should be clear, concise and use specific terminology to ensure that the mechanics are well explained.

However, when describing magical items, spells, the fluff for classes, the gods, domains, equipment, please use some descriptive, evocative text.

Yes, you can have the crunch at the end, but as I keep repeating, not EVERYTHING in an RPG can be summed up in a quantitative manner nor should you try.

(This, btw, is why I do not like 4e: if it could not be summed up with numbers, it got thrown out of the game. 4E is lessened by this approach)

A good example of a fun to read book is Fr4 The Magister. The entire book is a description of magical items.

Now, you can't have that level of description for all the things I listed above but, at least, give me some flavour text for items and spells.

Web isn't just 'causes X by Y squares to become difficult terrain' or whatever. It's 'Magical strands of a sticky web-like substance fills an area of X by Y. These strands stick to all the objects in the area or passing through causing the area to become difficult terrain'

Presently, 4e goes the former way and is about as exiting as reading the specs in a manual. (The most boring part of a boring text).


----------



## Dausuul (May 1, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> There aren't enough game designers who are capable of writing or competent at identifying good prose to make it a reasonable goal to cram prose down everyone's throats.




Then hire a freaking editor. That's what editors are for. If the editors they've got aren't good enough, hire better editors.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 1, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Then hire a freaking editor. That's what editors are for. If the editors they've got aren't good enough, hire better editors.




That would be freaking amazing.


----------



## Morrus (May 1, 2012)

dkyle said:


> Good example.  And another one where I don't think the 1E version is any more flavorful, or an example of high-quality prose.  It's just a lot messier and harder to read, with mechanics more appropriately placed in other sections of the book.
> 
> Having seen that, and the Half-elf section, I'm curious: what are some _good_ examples from 1E? What is it, specifically, that 5E should aspire towards?  I've never read 1E AD&D.




The point is, however badly written it may be, it was designed to be read, not just referenced.

Current rule books resemble reference books. You look something up in then. You don't pull them off the shelf and read them.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 1, 2012)

herrozerro said:


> No, but my point is that perhaps a PHB isn't the best kind of book to use as an example.




But as all PHBs up until 4th Ed are interesting to read, why not?

I'm not advocating super cryptic and vague rules.


----------



## OnlineDM (May 1, 2012)

Morrus said:


> The point is, however badly written it may be, it was designed to be read, not just referenced.
> 
> Current rule books resemble reference books. You look something up in then. You don't pull them off the shelf and read them.




Morrus - you keep referring to current books, and it sounds like you're only talking about books from 2008. Have you read Heroes of the Feywild? Even Heroes of the Fallen Lands / Forgotten Kingdoms are much better in this respect than the 4e PHB1. 

D&D 4e has gotten better about being readable over the years. Really.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 1, 2012)

OnlineDM said:


> D&D 4e has gotten better about being readable over the years. Really.




That is true, The Demonomicon, The Plane Above and Below weren't bad, I just think the core first 3 (PHB etc) they release in an edition should be a little more engaging.


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 1, 2012)

There are 3 options:

1. Text that reads like flowery prose and includes rules that are impossible to find (AD&D style)
2. Text that reads like dry description and includes rules that are impossible to find (3.x style)
3. Text that reads like a game rulebook yet still includes rules that are difficult to find (4e style)
4. Text that reads like a game rulebook and includes rules that are easy to find (???)

I'll take 4, but I don't think Wizards of the Coast is capable (or willing) to write a game like that. If I had to choose between 1 and 2, I'd take 1.


----------



## Morrus (May 1, 2012)

OnlineDM said:


> Morrus - you keep referring to current books, and it sounds like you're only talking about books from 2008. Have you read Heroes of the Feywild? Even Heroes of the Fallen Lands / Forgotten Kingdoms are much better in this respect than the 4e PHB1.
> 
> D&D 4e has gotten better about being readable over the years. Really.




Nope. They lost me after 4 books. 5E needs to grab me within 4 books. In other words, do it from the start.

The PHB, DMG and MM are the ones that have to engage me. They're the core.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 1, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Nope. They lost me after 4 books. 5E needs to grab me within 4 books. In other words, do it from the start.
> 
> The PHB, DMG and MM are the ones that have to engage me. They're the core.




It goes both ways. So many RPGs have way too much yammering in them. I've put down a lot of game books from having to put too much effort into finding where they start talking about the rules.


----------



## herrozerro (May 1, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> But as all PHBs up until 4th Ed are interesting to read, why not?
> 
> I'm not advocating super cryptic and vague rules.




I didnt find the 3.x phb to be much different from 4es myself.  And i have no experience before that so i dont see why people think 4e suddenly broke some kind of barrier.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> It goes both ways. So many RPGs have way too much yammering in them. I've put down a lot of game books from having to put too much effort into finding where they start talking about the rules.




Nobody is advocating they be confusing. It's not a binary choice between a dictionary and a sonnet.


----------



## Tallifer (May 2, 2012)

Halivar said:


> So what would you prefer?
> 1) A more flowery, open-to interpretation writing style, even if it means more vagueness, less precision, and possibly contradictions.
> 2) A continuation of concise, concrete language using defined terms and keywords.




My personality tends toward the literary and convoluted. I am not mechanically minded or scientific: I am an English teacher. I have written countless essays and read countless books to research for said essays. I prefer to read nineteenth century novels or scholarly history books. I would rather read Malory in Middle English than any of the works of modern fantasy.

Nonetheless when I want to consult a book of rules, I want to immediately and effortlessly understand the points and the exceptions. This is probably because I am not mechanically apt, so I need very clear rules. The Fourth Edition is the most clearly written and organized set of rules for Dungeons & Dragons, and I want it to stay that way.

Put the flowery text in the read-aloud text in adventures and in the descriptions of the world in the campaign setting books.


----------



## OnlineDM (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Nope. They lost me after 4 books. 5E needs to grab me within 4 books. In other words, do it from the start.
> 
> The PHB, DMG and MM are the ones that have to engage me. They're the core.




I completely agree that the first books have to be engaging, and that the first 4e books were not.

What I'm saying, though, is that the later 4e books are still accessible to younger readers, but ALSO engaging. I want (and expect) to see the first D&D Next books to be written in a similar way, which I expect you will enjoy.

Early 4e style: Not so good, and I'm glad they changed.
Later 4e style: Excellent, in my opinion. Clear, accessible, AND engaging.

I hope and expect to see the D&D Next books written in a similar style to the later 4e books, and I'm expecting that you'll like it, based on what you've said you want in a book.


----------



## braro (May 2, 2012)

OnlineDM said:


> I completely agree that the first books have to be engaging, and that the first 4e books were not.
> 
> What I'm saying, though, is that the later 4e books are still accessible to younger readers, but ALSO engaging. I want (and expect) to see the first D&D Next books to be written in a similar way, which I expect you will enjoy.
> 
> ...




I kind of wonder if the early 4e books were so "Lore-Light" because of the bad reaction to the idea of stipulating lore, and the amount of new mechanics that had to be covered?

I know when I was reading them, I was basically just reading them to build characters, since I was "bringing with me" a ton of stuff from 3e.  

Edit:  Also, the mechanics informed a lot for me, which is how I ended up with the human ranger raised by the eladrin, who was the first human to be awarded the position of Stormwarden in all of history, who found ancient hide armor in the ruins of the ancient Tiefling empire as one of his capstone magical items.  He was accompanied by an eladrin fighter who was his adoptive father's son, and the fighter's abilities were all informed by the mechanics (Using a spear and a longsword interchangably as the situation came about, having a bit of magic and ritual casting, and so on) as well as a half-elf rogue who had somehow been tricked in to forming a pact with a rival fey-lord (the half-elf racial powers, and the multiclass feats) and was traveling with them to find a way to be free.

And then they were all killed by Irontooth.  Le Sigh.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Nobody is advocating they be confusing. It's not a binary choice between a dictionary and a sonnet.




What they advocate and what is actually available for WotC to utilize are unrelated.

Who exactly is available, affordable, and willing to write this stuff in a way that won't just irritate people?


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 2, 2012)

herrozerro said:


> I didnt find the 3.x phb to be much different from 4es myself.
> 
> And i have no experience before that so i dont see why people think 4e suddenly broke some kind of barrier.




I found them substantially different (in many ways).

I feel 4th Ed was the biggest change from what came before (still has stuff I like), you can mash up all previous editions, but 4th really is such a departure it's hard.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> What they advocate and what is actually available for WotC to utilize are unrelated.
> 
> Who exactly is available, affordable, and willing to write this stuff in a way that won't just irritate people?




I don't understand your question. WotC has writers.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 2, 2012)

I prefer well written and engaging prose. Clarity is important but it needn't be done at the expense of other elements of good writing. The last thing I want when I read an RPG book is something that sounds like a tech manual.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I don't understand your question. WotC has writers.




Yes, but those writers couldn't get you to buy a 5th book.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Yes, but those writers couldn't get you to buy a 5th book.




Which writers are you referring to, specifically? And why would each if them be unable to produce text to my tastes?

You statement sounds like it has a remarkable knowledge if both WotC staff and my prose preferences!


----------



## Incenjucar (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Which writers are you referring to, specifically? And why would each if them be unable to produce text to my tastes?
> 
> You statement sounds like it has a remarkable knowledge if both WotC staff and my prose preferences!




I'm not in a position to know who wrote what, and even if I did, I don't want to go around calling individuals out.

I do know that WotC can write what I consider really good rules, even if their editing has a poor history, and I know that I've had no problem enjoying 4E without anyone trying to wax poetic, so I'd rather they focus on that than on prose, which will _at best_ be a waste of ink for me.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> I'm not in a position to know who wrote what, and even if I did, I don't want to go around calling individuals out.




It seems an astonishing claim to make, then, that said writers could not sell a 5E book to me.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 2, 2012)

I didn't make that claim, so, yay?

I do not personally care for flowery prose or anything approximating it. I do not value its presence in a game book, and I find that it often causes problems in the game. The history of WotC's writing suggests _to me_ that it would be more valuable _to me_ for them to just not get involved in it. I think that it will result in a poorer product, from what my understanding of what a poorer product is, and I think it would make it more difficult for me to find people to play with, were I to purchase the product despite the inclusion of such text.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> I didn't make that claim, so, yay?




Then I must admit I'm truly confused by the following statement:



Incenjucar said:


> Yes, but those writers couldn't get you to buy a 5th book.




If you weren't claiming that those writers couldn't get me to buy a 5E book, could you kindly rephrase, perhaps? I don't want there to be any misunderstanding.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 2, 2012)

You said that they lost you after 4 books.

I mentioned a 5*th* book, as in a 5th 4E book, not a 5th Edition book, which I always abbreviate as 5*E*.

 Natural mistake to make.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> You said that they lost you after 4 books.
> 
> I mentioned a 5*th* book, as in a 5th 4E book, not a 5th Edition book, which I always abbreviate as 5*E*.
> 
> Natural mistake to make.




Ah, I see. Well, I don't see it as an issue with the writers themselves - given different design instructions, I'm confident they could do so!


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 2, 2012)

Don't try to write like Gary Gygax. Only Gygax could write like Gygax. Write like yourself first.

I think there needs to be a mix of creative writing and technical writing ability. Writing clear, coherent game rules is a real challenge, but writing evocative, engaging game examples is every bit as important.

FWIW, I take every spell, magic item, maneuver, feat, skill, item, place, monster, class, and race as examples that should feel like it has context in a larger world. I'd prefer both points of view to lead the way for the widest possible breadth of new ideas.

Plus, we shouldn't forget everything else that goes beyond prose in a game's creation.


----------



## Lanefan (May 2, 2012)

Time to bring back the prose?

Yes.

Time was, I used to complain endlessly about Gygax's often-open-to-interpretation write-ups about various aspects of the game - usually in the midst of trying to DM said game.  And then I learned how to interpret those write-ups to suit what I wanted, and in so doing I slowly made the game my own without realizing it.  Chances are, you did too.

You get out what you put in.

Lan-"make mine purple, please"-efan


----------



## Scribble (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> The point is, however badly written it may be, it was designed to be read, not just referenced.
> 
> Current rule books resemble reference books. You look something up in then. You don't pull them off the shelf and read them.




But I'm not sure it was... I mean it might have ended up that way for some, but again sometimes it feels like he was just writing whatever came to his mind at the time. IE I feel like you could intersperse most of the sentences with "Oh yeah-" and "Oh and" and "Oh oh how about-"

This is not to say I disagree with your overall point, however, that the books DO need a bit more flavor to them. I completely agree. But I want a mix. Flavor where appropriate/ reference where appropriate.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> Don't try to write like Gary Gygax. Only Gygax could write like Gygax. Write like yourself first.




I don't think that when anybody says "make the books something you can read" they mean "clone Gary Gygax' writing style".


----------



## Scribble (May 2, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Time to bring back the prose?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...




That's an interesting idea... The best way to make a modular game is to make one that only gives you a vague idea of how to actually play it?


----------



## The Shadow (May 2, 2012)

I keep hearing people praise Gygax's prose, but honestly I don't see it.  His style strikes me as pompous, overwrought, and preciously obscure.  His works of fiction are darn near unreadable.

That said, evocative writing does have a place in the books, I think - but when it comes to the rules you're going to be using over and over, a workmanlike style is the most suitable.


----------



## Halivar (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I don't think that when anybody says "make the books something you can read" they mean "clone Gary Gygax' writing style".



I think I confused the issue in the OP when I specifically mentioned "Gygaxian style." Apologies all around.

What I meant by that was not specifically that writing style, but a style that prefers prose over dry conciseness.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 2, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> I keep hearing people praise Gygax's prose, but honestly I don't see it. His style strikes me as pompous, overwrought, and preciously obscure. His works of fiction are darn near unreadable.
> 
> That said, evocative writing does have a place in the books, I think - but when it comes to the rules you're going to be using over and over, a workmanlike style is the most suitable.




I think he is a good but offbeat writer who had the misfortune to own the company when he was doing his early writing.  Writers with strong styles often need strong editors that don't report to them, when they are establishing that style.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 2, 2012)

Gary needed a really good technical writer. He did have an amazing vocabulary and his novels were fun and interesting, while not perhaps literary greatness. What he could do well was intuitively design great games. The only uniformly agreed upon advancement in RPGs I know of is game writing's improved technical clarity.

Perhaps that's why it can be difficult to bring prose back into them? I think most indie games are way ahead of the curve on this.


----------



## Falcon42 (May 2, 2012)

I think a 75%/25% ratio of prose/tech manual writing would be great.  Prose os what makes me read the books over and over and get my imaginatation going.  I read the 4e book FAR less than 1e, 2e, or 3.x.

The tech style is appropriate in some areas where it's needed.


----------



## Scribble (May 2, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> Gary needed a really good technical writer. He did have an amazing vocabulary and his novels were fun and interesting, while not perhaps literary greatness. What he could do well was intuitively design great games. The only uniformly agreed upon advancement in RPGs I know of is game writing's improved technical clarity.
> 
> Perhaps that's why it can be difficult to bring prose back into them? I think most indie games are way ahead of the curve on this.




He- like a lot of people who emulate his style on these boards- could be described as "wordy."


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 2, 2012)

Scribble said:


> He- like a lot of people who emulate his style on these boards- could be described as "wordy."




I'm sure I have no idea what you mean.


----------



## Umbran (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I don't think that when anybody says "make the books something you can read" ...




And, taking this in a really different direction, that line leads me to the crux of the issue.

How often will a person actually read the rulebook? As in, open the cover, start at page one, and read on through to the end?  Maybe once?  That is an important once, but it is once.  After that, the book is being used primarily as a reference - to look up specific things.

Those two agendas ("read through to learn and absorb" and "reference") call for markedly different writing styles.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

Umbran said:


> And, taking this in a really different direction, that line leads me to the crux of the issue.
> 
> How often will a person actually read the rulebook? As in, open the cover, start at page one, and read on through to the end? Maybe once? That is an important once, but it is once. After that, the book is being used primarily as a reference - to look up specific things.




Ah, but that was my point. I can only speak for myself, obviously, but I used to read and reread the 1E and 2E rulebooks. Additionally, I'd frequently grab them off the shelf, sit down, and read a bit of them for 10 minutes or so. I still do.

I don't do that with the 4E books, though. I just look stuff up in them.

For me personally, the way the books were presented actually affected how I interacted with the game. And that consequently created in me a sense of excitement and wonder which 4E fails to do. Pathfinder still does - to an extent - and it's presentation is a halfway house between the two styles.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 2, 2012)

Scribble said:


> He- like a lot of people who emulate his style on these boards- could be described as "wordy."




Hey, merely because I'm verbose and interested in shades of meaning in vocabulary, doesn't mean I'm emulating a particular style of a particular person.  There are lots of variations on wordy!


----------



## billd91 (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Ah, but that was my point. I can only speak for myself, obviously, but I used to read and reread the 1E and 2E rulebooks. Additionally, I'd frequently grab them off the shelf, sit down, and read a bit of them for 10 minutes or so. I still do.
> 
> I don't do that with the 4E books, though. I just look stuff up in them.
> 
> For me personally, the way the books were presented actually affected how I interacted with the game. And that consequently created in me a sense of excitement and wonder which 4E fails to do. Pathfinder still does - to an extent - and it's presentation is a halfway house between the two styles.




