I think the confusion came in because you mentioned 1E/2E Gygaxian DnD and how evocative it was (paraphrasing) and then showed an example of a spell description from prior editions, so I simply pulled out one my older edition PHBs (in this case 2E) and flipped to a random page in the spell section (which takes up more than half the book by the way)
OK. I thought I specifically said that I didn't think anyone was advocating Gygax's writing style, and that my preference was 3/4 towards 3E/Pathfinder. I'm no writer, though, so f that wasn't clear, please consider it so now.
Theq spell example was 3E. Decades after Gygax left D&D.
For reference, though, 4E's interminable list of powers takes up a far larger portion of the book than 2E's spells. I find that a curious objection.
At any rate, I guess it is a matter of each persons opinion but I do see this being problematic for DnD Next because they will have to decide how to present their text.
Yup. They can't win. If you like it, I won't; and vice versa. They'll lose one of us, whatever they do.
To me 4E is fine, because it does have a flavor text at the top along with a very concise data block stating how the power works. If they had no flavor blurp at all I could kind of see your point more.
I'm definitely not being clear enough, then. That ring fencing is what I hate. It was the very thrust of my article; at least it was supposed to be! To clarify: I don't like the way prose and data are separated out into separate entries. I prefer them mixed. Thus my first example, rather than my second.
I remember reading from WOTC somewhere, they tried to include more pictures in 4E supposedly because they had gotten feedback that that lack of pictures included in the 3rd/3.5 core book (PHB and DMG) were somewhat sparse and they wanted the 4E books to be more reader friendly rather than reading like a textbook, and I have to say that while I do remembered being encaptured by the 1E and 2E PHB, the 3rd/3.5 books did feel and read very dry and text book like to me, especially since it was the first time in DnD history the core books didn't have any real art even on the covers to capture the imagination, but instead were presented in faux tome style covers.
Oh, art is certainly vital. I've avoided the subject so far, but I believe that's even more of a landline. The choice of art style is as inviting/alienating as the rules themselves. Again, that's going to polarise people. Spikes and anime? Count me out. A portly fighter with a beard? Works for me. A ninja halfling? Count me out. A stubby hobbit with hairy feet and food stains on his clothes? Count me in. A muscular, beautiful scantily-clad adventuring party? Count me out. A group of adventurers weary and burdened down by their backpacks? Count me in.
Art choice is probably the most subjective part of the design process. I don't envy them, because art is the most evocative part of design. You picture speaks a thousand words. It will communicate the intent of the game far quicker and more viscerally than any text will.