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

Lanefan · May 6, 2012

Fallstorm said:
Morrus, has been clear, but he has not defined the length that should be given to each spell ...

The length that should be given to each spell is whatever length it takes to evocatively yet accurately get across to us what the spell is and does, and how to cast it.

"Paralyze" or "Cure Light Wounds" might each take 3 lines.

"Wish" or "Resurrection" might each take 3 pages.

Lanefan

Fallstorm · May 6, 2012

Morrus said:
I didn't post any sales figures. I don't have any.

And I agree that, for you, stat blocks are the way forward.

Sorry, Morrus, I meant on the statement about DnD out saling Pathfidner that was posted on your news page way back, but you are correct you didn't post any sales figures just statements made by some retailers stating that from what they had seen Pathfinder was out pacing 4E. Of course, they never gave any hard numbers but they did deliver their message in a very prosiac fashion.

Lwaxy · May 6, 2012

Let there be some text
And not just blocks of numbers
Better for our minds

Color text not good
Some people can't see color
Makes it more a mess

Fallstorm · May 6, 2012

Lanefan said:
The length that should be given to each spell is whatever length it takes to evocatively yet accurately get across to us what the spell is and does, and how to cast it.

"Paralyze" or "Cure Light Wounds" might each take 3 lines.

"Wish" or "Resurrection" might each take 3 pages.

Lanefan

Morrus, you also go the moniker of Lanefan? How many identities do you have

In all seriousness Lanefan I understand you seem to want unlimited space to describe spells but the 5E book will have a page limit. So, what do we cut to make space for unlimited spell descriptions since they will be taking anywhere form 3 lines to 3 pages? What modular option do we drop? What classes do we not include?

Fallstorm · May 6, 2012

Lwaxy said:
Let there be some text
And not just blocks of numbers
Better for our minds

Color text not good
Some people can't see color
Makes it more a mess

Let there be stat blocks
So, that combat turns move fast
Like new editions

Morrus · May 6, 2012

Fallstorm said:
Bedrock,

Morrus, has not stated how long a spell description should be.

I did. I said 3.75 paragraphs. To be more specific, I believe every spell should be exactly 3.72867 paragraphs.

It's a silly question, man. It depends on the spell, obviously. I've clearly, in response to intense interrogation, given a range which says 8 paragraphs is too much (as a concession to you) and 3 paragraphs is OK (as a concession to basic education).

And I feel stupid for giving such a range, because the actual answer is: it depends. Obviously it depends. How could it possibly not?

Which totally misses the entire point of what I was talking about by about three miles. It had *nothing* to do with length. I think a more interesting question is: why are you so obsessed with me providing a set paragraph length for spells? It's kinda creeping me out, man.

Fallstorm · May 6, 2012

Morrus said:
I did. I said 3.75 paragraphs. To be more specific, I believe every spell should be exactly 3.72867 paragraphs.

It's a silly question, man. It depends on the spell, obviously. I've clearly, in response to intense interrogation, given a range which says 8 paragraphs is too much (as a concession to you) and 3 paragraphs is OK (as a concession to basic education).

And I feel stupid for giving such a range, because the actual answer is: it depends. Obviously it depends. How could it possibly not?

Which totally misses the entire point of what I was talking about by about three miles. It had *nothing* to do with length.

I understand the point wasn't about length per se it was about prose being included along with statisics in an interwoven fashion instead of separately, and while I will say I am not as much in the know about the inner workings of WOTC or DnD Next as yourself, I am certain the new book will have somekind of page limit (maybe around 300ish pages according to recent editions). Given that limit, 3 paragraphs for a spell seems highly extraneous. It has nothing to do with education but with marketing and space availability. Supposedly, this new edition will include every class that has existed in the initial PHB of every edition. I don't see how they can do that give anywhere from 3 lines to 3 paragraphs to spells/powers and include a baseline of modular options to keep players of various editions sated also, but I get it man anywhere from 2-3 line to 3 paragraphs as long as prose and mechanics are interwoven......enough said.

