D&D (2024) Anyone else dislike the "keyword" style language of 5.24?

[FitzTheRuke]

A properly written manual is easy to read. That means no fluff text mixed into rules text, and clear rules with concise terminology.

This benefits everyone. People who don't want rules text get less of it, and it is separated from the other text and thus easier to avoid, and people who like rules text can focus on that and ignoring the fluff text.

I personally liked the 4e practice of separating the rules from the fluff, specifically where they would write a purely fluff description of an ability, and then a purely mechanical description of the same ability underneath.

I know 4e was controversial, but I'm not sure that (much) of it was because of this approach, but more other factors. At any rate, I maintain that I would love to see a version of D&D that, rather than doing it exactly like 4e did (I was never very fond of the "Power Cards", for example) but closer to 5e's approach, but with a major difference:

You write long-form, "natural language" fluff-filled descriptions of what an ability/spell/feat does, including corner-cases, and straightforward "This is what we intend for this" discussions. THEN, you write a rules-heavy, SHORT FORM version in a standardized style that is designed to give you the most important "meat" of the ability. That most importantly can be easily copied onto a Character Sheet.

If you're just reading the book, and not actively using the rules (to, say, make a character) you just skip over the rules-heavy short-form bit and read the long-form rule. Ditto if you're looking to understand corner-cases.

Does that make any sense? Anyone hate that idea?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I personally liked the 4e practice of separating the rules from the fluff, specifically where they would write a purely fluff description of an ability, and then a purely mechanical description of the same ability underneath.

I know 4e was controversial, but I'm not sure that (much) of it was because of this approach, but more other factors. At any rate, I maintain that I would love to see a version of D&D that, rather than doing it exactly like 4e did (I was never very fond of the "Power Cards", for example) but closer to 5e's approach, but with a major difference:

You write long-form, "natural language" fluff-filled descriptions of what an ability/spell/feat does, including corner-cases, and straightforward "This is what we intend for this" discussions. THEN, you write a rules-heavy, SHORT FORM version in a standardized style that is designed to give you the most important "meat" of the ability. That most importantly can be easily copied onto a Character Sheet.

If you're just reading the book, and not actively using the rules (to, say, make a character) you just skip over the rules-heavy short-form bit and read the long-form rule. Ditto if you're looking to understand corner-cases.

Does that make any sense? Anyone hate that idea?

The only thing I dislike about it is that it's likely to eat up huge amounts of page-count, which could otherwise be put to productive use on other guidance. But I suppose, at least for the PHB, such a thing is fine. Would also make creating the "RC" book I proposed earlier quite easy: it's full of just the short-form, nothing long-form. It's not meant to be read as a work of fiction, it's specifically there as a reference manual for those who want such a thing.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The only thing I dislike about it is that it's likely to eat up huge amounts of page-count, which could otherwise be put to productive use on other guidance. But I suppose, at least for the PHB, such a thing is fine. Would also make creating the "RC" book I proposed earlier quite easy: it's full of just the short-form, nothing long-form. It's not meant to be read as a work of fiction, it's specifically there as a reference manual for those who want such a thing.

Yes, space would be at a premium - though I imagine that if it were well-edited, it could be done in such a way as to not take as much space as it sounds like it would. Obviously, it would likely take more space than current style (though there's still ways I can imagine to keep it down to reasonable levels).

Worst case scenario, for room, we could implement another suggestion that I've felt D&D could use for quite some time:

Make the CORE PHB go "only" Level 1-12. Make 1-6 lower magic, grittier, and with more (and interesting) mundane equipment to buy (you know, things like making Alchemists Fire actually worth using, that sort of thing), make 7-12 "medium" magic, where you start to break real-world limitations and start to gather truly cool magical stuff.

THEN, you put out a book of 13-20 where things go really gonzo, planar, "super-hero" stuff.

Just IMO, and only spitballing ideals.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

There is no ad hominem. I have expressed my criticism of your statements, where you communicate something in one way, and I have said I see it in another. But if you want it as pithy as possible (which I never like doing, because literally 100% of the time my pithy responses are disliked for not having enough detail):

You want a book that is fun to read for itself. You think anyone who doesn't want that can shove off and use an internet connection. That's not very nice, because it says "my interests are more important than any other reason someone might want this book." Why should a book explicitly written to communicate game rules be instead written as entertaining fiction?

These are rule books. Why should rule books primarily focus on being entertaining fiction?

Why are you attacking me again?
It is not going to Illicit the response you are hoping for, the first post I quoted confounded me, and did everything you are accusing me of.

I then addressed the OP in that i am not a fan of the keyword style of the new books and why.

No where did I say it was wrong or other views were insignificant nor did I say it should be changed.

You on the other hand have put words in my mouth, made baseless assumptions and attacked me in both of your posts. I am sorry that me not liking this style of writing upsets you so much.

This is simply false. The SRD is a tool for developers who are creating third-party content.

Can't it be both regardless of it's primary intended function?

 

[orangefruitbat]

Make the CORE PHB go "only" Level 1-12. Make 1-6 lower magic, grittier, and with more (and interesting) mundane equipment to buy (you know, things like making Alchemists Fire actually worth using, that sort of thing), make 7-12 "medium" magic, where you start to break real-world limitations and start to gather truly cool magical stuff.

THEN, you put out a book of 13-20 where things go really gonzo, planar, "super-hero" stuff.

Great idea, but I think we could take it even further. Perhaps WOTC could come out with a 'basic' rulebook for starting characters (say levels 1-3) that would teach the rules, have lower magic and a grittier setting where even your mundane equipment would be important. Then there could be an 'expert' setting with higher level characters (say 4-14) with more powerful magic like fireballs, wilderness rules and magic items. WOTC could then produce some sort of 'companion' rulebook for high level characters that want to found kingdoms and have some sort of mass combat war machine. Finally, for top level characters, there could be a 'master' rulebook for those who seek out extra planer threats and dare to ascend to godhood themselves.

 

[mamba]

If that thing never actually manifested--if the game never actually did the thing your gut reaction was responding to--what does that say about that gut reaction?

not much, the game can also fail before it gets to its video game stage in life, and 4e certainly was working on getting a VTT etc., that WotC did not succeed does not mean the gut feeling was necessarily wrong

 

[mamba]

Also, I don't think most players are aware of this change or would have any opinion on it if you asked them. There are far more players than DMs, and I believe most wouldn't care about the change

then ask the people actually reading the books and not the players

 

[Micah Sweet]

not much, the game can also fail before it gets to its video game stage in life, and 4e certainly was working on getting a VTT etc., that WotC did not succeed does not mean the gut feeling was necessarily wrong

Yup. Like how some folks think WotC's plans for the OGL don't matter and shouldn't be held against them because they decided to bow to public pressure and not go through with it.

 

[Kinematics]

Personally, I'd have made a "Sickened" condition, which Poison damage might sometimes also come with, and other things, could also grant. Heck, psychic damage could sometimes cause "Sickened"...

That would also make more sense for their merging of Diseased and Poisoned. Sickened can easily convey either state.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yup. Like how some folks think WotC's plans for the OGL don't matter and shouldn't be held against them because they decided to bow to public pressure and not go through with it.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. It seems to me, that whoever ordered the OGL fiasco (which could have been a single individual, but let's consider it a team) were very likely told (by another team, also at WotC), "This is a BAD IDEA." And then the 2nd team was proved to be right, and the first team capitulated. I doubt that it's much more sinister than that, and I assume that TEAM 1 are a bunch of horrible monsters.