Presentaion of Spells: To Prose or Not To Prose?

[Daztur]

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.

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.

Interesting discussion on how martial and arcane stuff differs in 4ed.
From what I've seen the keywords will be there and more important in 5ed.

But you can refluff fireball to some extent in 4ed. You can summon fire out of the ground, send a swarm of fire-breathing bees at the enemy, have fire erupt within the heart of each enemy within the area of effect, whatever. This wouldn't fly in 1ed which has the fire expand outside of the range if it is caught in, say, a tunnel (leading to you having to do volume calculations, ugh) or in 3.5ed which has that bit about the magic bead that you shoot.

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.

Fair enough. In that case then I don't like flavor text that can't be treated as keywords.

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.

For me at least DMs being able to rule on how the keyworks work in any situation is important for rewarding situational cleverness. I wouldn't apply that damage all the time but if a character was wearing thick flammable clothing and then got hit by a fire spell I sure would...

 

[pemerton]

But you can refluff fireball to some extent in 4ed. You can summon fire out of the ground, send a swarm of fire-breathing bees at the enemy, have fire erupt within the heart of each enemy within the area of effect, whatever. This wouldn't fly in 1ed

I'm not sure about fire erupting from the heart of your enemies (because this would interact oddly with the hp mechanics) but otherwise yes, you're right.

In that case then I don't like flavor text that can't be treated as keywords.

I think this is a sound principle, although that's based more on intuition than serious analysis. [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] has been posting some interesting stuff in the past few days about making prose-y spells actually have content that is meaningful for its impact on the mechanics, rather than mere colour (like the fire-breathing bees).

For me at least DMs being able to rule on how the keyworks work in any situation is important for rewarding situational cleverness. I wouldn't apply that damage all the time but if a character was wearing thick flammable clothing and then got hit by a fire spell I sure would...

I see what you mean. In 4e my gut feel is that this should be treated as granting a bonus to hit.

 

[steeldragons]

[MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION] , I didn't vote. I am inclined to say I don't like any of them...but that's more the mechanics talking to me than the format.

As noted, not the point.

So, with the "crunch" taken out of the equation...I'm partial to C.

Give me the "stat block" up front...as you noted, a la the earlier editions so it's right there and I can look at whatever I need to right away.

Follow it up with the fluff. For me, your fluff examples are a bit tight. MORE FLUFF, says I!

It's maaaagic. It's [or hopefully it's] sparking/speaking to my imaginaaation. I want a very clear picture of "how it works/appears - in the game world." Maybe gie an example "in play". I can always alter it as desired in my game/world. But a baseline to work with is desirable.

They don't have to be long! other than biggie spells, maybe. But more than a few lines, once you get passed 1st or 2nd level spells, is preferable.

Oh, and in the case of...was it Lanefan?...the poster who wanted the components included. I think that can go in...or after...the fluff. Again, a la the older editions. If you want to use/track components and limit spellcasting in that way ("you've used up your sand and didn't get any when you were last in town/on the beach" or "your hands are bound, no casting for you"), it should be easily accessible to incorporate or not. Putting it after the stat block/at the end, makes it easily ignorable for those who are just looking at the stat block.

I am inclined to think people that want that level of flavor/fluff/color in their games are the ones who are reading the fluff first...so components make sense there.

Whatever is included in the stat block, it should be short! 5 maybe 6 lines tops. I think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] 's list of what is needed as crunch is spot on...with putting the components at the end...and a line of "keywords" at the top -which to me, for Sleep, needs be nothing more than: "Enchantment, Mind-effecting."

"Save ends" doesn't need to be in the stat block. It's a spell! It should have a duration...and other than shaking someone awake or attacking them, the spell lasts /this/ long.

(and yes, Still and Silent Spell should burn in a fire...and bring back combat casting interruptions -proclaim casting before 'nish. Got hit? Spell *fiiizzhal*. Shut up all the "MUs are too powerful" whining.)

So...yeah...go with C...with the above alterations/recommendations.
--SD

 

[Klaus]

[MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION] , I didn't vote. I am inclined to say I don't like any of them...but that's more the mechanics talking to me than the format.

As noted, not the point.

So, with the "crunch" taken out of the equation...I'm partial to C.

Give me the "stat block" up front...as you noted, a la the earlier editions so it's right there and I can look at whatever I need to right away.

Follow it up with the fluff. For me, your fluff examples are a bit tight. MORE FLUFF, says I!

It's maaaagic. It's [or hopefully it's] sparking/speaking to my imaginaaation. I want a very clear picture of "how it works/appears - in the game world." Maybe gie an example "in play". I can always alter it as desired in my game/world. But a baseline to work with is desirable.

They don't have to be long! other than biggie spells, maybe. But more than a few lines, once you get passed 1st or 2nd level spells, is preferable.

