Prose, Terminology, Fluff, & Presentation: Spreadsheets or Haiku?

Minigiant said:

Personally I don't think prose and clarity or readabiility or reference are in conflict.

I believe the solution is bold and colors.

Write in beautiful and engaging bits of prose. A nice clear group of sentences of the magical world of lethal dungeons and awe inspiring dragons. Just bold and colorize the gameplay important parts. You'd can still describe the wiggling of fingers before a glowing pea shoots out and bursts into a roaring flame like lone lion leaping on the zebra that is the smelly foul goblins that are there target of the warping of reality that only an arcanist can perform. The melting silver chain of the cheif and his pained screams that accompany the pressureless flame roasting him and his kin to death mean nothing to those who are just referencing the 5d6 fire damage and dexterity save but the details are no less sweet. Sweet indeed.


The colors, Duke! The Colors!

Click to expand...

I actually like this. If it could be done and not be too visually confusing, I'd definitely be in. In this manner the designer can highlight the parts that are (mostly) indispensable as far as mechanics, and leave the rest for optional flavor text. Maybe simply bolding would work better than colors? I don't know, but I think it's worthy of exploration.

I'm definitely on the Gygaxian side of the spectrum here. I think it's important to note that Gygax wrote with the assumption that the reader was mature and fairly well-read. He didn't talk down to his audience. I think that kind of assumption is welcomed by adults, and presents a positive challenge to younger readers. I know that Gygax helped inspire me to expand my vocabulary and writing skills, and I don't think many game designers ever achieve something like that.

Bedrockgames said:

I think this is the key.

Personally i find it a lot easier when they are blended. Dumping data on folks without the ease of prose (and the context and explanation it provides) seems like a poor way to communicate. With rpgs especially. Somehow wizards got this idea into their heads that data blocks would help D&D attract a more mass audience. I can't speak for everyone, but when bought my first players handbook it was the mechanics, not the prose that formed the major obstacle. Stat blocks only serve to highlight the problem.

Click to expand...

Data blocks have worked out for DnD. Also, I 4E DnD does start with flavor text describing what the power does and then gives a mechanic. It just doesn't give walls of text like was present in prior editions including 3.5. Data blocks have helpled greatly in Dming 4E for example. Being able to look at a monster stat block and have all the rules for it right there makes DMing much easeir than having a paragraphs of material and then those paragraphs giving you rules that you have to look up additional rules to reference. I understand this is not what the OP suggested, but that is what was present prior editions of the game that you are mentioning that you understood so well. Looking at the 3.5 MM and running a Dragon was a nightmare. You had the stats for the dragon and then you had the dragon's spells that you had to look up as then many of those spells simply stated "functions as XX spell" and you had to look up XX spell which sometimes referenced another spell you had to look up.

Like I said to each their own but I would personally take a nice stat block that has everything I need to run a monster or execute a power, coupled with a short blurp of flavor to spark the imagination over it vs. the convuluted way rules were presented in prior edition.

Morrus said:

Either you misread me, or I misspoke. Either way, I certainly at no point intended to suggest that six-to-eight paragraphs were my preference for spells.

I posted an example of a spell. It was pretty short, no?

No, my article wasn't about length at all. It was about syntax and layout. It was about providing that info in a [scary!] paragraph, not a table of entries. That may include a sentence or three of description, but hardly an essay.

It's about mixing mechanics and prose, instead of ring fencing them lest they dare touch. And if that's a mite more difficult - well, I coped as a kid. Honestly, it's not that hard.

If you saw my article as promoting either (a) 8 paragraphs of fluff or (b) bady written unclear prose, then I apologise. That was the very opposite of my intent. To clarify: I would like clear, well-written, well-indexed prose with a hint of intermixed favour to stimulate the imagination without ring fencing it as a separate entity.

Click to expand...

I think the confusion came in because you mentioned 1E/2E Gygaxian DnD and how evocative it was (paraphrasing) and then showed an example of a spell description from prior editions, so I simply pulled out one my older edition PHBs (in this case 2E) and flipped to a random page in the spell section (which takes up more than half the book by the way) and started noticing how long the spell descriptions were. DnD 3.5 spells read the same way.

At any rate, I guess it is a matter of each persons opinion but I do see this being problematic for DnD Next because they will have to decide how to present their text. To me 4E is fine, because it does have a flavor text at the top along with a very concise data block stating how the power works. If they had no flavor blurp at all I could kind of see your point more. I think the only thing DnD Next needs to do to capture some that imagination that existed in older editions (keeping in mind that I was much younger as I suspect you were when you played some of these games so there might be a bit of romanticization involved regarding this editions....at least on my part) is to include more full color, non-cartoonish pictures, that captures the feel of the game..again like the picture on page 7 of the 2E PHB, to help draw the reader into the world.

