I quite like Gygax's DMG, too. But when it comes to spell descriptions I prefer the approach of B/X or original D&D - the descriptions are terse and to the point (quite a bit like 4e, actually!). The really long descriptions in the AD&D PHB, replicated in 2nd ed AD&D and 3E, which also include the material components, are what I'm suggesting are someone else's play output repackaged as play input.I have to confess I think ADD DMG makes a better read than the others
The limiting case of this outlook is that the whole scenario and all of play is prepackaged, all PCs are already built, etc.I'd rather have props that I can ignore than have to build props that I need.
Conversely, part of the point of play - for many people, at least - is that you create the story of your PC, both backstory and in play. Working out his/her idiom of casting is plausibly a part of that: one player has read A Wizard of Earthsea and casts spells through a staff; another has read LotR and calls upon the powers of Valinor; another has seen the cover of (the original) Unearthed Arcana and has a wizard carrying pouches and pockets of wacky components.
I don't see that the game needs to prescribe these things.
Well, by equal turns I could say that there are 13 year olds out there waiting to learn how a rationing of player resources on a metagame basis can produce a great RPG experience. But D&Dnext isn't going to give them that. Is the goal of the edition to present one particular taste for those who want that? Or to present a generic and unifying "D&D experience"? I had assumed the latter.You seem to be assuming that the only people who are going to want it are people who already know of it. That's not true. There are 13 year olds and 8 year olds and 23 year olds everywhere who've never played the game just waiting to bust a gut or chuckle knowingly or roll their eyes and make womp-womp noises at these things.
You're not persuading me more by talking about my preferred playstyle in a condescending way. You like joke D&D - fine. I don't. It doesn't mean I've got some problem with my sense of humour. I'm guessing that even in your game the somatic component for fireball is not a wizard chucking a brown-eye at his/her opponents - but I'm sure there'd be some 8 year olds out there who would find that hilarious!I think it's part of D&D's distinct identity that it has this bit of goofiness. It's not all GRIMDARK MANSCOWL.
I personally prefer to avoid it. People who want it will introduce it without the rulebooks hinting at it. (And including wacky monsters like Rust Monsters or Beholders is an easier way to give a nod to goofiness, because ignoring silly monsters - for any given group's value of "silly" - is a much more straightforward part of D&D practice.)I would say 1e did a better job to emulate Monty Python Holy Grail than Tolkien. Do we reject this as a bug ? Or do we nod at it ?
I think this is an issue too, but a different one (as you noted, it goes beyond joke components to all components). For me, I see this as being about the veneer of "simulation" that is part of the D&Dnext sensibility (healer's kits, with their improbably cheap and efficacious unguents and bandages, are another example). I find this stuff implausible and immersion-breaking, but for others it seems to be very important.On an aside, in 1e, wasn't each round a minute long? Enough time to dig into your spell pouch and pull out some nuts and chant a spell.
In a modern round, what's more jokey really? Using nuts to cast confusion, or pulling out nuts while casting a spell while ducking your enemy's attacks while coordinating your movements and timing with your allies -- that's a lot of fast thinking multitasking in 6 seconds! Frankly, it's one of the most impossible things in D&D. And if you don't think that's jokey, putting it to the Cinematic Test and see if it looks plausible on the big screen.