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

Fallstorm · May 5, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
There is a large difference between gygaxian prose, 2e prose (2e was not gygaxian) and 3e prose. Part of it is vocabulary (and that mattrs here because some people are throwing the term gygaxian arounf suggesting Morrus is advocating a return to Gary's writing style. Gygaxian also refers to organization of information across the book, in paragraphs and in sections (just compare the 1e phb to the 2e phb). Finally it says something about clarity. Some peope find gygaxian prose unclear.

I will just add that three paragraphs isn't all that much. I am certainly happy to read a three paragraph spell description.

Well, vocabulary I don't mind so much. In fact, I enjoy it when a writer uses a word I am not familair with and I have to look it up to understand it and learn a new word so vocabulary doesn't concern me. The length of space given to spells in a book when the book also has to include various other rules does concern me, because the book can only be so big and something has to get toned down somewhere. So they can either cut back on the modular options presented in the core book, cut back on class descriptions, or cut back on the amount of space given to each individual power entry but still describe the power at a base level mechanically along with a dash of flavor. Out of these three options I vote for option 3. I really don't think we need three paragraphs for a fireball spell. 3 paragraphs for fireball? Come on now, really?

Fallstorm · May 5, 2012

Morrus said:
Yeah, that bit scares me. I think I'm safe in saying that a game written for people who struggle to or are unwilling to read three paragraphs probably isn't a game I want to play. It's certainly not what D&D is to me. You can scan three paragraphs for the info you want in a second or two, but sacrificing everything in the name of "ease"? Not my cup of tea! Isn't the ultimate end of that line of thinking a video game?

Well, Morrus now I am really confused in your initial response to me you stated that you didn't want multiparagraph text to describe spells that you just want teh spell mechanics and then a sentence or two or you don't think that should be a problem. Now, you are stating that a simple spell like fireball should have 3 paragraphs dedicated to it.

How long do you want spell descriptions to be? What portion of the book would you like to see dedicated to spell descriptions, and what options would have to be dropped to include these descriptions in there because I'm sure they don't have unlimited space in the initial PHB? Also, if fairly simple and straight forward spells like fireball get 3 paragraphs then how many paragraphs would be given to more complex spells like meteor swarm? Would it be back to the 6-8 paragraph descriptions?

Bedrockgames · May 5, 2012

Morrus said:
Yeah, that bit scares me. I think I'm safe in saying that a game written for people who struggle to or are unwilling to read three paragraphs probably isn't a game I want to play. It's certainly not what D&D is to me. You can scan three paragraphs for the info you want in a second or two, but sacrificing everything in the name of "ease"? Not my cup of tea! Isn't the ultimate end of that line of thinking a video game?

I find it frightening as well. Don't get me wrong, I understand the challenge of reading difficulties (had pretty bad dyslexia growing up). But this is a reader's hobby.I just can't understand how people who clearly have no trouble reading walls of texts on a forum would be put off by three little paragraphs.

Personally I enjoy reading rpg books. I don't enjoy scanning stat blocks.

Bedrockgames · May 5, 2012

Fallstorm said:
Well, vocabulary I don't mind so much. In fact, I enjoy it when a writer uses a word I am not familair with and I have to look it up to understand it and learn a new word so vocabulary doesn't concern me. The length of space given to spells in a book when the book also has to include various other rules does concern me, because the book can only be so big and something has to get toned down somewhere. So they can either cut back on the modular options presented in the core book, cut back on class descriptions, or cut back on the amount of space given to each individual power entry but still describe the power at a base level mechanically along with a dash of flavor. Out of these three options I vote for option 3.

They could also just raise the page count if they need to. 2E had lots of optional rules and managed to fit in plenty of prose. I would like the spell section to be that long again. If they need to insert 4E style powers this could be achieved by keying them to spells and feats.

I really don't think we need three paragraphs for a fireball spell. 3 paragraphs for fireball? Come on now, really?

Yes. I dont think it is all that crazy at all. And i can tell you if the spells are a sentence or one paragraph each i probably wont buy the books.

