gimme back my narration

[JiffyPopTart]

Step 1: Learn new rules with flavor (this is more work).
Step 2: Try to figure out how the oddly disjointed flavor actually works in-game ("Can I summon just the brand but not as part of an attack? Is this detectable magic? How much light does this give off?").
Step 3: Unlearn flavor (another extra step?).
Step 4: Narrate their implementation.

I can't speak for everyone's group, but I CAN speak for mine.

Of the 5 players and 1 GM, NOBODY has ever bothered to read the flavor text for any of their powers/feats/items/skills/whatever.

Its the same as a magic card, my brain just ignores italics because it knows that they have nothing to do with the item they are attached to, except as a verbal piece of artwork.

So, your group may very well have to go through the growing pains of the laborious 4 step program to fix this issue, but I suspect most go the 2 step method.

DS

 

[Lackhand]

Add me to the list that wishes they had just left the description off. It gets worse in the adventurer's vault, though this is previewed in some PHB powers --
Fire hands Wizard Attack [MadeUp]
"This spell causes flame to shoot from your hands and set foes near to you alight"
Arcane, Fire, Implement
Close Burst 3
Atk: Intelligence vs Fortitude
Hit: 1d8 + Intelligence fire damage and ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends).

The description! It does nothing!
It's exactly the same as the mechanical effects! If there were an index where it was presented, that'd be okay -- not great, but okay -- but it's not even flavor text! Gah!


Calmer now. I wish that powers usually looked like this:
Fire hands Wizard Attack [MadeUp]
// this spell is too obvious for a description -- none is provided.
Arcane, Fire
Close Burst 3
Atk: Intelligence + Implement vs Fortitude
Hit: 1d8 + Intelligence + Implement fire damage and ongoing 5 fire (save ends).

Alternatively, icons could be used instead of spelling out implement on the atk and hit line. But in many ways, they dropped the ball in communicating powers -- it's not like they don't put the weapon keyword on a ton of powers; being explicit about it would have been a lot nicer.

And making the descriptions not be rehash of the mechanics would be even nicer.

I think my ideal world would have the descriptions be -- in cases where something horribly overwrought is called for -- similar to Magic cards' design, giving us snippets of the default world:
"... and with a swift prayer to Moradin, Father Oakbeard smote The Old One's lieutenant, leaving the mark of the Soulforger glowing in its unclean flesh" -- Annals of the Hammer

Or something.

 

[Tigerbunny]

I think my ideal world would have the descriptions be -- in cases where something horribly overwrought is called for -- similar to Magic cards' design, giving us snippets of the default world:
"... and with a swift prayer to Moradin, Father Oakbeard smote The Old One's lieutenant, leaving the mark of the Soulforger glowing in its unclean flesh" -- Annals of the Hammer

Or something.

Whoa. And that's exactly the kind of flavor text that makes even my "ignore the dang flavor-text and make something up" heart shudder to a stop. Overspecific, tied to setting (which I'm not using), and verbose. Give me the short-and-sweet sensory/stage-direction flavor text every time. THAT I can jump off from and go where I want.

 

[Lackhand]

Whoa. And that's exactly the kind of flavor text that makes even my "ignore the dang flavor-text and make something up" heart shudder to a stop. Overspecific, tied to setting (which I'm not using), and verbose. Give me the short-and-sweet sensory/stage-direction flavor text every time. THAT I can jump off from and go where I want.

Fair enough I think the difference for me is that in my version, it's not a description of the power as it is -- it's a description of a specific _use_ of the power, historically. You can mix and match them, but as you add special effects, it's probably good to also add the illusion of specificity to the event.
Even if you ignore the text, it's like the ecology of the goblin -- it's interesting to look at and helps give players some sense of a living world with a history.

I could see my specific example being terrible, though -- there's a reason I'm an engineer

I think presentation depends on the power for me. If it's something like a spell whose description can only be "magically sets enemies within a blast on fire", then I'd rather not even have the short and sweet description -- it's magic, it sets people on fire, let's go.