I'm much the same way. I often wonder if that's why some of have such different approaches to the game, different approaches, and different appreciations of the design that went into elements of the game. The number of times I've found something interesting that got me thinking about the game in a slightly different way simply by picking up the rule book and reading parts of it again and again is actually pretty high. This applies to more than D&D as well. I found some editions of Champions as fun to pick up and simply read as well.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Ah, but that was my point. I can only speak for myself, obviously, but I used to read and reread the 1E and 2E rulebooks. Additionally, I'd frequently grab them off the shelf, sit down, and read a bit of them for 10 minutes or so. I still do.
> 
> I don't do that with the 4E books, though. I just look stuff up in them.
> 
> For me personally, the way the books were presented actually affected how I interacted with the game. And that consequently created in me a sense of excitement and wonder which 4E fails to do. Pathfinder still does - to an extent - and it's presentation is a halfway house between the two styles.




I'm right there with you. Later D&D 4e books were better (Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporeum is really good), but still not in the class of AD&D books for sheer "pull it off the shelf and give it a read" fun.

The flip side is that a great deal of the fun in reading AD&D books came at the expense of good, clear, understandable rules. How many rules in AD&D were ignored, forgotten, or lost because they were obscure or difficult to find buried in fun prose?


----------



## KidSnide (May 2, 2012)

Brent_Nall said:


> I'm right there with you. Later D&D 4e books were better (Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporeum is really good), but still not in the class of AD&D books for sheer "pull it off the shelf and give it a read" fun.
> 
> The flip side is that a great deal of the fun in reading AD&D books came at the expense of good, clear, understandable rules. How many rules in AD&D were ignored, forgotten, or lost because they were obscure or difficult to find buried in fun prose?




At least for adults, I don't think a great many rules were ignored because they were incomprehensible.  I would guess that most ignored rules were ignored because (1) they were more complicated that they were worth and/or (2) the DM wanted to do something else.  

I came to AD&D in grade school, so -- yes -- I'll admit that there were plenty of rules that I ignored or misinterpreted because I didn't understand them.  But I think kids working out what the complicated rules mean is part of the RPG experience.  Sure, they'll play it "wrong", but who cares?  Kids aren't stupid -- if their "custom variant" sucks badly enough, they'll read the rules again and come up with something different.  

And let's remember that 4e uses some super-dry language, but it's not like it's easy to understand.  Players have to remember a ton of key words and special language for the powers to make sense.  (For example, if you don't remember the technical meaning of "Hit" and "Effect", huge numbers of precisely described powers become really confusing.)  For players who have trouble remembering these terms, a more prose-like approach could actually be _less confusing_ than the technical writing approach.  It is more important for players to understand the book than for the book to provide precise answers to "corner case" situations.

Maybe I'm in the minority here because I don't really care about convention play, but I think having all the tables in the world playing RAW is totally overrated.  I don't propose making the rules _deliberately obscure_, but I don't think it's a big deal if different groups interpret the rules differently.

-KS

P.S. Also, the comic illustrations in the original AD&D DMG were funnier than 98% of the D&D comics published since.  D&D has been taking itself too seriously for several editions now...


----------



## Dimitrios (May 2, 2012)

Readability is important for me because I DM most of the time and I get ideas and inspiration from picking up the rule books and reading a page here and there.

If I pick up the Players Handbook from 1st 2nd or 3rd edition and start reading at a random page, I start mentally taking notes, thinking of adventure hooks & etc. After a few minutes of paging through the book I want to sit down and start playing or at least start planning for the next game night.

After a few minutes of reading the 4e PH I want to put it down and do something else.

You can say that it's not the book's job to make me want to play the game but...that's kind of a self-defeating attitude if you want people to buy what you're selling.

I'm not asking for fiction or rules written in iambic pentameter, but the 4e's PH1 went too far in the direction of "bone dry" for my taste.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 2, 2012)

Umbran said:


> And, taking this in a really different direction, that line leads me to the crux of the issue.
> 
> How often will a person actually read the rulebook? As in, open the cover, start at page one, and read on through to the end?  Maybe once?  That is an important once, but it is once.  After that, the book is being used primarily as a reference - to look up specific things.
> 
> Those two agendas ("read through to learn and absorb" and "reference") call for markedly different writing styles.




I read rpg books all the way through at least once (usually nore) and revisit sections iver and over again (with the net result of re-reading the entire thing yet again). Usually for games i run regularly i make a point of re reading the book about once a year. Either way, whether i am reading all the way through or reading the section on combat manuevers, i want to be informed and excited by the text. Good writers can do both.


----------



## Scribble (May 2, 2012)

When peple say 4e is bone dry compaired to 3e and before... Can someone give me a specific example?

Are you talking about things like magic items and spells? Or rules like combat and skills?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 2, 2012)

Dimitrios said:


> If I pick up the Players Handbook from 1st 2nd or 3rd edition and start reading at a random page, I start mentally taking notes, thinking of adventure hooks & etc. After a few minutes of paging through the book I want to sit down and start playing or at least start planning for the next game night.
> 
> After a few minutes of reading the 4e PH I want to put it down and do something else.
> 
> .




This is my experience as well. The first three books not only cover the technical aspects of play, but the writing fits them into a context and has a life of its own. 4E was written well for a reference tool. But you need more prose to illuminate the mechanics. So ot actually loses some clarity for me in its effort to be succinct and bullet-pointed. Maybe it means i am less creative than others here (i think my players wouldn't say hat is so however) but it is important to me that the rule book inspires.


----------



## triqui (May 2, 2012)

Prose for fluff, concise words for crunch.


----------



## Dimitrios (May 2, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is my experience as well. The first three books not only cover the technical aspects of play, but the writing fits them into a context and has a life of its own. 4E was written well for a reference tool. But you need more prose to illuminate the mechanics. So ot actually loses some clarity for me in its effort to be succinct and bullet-pointed. Maybe it means i am less creative than others here (i think my players wouldn't say hat is so however) but it is important to me that the rule book inspires.





Exactly. When I read the PHs from earlier editions I get a strong sense of the game world and how the mechanics fit into and reinforce that world: even though no "setting" is being introduced.

I think part of the issue is the design ethos (that was already growing in the late 3.5 era and was then fully embraced in 4e) that good design entails having a 20 foot high electrified barbed wire fence separating "crunch" from "fluff".

Honestly, if I were the Czar of 5e development, one of my first acts would be to ban the designers from using those two terms at all.


----------



## hanez (May 2, 2012)

Scribble said:


> When peple say 4e is bone dry compaired to 3e and before... Can someone give me a specific example?
> 
> Are you talking about things like magic items and spells? Or rules like combat and skills?




I think its defintely true of spells.  I play wizards/druids a lot when Im not DMing.  Heres a comparison of a few wizard spells.




> *3e sleep *
> Level:     Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
> Components:     V, S, M
> Casting Time:     1 round
> ...





> 4e sleep
> You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them
> with a tide of magical weariness.
> Daily ✦ Arcane, Implement, Sleep
> ...





> *3e mirror image*
> Level:     Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
> Components:     V, S
> Casting Time:     1 standard action
> ...





> *4e Mirror Image*
> Mirror Image Wizard Utility 10
> Three duplicate images of you appear, imitating your actions
> perfectly and confusing your enemies.
> ...



For me.  The old way of writing spells made me want to curl up, find out what the spell does and imagine if my character would want to do that.  The new way makes me feel think they are all basically the same and instead of doing the tedious math work to find out whats the "best" ill just take a build off of a forum and play that (actually thats  a lie, I'd rather just not play).


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

hanez said:


> I think its defintely true of spells.  I play wizards/druids a lot when Im not DMing.  Heres a comparison of a few wizard spells.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Exactly. The old way engages my imagination; the new way is just a VCR instruction manual. Leaves me utterly cold.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 2, 2012)

I also often read pre-4th books (have always loved perusing PHBs) for pleasure (and ideas etc), lately i've been reading the Basic Rulebook (Moldvay) a lot, just pick it up when i'm relaxing after work for awhile (read certain chunks, reread them later).

I read the 4th Ed PHB, well, everything but all the powers, once I got halfway through the Cleric powers section, my eyes started to water, I got the gist, so I just looked at some random powers of different levels for each class to get an idea of their powers, all quite similar to me, so after that, when a new class came out, I would read everything about it(features etc), just not their powers section.  I never just pick up the 4th Ed PHB on a Sunday afternoon to have a nice 30 minute read. 

I would like a less dry read in 5th Ed, but be able to find rules easily, so I think more examples spread out through the books would be good, especially in areas that could cause mechanical confusion.

Oh, and a bit more humour/whimsy/tongue-in-cheek please, it can be charming.


----------



## Halivar (May 2, 2012)

I think Morrus hit on something here in talking about wanting to sit down and read the books. I got the 4E books, but in retrospect I didn't need to. I have DDI for a reference. I no longer pull out the books at all. In fact, I leave them at home when I go game. DDI is my reference, and I no longer have evocative reading material to get me jazzed up to game.

Well, I do, but it's for 1st edition, not 4E. Thus, I'm running a 1E game right now.


----------



## seregil (May 2, 2012)

hanez said:


> I think its defintely true of spells.  I play wizards/druids a lot when Im not DMing.  Heres a comparison of a few wizard spells.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





For me, the old way is an actual description, whereas the 4E way is a wargaming stat block. In fact, it is the kind of stuff I see in the back of a Warhammer guide in the stats summary.

We need to return to a minimum level of description. The ENTIRE game revolves around imagination and make believe. If all that is presented is a bunch of numbers, well, not much to build on.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 2, 2012)

I find the 4E version in those examples marginally more dry than the 3E version. I still find the 3E version pretty darn dry. It's just technical stuff written out as prose instead of in a more reference manual style. It reminds me of a math class I had in college where we had to write out the explanation of certain problems in plain English--more accessible to the non-major, but not literature! 

Interestingly, the BECMI spells are fairly dry, too, if you look at the spells alone. However, most of the spell descriptions are much shorter, because they don't have all of the rules lawyer qualifications in them. (A few of them do have such. It's hardly universal.)  I find these far more evocative than either the 3E or 4E versions, perhaps because I'm not automatically thinking in game terms when I read them?


----------



## Scribble (May 2, 2012)

So is it just spells vrs powers? Or are we talking about other rules like combat and what strength is as well?

(From my own point of view, I can understand about spell description... but the strength example... I don't really find anything about the 1e example that is particularly better for reading. )


----------



## Libramarian (May 2, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> And let's remember that 4e uses some super-dry language, but it's not like it's easy to understand.  Players have to remember a ton of key words and special language for the powers to make sense.  (For example, if you don't remember the technical meaning of "Hit" and "Effect", huge numbers of precisely described powers become really confusing.)  For players who have trouble remembering these terms, a more prose-like approach could actually be _less confusing_ than the technical writing approach.  It is more important for players to understand the book than for the book to provide precise answers to "corner case" situations.



Yeah, that's true. I don't know whether it's actually harder mentally to read a few over-wordy sentences or game-specific jargon and notation. They both make the game harder to understand.

We're definitely talking about a trade-off in terms of ease of reference for experienced players, not how easy the game is to pick up for new players.

I don't think either the AD&D style or the 4e style of rules presentation are particularly concerned with accessibility. Some people in the other thread seemed intent on making this out to be the issue, but it's really not. As it turns out neither game would be my first choice to recommend to someone new to RPGs.


----------



## Libramarian (May 2, 2012)

Halivar said:


> I think Morrus hit on something here in talking about wanting to sit down and read the books. I got the 4E books, but in retrospect I didn't need to. I have DDI for a reference. I no longer pull out the books at all. In fact, I leave them at home when I go game. DDI is my reference, and I no longer have evocative reading material to get me jazzed up to game.
> 
> Well, I do, but it's for 1st edition, not 4E. Thus, I'm running a 1E game right now.



I really think we could have both. When it comes to quick rules reference, nothing beats an online rules compendium with a search function. Why not write that in a way focusing on clarity and rules lawyer-mitigation, and write the physical book in a way focusing on reading for pleasure.

Those who like a more sparse yet evocative BECMI-style spell writeups can just game from the book, those who like the hyperclear yet bonedry 4e style can just game from the online rules compendium. Those who want both (AD&D/3e style) can use both.


----------



## The Human Target (May 2, 2012)

Simple.

Rules= Plain and straightforward. It is a game after all, and clarity is important.

Flavor Text= As flowery as you want.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

The Human Target said:


> Simple.
> 
> Rules= Plain and straightforward. It is a game after all, and clarity is important.
> 
> Flavor Text= As flowery as you want.




I'd rather see no torrid fiction. I'll read a George RR Martin book if I'm jn the mood for a story. I'm just talking about the rules.


----------



## Scribble (May 2, 2012)

Can someone give an example of rules text other then spells vrs powers?

I'm trying to figure out what the difference is in the majority of rules in the system, or if it really is just things like spells and powers should have more descriptive elements.


----------



## kevtar (May 2, 2012)

hanez said:


> I think its defintely true of spells.  I play wizards/druids a lot when Im not DMing.  Heres a comparison of a few wizard spells.
> 
> For me.  The old way of writing spells made me want to curl up, find out what the spell does and imagine if my character would want to do that.  The new way makes me feel think they are all basically the same and instead of doing the tedious math work to find out whats the "best" ill just take a build off of a forum and play that (actually thats  a lie, I'd rather just not play).




I'm looking at the examples you provided and I've copied one of them below. I've colored the "fluff" yellow and the "crunch" red. I've left out the really "technical info"  (e.g. casting time, duration, etc) - they read like this:

*3e sleep* 

A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 Hit Dice of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point of origin are affected first. Hit Dice that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted. 

Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action).

Sleep does not target unconscious creatures, constructs, or undead creatures.


Material Component
A pinch of fine sand, rose petals, or a live cricket. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

*4e sleep* 
You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness.

Hit: The target is slowed (save ends). If the target fails its first saving throw against this power, the target becomes unconscious (save ends).
Miss: The target is slowed (save ends). 

It seems to me, that in this instance at least, 3e has more "rules language," but that rules language is not simply technical information (It doesn't exist solely as a "stat block") and less instances of discrete "fluff" (or prose, or whatever we call it). The 4e example seems very concise - nearly bordering terse (in my opinion). With the effects of the spell written in more technical terms (which is comprised of 4e specific jargon such as keywords, etc...) So, I'm wondering if it's not so much "prose" vs. "technical," but rather it's about representation and engagement.

I'm not arguing the language of one edition over another, but perhaps what is important is the "discourse" of the game. This involves written rules, jargon, the language of the game as it is played, the language used to describe how the game is played - essentially all linguistic elements that represent D&D and orient our understanding of what "D&D" is (like how a glass [the discourse] shapes water [our understanding of the game]). This needs to match player expectations, or at least is engaging/compelling enough that players can allow their expectations to be changed.

But, in any case, the representation (discourse) of D&D must be such that it is engaging - and that didn't seem to happen with a number of people when 4e arrived, because much of the traditional discourse of D&D changed. I'm not saying 4e _isn't_ D&D, but just that the discourse changed, and that change disoriented some players.

So, perhaps a task of 5e is to also reconstruct the discourse of D&D so that it reorients people to a more unified (or acceptable) representation of D&D.


----------



## pemerton (May 2, 2012)

Sleep:

A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 Hit Dice of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point of origin are affected first. Hit Dice that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted. 

Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action).

Sleep does not target unconscious creatures, constructs, or undead creatures.​
Vs

You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them
with a tide of magical weariness.

[Sleep keyword]

Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will
Hit: The target is slowed (save ends). If the target fails its first saving throw against this power, the target becomes unconscious (save ends).​
I just don't feel this amazing contrast.

The 3E version tells me about HD affected and wasted HD. The 4e version tells met that I attack all targets in the AoE.

The 3E version tells me that it's a magical slumber which can be broken by slapping or wounding (as a standard action - doesn't get more immersive than that!) but not noise, and that it doesn't affect the unconscious or the unliving.

The 4e version tells me that it's a sleep effect (via the keyword) that slows the target and might render them unconscious. Some other things - like the effect or non-effect on unliving targets, and the possibility of waking someone as a standard action - are shunted to other parts of the rulebook (MM glossary, and PHB Heal skill rules, respectively).

I don't feel any contrast. The Rolemaster sleep spell is even more spartan in its description than 4e, but Rolemaster is nevertheless (in my experience) a very immersive game, because of the intricacy of the interaction between ficiton and mechanics.

In each case, reading the sleep spell isn't about being immersed by reading. It's about envisaging about how an episode might play out in the game.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Sleep:
> 
> A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 Hit Dice of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point of origin are affected first. Hit Dice that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted.
> 
> ...




Except one engages me, the other doesn't. I appreciate that might not be the case for you, but it sure as heck is for me!


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Except one engages me, the other doesn't. I appreciate that might not be the case for you, but it sure as heck is for me!




I would agree. Let us also not forget that 1e, 2e, and 3e also have their own block entry formats on top pf the text quoted. So you also get stuff like casting time, saving throw info, duration, etc. I just find the older entries (and i am not sure sleep is the greatest example) more robust and (as morrus says) engaging. With 4e you often get a single sentence of flavor then it goes right into a sterile stat entry.


