Presentaion of Spells: To Prose or Not To Prose?

[Arlough]

To expand this discussion a bit, what I'd like to see would be for the crunch and fluff to be as tightly integrated as possible. For example in a FATE campaign I played, one of the most important things on my character sheet was "My father told me to duel often" which was both vital crunch and central fluff to my character. Although I really don't want to port aspects into D&D I'd like to have D&D have the goal of combining crunch and fluff together as much as possible for example:
-If the fluff of X class is that it gives me quick and easy power at heavy cost, then the mechanics could give me quick and easy power at heavy cost.
-If a bit of fluff doesn't have any crunch to back up what it says it does then kill it with fire.
-Make crunch that takes into account the implications of the fluff. For example if there's a charm effect think about what the fluff says about how it works. Does it require a shared language? Can it be blocked by plugging my ears? That sort of thing.
-Does the crunch do something that's hard to visualize in fluff terms? Then kill it with fire.

I would note that FATE is a much more narrative system, to the point of having combat rules only in as much as they help tell a story. I don't know that D&D ever has been that narrative based, and as time has gone on they have become more and more combat based. In fact, I think we can say that 4e has, with it's refluffing ability, action points, and powers, become a combat narrative game, where the combat is the story (or, at least the cut-scenes we don't skip.)
In that sense, the players are wanting more combat narrative contol (cause they are the directors of their character's movie) and so more crunch is needed with less fluff, because they want predictability so they can choreograph their awesome action scene.
FATE, on the other hand, has a system to make the fluff the game itself, rather than a thing the DM can ignore or play out on whim.

As for my vote, I am at a point in my gaming career where I just want the rules, so I can dress them in whatever combat-narrative I choose.

[MENTION=55680]Daztur[/MENTION]
In 4e, the specifics are a set of predefined universal terms that mean a state rather than descriptions, so you can have a Bloodied Golem, but it doesn't literally mean bleeding. Instead, Bloodied means "at or below 1/2 hp". You can have a Prone Gelatenous Cube because Prone means "move at half speed, +2 vs. Ranged attacks, grants combat advantage to adjacent targets. You can remove this status with a move action."
The main problem is that flavorful words were chosen to represent these states and sets of states, and this has caused some confusion and consternation.

 

[Lanefan]

Voted "none of the above" as all the examples given contain gobs of 4e-speak that I hope goes away in 5e.

There's also no line in any of the suggested write-ups about components. 1e got this one right - the requirements for components V (verbal) S (somatic, or physical movement) M (material) were always noted, and where M components were needed the specifics would be noted in the prose.

Just having this brief notation answers all the questions about whether it can be cast when unable to wave your hand*, or unable to speak*, or unable to access the material components.

* - Still Spell and Silent Spell can die in a fire anytime they like; and people wonder why 3e wizards got out of hand...

All you really need to note in the "block" are 6 things, here listed in no particular order:

Casting time
Range
Area of Effect
Duration
Saving Throw
Components

All the rest can either go away (e.g. 4e-style attack rolls and miss effects) or be left for the prose (e.g. what the spell does, what components are required, maybe a bit of fluff).

And it only just now occurred to me that 4e spell effects are actually 3-tiered rather than 2-tiered. In all previous editions the possible results were Save-Make or Save-Fail; in 4e they are Hit-Save-Make, Hit-Save-Fail, or Miss. Hmmmm...

Lan-"3-tiered spells may have been obvious to some for ages but sometimes I'm a bit slow on the uptake"-efan

 

[Daztur]

In 4e, the specifics are a set of predefined universal terms that mean a state rather than descriptions, so you can have a Bloodied Golem, but it doesn't literally mean bleeding. Instead, Bloodied means "at or below 1/2 hp". You can have a Prone Gelatenous Cube because Prone means "move at half speed, +2 vs. Ranged attacks, grants combat advantage to adjacent targets. You can remove this status with a move action."
The main problem is that flavorful words were chosen to represent these states and sets of states, and this has caused some confusion and consternation.

Exactly:

4ed does: here are the mechanical effects of what just happened, now you go and figure out what that means in fluff terms. In 4ed prone doesn't literally means knocked on your side it means whatever it makes sense for its mechanical effects to mean in any given situation. This means that the effects of getting knocked prone don't vary much at all situationally.

Earlier D&D does (at least to some extent): here's some description of what happens, ask your DM for the specific mechanical effects. In older editions, being knocked prone means being knocked on your side and the effects of that can vary situationally.

Although they can seem superficially the same, there's really quite a big difference here. This is why, for example, 4ed is the easier version of D&D to refluff.

As far as the FATE comparison, I don't mean that I want to make D&D more narrative based, just that I want crunch and fluff more intertwined just as FATE does but through very different methods.

 

[Arlough]

As far as the FATE comparison, I don't mean that I want to make D&D more narrative based, just that I want crunch and fluff more intertwined just as FATE does but through very different methods.

But I think we can all agree, FATE is awesome at doing what it tries to do.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I hate it when crunch and descriptive prose are mixed up in the text, as it makes it harder to parse the mechanics of the rules item.

4e gets one thing right, IMHO: it uses a well-defined language to clearly define the mechanics of effects. It's unambiguous, it's short, it's easy to apply.