I remember reading from WOTC somewhere, they tried to include more pictures in 4E supposedly because they had gotten feedback that that lack of pictures included in the 3rd/3.5 core book (PHB and DMG) were somewhat sparse and they wanted the 4E books to be more reader friendly rather than reading like a textbook, and I have to say that while I do remembered being encaptured by the 1E and 2E PHB, the 3rd/3.5 books did feel and read very dry and text book like to me, especially since it was the first time in DnD history the core books didn't have any real art even on the covers to capture the imagination, but instead were presented in faux tome style covers.

I don't quite agree with all of Morrus' premises, but I do with the overall claim (that 5e text should be informative & descriptive - "Flunch" or "Cruff" if you will). One thing that hasn't been talked about much in the threads Morrus discusses is the difference between the "power" text and the "class" text in 4e. I felt that there was a clear distinction between the flavor they tried to give to classes and the flavor they tried to give to powers. Many of the class descriptions went to great lengths in describing what the class did and why a PC might be that class. The powers, on the other hand, were very concise and precise (in fact, possibly too much so) and this gap between fluff and crunch (for me at least) was quite noticeable.

On a side note - I always hated the term "powers" - I played 4e and had fun playing the game, but I hated "powers," lol).

What I hope 5e DOESN'T do is use the same "naming conventions" that 4e used:

Adjective/adverb+noun+verb (e.g. RAGE BLOOD STRIKE, or ENRAGED PIXIE CHARGE or CHAOTIC TESTICULAR GRAPPLE). It just got to be a bit much. Granted, not all the powers were like this (in fact some names were quite good), but there were too many that just were far too over the top.

The names of the maneuvers, tricks and other actions players take in 5e need to be engaging and not ridiculous.

Fallstorm said:

Data blocks have worked out for DnD. Also, I 4E DnD does start with flavor text describing what the power does and then gives a mechanic. It just doesn't give walls of text like was present in prior editions including 3.5. Data blocks have helpled greatly in Dming 4E for example. Being able to look at a monster stat block and have all the rules for it right there makes DMing much easeir than having a paragraphs of material and then those paragraphs giving you rules that you have to look up additional rules to reference. I understand this is not what the OP suggested, but that is what was present prior editions of the game that you are mentioning that you understood so well. Looking at the 3.5 MM and running a Dragon was a nightmare. You had the stats for the dragon and then you had the dragon's spells that you had to look up as then many of those spells simply stated "functions as XX spell" and you had to look up XX spell which sometimes referenced another spell you had to look up.

Like I said to each their own but I would personally take a nice stat block that has everything I need to run a monster or execute a power, coupled with a short blurp of flavor to spark the imagination over it vs. the convuluted way rules were presented in prior edition.

Click to expand...

Again I think the thing that intimidats most people about D&D when they first encounter it is the mechanics and math. Putting entries into stat block formats with quirky formulas only deepens that problem. I think you will find most new gamers are going to be much more responsive to text and mechanics weaved together (with key data in an accompaning stat block) than basically presenting a book of 4e power entries. It is just so much more engaging. To me it looks bare bones and unnatractive. Honestly when I opened up 4e my first thought was it looked like a sales training manual or vcr guide. I found it highly offputting. And if they go that direction with 5E, I am definitely not going to spend my money on the core books. Having that aspect of the game restored is just too important to my enjoyment of it.

Fallstorm said:

I think the confusion came in because you mentioned 1E/2E Gygaxian DnD and how evocative it was (paraphrasing) and then showed an example of a spell description from prior editions, so I simply pulled out one my older edition PHBs (in this case 2E) and flipped to a random page in the spell section (which takes up more than half the book by the way)

Click to expand...

OK. I thought I specifically said that I didn't think anyone was advocating Gygax's writing style, and that my preference was 3/4 towards 3E/Pathfinder. I'm no writer, though, so f that wasn't clear, please consider it so now.

Theq spell example was 3E. Decades after Gygax left D&D.

For reference, though, 4E's interminable list of powers takes up a far larger portion of the book than 2E's spells. I find that a curious objection.

At any rate, I guess it is a matter of each persons opinion but I do see this being problematic for DnD Next because they will have to decide how to present their text.

Click to expand...

Yup. They can't win. If you like it, I won't; and vice versa. They'll lose one of us, whatever they do.

To me 4E is fine, because it does have a flavor text at the top along with a very concise data block stating how the power works. If they had no flavor blurp at all I could kind of see your point more.

Click to expand...

I'm definitely not being clear enough, then. That ring fencing is what I hate. It was the very thrust of my article; at least it was supposed to be! To clarify: I don't like the way prose and data are separated out into separate entries. I prefer them mixed. Thus my first example, rather than my second.

I remember reading from WOTC somewhere, they tried to include more pictures in 4E supposedly because they had gotten feedback that that lack of pictures included in the 3rd/3.5 core book (PHB and DMG) were somewhat sparse and they wanted the 4E books to be more reader friendly rather than reading like a textbook, and I have to say that while I do remembered being encaptured by the 1E and 2E PHB, the 3rd/3.5 books did feel and read very dry and text book like to me, especially since it was the first time in DnD history the core books didn't have any real art even on the covers to capture the imagination, but instead were presented in faux tome style covers.

