Time to bring back the prose?

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.

Time to bring back the prose?

Bedrockgames

Legend

Bedrockgames

Legend

Bedrockgames

Legend

Sunseeker

Guest

B.T.

First Post

Sunseeker

Guest

ForeverSlayer

Banned

Grumpy RPG Reviews

Explorer

Bedrockgames

Legend

Dausuul

Legend

Similar Threads