But it's dry. There's no clear connection to the imaginary stuff happening in the game. It falls on the players' and GM's shoulders to vividly describe the scenes. This is the reason I selected option C: add some descriptive fluff to the abstract mechanical information.

I treat the 4e power mechanics like a coulisse in theater. It gives me the beams and scaffolding to fix my scenery to. If done well, the watchers (players) won't see the way all the stuff is constructed, they just enjoy the scenery.

 

[pemerton]

For example let's look at Crack the Shell

The difference is that Crack the Shell doesn't have any relevant keyword. Fireball does - it has the [Fire] keyword and deals [Fire] damage.

Unhappily, the only clear discussion of the relationship between keywords and fictional positioning in the 4e rulebooks is in the DMG, in its rules for attacking objects.

Nevertheless, the keywords are obvious anchors between the effects and the fiction. Something has the [Fear] keyword and inflicts a push - that means it makes you run away! Something inflicts [Fire] damage - that means it is not kind to paper! Something inflicts [Cold] damage - that means you can use it to freeze a stream to avoid having to wade it. Etc.

4ed does: here are the mechanical effects of what just happened, now you go and figure out what that means in fluff terms.

<snip>

This is why, for example, 4ed is the easier version of D&D to refluff.

This is ignoring keywords.

You can't "refluff" a fireball as being a ball of stinging bees that disable the victims - that would be a [Poison] effect, not a [Fire] one.

This is also why martial abilities are more easily "refluffed" than magical ones - which is a particular instance of the more general phenomenon in 4e, that magical abilties are generally most easily read as (perhaps rough and ready) process simulations, whereas martial abilities are often most easily read as metagame player resources rather than fictional PC resources.

they're not as similar as you're saying

OD&D doesn't use keywords, true. But given how scant its prose is, you probably won't go too far wrong if you hook onto the obviously referring terms and treat them as keywords.

does getting hit by a fireball light you on fire and cause ongoing damage [...] Up to the DM

If I was playing B/X, and the GM ruled that I took ongoing damage from a fireball, I would regard that as tantamount to cheating. A sword of wounding, which causes (from memory) 1 hp/round of ongoing damage, is one of the most powerful items in classic D&D.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know that D&D ever has been that narrative based, and as time has gone on they have become more and more combat based. In fact, I think we can say that 4e has, with it's refluffing ability, action points, and powers, become a combat narrative game, where the combat is the story (or, at least the cut-scenes we don't skip.)

I think this is too limited a description of the way in which a game with mechancially heavy combat rules can be used for narrative purposes. I'm thinking Burning Wheel or The Riddle of Steel as well-known examples.

 

[Klaus]

Voted "none of the above" as all the examples given contain gobs of 4e-speak that I hope goes away in 5e.

There's also no line in any of the suggested write-ups about components. 1e got this one right - the requirements for components V (verbal) S (somatic, or physical movement) M (material) were always noted, and where M components were needed the specifics would be noted in the prose.

Just having this brief notation answers all the questions about whether it can be cast when unable to wave your hand*, or unable to speak*, or unable to access the material components.

* - Still Spell and Silent Spell can die in a fire anytime they like; and people wonder why 3e wizards got out of hand...

All you really need to note in the "block" are 6 things, here listed in no particular order:

Casting time
Range
Area of Effect
Duration
Saving Throw
Components

All the rest can either go away (e.g. 4e-style attack rolls and miss effects) or be left for the prose (e.g. what the spell does, what components are required, maybe a bit of fluff).

And it only just now occurred to me that 4e spell effects are actually 3-tiered rather than 2-tiered. In all previous editions the possible results were Save-Make or Save-Fail; in 4e they are Hit-Save-Make, Hit-Save-Fail, or Miss. Hmmmm...

Lan-"3-tiered spells may have been obvious to some for ages but sometimes I'm a bit slow on the uptake"-efan

As I said upthread, this isn't about the merits of the *mechanics*, it is about the *format* they're presented.

To use your example, does an entry "Components: V, S, M" suffice, or do you prefer if the description says "To cast this spell, you need a pinch of sand, which you throw into the air around you"?

 

[Klaus]

Ah, yes, well, the essentials books already do C. I don't really see what B does for you over A. How about put the description at the bottom instead of the top and if someone wants to make more complex spells and spend paragraphs describing them, go for it. 99% of the spells that were in past editions that required more than a few lines are likely ritual type magic anyway.

The Essentials books come close, but I did two things here:

1 - I moved the description to the end of the spell. Earlier editions have always been this way (stats, then text). Also, when reading, you usually retain the last thing you read, so it is quite easy to gloss over the stats and go straight to the description of the spell, thus strengthening that part.

2 - I wrote the description to explain, in-game, what the mechanics mean. That's why I included the line "this spell can only keep creatures asleep for so long", to justify the "unconscious (save ends)" entry.

 

[Storminator]

If I'm playing the game, I prefer A. It's so clear and concise I could easily find info if I need it fast - but it's so clear and concise I'll never need to. This is a strength. Combat used to stop at every use of every spell, and now it never does.

If I'm reading the book, I prefer C. Reading 4e powers is dreadful. I still haven't read all the powers in the PHB, nor am I likely too. I read the powers I select for my characters, and that's it. I don't even look a level ahead to see what I get next time.

Since I'm more interested in how it plays than how it reads, I chose A.

PS