Morrus · May 5, 2012

Fallstorm said:
Well, Morrus now I am really confused in your initial response to me you stated that you didn't want multiparagraph text to describe spells that you just want teh spell mechanics and then a sentence or two or you don't think that should be a problem. Now, you are stating that a simple spell like fireball should have 3 paragraphs dedicated to it.

How long do you want spell descriptions to be? What portion of the book would you like to see dedicated to spell descriptions, and what options would have to be dropped to include these descriptions in there because I'm sure they don't have unlimited space in the initial PHB? Also, if fairly simple and straight forward spells like fireball get 3 paragraphs then how many paragraphs would be given to more complex spells like meteor swarm? Would it be back to the 6-8 paragraph descriptions?

You're after specifics? I want every spell to be 3.76 paragraphs exactly.

I said 8 paragraphs was too much. I later said 3 paragraphs was OK. So I don't want essays, but I don't mind reading some words.

I don't really understand your confusion or how to clear it up. I keep trying to be clear, but clearly I'm unable to do so. Probably best we just give up on this attempt at information exchange, because it ain't working. I'm afraid I feel I've been as clear as I can be. I can't improve on it. Just be happy I'm not writing the rulebooks!

I just prefer prose to stat blocks. That's it.

Bedrockgames · May 5, 2012

Fallstorm said:
Well, Morrus now I am really confused in your initial response to me you stated that you didn't want multiparagraph text to describe spells that you just want teh spell mechanics and then a sentence or two or you don't think that should be a problem. Now, you are stating that a simple spell like fireball should have 3 paragraphs dedicated to it.

?

I have to say, morrus has been about as clear as a person can be on a message board. If someone can't understand his poisition after repeated clarifications (and insists on only using his initial response as a point of reference) then I don't think Morrus can be blamed for that person's failure to grasp his point.

Fallstorm · May 5, 2012

Morrus said:
So our available data suggests that your girlfriend is not typical, and should not be the basis for decisions regarding the future of D&D. Pathfnder attracted half of D&D's customer base with those "walls of text" as you characterise them (I characterise them as "words" which I am saddened - dismayed - to hear present an insurmountable obstacle to people these days: what happened to us?)

It's hard to argue that the "walls of text" edition of 3E did not outperform the "data blocks" version of 4E significantly.

Man, I gotta say, I find that "walls of text" phrase dismaying. They're words. We're supposed to be able to handle words, dagnammit!

Has pathfinder out selling DnD really been confirmed such as annual sales of DnD for X time period compared to what Paizo earned?

1. I know that for a large amount of time DnD wasn't really producing that many books for DnD for example I think early this year they producted the new DMG screen and then some monthsbefore an actual rules supplement (I think Heroes of Shadow maybe??) dropped but I remember here was a stretch of time when 4E production of rules books was low? So was Pathfinder outselling during this time? If so I can understand why?

2. Does this Pathfinder "out saling" DND include things like he money WOTC makes from DnDI subscriptions, the card packs,etc which are also part of the DnD franchise?

3. People keep harping on 5E coming out so soon. Let's examine the facts;
DnD 5E will drop in 2013. So we have:

DnD 1E 1978-1989
DnD 2E 1989-2000
DnD 3E: 2000-2003
DnD 3.5-2003-2008
4E-2008-2013

So DnD 4E will have lasted approximately 5 years exactly as long as DnD 3.5,
and before we say there was little difference between 3rd edition and 3.5 it was enough of difference between the two that unlike 4E and essentials splat books had to be redone, etc to make sense of the classes and prestige classes unlike 4E and essentials which can be played simultaneously.

So, DnD 4E existed for about as long as it was supposed to exist. I think I recall reading somewhere (on Enworld in fact) from one former WOTC game designer that most game companies now release a new edition of their RPG every 4-5 years because the market has shone gamers will buy the product in that time frame. So, in fact, even if DnD Next is phenomenal success I suspect there will be some kind of revamping to it within 5 years or so because that is the market standard it seems.