Click to expand...

Oh, art is certainly vital. I've avoided the subject so far, but I believe that's even more of a landline. The choice of art style is as inviting/alienating as the rules themselves. Again, that's going to polarise people. Spikes and anime? Count me out. A portly fighter with a beard? Works for me. A ninja halfling? Count me out. A stubby hobbit with hairy feet and food stains on his clothes? Count me in. A muscular, beautiful scantily-clad adventuring party? Count me out. A group of adventurers weary and burdened down by their backpacks? Count me in.

Art choice is probably the most subjective part of the design process. I don't envy them, because art is the most evocative part of design. You picture speaks a thousand words. It will communicate the intent of the game far quicker and more viscerally than any text will.

ColonelHardisson said:

I'm definitely on the Gygaxian side of the spectrum here. I think it's important to note that Gygax wrote with the assumption that the reader was mature and fairly well-read. He didn't talk down to his audience. I think that kind of assumption is welcomed by adults, and presents a positive challenge to younger readers. I know that Gygax helped inspire me to expand my vocabulary and writing skills, and I don't think many game designers ever achieve something like that.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. I think I am a better educated person for having read Gygax's work, and other 1st and 2nd edition D&D stuff. I can't say the same for 3e or 4e. I enjoyed 3e as a game, and some of the splat books were fun reads, but nothing that really inspired me. I found 4e both a boring read and a bland game.

I recently joined a 4e group, because my brother is just starting to DMing for them and I wanted to support him. I was amazed by the fact that they have no D&D books whatsoever. One player has D&DI, and they all make characters on his account. I even tried to sell them my old 4e books, for pretty damn cheap, but they said they had no need for them, because everything is on D&DI. They've all only started playing for the past few months, and like the game, but they have no connection to other players with a shared culture. The monsters they fight are basically printed out for them by whatever tool build encounters over at Wizards.

I'd prefer Gygaxian or close (i.e. well to the left of 3e on The Morrus Scale(TM)), but better organized and-or indexed.

I don't have them handy right now, but for comparison could someone please post the 1e and 2e write-ups for "Sleep"?

Another minor but perhaps significant point is that the 1e books used a much smaller typeface than all the later ones - this forced the reader to slow down and, by extension, pay attention to what was being read. Nice side effect: much more information could be fit into a given page count.

Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:

Again I think the thing that intimidats most people about D&D when they first encounter it is the mechanics and math. Putting entries into stat block formats with quirky formulas only deepens that problem. I think you will find most new gamers are going to be much more responsive to text and mechanics weaved together (with key data in an accompaning stat block) than basically presenting a book of 4e power entries. It is just so much more engaging. To me it looks bare bones and unnatractive. Honestly when I opened up 4e my first thought was it looked like a sales training manual or vcr guide. I found it highly offputting. And if they go that direction with 5E, I am definitely not going to spend my money on the core books. Having that aspect of the game restored is just too important to my enjoyment of it.

Click to expand...

I think the rate of new players to DnD including DnD Next will be about the same as it ways with all editons, except for what it was in the 1980's with DnD 1E where DnD was almost a hip social phenomenon for a time. Yes, I know "geek" culture is somewhat popular know via shows like the Big Bang Theory, etc but I'm sorry whether DnD has fluff texts or stat blocks I don't see DnD drawing in the same number of geek fans as World of Warcraft or Diablo or whatever is the new hot online game. I don't see it drawing the numbers of people in that video games draw and I don't see it becoming the past time for Joe Six Pack. I know, you don't think this either, point is I think that you and I can probably agree with each other that DnD is and will probably remain a niche market. Not saying, the game will not be around years from now and new players will not come into it, but it the game is what it is, a game that is part of a market (non-computerized table top rpgs) that appeals to a select group of people.

Now, agreeing that the game is appealing to a select group I also think that most gamers are fairly intelligent and imaginative people, who will not have difficulty reading and understanding a text regardless of what format it is put in either data blocks or walls of fluff. That being said, and all things being equal the issue then how easy is it for that said gamer to be able to use his or her skills/abilities powers or for the DM to run a monster effectively during the game and what system stat blocks or DnD 3.5 style monster/spells entries best enforces that purpose? In my opinion, it is the former over the latter. Again, I can either have everything I need to cast a spell or run a monster at my fingertips in a stat block, or have something that reads for X amount of sentences and says functions as spell XX which I then have to look up, which then might reference something else.

I agree with you in theory that the game can't just be data blocks and nothing else. It has to capture the imagination as well as giving rules and as I mentioned there are things the 4E books could do to improve upon their presentation. I just don't think longer texts lines is the way to do it, and in my personal experience when bringing new gamers into the fold (including trying to get my girl friend to play) it has not been the rules per say (which she picked up on very quickly) instead she was turned off by how long the descriptions of things were in my PHB (3.5 at the time) she thought because the book was so thick and had looong descriptions of things you had to be an engineer to play the game, so in my experience the long walls of text has not helpled.