----------



## Kynn (May 2, 2012)

So when people say they want "prose," they mean that they want the D&D books written more like ... Apocalypse World, maybe?


----------



## Kynn (May 2, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I would agree. Let us also not forget that 1e, 2e, and 3e also have their own block entry formats on top pf the text quoted. So you also get stuff like casting time, saving throw info, duration, etc. I just find the older entries (and i am not sure sleep is the greatest example) more robust and (as morrus says) engaging. With 4e you often get a single sentence of flavor then it goes right into a sterile stat entry.




The 3e version is also a sterile stat entry. It's just that they bother to define in the spell Sleep what "sleep" means, while "unconscious" is defined elsewhere in 4e (in the definitions of conditions).

Mechanically, it's all about the same, just shorter.

Anyway. I really hope that those of you who want nonsensical Gygaxian writing don't get what you want.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 2, 2012)

No.  A good spell or ability should read like an MTG card.
Name.
Cost.
Type.
Effect.
Flavor.

Flavor should be separate from rules text, it makes the game clearer and makes flavor more enjoyable since we're not trying to translate it into rules.


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

shidaku said:


> No.  A good spell or ability should read like an MTG card.
> Name.
> Cost.
> Type.
> ...




That'll be the day the D&D brand loses me forever.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> That'll be the day the D&D brand loses me forever.




Which part?  The clarity?

Because really most spells are written like this already.

I'm not suggesting spells and abilities need to come on little spell-cards like 4e(though I liked that), and I'm not suggesting D&D should be a CCG.

I'm saying the game should be clear and concise.  EX:

Fireball
Destruction; fire.
Cast time: 1 Standard action.
Components: a pinch of volcano dust.
Effect: 5d6 in a 30'x30' square.
_"Flavor text something to the degree of wiggling your fingers and setting things on fire."_


----------



## Morrus (May 3, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Which part?  The clarity?
> 
> Because really most spells are written like this already.
> 
> ...




Move effect into flavour, mixing them, and I'm with you. That's then a 1E/2E/3E spell.

For me personally, mixing them means that the moat between "fluff" and "crunch" gets filled. The spell then becomes more than just a group of numbers. You can't ignore the flavour if it's mixed with the effect.

Separating out the fluff means it gets ignored and the spell is just a numerical spreadsheet entry. Hardly magical.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Move effect into flavour, mixing them, and I'm with you. That's then a 1E/2E/3E spell.
> 
> For me personally, mixing them means that the moat between "fluff" and "crunch" gets filled. The spell then becomes more than just a group of numbers. You can't ignore the flavour if it's mixed with the effect.
> 
> Separating out the fluff means it gets ignored and the spell is just a numerical spreadsheet entry. Hardly magical.




Fluff is going to be ignored by people who are going to ignore the fluff.  It doesn't matter if the two are combined or not.

Some people are going to read: "You wiggle your fingers and shoot a ball of fire that explodes in a 30' radius within 50' of you."

Like this:
"You wiggle your fingers and shoot a ball of fire that explodes in a 30' radius within 50' of you."

And some people aren't.  Forcing people to read flavor only means it takes them more time to understand the spells because they're trying to interpret the rules from the fluff.  I enjoy the fluff in both 3.x spells and 4e spells, but I can comprehend 4e spells much easier because I don't need to attempt to translate the roleish into rollese.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 3, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Fluff is going to be ignored by people who are going to ignore the fluff.  It doesn't matter if the two are combined or not.
> 
> Some people are going to read: "You wiggle your fingers and shoot a ball of fire that explodes in a 30' radius within 50' of you."
> 
> ...




I dont see why we should be forced to have them seperate just because some people might ignore flavor. And the issue is more than keeping the two apart itis also a volume issue. In my opinion one sentence isn't enough flavor.


----------



## kevtar (May 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Sleep:
> 
> A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 Hit Dice of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point of origin are affected first. Hit Dice that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted.
> 
> ...




That's why I believe it is a matter of discourse and not simply language. The immersiveness of Rolemaster, I would argue, is a product of the correspondence between the discourse of the game and the orientation of the player - which of course, like so many things in RPGs, is subjective.


----------



## kevtar (May 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Move effect into flavour, mixing them, and I'm with you. That's then a 1E/2E/3E spell.
> 
> For me personally, mixing them means that the moat between "fluff" and "crunch" gets filled. The spell then becomes more than just a group of numbers. You can't ignore the flavour if it's mixed with the effect.
> 
> Separating out the fluff means it gets ignored and the spell is just a numerical spreadsheet entry. Hardly magical.




If the goal of 5e, or D&Dnext, is to capture the "essence" of D&D (which for me, doesn't exist in the game, but rather in its representation), then I believe this is the approach they are going to have to take with spells. I'm not arguing that 4e is wrong, it is just different, different enough to not fit within a particular representation of a game element that (at the time 4e was released) enjoyed a 30+ year history. This history has shaped the way people perceive the game, and if 5e is going to minimize dissonance between the representation of D&D and player's perceptions, they are going to need to adopt traditional approaches to presenting the elements of the game.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 3, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I dont see why we should be forced to have them seperate just because some people might ignore flavor. And the issue is more than keeping the two apart itis also a volume issue. In my opinion one sentence isn't enough flavor.




The amount of flavor should be subjective to the ability.  If a sentence is enough, cool, if a paragraph is more fitting, cool.  But I don't think artifically inflating the vile of flavor text by merging it with rules text is the proper way to do that.  There should be some reasonable limit on flavor though.  Flavor is nice, but we shouldn't squeeze out more content in favor of more verbosity.


----------



## Minigiant (May 3, 2012)

Having the prose and crunch weaved together is a lot more magical.

But when you need the info for how many hit points your wall is and there a paragraph on each side of the part that says it is 15 HP an inch and your eyes are tired from a long day of work... Or you see "Will partial" and you have to read eight sentences to figure out what "partial" is again..." you might go "Screw it... Alman casts fireball.. somewhere... on the closet guard.. they were guard right?"

There are pros and cons on both sides.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 3, 2012)

shidaku said:


> The amount of flavor should be subjective to the ability.  If a sentence is enough, cool, if a paragraph is more fitting, cool.  But I don't think artifically inflating the vile of flavor text by merging it with rules text is the proper way to do that.  There should be some reasonable limit on flavor though.  Flavor is nice, but we shouldn't squeeze out more content in favor of more verbosity.




I don't think more than one sentence is "artificially inflating" flavor text. IMO 4e was needlessly sparse in this regard. Previous editions were about right in my opinion (though I have a soft spot for 2E). Blending mechnics and flavor together seems an elegant approach to me. Sepeating them actually strikes me as a bit clunky.


----------



## Morrus (May 3, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Fluff is going to be ignored by people who are going to ignore the fluff.  It doesn't matter if the two are combined or not.
> 
> Some people are going to read: "You wiggle your fingers and shoot a ball of fire that explodes in a 30' radius within 50' of you."
> 
> ...




Yes, I'd gathered that some people prefer flavour and crunch separated by an iron wall. You don't need to repeat that to me.

I don't. Dunno what else to say, really. If they're separated out again, I expect to be playing Pathfinder, where they're mixed like I prefer.  You say mixing it will bother some people; I say not mixing it will bother me. 

I guess one of us will get our way. I hope it's me.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 3, 2012)

(BECMI) Sleep
Range: 240'
Duration: 4d4 (4-16) turns
Effect: 2-16 Hit Dice of living creatures within a 40' square area

This spell will put creatures to sleep for up to 16 turns. It will only affect creatures with 4+1 Hit Dice or less -- generally, small or man-sized creatures. The spell will not affect creatures outside the 40' x 40' area which the player chooses as the spell's target area. The spell will not work against undead or very large creatures, such as dragons.

When a character is first hit with a sleep spell, falling or sagging to the ground will not wake him up. However, characters affected by a sleep spell are not in a deep sleep. Any sleeping character or creature will awaken if slapped, kicked, or shaken.

Characters can kill a sleeping victim with a single blow of any edged weapon, regardless of the creature's hit points.

Your Dungeon Master will roll 2d8 to find the total Hit Dice or experience levels of monsters affected by the spell.

The victim gets no saving throw against this spell.


Contrast with the next spell in the RC:

(BECMI) Ventriloquism
Range: 60'
Duration: 2 turns
Effect: One item or location

This spell will allow the spellcaster to make the sound of his or her voice come from somewhere else, such as a statute, animal, a dark corner, and so forth. The "somewhere else" must be within range of the spell.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 3, 2012)

My ultra-radical, compromise solution:

If something is truly standard in a spell listing, write it in a standard format, in a simple spell block. This includes effects, durations, ranges, applicable saving throws, keywords, etc. But don't go nuts. If there are some useful exceptions, use "see text" or "varies" in the stat block, which means, "Read the darn text, guy!" A faithful adapation of the _confusion_ spell would be a good example of this last part.

Then in the flavor text, repeat all or most of this information, written out, perhaps embedding plain English summaries of applicable rules, where possible. (For the inevitable errors that ensue, establish up front that such rules text is only an aid to play, and is not considered canon in the face of contradictory text in the main rules section. The "unconscious" condition rules trumps any summary of "unconcious" in the _sleep_ spell.

Perhaps, somwhere in the process, we could also have some real flavor embedded in this text?


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2012)

kevtar said:


> That's why I believe it is a matter of discourse and not simply language.



I don't quite get the distinction you are drawing here.

A bit more on the sleep spell.

There is no difference of content (other than slightly different attack and save mechanics) between

A sleep spell causes drowsiness to all the creatures within the area of effect who fail a Will saving throw, slowing them. After a round of drowsiness, each target must make a second saving throw; if they fail, they fall into a magical slumber.​
and

[Sleep keyword]

Area burst 2 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will
Hit: The target is slowed (save ends). If the target fails its first saving throw against this power, the target becomes unconscious (save ends).​
The difference is one of syntax and style.

I am wondering whether some players have a self-generated illusion that reading the old PHB spell descriptions is like paging through a wizard's spell book. If so, it's just an illusion, and a pretty obvious one at that. The wizard's spellbook is not going to talk about saving throws, hit points, rounds and turns of time, etc; and hopefully not about levels either.

Is the problem with the 4e syntax and style that it makes it obvious that the rulebook is a game tool, and not _itself_ an element of the fiction? At least for my part, I've never played under any illusion to the contrary.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Perhaps, somwhere in the process, we could also have some real flavor embedded in this text?



For flavour, I'm happy enough with the 4e or BW approach of a sentence or two at the head of the spell.

But I agree with you that rules information doesn't suddenly become flavour just because it's written out with the style and punctuation of a narrative rather than a list!


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The difference is one of syntax and style.
> 
> I am wondering whether some players have a self-generated illusion that reading the old PHB spell descriptions is like paging through a wizard's spell book. If so, it's just an illusion, and a pretty obvious one at that. The wizard's spellbook is not going to talk about saving throws, hit points, rounds and turns of time, etc; and hopefully not about levels either.
> 
> Is the problem with the 4e syntax and style that it makes it obvious that the rulebook is a game tool, and not _itself_ an element of the fiction? At least for my part, I've never played under any illusion to the contrary.




I disbelieve illusion (smirk), but suspect rather that the cause is free riding on better spells. The sleep spell is a pretty lousy support of the "write it out" position. I only typed it above to constrast with the later versions. Consider this one:

(BECMI) Hallucinatory Terrain
Range: 240'
Duration: Special 
Effect: Changes or hides terrain in 240' radius (or less)

This spell creates the illusion of a terrain feature, either indoors (such as a pit, stairs, etc.) or outdoors (hills, swamp, grove of trees, etc.), possibly hiding a real feature. The caster could create the illusion of solid ground over a series of pits or quicksand pools, or he could create the image of dense forest over his army's camp, etc.

The caster may choose to place his hallucinatory terrain over a comparatively small area (for instance, a throne room) or over a much larger one (for example, a hill). If he chooses to cast the spell on a larger terrain feature, the entire feature to be affected must be within range of the spell. (A hill with greater than a 480' diameter would not be affected.)

The spell lasts until the illusion is touched by an intelligent creature, or until dispelled.


A lot more to that one! If you are reading through a list of spells, a head of steam from that kind of listing can take you right through the sleeps of the list (and clothform and stoneform and ironform ).

Despite my earlier sarcasm, I do think there is a place for both formats. You can't put all the details of that spell in a stat block, without either compromising the spell or making your stat blocks unwieldly.

If I were Mr. Spell Format Dictator for a day, what I'd do is cut out all the redundant text that is already handled in stat blocks, but keep the blocks simple as above. Then I'd insist that some spells have enough idiosyncratic features and flavor to deserve some longer text. In particular, I'd look for some that had some ambiguity built in, and thus required DM judgment. Then I'd shoot for a good mix of both. The straight-forward spells don't take much space. So you might go with a 60/40 split. The longer, ambiguous spells make up in character and flexibility what they lack in numbers. Then if individual groups want to gravitate towards one or the other, mostly or even exclusively, that is their call.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 3, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think more than one sentence is "artificially inflating" flavor text. IMO 4e was needlessly sparse in this regard. Previous editions were about right in my opinion (though I have a soft spot for 2E). Blending mechnics and flavor together seems an elegant approach to me. Sepeating them actually strikes me as a bit clunky.




I said "needlessly inflating flavor with rules text".  EX: denoting range, size, potency, if the spell is volumetric or not, if it affects enemies, allies, or all creatures, what damage types it is, fire, arcane, shadow, necrotic, ect...  if the opponenet needs to make a saving throw or if it's vs touch, regular AC or NADs.

Flavor text should add to the flavor of the spell.  If a sentence is spent on flavor and then 3 more make verbose attempts at flavorizing rules text, I think that just ends up creating convoluded and confusing spells.

I would rather see:
Fireball
*rules*
You wiggle your fingers and say funny words and shoot a blazing ball of fire from your fingertips that ignites flamable objects and does 5d6 damage.  

Thats flavorful, while including the basic rules.

Adding in "This spell only affects enemies in a 30' blast centered within 50' of the caster.  In addition Fireball does Ongoing 1d4 to all enemies that failed their reflex save.  A successful reflex save ends this ongoing damage.  Targets taking ongoing damage are considered _aflame_ and take a -2 to their AC and reflex."

That's not flavorful, that's just rules.


----------



## Umbran (May 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> For me personally, the way the books were presented actually affected how I interacted with the game.




I don't dispute that.

But, I also remember the way the books were presented having both positive and negative effects on how I interacted with the game.  I agree that the older game's prose style was far more evocative and engaging to read.  I also think that, before you'd played so much that you'd largely memorizing the book, actually finding details that you needed to know at a particular moment was, frankly, a pain in the behind!



Bedrockgames said:


> i want to be informed and excited by the text. Good writers can do both.




A good writer can inform and excite at the same time, yes.  But there's more to a good *reference* text than that.  The formatting and style that make for good quick reference is diametrically opposed to fitting that same information into several sentences of evocative descriptive text.  

Every time I need to weed through several sentences to get one highly relevant fact, that slows down my combats, contributes to breaking of immersion as the GM or player mumbles, "waitaminnit, it was right here somewhere..." and all that.

There's a balance to be struck, between making the text engaging, and making it useful at game runtime.  It is by no means an easy balance to strike.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Hallucinatory Terrain
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



In 4e, that element of GM judgement is located in page 42, and in a couple of opaque suggestions (mostly but not entirely around skill challenges):

PHB p 259
Noncombat encounters focus on skills, utility powers, and your own wits (not your character’s), although sometimes attack powers can come in handy as well. . .

In a skill challenge, your goal is to accumulate a certain number of successful skill checks before rolling too many failures. Powers you use might give you bonuses on your checks, make some checks unnecessary, or otherwise help you through the challenge. . .

Chapter 5 describes the sorts of things you can attempt with your skills in a skill challenge. You can use a wide variety of skills, from Acrobatics and Athletics to Nature and Stealth. You might also use combat powers and ability checks.

DMG p27
Since PC abilities can sometimes hinge on a game state, condition, or effect that affects their opponent, make it clear to the players how their enemies are doing. Be descriptive, considering the source of the condition, but also be explicit.

For example, . . . _f a creature is dazed due to a fear-inducing power, you could say, “Its eyes bulge wide, and it starts to shake. It’s dazed.”

DMG p 44
At your option, you can allow a power that pushes the target more than 1 square to carry the target over hindering terrain in the way. You might imagine a titan with push 3 knocking a character clear over a pit to land in a heap on the other side.

Some powers specifically have this effect, and it’s probably not a good idea to extend it to others. Rely on how you imagine the power working in the world. If you see the blow lifting a creature off the ground, particularly if it leaves him or her prone at the end of the push, you can decide that the power throws the target over hindering terrain along the way.

DMG p 86
When a player suggests a plausible countermeasure for a trap, even if that possibility isn’t included in the trap’s presentation, figure out the best way to resolve that using the rules: a skill check or ability check against an appropriate DC, an attack, or the use of a power.

DMG 2 p 86
Characters can use powers and sometimes rituals in the midst of a skill challenge  . . .

A good rules of thumb is to treat these other optins as if they were secondary skills in the challenge. . .

