Time to bring back the prose?

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.