Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Philosophy of 5e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shaangor" data-source="post: 6320848" data-attributes="member: 96324"><p>This is definitely a play style preference. I do not like the block of text style for spell and ability descriptions for the single reason that they combine description (fluff) with rules (crunch). My issue is that reading the spell block it's not always clear if a sentence is a rule or just a description or fluff suggestion. Because spells inherently break rules or introduce new ones, I want to know exactly what the rules are the for the spell and it what it entails mechanically. When I played 3e, the open-ended spells like command were seldom chosen by my players, not out of fear that I wouldn't "let" the spell work the way they wanted, but because the players simply didn't have a concrete idea of what the spell would do.</p><p></p><p>In my 4e games, that doesn't happen, because the power block explicitly separates the fluff from the crunch. Which for my players is great, because they know what they are getting and can flavor it however they want. You want your magic missiles to be tiny energy fists that punch your enemies? Sure, but they still do 2 force damage. Although the 5e command spell gives examples, I still doubt any of my players will prepare it when we start playing 5e because it's not clear what the potential of the spell is. For some groups that play a more abstract, open-ended game that's great. But for my group and I, we much prefer the rules to be clear and explicit, and we can fill in the fluff details around that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shaangor, post: 6320848, member: 96324"] This is definitely a play style preference. I do not like the block of text style for spell and ability descriptions for the single reason that they combine description (fluff) with rules (crunch). My issue is that reading the spell block it's not always clear if a sentence is a rule or just a description or fluff suggestion. Because spells inherently break rules or introduce new ones, I want to know exactly what the rules are the for the spell and it what it entails mechanically. When I played 3e, the open-ended spells like command were seldom chosen by my players, not out of fear that I wouldn't "let" the spell work the way they wanted, but because the players simply didn't have a concrete idea of what the spell would do. In my 4e games, that doesn't happen, because the power block explicitly separates the fluff from the crunch. Which for my players is great, because they know what they are getting and can flavor it however they want. You want your magic missiles to be tiny energy fists that punch your enemies? Sure, but they still do 2 force damage. Although the 5e command spell gives examples, I still doubt any of my players will prepare it when we start playing 5e because it's not clear what the potential of the spell is. For some groups that play a more abstract, open-ended game that's great. But for my group and I, we much prefer the rules to be clear and explicit, and we can fill in the fluff details around that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Philosophy of 5e
Top