Some categories of actions, though, are significant enough to earn an automatic success in the challenge. A character who . . . uses a daily power deserves to notch at least 1 success toward the party's goal._​_

There is the idea here that powers can be used in skill challenges, and to deal with traps, in ways that aren't contemplated in the technical rules description. And there is also the idea that, both in description ("eyes bulging wide from fear") and adjudication (being hit over a pit by a giant) fictional positioning matters. And presumably these ideas are meant to be combined, so that the way you use a power in a skill challenge or to deal with a trap in a way that goes beyond the technical rules description is by drawing on the fictional positioning that use of the power establishes.

In my own game, a recent example of that was when the PCs needed a password and didn't have it. The wizard had just recently learned a 15th level daily from Heroes of the Feywild, Charm of the Dark Dream, which (i) dominates the target and (ii) removes the caster from play. Obviously, in the fiction this is full-on possession as the caster literally inhabits the mind and body of the target. And so the PC used this to possess an NPC and try to extract the password from his mind. (I required an Arcana check, which failed - so no password was extracted, but I was able to introduce some other interesting information.)

I've certainly got no objection to a game which does a better job of talking about how this stuff is to be done than 4e. But I don't just want to go back to descriptions that are open-ended and encourage players to build up a head of steam, and then give no advice to the GM except to keep a lid on things without being too adversarial. One thing that I think 4e did well was to set up a somewhat systematic mechanic for this: skill checks at set DCs, plus the success/fail format of a skill challenge to put an overall framing constraint on how much can be achieved, or how much go wrong, from a single creative casting choice._


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I've certainly got no objection to a game which does a better job of talking about how this stuff is to be done than 4e. But I don't just want to go back to descriptions that are open-ended and encourage players to build up a head of steam, and then give no advice to the GM except to keep a lid on things without being too adversarial. One thing that I think 4e did well was to set up a somewhat systematic mechanic for this: skill checks at set DCs, plus the success/fail format of a skill challenge to put an overall framing constraint on how much can be achieved, or how much go wrong, from a single creative casting choice.




Fair enough.  Then perhaps the longer, more involved spell description should be providing hints and inspiration on how to do those stunts on page 42.  If we rewrote _halucinatory terrain_ as a 4E spell, and kept the spirit of it, that wouldn't be a bad way to do it.  Part of the problem with page 42 is a lack of examples.  "Hey, if someone wants to stunt with this spell, check out these ideas ..."


----------



## kevtar (May 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I don't quite get the distinction you are drawing here.
> 
> A bit more on the sleep spell.
> 
> ...




Discourse relates to a concept represented and constructed through language use, the acts accompanied by such usage, and their interpretation. So, the language used in describing a spell in D&D is part of the discourse of D&D, but so are the ways in which the language is formatted, the intention of the author in using that language, as well as the language used in interpreting the author's words, the language associated with playing the game, and other aspects.

Your wondering why some people feel like they are poring over a spellbook when reading a 1e player's handbook is because the discourse of that edition "rings true" for them in some way. If we were to adopt a discursive approach to understanding RPGs, we could argue that the various elements of the discourse of a particular edition of D&D represent something to some players that very strongly orients them to the concept of D&D - thus, they see that edition as being "true" or "essential" etc.

If we were to analyze the discourse of the various editions, we would find that technically, the information given for certain spells is fairly static, but the discursive elements that accompany each edition contribute to the ways in which the spell descriptions are interpreted, not only in function, but also in feeling. My theory is that's why players cling to editions with such ideological tenacity - there is something about a particular discourse of a certain edition that "rings true" to them and the that representation of the game becomes the assumptive default or norm to which they reference other editions.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 3, 2012)

I bid you, fair readers of the tomes of old, to disentangle yourselves from your campaign to prosaify the key texts to the grand game of imagination!  I, MichaelSomething, herald of the great game's step child, implore you to reconsider; lest you bring folly to the game!  While the Gygaxian writings of old were sweet honeypots of inspiration to you, to many others they were a labyrinth of twisted words that had to fought through like the Caves of Choas themselves!  I wish not to sent them back into a dark age of incomprehensible typings that had to be dug through in order to find the rules for their game.  To them the books are not matches of imagination or meatloafs of prose to be digested, but a pit stop of rules and advice designed to quickly repair their games so that they may keep moving on their tabletop journeys!  To me the essence of the game is not formed by solidarity readings of books but in the sharing of ideas done on the wooden platforms of dice and papers!


----------



## Mishihari Lord (May 3, 2012)

I'd love to see evocative prose throughout.  And if they could find someone who could actually _do_ Gary's style that would be even better.  The AD&D books were fun to read, but but each edition was decreasingly enjoyable.  

I never really had any trouble quickly parsing out the relevant rules from AD&D either, so I don't agree with that complaint.

One nice feature of making the rules books enjoyable to read was that I knew the rules really well because I'd read the books a bunch of times.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2012)

michaelsomething said:


> to me the essence of the game is not formed by solidarity readings of books but in the sharing of ideas done on the wooden platforms of dice and papers!



qft!


----------



## Incenjucar (May 3, 2012)

MichaelSomething said:


> I bid you, fair readers of the tomes of old, to disentangle yourselves from your campaign




I got this far before I wanted this to be in a book so I could slam it shut and look for the receipt.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 3, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I
> 
> Every time I need to weed through several sentences to get one highly relevant fact, that slows down my combats, contributes to breaking of immersion as the GM or player mumbles, "waitaminnit, it was right here somewhere..." and all that.
> 
> There's a balance to be struck, between making the text engaging, and making it useful at game runtime.  It is by no means an easy balance to strike.




one can easily put the relevant pieces of data into the state block. The issue is how much elaboration is there in the text. For me, the elaboration is worth any look up time with spells or monsters. But then I tend to make a point of being familiar with monsters or spells before using them in a session. The 4e approach leaves me genuinely unresponsive as a reader, player and GM. It may well work for some and have a convenience factor. For me it loses too much. That doesn't mean things have to be gygaxian. 2e and 3e did a fine job explaining things without trying to sound like Gary. I would rather the writers have a clear style of their own than mimic his prose.


----------



## Morrus (May 3, 2012)

I've changed my mind.  I think D&D Next should be published as an Excel spreadsheet.


----------



## Dausuul (May 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I've changed my mind.  I think D&D Next should be published as an Excel spreadsheet.




Pfft. Excel may be fine for little indie games, but it's no solution for the industry flagship. D&DN should be an SQL database.

*Player:* IF (SELECT FLOOR(RAND()*20) +  AttackBonus + 1 FROM Players WHERE Name = 'Thog') >= (SELECT ArmorClass FROM Monsters WHERE MonsterName = 'Goblin #5') THEN UPDATE Monsters SET HitPoints = HitPoints - (FLOOR(RAND()*12) + 1) WHERE Name = 'Goblin #5'

*DM: *EXEC procMonsterDies  @Name  = 'Goblin #5'

*Player:* EXEC procWoot

See? It's as precise and technical as you could possibly ask for. Future edition wars will be about whether the fourth normal form is ruining the game.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (May 3, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> See? It's as precise and technical as you could possibly ask for. Future edition wars will be about whether the fourth normal form is ruining the game.




4th normal form? Weak. If there's anything but the key, the whole key, and nothing but the key in a stat line then WotC has fired me as a customer. 6NF rules definitions is the only true D&D for me.


----------



## Scribble (May 3, 2012)

Why not just make it a book of artwork depicting the rules, interspersed with the occasional haiku?


----------



## Halivar (May 3, 2012)

Scribble said:


> Why not just make it a book of artwork depicting the rules, interspersed with the occasional haiku?



Hey now. Umm... being the sort of person who loves ergodic literature, this would have novelty appeal to me.


----------



## skotothalamos (May 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I don't quite get the distinction you are drawing here.
> 
> A bit more on the sleep spell.
> 
> ...




I thought the OP was about _Gygaxian_ prose style.  We need to edit that to be more like:

Noble Reader, know you that the venerable piece of dweomerlore known colloquially as the "sleep spell" is an enchantment whose very presence inflicts upon all the various forms of life within its affected casting area a condition not unlike drowsiness, unless said creatures (who do not have membership in that vile class of things known as the living dead) make a saving throw against their Will defenses using a twenty-sided die (q.v.). If, after having failed to save, the creature tries to move in any direction, using any of its capacities, it will find its movements sluggish and it will in fact only be able to propel itself a distance of approximately 1".  A full round following this phenomenon, the creature must again attempt to make a saving roll as previously laid out above, but in this instance the consequences are far more dire, for a failure to save now will lead to a magical slumber, from which the being can only be roused if a friendly creature spends a round waking him instead of attacking.  An amount of damage may also wake the creature.  Your referee will decide on a case-by-case basis whether a given injury is grievous enough to awake the ensorcelled creature.​


----------



## Halivar (May 3, 2012)

roadtoad said:


> I thought the OP was about _Gygaxian_ prose style.  We need to edit that to be more like:



I know you're joking, but this is not completely unlike what I would prefer to see. Obviously your example is a parody, but if you file off the most egregious verbiage and redundancy and I just might be fine with it. Certainly a step up from VCR instructions.


----------



## Stoat (May 3, 2012)

[MENTION=83398]roadtoad[/MENTION]

It isn't GYGAXIAN WRITING unless it contains random italics, _use of bold type for no reason_ and inexplicable *capitalization*.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 3, 2012)

Brent_Nall said:


> 4th normal form? Weak. If there's anything but the key, the whole key, and nothing but the key in a stat line then WotC has fired me as a customer. 6NF rules definitions is the only true D&D for me.




Yeah, D&D mucking around with poor denormalization is traditional by this point.  If they wanted to drag it kicking and screaming into the last decade, we'd see GUIDs as a means to solve identity issues.  Don't hold your breathe.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2012)

roadtoad said:


> I thought the OP was about _Gygaxian_ prose style.  We need to edit that



I can't XP you at the moment, but the correction is duly noted and accepted!


----------



## dagger (May 4, 2012)

I will take whatever is the opposite of 4e...after a year and a half I had enough.


----------



## herrozerro (May 4, 2012)

dagger said:


> I will take whatever is the opposite of 4e...after a year and a half I had enough.




What is the opposite though?

I know its a bit snarky, but its not like 4e is at the end of any kind of spectrum.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## DMBrendon (May 4, 2012)

Even by the time my 4E players got their characters to 6th level, they were still unable to describe what their powers looked like. Ridiculous.


----------



## Mattachine (May 4, 2012)

When we have new characters, I specifically ask each player to create their own flavor text to go with their powers. 

For instance, a new PC in my 4e game has a couple teleport powers. I asked, "What sort of teleporting are we talking?"

* Quick blink out and in
* Flash of light
* Puff of smoke, "bamf"
* Shimmer in the air
* Something else?

(The player went with fade out at start location while simultaneously fading in at the destination.)

Other examples:

* What do your magic missiles look like?
* What sort of display accompanies your psionic powers?
* What do your animal/beast shapes look like?
* What is your character's fighting style?
* Are you quick and agile, or simply lucky?

And so on. That sort of thing can be done in any edition, but 4e specifically mentioned doing so in the rules (starting with the PHB2).

Again, I would like the new edition to specifically call out that players should feel free to provide their own flavor text.


----------



## Mallus (May 4, 2012)

DMBrendon said:


> Even by the time my 4E players got their characters to 6th level, they were still unable to describe what their powers looked like. Ridiculous.



My group didn't suffer from that problem. At all. Then again, generally-speaking, we like to make shi stuff up ourselves.

Personally speaking, I've come semi-full circle on Gygaxian prose. When I was first introduced to AD&D in high school, I didn't feel I needed EGG's prose style for inspiration -- that's what Tolkien, Moorcock, Gene Wolfe, hell, even Ray Feist were for. Though in retrospect, D&D's overall tone, it's gleeful smashing together of genre influences was inspirational, thought I probably wouldn't have admitted it at the time (back them I was more hung up on strict(er) genre emulation, which blinded me to some of D&D's more ludicrous charms).

But now, reading through the AD&D core books --since I'm running the game for the first time since the late 80s-- I've come to a new appreciation for EGG's prose stylings. I can see the wit, the humor, the intentional-seeming self-parody that studs the verbosity, obscurantism, and over-elaborate, stilted diction like gems in the pommel of a _+1 bastard sword_.

I hope there's place for such strong, idiosyncratic voices in 5e -- just not in, for example, the section on combat initiative.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 4, 2012)

DMBrendon said:


> Even by the time my 4E players got their characters to 6th level, they were still unable to describe what their powers looked like. Ridiculous.






My invoker's powers not only all have descriptions, some of them have miniatures and are characters with their own personalities. _And not just his summoning prayers._


----------



## Sunseeker (May 4, 2012)

DMBrendon said:


> Even by the time my 4E players got their characters to 6th level, they were still unable to describe what their powers looked like. Ridiculous.




1: The idea that powers should have a "standard" look is pretty silly. "fire" "ball" pretty much sums it up.  Any more fluff than that should be up to the player.
2: This is a player issue, not a game issue.

Robust flavor text _replaces_ imagination, it does not enhance it.  It's like the difference between reading a book and watching a TV.  Flavor text needs to be vague enough to allow the player room for creativity.

To that end, there's really no need at all for flavor text as long as the spell/power/exploit name is explicit.  "fireball", "trip", "charge", yeah, don't need a whole lot more there.  Anything extra, if necessary at all, can be made up by the player.  I'm not saying there should be no flavor text, but that's ALL it is, flavor.  

If my players want their powers to have a specific look to their powers, they'll create one, if they don't, they wont.  Imagination is the prerogative of the player, not the books.


----------



## KidSnide (May 4, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Robust flavor text _replaces_ imagination, it does not enhance it.  It's like the difference between reading a book and watching a TV.




I do not agree with this statement.  

Robust flavor text absolutely enhances imagination.  That's the point of it.  It's not the difference between reading a book and watching TV.  Flavor text _is_ the book.  It's like the difference between reading a novel and reading the phone book.  D&D rule books need flavorful, evocative descriptions to -- well -- evoke the imaginations of the readers.  The idea that D&D books should strip out the flavor text to a bare minimal description _in order to prevent getting in the way of imagination_ is, IMO, deeply misguided.

-KS

P.S.  One could argue that much of the 4e flavor text wasn't very good, and didn't perform its task of inspiring imagination.  But that's an argument for _better_ flavor text, not less of it.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 4, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> The idea that D&D books should strip out the flavor text to a bare minimal description _in order to prevent getting in the way of imagination_ is, IMO, deeply misguided.




Considering that wasn't what I wrote...


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2012)

shidaku said:


> 1: The idea that powers should have a "standard" look is pretty silly. "fire" "ball" pretty much sums it up.  Any more fluff than that should be up to the player.
> 2: This is a player issue, not a game issue.
> 
> Robust flavor text _replaces_ imagination, it does not enhance it.  It's like the difference between reading a book and watching a TV.  Flavor text needs to be vague enough to allow the player room for creativity.
> ...




That really _does_ sound like an Excel spreadsheet! 

Let's just say that's no way to see sell me an RPG. If it's like that, I think I can confidently say I'll be checking out of the D&D brand.

I hope, hope, hope that I get my way and you don't get yours!


----------



## Sunseeker (May 4, 2012)

Morrus said:


> That really _does_ sound like an Excel spreadsheet!
> 
> Let's just say that's no way to see sell me an RPG. If it's like that, I think I can confidently say I'll be checking out of the D&D brand.
> 
> I hope, hope, hope that I get my way and you don't get yours!




Do you even read what I write?  Do you know _what_ I want in terms of flavor text?  Because every time you reply to me it sounds like you're addressing the straw man argument of me not wanting ANY flavor on spells and whatnot at all, which if anyone actually read beyond my first sentence, they'd know isn't what I'm shooting for.

I want flavor to mean something.  If flavor is just going to be "This is a flaming orb", then that's pointless.  I want to see creative stuff like "Thunt's last thought as the fireball touched his nose was _'oooo, shiny!'_"
Flavor text that is little more than "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire." is about as creative as if there was no flavor at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 4, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Do you even read what I write?  Do you know _what_ I want in terms of flavor text?  Because every time you reply to me it sounds like you're addressing the straw man argument of me not wanting ANY flavor on spells and whatnot at all, which if anyone actually read beyond my first sentence, they'd know isn't what I'm shooting for.
> 
> I want flavor to mean something.  If flavor is just going to be "This is a flaming orb", then that's pointless.  I want to see creative stuff like "Thunt's last thought as the fireball touched his nose was _'oooo, shiny!'_"
> Flavor text that is little more than "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire." is about as creative as if there was no flavor at all.




I think you are coming through loud and clear and folks simply don't agree. 

But this last part you posted suggests if you want flavor, you want something story related rather than descriptive. For the me the classic "you wiggle your fingers and shoot fire" is the kind of description I am looking for (though it certainly shouldn't stop there. I want something that is interesting to read and describes how the spell works. The first three editions worked just fine fo rme in this regard, but the last one didn't. So bottom line for me is I would like 1e, 2e, and 3e to be their models for flavor text. 

But if you want something different that is totally fine with me. It sounds like you enjoy having more of the effect interpretation in the players court. That os cool for some people. Personally I like a little more consistemcy of flavor and would rather that kind of stuff be determined by the rule book or the gm (not the player) but that is just me.