Kzach · May 5, 2012

There is ONE way that they could appeal to at least two extremes. They could print two versions of the rule books. In similar fashion to how they did Essentials, they could print one set of the rule books for those who like things as dry as sunbaked dog doo-doo, and another set for those who like prancing fairies to dance through their minds as they read.

Fallstorm · May 6, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
I have to say, morrus has been about as clear as a person can be on a message board. If someone can't understand his poisition after repeated clarifications (and insists on only using his initial response as a point of reference) then I don't think Morrus can be blamed for that person's failure to grasp his point.

Morrus, has been clear, but he has not defined the length that should be given to each spell and in fact it has been somewhat of a moving goal post, and I say that respectfully. Also looking back through the posts it seems some post may have been added to/edited since initially posting (but not sure on this). Still, I think the questions being asked are more than fair and non-acerbic, and some perceptions just don't seem to hold true (like the amount of space given to powers in the 4E PHB vs. what is given to spell descriptions in the 3.5 PHB).

You claiim I don't pay attention to what the anti-4e camp wants? Do you pay attention to what the anti 3.5/Pathfinder camp wants? Klaus, gave an example of what a spell description should read like in DnD Next and I stated that I would be satisfied with that and thought it was an excellent example (overall) of what I consider to be enought fluff and mechancis mixed together. So you should have a clear gauge of what I consider to be the standard.

Your standard seems to the the 3.5 3 paragraphs for fricking fireball or else standard. I am compromising. It is the 3.5/Pathfinder crowd that I have found in my experience to be the most dogmatic on ideals. Witness Monte Cook's insistence than Vancian be the only spell casting option available in DnD next. Then a Legends & Lore poll showed an equal number of people wanted a power system for spell casters, so they release another poll stating something along the lines of "Well we seem to have an unclear response so if you had to choose one casting model which one (paraphrasing) and guess what the poll came back not that different, and they released something about the polls be shocking and showing them that they needed to include a power style caster or something that mimics it in the core module options, but the fact that Monte even found this shockign shocks me. YOu can go on Youtube and watch when 4E was announced at Gen Con years ago, and watch the reaction of the crowd when Chris Perkins said they are doing away with Vancian magic. There was applause and cheers throughout the room so why should this be shocking to someone? It is shocking only if you are locked into a "3.5 or else" view of gaming.

Klaus · May 6, 2012

Fallstorm said:
Actually, Klaus that example if I saw it in the DnD Next PHB woudn't bother me so much as the rule/mechanics presentation are concise and the texts don't take up that much room. I might just remove the part about "the spell can only keep creatures asleep for so long" and just say, "Any ally can try and shake a sleeping creature awake throught the use fo the Grant Saving Throw Action." We know the spell doesn't last forever via the fact that that creatures can make a savign throw to overcome it every round so that line is redundant. Likewise you MAY not need to put the part about elves etc in there because under the racial description of elves they would probably say something like elves also don't need to sleep but are not immune to magical sleep effects like the SLEEP spell etc. I know this last part may seem petty, but we want as much information in the core books as possible so anything that saves space is valuable and if they included information about what creatures were not affecting by spells under every spell description, when they could just write one line under the race/creature description itself that and state in the beginning section of spells that unless a monster stat block says it is immune to such spells the spell functions on them seems like a waste of space.

Overall, I really like this approach though. Good job.

The line "the spell can only keep creatures asleep for so long" is there to explain/justify/describe the "save ends" part of the unconsciousness.

Which is, IMHO, a part where some of 4e's layout failed. All versions of the Sleep spell (for example) are riddled with rules descriptions. "4HD of creatures, lower HD are affected first, equal HD are affected by order of proximity", etc. And all versions also had a header with purely mechanical entries (components, area, range, etc).

So you put the description of what is happening *after* the stat block, as it has always been in D&D, with an eye towards "translating" the mechanics, in order to paint an image of what's happening. Why is this "save ends"? What does this mean, "First failed save"? How can I wake my sleeping ally?