Bedrockgames · May 6, 2012

Fallstorm said:
Bedrock,

Morrus, has not stated how long a spell description should be. Is it a few sentences plus some mechanics like he originally told me or is it the 3 paragraphs for a fireball that he agreed with you on? Would he be happy with a 3 paragraph hard cap on spells? I get he prefers prose to stat blocks. I understand that, but that is hardly specific.

Then you haven't been paying attention to his clarifications. He pretty clearly stated three was okay, and 8 was too long. He also suggested 3.75 paragraphs as an ideal. I don't think he is looking for a cap (I know I am not) but more of a general range with three paragraphs probably being the norm. It is obviously going to be very dependant on the spell in question. Honestly I think what Morrus is going for is pretty clear here. he has made numerous clarifications and you keep going back to some statement he made regarding a single line. If you are genuinely that mystified, then PM him and ask him yourself.

On the success of 3.5 vs. 4E and DnD Next….Well, WOTC (I believe specifically Andy Collin and Mike Mearls) when 3.5 was released talking about why it was needed and how certain spells like Haste had to be revamped because casting two spells in a round had a much bigger impact than a fighter getting an extra swing so that doesn’t sound too planned to me, but as you stated this you are not a WOTC insider and neither am I, so this is turning into a who killed Jimmy Hoffa argument, and as with all those arguments only the people in the know know and since we are not in the know the argument is fruitless.

That sounds like a good justification for erratta, but not a revision of the books. Certainly if the problem is some spells were over powered they could have simply issued errata without requiring rewrites of every splat book. When it happened monte wrote a very convincing piece (at least I am quite sure it was monte) that 3.5 was planned. I tend to agree.

That being said, and to turn the discussion fruitful I am a long time gamer who is firmly in the 4E camp and you are a long time gamer firmly in the 1E/2E camp. Klaus gave an example of what he felt a spell description in DnD Next should be like. Myself as a 4E fans was satisfied with it. How about you? As a 1E/2E fan if you opened DnD Next and saw spells laid out as Klaus did his version of Sleep would it be enough for you to give the game a chance?

That post was pages ago so you are going to have to repost it here again if you want me to comment on Klaus' suggestion. Personally if the game cant go back to something like 2e, then I just dont see the point of buying. As I said prose is pretty important to me. I was quite satisfied with the prose of earier editions. Why would I want to buy something that waters that down?

Now, as far as Vancian magic, I will actually concede with you that a poll on WOTC website is biased because it contains a majority of 4E players but even on teh Enworld poll running recently on Vancian magic while statistically the number of people wanting Vancian appears to be the highest at 36.5 percent. That number is deceiving 9% hate Vancian and think it is old school, 24% think it should not be the baseline of the game but included at as option for those want to play it, and 25 % think it should be the baseline but with feats included to make it more flexible so so while 37% is for Vancian, 34% are against Vancian (the 9% and 24% who don't want it as the baseline) and 25% want it modiifed so actually the majority do not want Vancian as the baseline mechanic and I would say on this page most people who play here are PF fans. Like I said, people complained about Vancian long before 4E and if you watch the full release of 4E on sites Youtube when Chris Perkins stated Vancian magic would not be a part of 4E the response was overwhelming positive from the audience.

If you want to repost the full poll results I will comment.

Whether people clapped or not at the 4e announcement about vancian casting is pretty immaterial to me. For all I know the people. Int he room were mostly folks who had read the 4e previews and loved the new direction of the game. In my own people hated how 4e took out the vancian casting. I hated it as well. If the old spells are not in the new phb, then I won't buy the book. If they go another direction I wont hold it against them.

Morrus · May 6, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
Then you haven't been paying attention to his clarifications. He pretty clearly stated three was okay, and 8 was too long. He also suggested 3.75 paragraphs as an ideal.

Actually, I was joking with the 3.75 paragraphs thing. But I think you know that.