I don't know if this is a thing...

[pemerton]

In 4E, the fluff element of a power is separated from its attack/effect etc. entries. In my experience (and I recognise this might not be yours), players tend to skip over that line of fluff, and zero in on the stats below it.

I will concede that the old-fashioned way is more evocative, and that I invariably skip the flavour text when reading Fourth Edition powers.

I skip the flavour text in 4e too, but I don't know that I agree that the old-style is more evocative.

The second ability is a description of what's going on in the game world, and when you read it you think that way - what's going on in the game world. Even though it doesn't really matter to resolution.

This is why I don't find the old style especially evocative. Because it doesn't matter to resolution. To put it another way - they can make for an enjoyable read (like little mini-elements of a fantasy short story) but they don't make me feel especially excited about using them in a game.

In Rolemaster I felt completely immersed by the incredible detail about the effects of wearing different types of armour in different situations and versus different monsters and weapons. D&D has some of that, but nothing like Rolemaster. I could feel the supple yet thin leather and the heavy but safe plates on my skin.

I agree with this about Rolemaster - but in my view part of what makes that detail come alive is that it does matter to resolution.

In 4e, what especially matters to resolution is keywords, and for me these are what make a power come alive for me when I read it - based on the keywords, what is going on in the fiction when this power is used? (Sometimes it's details other than keywords - for example, if an area burst won't work on flying targets, that means that it works by changing the ground on which the targets are standing.)

Rolemaster spells are like this, too - many of the descriptions are quite short by D&D standards, but they use keywords that make a mechanically well-defined difference to action resolution.

To put it another way - if a game element doesn't tell me how to make it's fictional colour matter to action resolution, the colour on its own isn't going to make me excited about the element in play.

I wonder if other players notice a difference when you cast the spell during the game. I suspect most players say, "I use assimilate on the Picard; I hit touch AC 15 and deal 8 damage if it hits." Which would keep someone from knowing to ready an attack to slice those tendrils before they hit.

I certainly agree that this is one sort of procedure for play that can make these descriptions matter to action resolution. It wouldn't suit my own taste for it to be the only way that it is done, but it can be a useful part of the overall suite. Although in a game focused heavily on "winning" by pushing the mechanics to the limit every time (in D&D you basically never want to roll with less than the best possible bonus) this sort of approach can also put a lot of pressure on the role of the GM.

 

[Teataine]

I am perplexed by the sentiment that "what goes on in the game world" "doesn't matter to resolution". I'm not saying it's wrong, it just feels alien to me.

For example, consider my imaginary example of the Light spell, above. It consists entirely of a description of what goes on in the game world, which is precisely why it matters to resolution.

If the object is knocked out of my hand, it goes dark. I can't drop it in a deep well to see what's at the bottom. If my hands are tied to the wall, I can't cast light on the thing in front of me because I have to touch it with my hands.

"What goes on in the game world" is precisely everything that matters to resolution in the kind of D&D I'd like to play. I understand that not everyone shares that desire.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The description is really the important part. The rules elements are a supplement to it; something to help the DM adjudicate the game quickly and easily. I think it's very important that reading any spell/feat/item/etc. starts with a common language description that makes sense to someone who is not a longtime D&D player.

I worry that using the descriptive method would leave too many loopholes.

I don't. As a DM, I've never met a loophole that I couldn't close simply by saying "no". The loopholes that matter are the ones where a rule has been written so poorly that using it as described is abusive (say, the old bag of rats issue, or 3.0 haste). The ones that arise out of confusion or ambiguity are not as big of a deal. It's usually pretty easy to tell how things "should" work in those cases.

Or to speak more broadly, loopholes are exploited by rules lawyers and power gamers, who are going to be the way they are regardless of what the rules text says. The rules should not be built to countermand bad actors.

 

[seregil]

indeed!

I was having this exact conversation this week.

I intensely dislike 4e's way of presenting spells/powers. It's a series of stats with a sentence or two of fluff. As stated, most people overlook the fluff and only see the stats.

Well, since many powers are funtional equivalents (i.e. the stat block is the same), this is a large factor in the 'sameness of the classes' that is frequently evoked as a problem with 4e.

Also, with such little emphasis on fluff, 4E essentially becomes a tactical skirmish game, with more in common with Chainmail than Dnd. If I wanted to play a tactical level wargame, I'd buy one.

Dnd 5E needs to emphasis the role-playing aspect of the game. Yes, you can have keywords and precise definition of spells and powers, but the description of the effect and the flavor text should be important.

It's a bit like the difference between 4e's Monster Manual and the 3E version. 4e is just one large stat block with very little information on the creature where as 3e had a nice description of the creature, what it was, where it lived etc.

Also, we need to recognize that not all spell effects can be represented mathematically and must be left to the DM and the players to role-play. E.G. Charm person and trying to get a charmed NPC to do something against its nature.

 

[Umbran]

I dunno. Is that a thing? Description and effects being interwoven rather than separated out?

It most definitely is a thing. For use as a reference for a tactical skirmish game, having them separated out is good. For having them be part of an imaginative role-play experience, intermingling them is probably better. Unfortunately, D&D is both, so the goals wind up a bit at odds. Which one a player is going to prefer will depend on what the particular player wants out of the game, and some other aspects of the design.

