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

[Morrus]

... or if I'm just blowing smoke.

But I had a thought the other day about how abilities/powers/spells/what-have-you are presented, and how that ties into the "feel" of a game.

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.

While we've been playing Pathfinder recently, I chose to play a wizard. What I noticed was the I was forced to read the fluff, because it's interwoven with the effects in a paragraph of text. The difference is, essentially:

Assimilate
You reach out and assimilate your enemy like a Borg.
Attack: +x
Hit: y damage, and z condition.
​

and...

Assimilate
When you reach out and touch your opponent, tendrils emerge from your hands and assimilate the enemy like a Bord, causing x damage in the process. This requires a melee touch attack.
​

OK, that's a stupid spell, and a silly example. And descriptions are usually longer or better than that. But - for me, at least, when I use the second version (the 3.x/PF style version) my character feel like he's reaching out and assimilating someone, but when I use the first version (the 4E style version) he does not.

Yet both are saying exactly the same thing. There's no difference between those two spells; just formatting.

In 4E, the description part is a little block at the top, and the stats take up all the space. In 3.x, the stats are the little block at the top, and the description takes up all the space. In addition, the description and effects are interwoven, not separate.

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

Same thing with magic items.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Apparently it is, I was at a UX conference last year and there a couple of presentations about the effects of stuff like that. Even font selection and colour pallette can make a big impact.

The latter style can be more immersive but can lead to some sloppy wording where rules lawyers can work. I have a disinct impression was that 4e was the RPGA rules set and there was a strong desire to eliminate room for the rules lawyers to work.

Wizards experience in trying to fix polymorph may also have contributed.

 

[Tallifer]

I vastly prefer the Fourth Edition format when I want to find out quickly what a spell does.

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

This is similar to a thought I had recently about Armour in all types of D&D, versus Armour in Rolemaster. 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.

 

[LostSoul]

Yeah, I think it's worth mentioning. 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.

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.

 

[Blackwarder]

Iirc we had that same discussion at the DnDN board at wizard right around they announced DnDN.

I vote for the descriptive, for me RPG is all about immersion.

Warder

 

[Minigiant]

Knowing my luck, I will run into a DM who says "your familiar doesn't have hands so it can't deliver they touch attack for you."

I prefer the 4E model.

 

[CM]

For myself, I always hated having to read 3 or 4 paragraphs of spell description before being able to make a ruling. I prefer the clear, concise descriptions separating fluff and effects.

I suppose this is another of those situations where 4e pulls back the curtain to the dismay of some.

 

[steeldragons]

I would say this is definitely "a thing." And a rather important one on a very subtle but tangible level of how people approach the game.

For my 2cp, most certainly I prefer the descriptive text. It doesn't need to be (and probably shouldn't be) more than 1 paragraph. But it does need to be there.

Anything that is more evocative, descriptive, imagination/creativity-sparking, immersion-helping gets the points in my book.

D&D is a RPG of imagination and the spell/magic item descriptions should give the reader that "OO! I wanna try/see my character doing that!" Bring back the awe and the mysterious/weird/"cool" feeling of magic, as has been discussed in many other threads re:5e.

Obviously, the crunch needs to be there (we need to know what the in-game effects of things are). But it does/should not simply line after line of stat, stat, stat.

 

[Teataine]

Yep, it's definitely a thing. 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. It's a case where identity politics based on gut reactions triumph over clear-headed evaluation.

I think I ultimately prefer the descriptive method as well, but there is a bunch of problems with it:
-the danger of descending into purple prose, or too long and boring descriptions
-poorly worded effects that produce contradictions
-not as easy to reference (as you often have to read the whole thing through again and again)

I think that in the case powers and spells should be worded like that, both the wording and the effects should be kept as simple and clean as possible, with the complexity emerging from the interaction. For example, you don't really need more than this for most spells:

Light, level 1
An object that you touch with your hand starts to shine like a torch for as long as you maintain contact.

Such a description poses both interesting fictional limitations that provoke creative use as well as clearly spells out its effects. A couple of sentences per spell is what they should aim for imo.

And if they include material components, they should be used in the description, so every spell reads like a little ritual.

 

[Dice4Hire]

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