----------



## herrozerro (May 4, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Do you even read what I write?  Do you know _what_ I want in terms of flavor text?  Because every time you reply to me it sounds like you're addressing the straw man argument of me not wanting ANY flavor on spells and whatnot at all, which if anyone actually read beyond my first sentence, they'd know isn't what I'm shooting for.
> 
> I want flavor to mean something.  If flavor is just going to be "This is a flaming orb", then that's pointless.  I want to see creative stuff like "Thunt's last thought as the fireball touched his nose was _'oooo, shiny!'_"
> Flavor text that is little more than "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire." is about as creative as if there was no flavor at all.




Actually now that i think of it d&d spell flavor should be like mtg flavor on cards.  In all honesty flavor like the one you pointed out to me is more evocative.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sunseeker (May 4, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think you are coming through loud and clear and folks simply don't agree.
> 
> But this last part you posted suggests if you want flavor, you want something story related rather than descriptive. For the me the classic "you wiggle your fingers and shoot fire" is the kind of description I am looking for (though it certainly shouldn't stop there. I want something that is interesting to read and describes how the spell works. The first three editions worked just fine fo rme in this regard, but the last one didn't. So bottom line for me is I would like 1e, 2e, and 3e to be their models for flavor text.
> 
> But if you want something different that is totally fine with me. It sounds like you enjoy having more of the effect interpretation in the players court. That os cool for some people. Personally I like a little more consistemcy of flavor and would rather that kind of stuff be determined by the rule book or the gm (not the player) but that is just me.




I just don't see the point of uncreative, rulesy flavor.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 4, 2012)

shidaku said:


> I just don't see the point of uncreative, rulesy flavor.




Well, i think "you wiggle your fingers and fire comes out" can be part of creative flavor. But for me the point isn't tha it be creative in the sense of breaking new ground, just that it holds my interest, sparks my creativity, describes what the spell does and provides me with a mental image of how it might function. Personally I don't find 4e flavor especially creative, just sparse.

Maybe I am not sure what you mean by creative. Does it have to describe a fictional scenario or be "different" to be creative? Becuase I find many of the standard spell entries creative and blended perfectly with mechanics. But YMMV


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Do you even read what I write?  Do you know _what_ I want in terms of flavor text?  Because every time you reply to me it sounds like you're addressing the straw man argument of me not wanting ANY flavor on spells and whatnot at all, which if anyone actually read beyond my first sentence, they'd know isn't what I'm shooting for.
> 
> I want flavor to mean something.  If flavor is just going to be "This is a flaming orb", then that's pointless.  I want to see creative stuff like "Thunt's last thought as the fireball touched his nose was _'oooo, shiny!'_"
> Flavor text that is little more than "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire." is about as creative as if there was no flavor at all.




Yes, I read what you wrote. I'm sorry, but my tastes differ to yours. No need to get upset; there's room for a range of tastes in this conversation.

I definitely don't want to see bits of fiction inserted in there, like your example. I'd like to see prose similar to the 3.5 era if spell descriptions - not quite as opaque as Gygaxian, but far more natural sounding than 4E's stat blocks.

I'm not after "fluff" (I find most D&D fluff to be awful); I'm talking about the rules information.


----------



## DMBrendon (May 5, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Flavor text that is little more than "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire." is about as creative as if there was no flavor at all.



I would much prefer "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire at an enemy adjacent to you, causing 1d6 points of damage." than "1d6 damage to 1 adjacent target".


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2012)

DMBrendon said:


> I would much prefer "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire at an enemy adjacent to you, causing 1d6 points of damage." than "1d6 damage to 1 adjacent target".




Yup.  It's literally a question of syntax and formating for me, not add fluff.


----------



## Minigiant (May 5, 2012)

There seems to be multiple aspects discussed here:

Raw spell Crunch
_Range:     Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area:     20-ft.-radius spread
Duration:     Instantaneous
Saving Throw:     Reflex half
Spell Resistance:     Yes
Damage: 5d6 fire damage_

Syntax
_A fireball spell deals 5d6 points of fire damage to every creature and unattenuated object within the area._

Fluff with gameplay impact and crunch
_A fireball spell detonates with a low roar and deals...  A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit..  It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper,.._

Fluff with no gameplay impact or crunch 
_A fireball spell is an explosion of flame_


I think it all can be done.
*Fireball (3rd level Arcane Spell)*​
After spending *an action* to cast the fireball spell, a glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it  impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining *the range of 400ft*, blossoms into an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar. Every creature and unattenuated object within *the 20-ft.-radius spread* of the explosion is dealt *5d6 fire damage* unless they make a *Dexterity saving throw for half damage.
*
The explosion creates almost no pressure. It does, however, set fire to combustibles and can melt  metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and  bronze.

If the fireball spell is prepared at a higher spell slot than 3rd, it *deals an additional 2d6 fire damage per level* higher than the 3rd.​


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 5, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> *Fireball (3rd level Arcane Spell)*​
> After spending *an action* to cast the fireball spell, a glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it  impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining *the range of 400ft*, blossoms into an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar. Every creature and unattenuated object within *the 20-ft.-radius spread* of the explosion is dealt *5d6 fire damage* unless they make a *Dexterity saving throw for half damage.
> *
> The explosion creates almost no pressure. It does, however, set fire to combustibles and can melt  metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and  bronze.
> ...




You're gonna need to color the info text a different color from the other text (or make it bolder/italicized/etc.) because it's hard to notice the rules text...


----------



## Tallifer (May 5, 2012)

DMBrendon said:


> I would much prefer "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire at an enemy adjacent to you, causing 1d6 points of damage." than "1d6 damage to 1 adjacent target".




I strongly disagree. "You wiggle your fingers and fire shoots out" should be separate flavour text. The rule should be written "Range: 50 feet. Attack: d20 + Intelligence modifier. Damage: 1d6 fire." Now I can enjoy the fluff but also quickly find the relevant rule. If I want to look up the range, it is immediately there at a glance, and I do not not have to read the whole spell to search for the relevant information.

Minigiant's rule example looks to me like Pathfinder spells. Hard to search easily. When simple rules questions arise at the table, it should not require reading two or three paragraphs.


----------



## Oni (May 5, 2012)

shidaku said:


> I want flavor to mean something.  If flavor is just going to be "This is a flaming orb", then that's pointless.  I want to see creative stuff like "Thunt's last thought as the fireball touched his nose was _'oooo, shiny!'_"
> Flavor text that is little more than "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire." is about as creative as if there was no flavor at all.




Your example sounds more like the flavor text on a Magic Card.  And much like that it necessitates being completely separate from the mechanics.  This creates a big disconnect between the two.  I would much rather see them mixed together.  It creates a sense that the fluff describes the mechanics and the mechanics describe the fluff, not that someone sat down, wrote a little rules widget, and the came up with some fluff to justify it afterwards, which is exactly the sensation I get from the segregated format of 4e.


----------



## eamon (May 5, 2012)

I'd like to see a little more than just a presentational change: a flaming orb might require an endurance check for taqrgets in heavy armor or cause some fatigue; it might do a little less damage in the rain or snow.  It's not that important what these effects are; I just want actual consequences that highlight the fact that the PC's aren't just dealing abstract damage but really _interacting_ with the fantasy world but do not require a lot of extra bookkeeping.

This is another reason I'd prefer to have many fewer powers: that would allow more space to explore these kind of interactions.


----------



## pemerton (May 5, 2012)

Oni said:


> It creates a sense that the fluff describes the mechanics and the mechanics describe the fluff, not that someone sat down, wrote a little rules widget, and the came up with some fluff to justify it afterwards, which is exactly the sensation I get from the segregated format of 4e.



I'm not sure I follow this.

Suppose WotC hired an editor to go through and rewrite the 4e spells - it would _still_ be the case that an important influence on their design was their mechanical viability. Why does the _illusion_ of it being otherwise matter?


----------



## Oni (May 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure I follow this.
> 
> Suppose WotC hired an editor to go through and rewrite the 4e spells - it would _still_ be the case that an important influence on their design was their mechanical viability. Why does the _illusion_ of it being otherwise matter?




Because, frankly, perception does matter.  It's not unlike a magic show without all the pomp and circumstance and none of the stage patter, the guy just standing there doing the tricks.  The tricks might be just as good and clever but it won't be remotely as engaging.  You're not just there for the tricks, you're there for the theatre of it, I don't believe an RPG is any different. 

Besides, it would be very odd indeed to sit down and come with with a laundry list of mechanics and then splice the fluff into them after the fact if the end result was meant to be intertwined.  The 4e format encourages design a certain way, change the format, change the design.  Just like how different mechanics encourage different sorts of play.


----------



## Libramarian (May 5, 2012)

Reflavoring spells is pretty much the lowest form of creativity possible in the RPG medium, imo. If players are putzing around with that, to me that's a sign of a boring, disempowering, rail-roady campaign.

The more 5e steers games away from creative reflavoring towards _creative problem-solving_ and _creative story-telling,_ the better. They're much more fun.

I hope that 5e doesn't so much as mention reflavoring, reskinning, refluffing or anything like that.


----------



## Minigiant (May 5, 2012)

MichaelSomething said:


> You're gonna need to color the info text a different color from the other text (or make it bolder/italicized/etc.) because it's hard to notice the rules text...






Tallifer said:


> I strongly disagree. "You wiggle your fingers and fire shoots out" should be separate flavour text. The rule should be written "Range: 50 feet. Attack: d20 + Intelligence modifier. Damage: 1d6 fire." Now I can enjoy the fluff but also quickly find the relevant rule. If I want to look up the range, it is immediately there at a glance, and I do not not have to read the whole spell to search for the relevant information.
> 
> Minigiant's rule example looks to me like Pathfinder spells. Hard to search easily. When simple rules questions arise at the table, it should not require reading two or three paragraphs.




I guess the indent color makes bolder not dramatic enough. My intent is that if you read it straight, it reads as nice fluffy prose. But it you are just skimming for the specifics; the range, area, effects, and damage are all bolded.

_*Fireball (3rd level Arcane Spell)*

After spending *an action* to cast the fireball spell, a glowing,  pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it  impacts  upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining *the range of 400ft*, blossoms into an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar. Every creature and unattended object within *the 20-ft.-radius spread* of the explosion is dealt *5d6 fire damage* unless they make a *Dexterity saving throw for half damage.
*
The explosion creates almost no pressure. It does, however, set fire to  combustibles and can melt  metals with low melting points, such as lead,  gold, copper, silver, and  bronze.

If the fireball spell is prepared at a higher spell slot than 3rd, it *deals an additional 2d6 fire damage per level* higher than the 3rd._



*
Survival (Skill)*

Survival is your ability to ability to keep yourself and others safe and well while it the wild. It is a common skill for barbarians, rangers, and druids as many take the *Pathfinder, Savage, Hunter, Tracker, or Primal* themes. Those who spend large swaths of time in the wilderness are often seen with the Survival skill to deal with the thick forests or harsh deserts.

You can *get along with the wild* by making a simple *DC 10* with a Survival check. Success lets you move up to *one-half your speed* while hunting and foraging. No food or water supplies are needed or expended then. 
You can gain *a +2 bonus on all saving throws against severe weathe*r while *moving,* or gain a* +4 bonus* if you *remain stationary* by making a* DC 15* Survival check. 

Another possible application is noticing natural landmarks to* keep from getting lost*. You can scan the environment to *avoid natural hazards, *such as quicksand, thin ice, and poisonous shrub blooms. You can even monitor the sky and* predict the weather* 24 hours in advance or *endure temperatures* between -10 and 110 degrees Fahrenheit in appropriate clothing. All of these applications are succeed by beating a *DC 15*. 

If you are a *ranger* or gained the *Track *ability from a background, you can also find and follow the tracks left behind by others. You cannot follow tracks of those under the effect of the *pass without trace* spell unless you are under the effect the *retrace* spell which returns the footprints and broken branches back to their unhidden state.

You may typically grant the same bonus to *one other character for every 1 point* by which your Survival check result exceeds the DC. Basic Survival checks usual *occur each day *in the wilderness or whenever a  hazard presents itself. When using Survival to track  a character or animal, checks are made according to distance.


----------



## Zireael (May 5, 2012)

> There are 3 options:
> 
> 1. Text that reads like flowery prose and includes rules that are impossible to find (AD&D style)
> 2. Text that reads like dry description and includes rules that are impossible to find (3.x style)
> ...



Nitpick: those are *4* options.

As for me, I'd like flowery prose, AD&D style not Gygax style, for fluff and rules close to 4e, but easier to find.

EDIT: However, Minigiant's idea (with bolding) is brilliant, and I wish I could xp him.


----------



## Mattachine (May 5, 2012)

D&D spells have been written with stat blocks for many editions. It's useful for lookup and settling rules arguments. If spells are going to have technical facts (ranges, damage, casting time), then they need to have stat blocks.

Call of Cthulhu, in most editions, has spells without stat blocks. Many spells in that system have vague effects, or things that are open to Keeper interpretation. Great--magic should be like that in CoC, but not in D&D.

Mixing in all the stats with the text makes the rules of a spell less clear. It's not something I'm interested in.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 5, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> D&D spells have been written with stat blocks for many editions. It's useful for lookup and settling rules arguments. If spells are going to have technical facts (ranges, damage, casting time), then they need to have stat blocks.
> 
> Call of Cthulhu, in most editions, has spells without stat blocks. Many spells in that system have vague effects, or things that are open to Keeper interpretation. Great--magic should be like that in CoC, but not in D&D.
> 
> Mixing in all the stats with the text makes the rules of a spell less clear. It's not something I'm interested in.




No one is suggesting getting rid of stat blocks. i find them useful in the first three editions. People are just asking for the spell description to once again blend mechanic and prose (while retaining a stat block entry).


----------



## seregil (May 5, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> D&D spells have been written with stat blocks for many editions. It's useful for lookup and settling rules arguments. If spells are going to have technical facts (ranges, damage, casting time), then they need to have stat blocks.
> 
> Call of Cthulhu, in most editions, has spells without stat blocks. Many spells in that system have vague effects, or things that are open to Keeper interpretation. Great--magic should be like that in CoC, but not in D&D.
> 
> Mixing in all the stats with the text makes the rules of a spell less clear. It's not something I'm interested in.




I don't think anyone is saying we should not have a stat block. 

I think people are saying we should not have ONLY a stat block nor a description as short and as...useless?...  as the 4E powers description.

Stat block? Yes!
ONLY a statblock? Hell no!


----------



## Lord Mhoram (May 5, 2012)

DMBrendon said:


> I would much prefer "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire at an enemy adjacent to you, causing 1d6 points of damage." than "1d6 damage to 1 adjacent target".




While I primarily play Hero (the epitome of giving you the mechanics, and letting you come up with the fluff yourself) - I would much prefer your example for D&D. The tied in fluff and mechanics are part of the charm of D&D.


----------



## Mattachine (May 5, 2012)

I think minigiant's version did not have a stat block. I was specifically addressing that.

I prefer a stat block, an evocative bit of fluff, and then details as needed in the description. It doesn't matter much to me if it is in the style of AD&D, 3e, or 4e. I just want the description/details to be clear. There were several spells in AD&D where the description was strange or unclear.

If the designer's want a spell with wiggle room for interpretation, that's fine, but then, specifically say in the description something like, "the exact effects are determined by the particular situation and the DM."


----------



## Tallifer (May 5, 2012)

Minigiant, I appreciate your attempt to unite the two camps, but even with your colours, I have to scan every one of those bits to find the bit I need.

I must say however that if the Fifth Edition uses your idea, it will be much better than the turgid walls of text I find in previous editions.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 5, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Reflavoring spells is pretty much the lowest form of creativity possible in the RPG medium, imo. If players are putzing around with that, to me that's a sign of a boring, disempowering, rail-roady campaign.
> 
> The more 5e steers games away from creative reflavoring towards _creative problem-solving_ and _creative story-telling,_ the better. They're much more fun.
> 
> I hope that 5e doesn't so much as mention reflavoring, reskinning, refluffing or anything like that.




Pretty sure that the random wench tables are the lowest form of creativity.

Flavor is a big deal for a lot of people, and relieves the designers from having to cater to nearly as many tastes. If you don't like the artistic side of creativity, fine, but D&D isn't just a puzzle game for a lot of people.


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Minigiant, I appreciate your attempt to unite the two camps, but even with your colours, I have to scan every one of those bits to find the bit I need.
> 
> I must say however that if the Fifth Edition uses your idea, it will be much better than the turgid walls of text I find in previous editions.




I think you might be exaggerating the difficulty somewhat. If we're going to sacrifice everything in favour of easiness, we're talking video games. 

I don't see a tiny bit of effort being a problem for an intellectual game. If I objected to effort, I wouldn't be playing RPGs at all. I'll gladly sacrifice a little effort for more immersion.

When we get to the point where people object to a paragraph of text ("turgid walls of text") it saddens me a little.  Whatever happened to our game?


----------



## Minigiant (May 5, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Minigiant, I appreciate your attempt to unite the two camps, but even with your colours, I have to scan every one of those bits to find the bit I need.
> 
> I must say however that if the Fifth Edition uses your idea, it will be much better than the turgid walls of text I find in previous editions.




It always feels good to be appreciated.

Perhaps if it were colored code for your convenience.
Red for damage. Blue for nondamage effects. Green for range, area, and casting time.