Basically, the more the rules make you need to look things up, the more useful the separated version will be.

I think there was an idea that, if you separate the two, it becomes clear that reskinning the fluff is easy and reasonable. I think they may have over-estimated how much people desire reskinning.

I hold the (intentionally) provocative opinion that Pathfinder and 4E (the fans of which seem to be most at odds with each other) are really the same game, it's just the presentation that is different.

In a strict mechanical and mathematical sense, I think you're pretty demonstrably wrong. However, insofar as the two games are designed to yield rather similar results, you may have some point there.

Kind of like saying an Apple and a Dell laptop are the same thing - they aren't in detail, but if you take the "10,000 foot view", they kind of are.

 

[Echohawk]

I'd really like D&D Next to use both forms of presentation -- a flavorful description forming the bulk of the spell, and a 4e-style crunchy block at the end. For a rules-literal style of play (or for organised play), encourage dependance on the crunchy block for rulings, for a more story-telling style of play, encourage the DM to interpret the written description more liberally, using the crunch only as a guide.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I prefer the separation, as I'm naturally a very abstract thinker anyway. The first thing my mind starts doing with the embedded version is ... separating out the fluff from the mechanics in order to fix the thing in my mind, and then vary the fluff as fits what we are using it for. Everyone at my table is similar, though none quite to the degree that I am.

There is another issue, here, though--which shows up in the embedded and separated versions, but more obviously in the latter: Sometimes the flavor text doesn't really match the mechanics. When this happens in the separated version you are encouraged to simply ignore the flavor text as "bad flavor text." We've said that very thing about some of the powers in our 4E game. OTOH, when this happens in the embedded versions, you start thinking, "They must have meant something by that. " Depending on the group, this leads to different intrepretations of the mechanics, rejection of the flavor text, or, more often, cognitive dissonance while trying to accept both the flavor text and the mechanics as somehow matching.

Moreover, I think this latter part affects not only us, but the writers as well. 4E made it more difficult to skip over this discrepancy--which resulted, in general, in cleaner mechanics and more cheesy flavor text.

Personally, what I would like to see is flavor text selectively and consciously embedded in some abilities, with a keyword calling this fact out, meaning "DM Adjudication Required" (as opposed to "DM Adjudication Possible," which is true anytime. If the ability can't have good flavor text separate, then that is probably because the mechanics don't do what the writer is intended it to to. So write out this ability in English, and tell people to go with intent as best they can. But when the power is quite clear, and the flavor backs that up, keep it separate.

 

[hanez]

After a year playing fourth it seemed we had an informal agreement that you didnt even have to say what power you were using, just tell the DM the effect. This pretty much led to a huge monotonous feeling. But I think its sort of a natural progression from seperating the description. There were soo many powers, and they were presented so similarly, and were used in pretty much the same way (AWEDU), my players not only skipped the fluff, they skipped the power name!

I heard this countless times in my 4e campaign

"I use my encounter power that does xd6 damage and dazes".

Whereas as in previous editions it would be more like

"I cast mirror image".... "ok, what does that do?" "I don't know lemme check"... "oh ok, I get 3 images" .. "no no hes wrong, you only get 3 if...."

The second conversation also occured more with martial classes trying to improvise and use feats/skills with the DM trying to figure out how arbitrate actions.

I respect the elegant and simplified way that 4e was presented, but it largely changed the conversation at my table. And while I concede it would be nice to simplify some of the rules discussion that has always been a part of D&D, I feel it went too far and in doing so ruined some of the immersion in our games.

 

[dkyle]

4E-style descriptions all the way. Clarity is everything. I'm a big fan of reflavoring, so the officially printed flavor doesn't matter much to me anyway.

If someone is a big fan of reading the flavor, and skips the flavor line, seems like that's their own mistake...

Perhaps it could be fixed by placing the flavor text right above the effect line, instead of at the very top, and make sure it tells the whole story, in terms of what happens in-character? That way, you get the descriptive version, immediately followed by the important parts of the precise mechanics.

 

[nightwalker450]

I prefer the separation for a multitude of reasons:

1) You don't have to search through all your books to find the ability and read the description for the GM to know what it does. Instead you have only a couple straight forward lines, that can be noted on scratch paper.

2) The rest of it doesn't matter in game. Therefore the player should be allowed to fluff it however they wish to fit their character.

3) It made spell casters more playable, and less intimidating to new players. Instead of having more than half the book dedicated to a spell casters, of spells that they need to read through (every $#@! day to prepare), they have a very straight forward list of cause and effect, that made it quick to find, and to prepare spells.

4) For some players, that flavor text will all disappear anyways after the 3rd or 4th session, and they'll just break it down to cause and effect anyways. Special magical looking affects are only special and magical for so long, if you're doing them every combat than its just the way it is. Your special maneuver only really needs to be described in detail the first time (or as a reminder if you use it rarely).

5) Do spell casters really need to outshine the martial that much? There has never been a need to dedicate pages upon pages, on how you swing your weapon or what combat style/stance is the result. Why do you need half a page to tell the GM that you lit the creature on fire?