Oh, and in the case of...was it Lanefan?...the poster who wanted the components included. I think that can go in...or after...the fluff. Again, a la the older editions. If you want to use/track components and limit spellcasting in that way ("you've used up your sand and didn't get any when you were last in town/on the beach" or "your hands are bound, no casting for you"), it should be easily accessible to incorporate or not. Putting it after the stat block/at the end, makes it easily ignorable for those who are just looking at the stat block.

I am inclined to think people that want that level of flavor/fluff/color in their games are the ones who are reading the fluff first...so components make sense there.

Whatever is included in the stat block, it should be short! 5 maybe 6 lines tops. I think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] 's list of what is needed as crunch is spot on...with putting the components at the end...and a line of "keywords" at the top -which to me, for Sleep, needs be nothing more than: "Enchantment, Mind-effecting."

"Save ends" doesn't need to be in the stat block. It's a spell! It should have a duration...and other than shaking someone awake or attacking them, the spell lasts /this/ long.

(and yes, Still and Silent Spell should burn in a fire...and bring back combat casting interruptions -proclaim casting before 'nish. Got hit? Spell *fiiizzhal*. Shut up all the "MUs are too powerful" whining.)

So...yeah...go with C...with the above alterations/recommendations.
--SD

IMHO, components can be kept as a single line after the description. Why? Because then you can add a "Spell Components" module to add that additional layer of complexity to a game, if desired.

Thanks for the in-depth comment, [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] . But you should vote for "I'll let you know in the comments", 'cause you just did!

 

[Lanefan]

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"?

Both.

A "Components" line in the stat block indicates whether they exist or not, and then the prose details what they consist of if required.

Your short bit of prose perfectly clarifies the M and S components: the M component is the sand, and the S is the act of throwing it.

Lan-"I originally typed this as S and M components, then realized people might not think of spells on reading it"-efan

 

[ren1999]

I think we should dump the components and casting time information.

 

[Arlough]

Okay, I mocked up a pair of pages, one for 3e and one for 4e.
These are statblock and prose pages.
The reason being some people don't really feel connected to the spell without a description of what is happening, but others want a quick reference. I think it may just be a difference in how our minds operate.
But, to the best I can tell, this is the option C that the majority is looking for while hopefully appealing to A and B adequately.

View attachment Sleep Prose plus Block.pdf

Thoughts on something like this as a compromise.

 

[LostSoul]

For example let's look at Crack the Shell "you break through your enemy’s armor and deal a painful bleeding wound." What happens if you're fighting an enemy (say a golem) that has no blood. Can there still be a bleeding wound? What happens if you're fighting an enemy with no discernable armor like a gelatinous cube? How can you break through the armor? In 4ed the DM uses some creativity and changes the fluff a bit and says that instead of breaking through the gelatinous cube's armor (since it has none) the fighter drives his sword extra deep or whatever.

One of the interesting things about 4E is that it gives martial characters abilities like this but, like other editions, leaves fictional positioning out of resolution in favour of abstraction. D&D's melee combat has never cared about what a character is actually doing - that's why you have things like 1 minute combat rounds, no facing, Come and Get It, HP, and damage based on weapon size.

I get the feeling that D&D players don't want fictional positioning to influence resolution in melee combat (other than a +/- 2 here or there), but they do want it for spells and non-melee actions.

 

[Hautamaki]

What bothers me about the pure crunch format is that it emphasizes to the players that they are playing a game. They interact with the rules on a purely cut and dry mechanical basis, and to me this hinders immersion. I'd rather the players interact with the game world more directly, and the rules are the interpretation of that; rather than vice versa where the players interact with the rules directly and then the GM or the players (if they feel like it) translate that to the game world post facto.

I also feel that prose descriptions lend themselves to quirky, unique traits of spells. The example above where the wizard waves his hand and magical sleep dust fills the target area is great and I believe that if I were the DM I would definitely rule that sleep can't be cast where that is not possible, for example in high winds, under water, or with the wizard tied up. A system where magic works the exact same way every time is not only drier and more boring, it's also less immersive. Furthermore these sorts of restrictions give skilled players of mundane characters ways to counteract a wizard's powers with foresight and creativity. That sort of play is rewarding and should be rewarded.

Anything which rewards players for more fully immersing themselves into the game world and thinking about how to tackle challenges from their character's point of view; as opposed to rewarding players for mastering the math of a set of disassociated mechanics, is what I would prefer.

 

[Ratskinner]

Count me as another vote against the [statblock] feel entirely. I'm tired of seeing chapters that look like the (slightly formatted) result of:

SELECT * FROM SPELLS ORDER BY LEVEL, NAME GROUP BY LEVEL

Even if that's what they are.

More and more, I find modern statblocks shatter mood and immersion and hard to read. I'd like to pretend that this game is actually played by creative, intuitive, and well-meaning humans, rather than run on a computer. I know I'm in the minority, though.