It only takes a glance at a power to know it is atwill, encounter, or daily.


----------



## tuxgeo (May 5, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> My invoker's powers not only all have descriptions, some of them have miniatures and are characters with their own personalities. _And not just his summoning prayers._




Re: powers having their own miniatures: So -- like some of the "Angelic. . ." (whatever) powers? 
Have you already posted examples of this sort of thing in some other thread? I'm interested in more details about how you do this, but I don't want to derail this thread for that.

(I already know that the Wizard's "Flaming Sphere" had its own mini.)


----------



## Scribble (May 5, 2012)

Two books? One is a sit and read the book of D&D rules, and the other an at the table reference book stripped of all color and flavor.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 5, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Reflavoring spells is pretty much the lowest form of creativity possible in the RPG medium, imo. If players are putzing around with that, to me that's a sign of a boring, disempowering, rail-roady campaign.
> 
> The more 5e steers games away from creative reflavoring towards _creative problem-solving_ and _creative story-telling,_ the better. They're much more fun.
> 
> I hope that 5e doesn't so much as mention reflavoring, reskinning, refluffing or anything like that.




Disallowing reflavoring just leads to duplication.  Why do we need Fireball and Iceball if they are identical in every way except for fire or ice?


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2012)

Scribble said:


> Two books? One is a sit and read the book of D&D rules, and the other an at the table reference book stripped of all color and flavor.




The book or DDI. If someone's reference is a spreadsheet, a database isn't that far removed!


----------



## Remathilis (May 5, 2012)

An alternate to Minigiant's block...

*Fireball *
Arcane 3
Range: Long (400 ft.)
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: 5d6 fire damage in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Save: Dexterity 1/2

After casting the fireball spell, a glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the caster's fingertip. Unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the max range of 400ft, blossoms into an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar. Every creature and unattended object within the 20-ft.-radius spread of the explosion is dealt 5d6 fire damage unless they make a Dexterity saving throw for half damage.

The explosion creates almost no pressure. It does, however, set fire to combustibles and can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and  bronze.

If the fireball spell is prepared at a higher spell slot than 3rd, it deals an additional 2d6 fire damage per level higher than the 3rd.

This creates a mini-stat block for the spell that gives the important details, but then discusses the effect in detail below.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 5, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Disallowing reflavoring just leads to duplication.  Why do we need Fireball and Iceball if they are identical in every way except for fire or ice?




It is going to depend on the spell but basically because fire and ice should have different mechanical effects when feasible (and/or different strengths and limitations). It is also significant because allowing reflavoring essentially means there is no "fireball spell" but rather an "energy attack spell" that the user can tailor to his needs....afterall what is to stop me from casting fireball one round and ice ball the next if i am allowed to reflavor however I want. For some this works just fine, for others it simply puts too much world creation stuff in the player's court and is seriously disruptive to immersion. It all depends on what you are after in a game. But when you decide to go one way or the other it is going to impact peoples' experience of the game. So the designers do need to keep that in mind when they make their decision.


----------



## herrozerro (May 5, 2012)

Morrus said:


> The book or DDI. If someone's reference is a spreadsheet, a database isn't that far removed!




You know, this spreadsheet nonsense is just as hyperbolic as saying that you are advocating that the books should read as novels.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 5, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is going to depend on the spell but basically because fire and ice should have different mechanical effects when feasible




Different mechanical effects is reason enough for different spells.  But it should go a little further than Fireball does ongoing 5 fire and Iceball slows to half speed.  If you have two spells that are mechanically identical to a large extent, then one of them needs to get the boot.  And if you only have one spell to provide a certain effect, then there's really no reason that players shouldn't be allowed to say that their fireball is actually a blinding ball of radiant energy that does ongoing 5 radiant.  Nothing mechanical has changed, only the appearance of the spell and the player's level of involvement with the game.



> It is also significant because allowing reflavoring essentially means there is no "fireball spell" but rather an "energy attack spell" that the user can tailor to his needs....afterall what is to stop me from casting fireball one round and ice ball the next if i am allowed to reflavor however I want. For some this works just fine, for others it simply puts too much world creation stuff in the player's court and is seriously disruptive to immersion. It all depends on what you are after in a game. But when you decide to go one way or the other it is going to impact peoples' experience of the game. So the designers do need to keep that in mind when they make their decision.



Lets say the decision must be made when you first select the spell, of course, perhaps this could allow a player to take several versions of "Energy Ball", one each time they gain a new spell of that level or higher.  Which while all having the same effects, would provide utility for multiple situations.  There are already numerous abilities in previous editions that allow for power reflavoring.  If nothing mechanical is affected, why not let players more accurately reflect their desired character?

I'm not sure how being able to cast "Iceball", with the same mechanical effects as "Fireball" breaks immersion.  Likewise I'm unsure how a arcane caster who is able to cast Cone of Cold couldn't figure out how to cast Cone of Fire.  It's just one element in place of another.

I favor greater creativity at every point in D&D.  I see no reason to tell players that casting a ball of fire is the only way their ice-themed half-ice elemental wizard is going to get a blast effect.  Duplication and lack of flexibility only increases bloat and limits player creativity.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 5, 2012)

Hey we just disagree shidaku. For you putting more of that stuff in the players court makes the game better. For me it takes away from the game. I see your points but don't agree with them. At least they don't achieve what I am after. 

If that is what you want by all means go for it. Just understand that isn't going to appeal to everyone.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 6, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Hey we just disagree shidaku. For you putting more of that stuff in the players court makes the game better. For me it takes away from the game. I see your points but don't agree with them. At least they don't achieve what I am after.
> 
> If that is what you want by all means go for it. Just understand that isn't going to appeal to everyone.




No, it won't, but they can't please everyone all of the time.  I'd be fine with re-flavoring being at the DM's discretion with appropriate "how-tos" in the DMG, but not explicitly written out in the PHB.


----------



## pemerton (May 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I don't see a tiny bit of effort being a problem for an intellectual game. If I objected to effort, I wouldn't be playing RPGs at all. I'll gladly sacrifice a little effort for more immersion.
> 
> When we get to the point where people object to a paragraph of text ("turgid walls of text") it saddens me a little.  Whatever happened to our game?



The game isn't reading the rulebooks. The game is playing at the table with one's friends.

The intellectual effort we're all putting in shouldn't be dedicated to extracting the mechanics out of badly-written rulebooks. It should be dedicated to deploying those mechanics to create exciting, engaging, moving, dramatic, and challenging heroic fantasy adventures.

I can't help but feel that some of those on the "prose" side of this dicussion are confusing preparing for play with the play of the game.


----------



## Morrus (May 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The game isn't reading the rulebooks. The game is playing at the table with one's friends.




Ah. Thanks. I was having badwrongfun! Now I know I'm doing it wrong, I can revise the error of my ways.


----------



## Morrus (May 6, 2012)

herrozerro said:


> You know, this spreadsheet nonsense is just as hyperbolic as saying that you are advocating that the books should read as novels.




Yes, the spreadsheet thing is hyperbole.  It's meant to be mildly amusing. I admit it's not the height of wit, and I won't be giving up my day job, but it was just a joke.


----------



## Alan Shutko (May 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I can't help but feel that some of those on the "prose" side of this dicussion are confusing preparing for play with the play of the game.




Preparing for the game is also fun. And it's something you have to do before the game, so you should make it as fun as possible.

If the books are uninspiring, then only the people who are already playing the game will manage to pick their way through them. That's not a good route to growing the hobby.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 6, 2012)

tuxgeo said:


> Re: powers having their own miniatures: So -- like some of the "Angelic. . ." (whatever) powers?
> Have you already posted examples of this sort of thing in some other thread? I'm interested in more details about how you do this, but I don't want to derail this thread for that.
> 
> (I already know that the Wizard's "Flaming Sphere" had its own mini.)




While it would be awesome for more powers to have official minis, I use what's available. My invoker's Offering of Love (Offering of Justice with the numbers filed off) is represented by an Angel of Desire, who holds out one hand for temp HP out, while hiding a clawed Rakshasa-style hand behind her back, which she plunged into the hearts of those who refuse her offer of love. Often, after the power has done its thing, she sticks around and makes comments, often scolding the invoker for making her offer love to undead abominations and such. 

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/381251_10150494452440359_661385358_10888608_668244759_n.jpg

This is the kind of stuff that happens when you encourage reflavoring things. I could go on for pages on the various great flavor tweaks I've seen in the two groups I'm involved in.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The game isn't reading the rulebooks. The game is playing at the table with one's friends.
> 
> The intellectual effort we're all putting in shouldn't be dedicated to extracting the mechanics out of badly-written rulebooks. It should be dedicated to deploying those mechanics to create exciting, engaging, moving, dramatic, and challenging heroic fantasy adventures.
> 
> I can't help but feel that some of those on the "prose" side of this dicussion are confusing preparing for play with the play of the game.




The game is a lot of things. For me it includes reading the books, getting psyched by the text, character creation, etc. As a gm the game also includes prep. The fact is the game very much depends on the prep as well. 

For me the intellectual effort that goes into reading well written rule books pays dividends at the table. 

I can certainly understand if concise descriptions and stat block formats help you at the table. But try to understand for others they are a detriment. There isn't a one true way here (and anyone who believes theor is is ignoring or dismissing the diversity of opinion here). Unfortunately they can ony write one set of core books so they will have to pick a path. But that doesn't mean one camp is misguided and other on the righteous path.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 6, 2012)

Alan Shutko said:


> Preparing for the game is also fun.




Exactly. Believe it or not some of us really like the prep and the reading. We love the playing as well, and see the interplay between the two as critical. For me D&D has never been a pick up game. It has always been one that involves a little time investment before the campaign by all parties involved.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The game isn't reading the rulebooks. The game is playing at the table with one's friends.
> 
> The intellectual effort we're all putting in shouldn't be dedicated to extracting the mechanics out of badly-written rulebooks. It should be dedicated to deploying those mechanics to create exciting, engaging, moving, dramatic, and challenging heroic fantasy adventures.
> 
> I can't help but feel that some of those on the "prose" side of this dicussion are confusing preparing for play with the play of the game.




That's why I'm sitting square in the middle on this question.  The problem with 3E (and some earlier spells) is that the *flavor text isn't flavor text*.  It's a bloody stat block written out in prose.  The problem with 4E spells, however, is that they they only fixed half this problem.  They said, "Hey, there isn't actually any flavor in this text that isn't already communicated in a good stat block or by assuming the DM can handle legal questions.  So let's just have a stat block."  So then when they made up some flavor to replace it, it was both sparse and lame.  Worse, not infrequently it gives the impression that the spell does more than it does.  

What I'd like to see is some flavorful prose that is *necessary*, mainly because the spell goes outside what can be communicated in a simple stat block.    That implies some rules effects from the information, adjudicated by a DM where necessary. 

Legalese and prose stat blocks are not flavor.  They are merely presentation.  I get that some people like the presentation.  What I'd like is some real flavor.


----------



## Tallifer (May 6, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Reflavoring spells is pretty much the lowest form of creativity possible in the RPG medium, imo. If players are putzing around with that, to me that's a sign of a boring, disempowering, rail-roady campaign.
> 
> The more 5e steers games away from creative reflavoring towards _creative problem-solving_ and _creative story-telling,_ the better. They're much more fun.
> 
> I hope that 5e doesn't so much as mention reflavoring, reskinning, refluffing or anything like that.




That makes no sense at all to me.

If I want to play a Paladin in basic Labyrinth Lord, I just roll a cleric and write Paladin on the top of the sheet. Better that than be forced to roleplay a class (the armoured mace-wielding cleric) which I personally consider completely alien to mediaeval fantasy.

If want to play a hard-hitting Friar in D&D with a heavy shod staff and some light healing (just like from my favourite on-line game dark Age of Camelot), I can just roll a Hybrid Avenger Cleric and refluff the Greataxe into a Heavy Shod Staff. No rule changes necessary, no hassles for me or the dungeon master.

Reskinning is elegant and solves all the problems of artificial mechanical and meta-gaming restraints.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (May 6, 2012)

*OP: Literature or textbook?*

I'd prefer to see a hybrid.

A bit of literary Gygaxian prose, perhaps in the opening descriptive paragraphs of major sections. A little something to add a touch of inspiring flavor; to acknowledge the _roleplaying_ aspect of the game. 

But for the main body; the meat of the rules, I am for clear and concise language that conveys rules data without ambiguity; the acknowledgement of the _rollplaying_ aspect of the game.


----------



## pemerton (May 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Ah. Thanks. I was having badwrongfun! Now I know I'm doing it wrong, I can revise the error of my ways.



Fair enough - but in your post you suggested that those who want the books to be easy to reference aren't putting in the requisite intellectual effort. And that something about that desire saddens you. That's a judgement too.

In my view this whole discussion ties into something that came up over a year ago on the "How 4e could have been more popular" thread - that Pathfinder has captured the "completist" market that WotC used to own.

Are RPG books for reading, or for playing from? These are different activities, and put different demands on a book.



Bedrockgames said:


> The fact is the game very much depends on the prep as well.
> 
> For me the intellectual effort that goes into reading well written rule books pays dividends at the table.



I agree that prep is important. But what does "this spell induces a magical slumber in 4HD of humanoids" add to prep? A vibe?



Bedrockgames said:


> For me D&D has never been a pick up game. It has always been one that involves a little time investment before the campaign by all parties involved.



It's a long time since I've played pick up D&D. But I don't see what "this spell induces a magical slumber in 4HD of humanoids" adds to my time investment before a campaign. As opposed, for example, to thinking about PC backgrounds and loyalties, how these fit into the history and mythology of the gameworld, etc.



Alan Shutko said:


> Preparing for the game is also fun. And it's something you have to do before the game, so you should make it as fun as possible.
> 
> If the books are uninspiring, then only the people who are already playing the game will manage to pick their way through them. That's not a good route to growing the hobby.



Even when it comes to preparation, I find that 4e's statblocks - especially the monster stat blocks (spells and other powers are the players' business, not mine) - are great, because they give me a terrific idea of how the creature will play. Whereas there is nothing more frustrating than a whole wall of flavour text that the stats don't back up (eg something is described as feared and fearsome but it plays as a walkover).

And as far as growing the hobby is concerned, is "This spell induces magical slumber in 4HD of humanoids" really the way to do it? B/X D&D had more sparse statblocks and descriptions than AD&D, for example, and it doesn't seem to have done that game any harm in its popularity.



Bedrockgames said:


> Unfortunately they can ony write one set of core books so they will have to pick a path. But that doesn't mean one camp is misguided and other on the righteous path.



Sure. And if they write the rules that you and Morrus want I won't be saddened, I'll just be less likely to play it.



Crazy Jerome said:


> The problem with 3E (and some earlier spells) is that the *flavor text isn't flavor text*.  It's a bloody stat block written out in prose.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Sure, I've got no problem with that. Sounds like a good game, provided that the "flavour" fits into some broader contex for adjudication in the way I talked about upthread.

In the case of Hallucinatory Terrain, for example, it would be good to have some advice on how it can change initiative/surprise (ie ambush mechanics), or evasion, or Stealth, etc. That advice could be in the spell description, but personally I'd rather that the spell hook into more general rules and advice. (I'm thinking about, say, BW's positioning rules and the way fictional positioning feeds into them.)


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Are RPG books for reading, or for playing from? These are different activities, and put different demands on a book.



.

They are for both. You read them and play them. Might as well make the reading part of it fun, especially when lots of us enjoy reading spell descriptions.



> I agree that prep is important. But what does "this spell induces a magical slumber in 4HD of humanoids" add to prep? A vibe?




You were the one that conncected prose spell descriptions to pre and I was cmmenting on the importance of prep. I think this sliver of an example you provide is a straw man so I won't comment on it directly. But I will say a well written spell description that weaves prose and mechanics holds my interest more than a stat block and single line of text (it also helps me understand the spell better as I just find the info easier to absorb). In addition it is a pleasure to read and gets me excited about possible uses of the spell. The 4e entries on the other hand left me pretty unresponsive.



> It's a long time since I've played pick up D&D. But I don't see what "this spell induces a magical slumber in 4HD of humanoids" adds to my time investment before a campaign. As opposed, for example, to thinking about PC backgrounds and loyalties, how these fit into the history and mythology of the gameworld, etc.




Again not going to comment on the example you here for the above reason, but I enjoy reading through the spell descriptions when I am prepping an adventure (and again you brought up prep). Whether I am making an evil wizard and want to choose his spells carefully or deciding on some clever uses for spells or wards in the game (or finding a spell that could itself provide an adventure) reading the descriptions, and having more than a single line of text is important to me. 



> Even when it comes to preparation, I find that 4e's statblocks - especially the monster stat blocks (spells and other powers are the players' business, not mine) - are great, because they give me a terrific idea of how the creature will play. Whereas there is nothing more frustrating than a whole wall of flavour text that the stats don't back up (eg something is described as feared and fearsome but it plays as a walkover).




You are talking about two different issues here. The first We just disagree on. I want the "wall" of text during prep. The stat block does very little for me. This is just preference.

Mechanics supporting the flavor is important. Though I suspect we just have different experiences with earlier editions (as I found the mechanics generally supported the flavor just fine). I also find the way 4e achieves this off putting. 