To make that work, you need a set of descriptors & keywords (verbs, really) that are rich enough for what you're doing, but that's not a problem
Something a few more keywords would need to enter the game's vocabulary, but then we could have:
impact push 5 squares and land prone
psychic shift 3 squares
dominate pull 2 squares
fear push 1 square

Ideally, we'd have "knockback" be a real game term to imply landing prone, so the first example could be
impact knockback 5 squares

but eh, I'm okay with that not being in the game.

Ideally, basically, I'd rather that effects that can describe themselves did describe themselves. Anything that applies a die roll modifier or status effect other than ongoing damage does not describe itself in general.

 

[Tigerbunny]

Ideally, basically, I'd rather that effects that can describe themselves did describe themselves. Anything that applies a die roll modifier or status effect other than ongoing damage does not describe itself in general.

I like that a whole lot in principle, but I have my doubts that a sufficiently rich keyword vocabulary to do the describing would be sufficiently concise to make good mechanical sense.

 

[Punnuendo]

I've played a few games of 4e with about 12 different people. From asking around the table, I was the only one who ever really paid attention to any of the fluff for powers, and even that was only a passing interest. Count us as one group that just ignores that italics text to get to the meat of the power.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Some disagree and seemingly find they are having to do a lot more adjusting with this ediition than they did, if they did (like you apparently did), in the past or with other games. Rather than insinuate that those people are lying, I think it behooves us to listen and give constructive assistance, whether that be with the new game or toward an alternate

I have no problem whatsoever with people who feel they have to more of this with 4E than other editions, since every class now has powers of some sort in this edition.

It's the people who claim this is unique to 4E I take issue with.

 

[Shroomy]

I haven't really had a problem narrating my attack and utility powers in 4e, which mostly consist of me aiming my crossbow or wand, though I sometimes just recite the power name if I'm in a hurry. In either case, I usually intersperse some crude pantomime when its my turn; I guess I get into my actions.

 

[Derro]

I haven't really had a problem narrating my attack and utility powers in 4e, which mostly consist of me aiming my crossbow or wand, though I sometimes just recite the power name if I'm in a hurry. In either case, I usually intersperse some crude pantomime when its my turn; I guess I get into my actions.

Hahaha. That is awesome. The last 4e game I played the GM was jumping up and down and emitting high-pitched chittering to illustrate the kobolds delight and tanglefooting a PC. And I said to him, "Hey, buddy, you stand up at the gaming table and you're LARPing." And then I blasted him with a magic missile which I had re-flavored to taste like eggnog.

Frickin' shifty kobolds...

 

[pukunui]

*Shrugs shoulders* I guess it depends on the person I have no problem narrating combat as whatever I wish as-long as the final result matches the power. Hell, we don't even use names of the powers at all, we simply describe along with the narration what happens mechanically.

I can't think of a single power I haven't altered in some way narratively.

I wish my group would do that ... but most of them don't even use the "default" descriptions. They mostly just say "I use [insert power name here]" with no description whatsoever. I usually have to prompt them to get any sort of description. I even instituted a house rule that would give anyone who described their actions a +1-2 on their roll, but that hasn't made any difference. I've got a cleric and a paladin who never invoke the names of their respective patron deities. In fact, the paladin almost never uses his powers, either. He just sticks to his basic attack. The fighter "uses" sure strike and cleave, while the ranger "uses" twin strike ... Only the guy playing the wizard is good about being descriptive ("A silvery bolt of energy streaks out ..." or "a vertical column of flame envelopes ...") Sigh ...

To be honest, it's really starting to turn me off 4th Edition. I'm beginning to hate the whole powers format. My group seems to be more descriptive (although not always) when we play Star Wars than when we play D&D, and I think a large part of it is the powers. I much prefer the talent-based class structure of SWSE - I'm thinking about trying to convert it to a "fantasy" game or using one of the conversions that's already been done (like the Gneech's S&S Saga).