> And as far as growing the hobby is concerned, is "This spell induces magical slumber in 4HD of humanoids" really the way to do it? B/X D&D had more sparse statblocks and descriptions than AD&D, for example, and it doesn't seem to have done that game any harm in its popularity.




Again this is kind of a straw man. I don't know, AD&D is when the game really took off (basic always kind of lagged behind AD&D in popularity (though i have to say I did like rules encyclopedia). I could be wrong, but my experience running playtests and dealing wigh readers tells me prose is critical when you want people to maintain interest in a book and understand the mechanics.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> 1) The game isn't reading the rulebooks.
> 
> 2) The game is playing at the table with one's friends.
> 
> 3) The intellectual effort we're all putting in shouldn't be dedicated to extracting the mechanics out of badly-written rulebooks.





1) Part of it is very much that, D&D is not, IMO, just a game you break out on Sunday (we read and talk about it).

2) Yes, and hopefully you talk about the game outside of that (friends and all, the whole table-thing).

3) No, well written, IMO.


See; these blanket statement don't work...yap, yap...


----------



## Mallus (May 6, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Reflavoring spells is pretty much the lowest form of creativity possible in the RPG medium, imo. If players are putzing around with that, to me that's a sign of a boring, disempowering, rail-roady campaign.



It could also be a sign that other people find different creative acts rewarding. Or a sign that trying to infer too much from what other people find rewarding is silly.



> The more 5e steers games away from creative reflavoring towards _creative problem-solving_ and _creative story-telling,_ the better. They're much more fun.



They are fun. They're also not mutually exclusive with creative spell and ability-reflavoring or players spending time deciding what kind of _hats_ their characters wear.  



> I hope that 5e doesn't so much as mention reflavoring, reskinning, refluffing or anything like that.



I hope it does. Whole systems are built around the concept the rules provide the raw mechanics and the players provide the fictional dressing, ie HERO/Champions. It's a great approach, and one D&D can and should easily borrow.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 6, 2012)

Mallus said:


> Whole systems are built around the concept the rules provide the raw mechanics and the players provide the fictional dressing, ie HERO/Champions. It's a great approach, and one D&D can and should easily borrow.





But those are different games.


----------



## Mallus (May 6, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> But those are different games.



I realize that.

Is there more to your point?

(is it wrong for D&D to borrow from/be informed by other systems -- that's been going on for quite a while, ie D&D acquired several different skill systems)


----------



## billd91 (May 6, 2012)

Mallus said:


> Whole systems are built around the concept the rules provide the raw mechanics and the players provide the fictional dressing, ie HERO/Champions. It's a great approach, and one D&D can and should easily borrow.




In some ways, sure, but you also need to keep in mind that the special effects chosen by the PCs in Champions are expected to have ramifications beyond just activating the power. And those ramifications are largely up the players and GM trying to make sense of the power's effects. A chosen special effect may limit its use under certain circumstances. Try using a sonic energy blast when there's no medium around to transmit the compression wave and you'll understand what I mean.

Moreover, once the special effect in Champions is selected... it remains selected. It's not like using Come and Get It in which it might be posturing and strutting to make an orc rush you and then emphasizing how tasty you are to make the ooze come your way. If Come and Get It is about the body language of challenging another warrior, it *stays* that way (unless a specific advantage has been bought which significantly increases the cost of the power).

If D&D wants to go the Champions route, it would need to go all the way. I can see it with energy damaging evocations. I thought the various energy bolts and balls in the psionics rules were good ideas - each spell modified by the energy damage profile selected. But in the main I think I'd prefer spells to already be defined for the most part. There is a reason that spellcasters in Champions are a pain in the ass to build. Pre-defined spells in D&D are definitely easier to deal with.


----------



## Oni (May 6, 2012)

Mallus said:


> I realize that.
> 
> Is there more to your point?
> 
> (is it wrong for D&D to borrow from/be informed by other systems -- that's been going on for quite a while, ie D&D acquired several different skill systems)




The sacrifices that D&D would have to make flavor-wise to actually be a good effects based game would be such that it would no longer be recognizable as D&D.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 6, 2012)

Oni said:


> The sacrifices that D&D would have to make flavor-wise to actually be a good effects based game would be such that it would no longer be recognizable as D&D.




That aside, is there really anything wrong with changing Fireball from "fire" to "cold" and calling it "Iceball"?  There's no need to alter the spell mechanics, there's no need to alter the way the entire system works, you just replace "fire" with "cold" and you're done.

Instead of having a million duplicated spells for every power type, or creating Themes/Backgrounds/PP/PrCs that change the damage type, just provide one spell that is an example of a certain type of spell.  Fireball is a ranged blast.  Ray of Frost is a ray.  Cone of Cold is a close-burst, Orb of Acid is a ranged touch orb.  The game doesn't change from all of these being radiant damage.  It will keep the bloat down will allowing greater spell diversity(not having duplicates wasting page space), and increasing player customization.  

As long as the rules are clear on how and when a player can pick the damage type, then what's the problem?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 6, 2012)

shidaku said:


> That aside, is there really anything wrong with changing Fireball from "fire" to "cold" and calling it "Iceball"?  There's no need to alter the spell mechanics, there's no need to alter the way the entire system works, you just replace "fire" with "cold" and you're done.
> 
> ?




Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Just doesn't match my preference. If they did do it, i would at least prefer it be four seperate spells handled by a single entry (so the players are not changing from fire to ice all the time. 

But to restate, there is nothing wrong with your approach if that is what you like.

Personally though i do want different mechanics for cold, heat and electricity. Not in every game I play, but in D&D is robuts enough mechanically to handle making such distinctions.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 6, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Just doesn't match my preference. If they did do it, i would at least prefer it be four seperate spells handled by a single entry (so the players are not changing from fire to ice all the time.
> 
> But to restate, there is nothing wrong with your approach if that is what you like.
> 
> Personally though i do want different mechanics for cold, heat and electricity. Not in every game I play, but in D&D is robuts enough mechanically to handle making such distinctions.




Sure, and there's a simple solution to that as well: just keep spell effects tied to spell power type, and not the spell itsself.

So if you Fireball with fire, it does a given fire effect.  If you Ball Lightning with Acid, it does a given acid effect.  

You could probably write up the spell block with only one additional line:
Name: Fireball
Type: Fire*
Components: A bird feather.
Range: 30'; 15' blast
Damage: 5d6
You wiggle your fingers and sing "I'm Burning for You" and shoot a ball of fire from your fingertips that explodes within 30' of the caster.  
Effect: Onging Fire*: 1d6 per round, save ends.
*You/The DM may [allow you to] choose a different damage type for this spell when you first acquire this spell, the ongoing effects change for each type, see the table on page 271 for damage types and their effects.
****please don't bring up that's not how you want to see spell blocks look, that's just how I write them, the important part is the line at the bottom.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 6, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Sure, and there's a simple solution to that as well: just keep spell effects tied to spell power type, and not the spell itsself.
> 
> So if you Fireball with fire, it does a given fire effect.  If you Ball Lightning with Acid, it does a given acid effect.
> 
> ...





Personally i like all the info in one section. Someimes it is unavoidable, but i wouldn't want to have to look up both the spell and the fire effect.

And again, this example really lacks the kind of text i want. Really want something like 2-8 paragraphs of info depending on the spell.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 6, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Personally i like all the info in one section. Someimes it is unavoidable, but i wouldn't want to have to look up both the spell and the fire effect.
> 
> And again, this example really lacks the kind of text i want. Really want something like 2-8 paragraphs of info depending on the spell.




While I don't think spells will be as "MTG-esque" as I'd like, I think _that_ much text is equally unrealistic.  Nobody's going to read through ~avg 5 paragraphs when they've got anywhere from 5-20 spells.  Not to mention how much space that'd take up in a book.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 6, 2012)

shidaku said:


> While I don't think spells will be as "MTG-esque" as I'd like, I think _that_ much text is equally unrealistic.  Nobody's going to read through ~avg 5 paragraphs when they've got anywhere from 5-20 spells.  Not to mention how much space that'd take up in a book.




In previous editions you had 2-8 paragraphs for spells (some being less others more), most seemed to clock in at 2-3. Yet people still read the spell entries (a spell like wish almost demands a lengthy entry). So I think you underestimate the number of people willing to read 2-8 paragraphs.


----------



## tuxgeo (May 6, 2012)

*Re: Reflavoring spells*



Incenjucar said:


> This is the kind of stuff that happens when you encourage reflavoring things. I could go on for pages on the various great flavor tweaks I've seen in the two groups I'm involved in.




If you have that much material available, have you given any thought to writing some of it up and pitching articles to Dragon magazine? I think that there might be quite an audience out there interested in reading how some of the more creative players use the existing rules to play in ways that some other players might not have thought of. 

(The writing example that sticks in my mind is that of Jared von Hindman, who writes the "D&D Outsider" columns for Dragon: he started by satirizing D&D monsters on his own web pages, then later got involved in Dragon and is now a regular columnist. Depending on how many pages of examples you have available, that sounds like the sort of pitch that Dragon might not get very often.)


----------



## Libramarian (May 6, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> That makes no sense at all to me.
> 
> If I want to play a Paladin in basic Labyrinth Lord, I just roll a cleric and write Paladin on the top of the sheet. Better that than be forced to roleplay a class (the armoured mace-wielding cleric) which I personally consider completely alien to mediaeval fantasy.
> 
> ...



I don't have any issues with this sort of reskinning. If the group wants to adjust some of the game objects (fluff OR mechanics) to emulate a different setting or genre, sure that's fine and may be worth some advice spent on it in the DMG. Not the PHB though, imo. Making changes to the game's default imagery should be something that the whole group agrees to, even if it's a character ability.

I was more responding to shidaku criticizing descriptive spells for removing an important avenue of player creativity from the game. That I thought was hogwash.

I'm sure Incenjucar and others have examples of fantastic and interesting spell/ability reflavorings. I'm not saying you can't get very creative with it; people can be creative with anything. What strikes me as sort of sad about it is it just feels so meaningless and compartmentalized away from the rest of the game system. Something about it feels...cynical.


----------



## Halivar (May 6, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> In previous editions you had 2-8 paragraphs for spells (some being less others more), most seemed to clock in at 2-3. Yet people still read the spell entries (a spell like wish almost demands a lengthy entry). So I think you underestimate the number of people willing to read 2-8 paragraphs.



"Must spread XP blah blah blah"

You hit it. Nobody had a problem with this before. The terse write-ups of powers/spells/etc was a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## B.T. (May 6, 2012)

shidaku said:


> That aside, is there really anything wrong with changing Fireball from "fire" to "cold" and calling it "Iceball"? There's no need to alter the spell mechanics, there's no need to alter the way the entire system works, you just replace "fire" with "cold" and you're done.
> 
> Instead of having a million duplicated spells for every power type, or creating Themes/Backgrounds/PP/PrCs that change the damage type, just provide one spell that is an example of a certain type of spell. Fireball is a ranged blast. Ray of Frost is a ray. Cone of Cold is a close-burst, Orb of Acid is a ranged touch orb. The game doesn't change from all of these being radiant damage. It will keep the bloat down will allowing greater spell diversity(not having duplicates wasting page space), and increasing player customization.
> 
> As long as the rules are clear on how and when a player can pick the damage type, then what's the problem?



I totally agree with you.  Completely.  But you can't do this in D&D.  If you do, it's not D&D.  D&D is _fireball_ and _cone of cold_.  It's not _energy ball_ and _energy burst_ (as in the XPH).

Would it hurt anything mechanically to let players decide their damage type when they cast a spell?  No.  Would it hurt D&D as a whole to do so?  Absolutely.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 6, 2012)

tuxgeo said:


> If you have that much material available, have you given any thought to writing some of it up and pitching articles to Dragon magazine? I think that there might be quite an audience out there interested in reading how some of the more creative players use the existing rules to play in ways that some other players might not have thought of.
> 
> (The writing example that sticks in my mind is that of Jared von Hindman, who writes the "D&D Outsider" columns for Dragon: he started by satirizing D&D monsters on his own web pages, then later got involved in Dragon and is now a regular columnist. Depending on how many pages of examples you have available, that sounds like the sort of pitch that Dragon might not get very often.)




Unfortunately, I'm still focused working on my elemental classes - the second of the four is currently in the editing stage! That said, it's certainly something someone could write. You could easily make category lists of creative options and character themes; that Invoker of mine, for example, has themes of Love and Angel Summoning, so his arsenal also includes an Angel of Passion and an Angel of Affection. As a bonus, such lists are just as useful for a DM who wants to reflavor NPCs and monsters.

--

Libramarian: I find D&D's default flavor to be bland. Without creative options to break out of that, or things like Planescape and Dark Sun, I wouldn't be able to get into the game that much. Creative flavor options expand D&D's atmosphere in a way that lets people find something that they find interesting, and apply it to a fun game that otherwise might not be that interesting for them. I've been involved in Encounters for quite awhile now, and I've noticed a lot of players have a hard time really getting into the game until they start getting creative with their characters, so it's not just me - I've seen luchadors and lawyers.

Just like DM ownership, which some designers feel is so important that they muse about bad rules helping to increase ownership, Player ownership is vital to the enjoyment of the game for many people, and reflavoring is a simple way to obtain this.


----------



## Tallifer (May 6, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> I don't have any issues with this sort of reskinning. If the group wants to adjust some of the game objects (fluff OR mechanics) to emulate a different setting or genre, sure that's fine and may be worth some advice spent on it in the DMG. Not the PHB though, imo. Making changes to the game's default imagery should be something that the whole group agrees to, even if it's a character ability.
> 
> I was more responding to shidaku criticizing descriptive spells for removing an important avenue of player creativity from the game. That I thought was hogwash.
> 
> I'm sure Incenjucar and others have examples of fantastic and interesting spell/ability reflavorings. I'm not saying you can't get very creative with it; people can be creative with anything. What strikes me as sort of sad about it is it just feels so meaningless and compartmentalized away from the rest of the game system. Something about it feels...cynical.




I can see your point, but Rolemaster was a good (awful) example of a system wherein the lack of reskinning led to lists upon lists of spells which had no purpose other than to provide parallel spells of damage and effect for different elemental sources. Page upon page was dedicated to spells for waterball, airball, earthball, gasball, lightningball, steamball, plasmaball, iceball... Fortunately I have never seen that kind of lameness in Pathfinder or AD&D.


----------



## pemerton (May 6, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> In previous editions you had 2-8 paragraphs for spells (some being less others more)



Looking through the AD&D PHB, most spells are one paragraph in explanation/description, generally of 10 or so lines.

The longest descriptions that I noticed are for Find Familiar, Identify, Spiritwrack, Cacodemon and Antipathy/Sympathy. And that long description is not a sign of great flavour or fiction, it's a sign primarily of mechanical complexity (unnecessary in the case of Identify, in my view) - Cacodemon being an exception here, as one of the more flavourful f the AD&D MU spells, although I would guess one of the least frequently used.



Bedrockgames said:


> a spell like wish almost demands a lengthy entry



AD&D PHB, p 94:

Wish

Level:9
Range: Unlimited
Duration: Special
Area of Effect: Special
Components: V
Casting Time: Special
Saving Throw: Special

Explanation/Description: The _wish_ spell is a more potent version of _limited wish_ (q.v.). If it is used to alter reality with respect to hit points sustained by a party, to bring a dead character back to life, or to escape from a difficult situation by lifiting the spell caster (and his or her party) from one place to another, it will not cause the magic-user any disability. Other forms of _wishes_, however, will cause the caster to be weak (-3 on strength) and require 2 to 8 days of bed rest due to the stresses the _wish_ places on his or her body. Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of he _wish_ spell is likely to be carried through. (This discretionary power of the referee is necessary to maintain game balance. As wishing another dead would be grossly unfair, for example, your DM might well advance the spell caster to a future period where the object is no longer alive, i.e. putting the wishing character out of the campaign.)​
Limited Wish adds the following relevant information (the bits I've cut out all pertain to the _limited_ nature of a limited wish (PHB p 88:

_A limited wish is a very potent but difficult spell. It will fulfill literally . . . the utterance of the spell caster. Thus, the actuality of the past, present or future might be altered. . . Greedy desires will usually end in disaster for the wisher. Casting time is the actual number of seconds - at six per segment - to phrase the limited wish._​_

These could be combined together to create a fairly succinct spell description:

Wish

Level:9
Range: Unlimited
Duration: Special
Area of Effect: Special
Components: V
Casting Time: Special
Saving Throw: Special

Explanation/Description: Wish is a very potent but difficult spells. It will fulfill literally the utterance of the spell caster. Thus, the actuality of the past, present or future might be altered.

Casting wish will cause the caster to be weak (-3 on strength) and require 2 to 8 days of bed rest due to the stresses the wish places on his or her body, unless the wish is used to alter reality with respect to hit points sustained by a party, to bring a dead character back to life, or to escape from a difficult situation by lifiting the spell caster (and his or her party) from one place to another.

Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of he wish spell is likely to be carried through. Greedy desires will usually end in disaster for the wisher. (This discretionary power of the referee is necessary to maintain game balance. As wishing another dead would be grossly unfair, for example, your DM might well advance the spell caster to a future period where the object is no longer alive, i.e. putting the wishing character out of the campaign.)

Casting time is the actual number of seconds - at six per segment - to phrase the wish.​
Looking at this, we could then:

*delete the first line, which is somewhat redundant (in particular, the claim that the spell is difficult is not borne out by the actual mechanics, which make it easier to cast than many spells because it has only a verbal compoenent);

*clarify the disability clause - is the weakness permament and in addition to the bed rest, or is it cured by the bed rest? Most players eeem to assume the latter.

So here is a revised spell description:

Wish

Level:9
Range: Unlimited
Duration: Special
Area of Effect: Special
Components: V
Casting Time: Special
Saving Throw: Special

Explanation/Description: Speaking a wish will fulfill literally the utterance of the spell caster, altering the past, present or future.

Casting wish will cause the caster to be weak (-3 on strength) due to the stresses the wish places on his or her body, unless the wish is used to alter reality with respect to hit points sustained by a party, to bring a dead character back to life, or to escape from a difficult situation by lifiting the spell caster (and his or her party) from one place to another. Recovering from such weakness will require 2 to 8 days of bed rest.

Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of he wish spell is likely to be carried through. Greedy desires will usually end in disaster for the wisher. (This discretionary power of the referee is necessary to maintain game balance. As wishing another dead would be grossly unfair, for example, your DM might well advance the spell caster to a future period where the object is no longer alive, i.e. putting the wishing character out of the campaign.)

Casting time is the actual number of seconds - at six per segment - to phrase the wish.​
Suppose we had a general mechanic for being weakened by casting a spell, and for spoken word casting times, we could abbreviate the stat block like so:

Wish

Level:9
Range: Unlimited
Duration: Special
Area of Effect: Special
Components: V, weakening (but see below)
Casting Time: Special
Saving Throw: Spoken word

Explanation/Description: Speaking a wish will fulfill literally the utterance of the spell caster, altering the past, present or future.

Casting wish will weaken the caster unless the wish is used to directly aid the caster and/or one or more members of his or her party against harm (without thereby directly harming or hindering any other person).

Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of he wish spell is likely to be carried through. Greedy desires will usually end in disaster for the wisher. (This discretionary power of the referee is necessary to maintain game balance. As wishing another dead would be grossly unfair, for example, your DM might well advance the spell caster to a future period where the object is no longer alive, i.e. putting the wishing character out of the campaign.)​
That seems a respectable sort of spell description, comparable to some of the more complex of the 4e spells. The idea that Wish needs a long description seems to be a later thing. I don't have a 2nd ed AD&D PHB, but in the Rules Cyclopedia the description of the spell is about 2 columns on a 3-column page._


----------



## pemerton (May 6, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think this sliver of an example you provide is a straw man so I won't comment on it directly.



I don't think it's a straw man at all. It's the example that's been given in the thread, and multiple posters have said that the sort of prose that it exemplifies helps with prep/expressing the spirit of the game.

If that is _not_ an example of prose in a spell description that helps with prep, and with expressing the spirit of the game, then what is?



Bedrockgames said:


> Whether I am making an evil wizard and want to choose his spells carefully or deciding on some clever uses for spells or wards in the game (or finding a spell that could itself provide an adventure) reading the descriptions, and having more than a single line of text is important to me.



This is in part a function of the monster and encounter build rules. Should I be reading through the description of PC-building resource in order to find story elements and motivation for my evil wizards at all?



billd91 said:


> Moreover, once the special effect in Champions is selected... it remains selected. It's not like using Come and Get It in which it might be posturing and strutting to make an orc rush you and then emphasizing how tasty you are to make the ooze come your way.



This sort of "fortune in the middle" narration has been with us at least since Gygax's AD&D. It is the canonical way of narrating saving throws in AD&D, as described by Gygax. And there is a strong implication that it is also key to hit point narration: 8 points of damage from a sword mean something different to a high level figher at full hp (a scratch or graze, or perhaps tiring dodging), a high level fighter on 8 hp (a solid blow that the fighter is too dired to duck/avoid, and that therefore knocks the fighter unconscious) and a 1st level magic-user on his/her full 4 hp (a blow that the MU is to unskiled to avoid, and that kills him/her outright - in AD&D death occuring on any blow that reduces you to -4 in a single hit).

Come and Get It just shifts this style of narration from the game's passive/defence mechanics to its active mecanics also.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 6, 2012)

The 2e phb has spells averaging, on a glance here, 2 maybe three paragraphs. Lots of spells with more than that and even spells with a single paragraph frequently clock in at 15 or more lines. Wish is a two paragaph spell in 2E (I always felt it needed furth clarification and examples due to its open nature). 

Again, for me the bottom line is I want subtantive text that informs and is interesting.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I don't think it's a straw man at all. It's the example that's been given in the thread, and multiple posters have said that the sort of prose that it exemplifies helps with prep/expressing the spirit of the game.
> so.




Reducing the call for more interesting prose to one dry line like that is a text book straw man. I don't know to what end that specific example was brought up, but it certainly creates a false impression of what people are asking for here. Feel free to consider a non-straw man. Either way I wont be addressing that example.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I
> 
> This is in part a function of the monster and encounter build rules. Should I be reading through the description of PC-building resource in order to find story elements and motivation for my evil wizards at all?
> 
> .




NPCs are characters and spells are related to character creation. If you make an evil wizard it can be lots of fun to examine what powers he has at his disposal. 

Spells are a great resource for villain and adventure design. One of the great strength of the classic spell list is how you can find so many interesting gems there to base encounters around and use to flesh out villains. Personally I enjoyed leafing through spells for cool ideas. This may not work for you, I can certainly appreciate that, but it worked great for me.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 6, 2012)

B.T. said:


> I totally agree with you.  Completely.  But you can't do this in D&D.  If you do, it's not D&D.  D&D is _fireball_ and _cone of cold_.  It's not _energy ball_ and _energy burst_ (as in the XPH).
> 
> Would it hurt anything mechanically to let players decide their damage type when they cast a spell?  No.  Would it hurt D&D as a whole to do so?  Absolutely.




I'm not saying that all magical powers need to be reduced to "Magic blast" or "energy blast".  Fireball could still very well be it's traditional self(preferably volumetric, I LOVE that), but the player could be allowed(by Dm discretion) to alter the damage type.

So when I go to look up spells I still see:
Cone of Cold
Ray of Frost
Orb of Acid
Fireball
Lightning Arc

But when I put them on my sheet I could have
Cone of Light
Ray of Brilliance
Orb of Purity
Radiant Burst
Sun Lance

All with the same spell mechanics and appropriate damage-type effects, but all my attacks would deal radiant damage, that way my holy wizard would work.


----------



## B.T. (May 6, 2012)

That would be fine, then.  I don't see anything wrong with it as long as it's up to DM discretion.  No need to waste a feat on such, assuming energy types are equal.  If I were making the rules, I might lower the damage dice on certain energy types (radiant or sonic, for instance) to compensate for their in-game mechanics (undead vulnerability to the former; the lack of sonic resistance for the latter).  I would note that in the rules, of course.

This naturally depends on if you think D&D should have things like holy wizards.  Some folks say yes.  Others say no.  Personally, I'd rather leave the sunburst spells to clerics, but giving DMs the option of such wouldn't hurt the game.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 6, 2012)

B.T. said:


> That would be fine, then.  I don't see anything wrong with it as long as it's up to DM discretion.  No need to waste a feat on such, assuming energy types are equal.  If I were making the rules, I might lower the damage dice on certain energy types (radiant or sonic, for instance) to compensate for their in-game mechanics (undead vulnerability to the former; the lack of sonic resistance for the latter).  I would note that in the rules, of course.



I think any damage die modification should also be a DM decision.  Some campaigns have a lot of zombies, some campaigns might have water and ice elementals.  So I think it's fair to have them all the same dice by default, but give the DM tools for adjusting them so that everyone doesn't just pile on the holy power and obliterate the game.



> This naturally depends on if you think D&D should have things like holy wizards.  Some folks say yes.  Others say no.  Personally, I'd rather leave the sunburst spells to clerics, but giving DMs the option of such wouldn't hurt the game.



I think taking away the holy-blaster deal from Clerics would do a lot to make them more balanced within the game as a whole.  They wouldn't eb _deprived_ of holy-blaster spells, but they wouldn't have enough to build a whole character out of it.

As for wizards, I think Wizards should be able to specialize as they want, be they blasters, protectors, or utility.  And within those categories they can have further specialization options of being students of only certain types of magic.  A cleric who studies ways to channel the divine wrath of their god is really little different from a wizard who studies the ways to channel the power of the elemental plane of fire.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 7, 2012)

Whatever your opinion of the rules are aside but some of the best books I have ever read were the RIFTS books.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (May 8, 2012)

CM said:


> Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation, and all that.




People writing anything for mass consumption - than that includes game material - should be familiar with Stunk and White. Omit needless words. Write clearly. Get to the point. Write in an active tense. 

And if possible, write on a 10th grade level, not on a 7th grade level.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 8, 2012)

RobertSullivan said:


> People writing anything for mass consumption - than that includes game material - should be familiar with Stunk and White. Omit needless words. Write clearly. Get to the point. Write in an active tense.
> 
> And if possible, write on a 10th grade level, not on a 7th grade level.




Personally, I think some people take this too far (I also think Stunk and White isn't always the best...I rarely refer to it myself these days). There are plenty of reasons to write in the passive voice (especially for game books and modules). 

Removing needless words is great but many people take that to mean be concise all the time. And sometimes you need space and room to talk about a concept engagingly.

Also something I see a lot of gamers miss: Stunk and White is a style guide, not a grammar guide. Different disciplines employ different styles of writing. I think gaming books can handle a range of writing styles, and opting for the passive voice isn't grammatically incorrect. It is very much a judgement call determined by the needs of the material, the audience and the writer's preferences.


----------



## Dausuul (May 8, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Personally, I think some people take this too far (I also think Stunk and White isn't always the best...I rarely refer to it myself these days). There are plenty of reasons to write in the passive voice (especially for game books and modules).
> 
> Removing needless words is great but many people take that to mean be concise all the time. And sometimes you need space and room to talk about a concept engagingly.
> 
> Also something I see a lot of gamers miss: Stunk and White is a style guide, not a grammar guide. Different disciplines employ different styles of writing. I think gaming books can handle a range of writing styles, and opting for the passive voice isn't grammatically incorrect. It is very much a judgement call determined by the needs of the material, the audience and the writer's preferences.




First, it's Strunk, not Stunk. 

Second, "Elements of Style" is a guide, not a set of absolute rules. Sometimes the passive voice is appropriate. Sometimes a bit of verbosity is in order. But I have yet to see the RPG book that erred on the side of brevity--not even 4E. The 4E rulebooks may not have had _much_ prose, but the prose they did contain was just as overblown as stuff from earlier editions. Take the flavor text from 4E Sleep:

"_You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness._"

It's just one sentence, and it _still_ manages to be twice as long as it needs to be. Compare:

"_Your foes become drowsy and sink into magical sleep._"

Half as long and just as flavorful. Every RPG book I've ever read would benefit from the ruthless application of Strunk and White. Worrying about applying S&W too ruthlessly is like worrying about obesity when you're distributing food to famine victims. Yes, it could in theory become a problem. No, it should not be high on your list of concerns.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 8, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Whatever your opinion of the rules are aside but some of the best books I have ever read were the RIFTS books.



Yeah, Siembieda's not a bad writer, though RIFTS has terrible crunch (and too much of it) and the fonts and layouts look like they are from the early 80s, which they are.

The two best written rpgs imo, in terms of how enjoyable it is to read the text, are Amber DRPG and Over The Edge. Both are very rules-lite, which helps.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 8, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> 1) Part of it is very much that, D&D is not, IMO, just a game you break out on Sunday (we read and talk about it).



According to Paizo, half their customers don't actually play rpgs regularly any more, they just buy their products to read, not use.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 8, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> First, it's Strunk, not Stunk.
> 
> Second, "Elements of Style" is a guide, not a set of absolute rules. Sometimes the passive voice is appropriate. Sometimes a bit of verbosity is in order. But I have yet to see the RPG book that erred on the side of brevity--not even 4E. The 4E rulebooks may not have had _much_ prose, but the prose they did contain was just as overblown as stuff from earlier editions. Take the flavor text from 4E Sleep:
> 
> ...




I am going to have to disagree with your revision of the 4e flavor text. Personally not a fan of 4e's lack of prose, but the sentence you critique is actually pretty evocative. And you cut out one of the most important details (the caster exerting his will on the target). I just don't think a whole lot is gained by your alteration. And this is exactly why I think people going to Strunk and White all the time isn't always a good idea. I like my prose to breath a bit.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 8, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> "_You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness._"
> 
> It's just one sentence, and it _still_ manages to be twice as long as it needs to be. Compare:
> 
> ...




If i was going to alter this to make the flow smoother (and not sure it really needs it) I might go with:

"_You exert your will against foes, overwhelming them with a tide of magical weariness._"

In my mind the double use of your is a touch redundant but the whole tide of magical weariness is so evocative that it needs to stay. Arguably it is a mistake for me to remove "seeking" because the result isn't a foregone conclusion, and shifting from "seeking to overwhelm" to "overwhelming" is misleading. Another reason to be cautious when pruning. Again, less isn't always more.


----------



## Libramarian (May 9, 2012)

Or "You seek to overwhelm your foes with a tide of magical weariness."

I don't much like the "You exert your will" part. It's not very Vancian. Vancian magic to me means that wizards aren't really their spells; they just have the capacity to force them into their brain and fire them off later. The spells themselves are autonomous entities that the wizard collects, like Pokemon. That's how I feel D&D magic spells should be.

So this is admittedly a rather subtle and persnickety point, but the 4e Sleep flavor text is too "active" for me. The will exertion ought to occur during spell memorization; when you're ready to let it fly, it's pretty simple to do so.


----------



## corwyn77 (May 9, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> According to Paizo, half their customers don't actually play rpgs regularly any more, they just buy their products to read, not use.




I have an entire GURPS 3e library for much the same reason, but then their books tend to vary between 90% crunch and 10% crunch. Their setting and genre books are great reads. To a lesser extent, Hero Games as well.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 9, 2012)

corwyn77 said:


> I have an entire GURPS 3e library for much the same reason, but then their books tend to vary between 90% crunch and 10% crunch. Their setting and genre books are great reads.



Yeah, I've got quite a few GURPS books for the same reason. Illuminati, Time Travel, Middle Ages, and Reign of Steel are all really good imo. Illuminati is particularly well written. 



corwyn77 said:


> To a lesser extent, Hero Games as well.



To me Hero is sort of the opposite of Rifts - good crunch, not so good fluff. Kingdom of Champions, by Phil Masters, is the only Hero product with good fluff, imho, but I haven't read any from 5e or 6e.


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I have yet to see the RPG book that erred on the side of brevity--not even 4E. The 4E rulebooks may not have had _much_ prose, but the prose they did contain was just as overblown as stuff from earlier editions. Take the flavor text from 4E Sleep:
> 
> "_You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness._"
> 
> ...



Yes. (Although here the standard is Fowler's Modern English Usage.)

I think I made this same point on one of the other threads, with reference to an overwrought description of Apocalypse Spells.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 11, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> First, it's Strunk, not Stunk.
> 
> "_You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness._"
> 
> "_Your foes become drowsy and sink into magical sleep._"




Both of these are poor writing!  They are compound sentences, and compound sentences are problematic: Compound sentences blur without a strong connection between their parts.

The second sentence is not a restatement of the first!  In the first sentence, "You" are clearly putting your foes to sleep.  In the second sentence, the foes simply fall asleep.

Both sentences are overblown.  However, a very concise rewrite, "You will your foes to sleep," is too short.  The dynamic struggle of will against will, the stronger will gradually overpowering the weaker, is lost.

What any edition of D&D needs is _good_ writing, wherever it appears.

TomB


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (May 11, 2012)

Regarding the interchangeability of damage types: I disagree that you can simply swap out energy types for spells and consider it pure fluff.  Different creatures have resistances or immunities to certain types, different class features provide benefits with certain types, and so forth.  There's a reason there are many more AD&D/3e spells dealing fire, electricity, or cold damage than there are dealing acid, sonic, force, divine, or other damage.  Then there's the secondary effects of different energy types: an acid-damage _fireball_ can melt a bigger portion of a wall than an _acid arrow_, a cold-damage _flaming sphere_ can freeze more of a lake than a _cone of cold_, and so forth.  If you can just choose a lot of cold spells because you expect to be facing fire creatures, or choose damage types to get around resistances in your campaign against demons, it makes different energy types more bland, when being a pyromancer instead of a weather mage should instead be something meaningful.

The supposed interchangeability of energy types showed up in 3e and has carried through to 4e, but I'd much rather see a return to AD&D-style damage types.  _Lightning bolts_ bounce, _fireballs_ expand, _freezing spheres_ freeze.  I'm not exactly asking for a _fireball_ spell that requires you to break out a compass and protractor, but there should be more mechanical variance between energy types and/or different energy descriptors than just resistances and a secondary condition.  If a class in 5e can have a class feature like the 4e wild sorcerer's Wild Soul (gain resistance to a random damage type, from fire and acid to psychic and necrotic and 6 more) because using one damage over another just means your big explody burst of magic is colored red instead of blue or green and no type is inherently different from any other, I'll be disappointed.


----------

