RPG Writing and Design Needs a Paradigm Shift

[mamba]

All 5e says for magic missile is, “You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.” Is that also sterile?

not as much as the 4e one, but yes it is. It contains more information than the 4e one however and arguably does not need more. In 4e it was redundant.

Is the description of eyes of the vestige in post #75 sterile?

it’s better than the magic missile

Being bland doesn’t make the descriptive element non-existent.

for 4e’s magic missile it did however, and I explained why, ie that the only thing in the description that is not already obvious without it is the word ‘silvery’

You claimed in post #85 that all 4e does is say what a spell does technically, but the descriptions are clearly there even if some may not be up to your standards.

I was talking about that Magic Missile example not everything in 4e. Just like the example was about 5e Fireball and not all of 5e

 

[mamba]

It seems like no matter what they do, it’s going to be wrong. 4e just triggers that kind of response in people.

I have nothing against 4e, never played it, never cared. I returned to TTRPGs sometime during 5e after leaving during 2e. From all I have heard it is a good wargame, but no good D&D game (too different), I have no particular reaction to it however, at most it is some intellectual curiosity

If 4e ‘always’ triggers those kinds of responses with some people loving it and others loathing it, then it simply is divisive.

My reaction here was purely to the bland text presented and the claim that the 5e Fireball should be more like it, not all of 4e. I entirely disagree with what was said about the 5e Fireball, the rest just followed from that and is not about 4e but about what TTRPG text should be like. No need to try to make this about 4e

 

[mamba]

actually say that in this case, it's a perfectly fine description. It's not terribly evocative, sure, but one of the keys of writing good fiction is understanding that not everything needs to be elaborated.

I was not asking for elaborate, I said I do not want to get rid of evocative and prefer concise.

I am not asking for or even wanting a long elaborate text, but saying that this bland nothing is the ultimate goal for descriptions, as the 5e Fireball post indicated, is just not something I agree with.

The 4e Magic Missile text is not evocative or elaborate, it is redundant. I want concise and evocative, so basically the opposite of that.

 

[mamba]

Nonsense. There's a flavor section in every single power block.

so what? I was talking about this ‘flavor’ section, not all of 4e. This flavor section has no flavor, I explained why.

No need for you to come to the defense of 4e, this is not about 4e, it is about an example spell description

 

[mamba]

How 'poor' is it though? I mean, it is not elaborate, but it explicates the function of MM very well. It also avoids locking it down too much. I am free to describe the look and feel of my missile to a large degree. All I am constrained to is a direct ranged attack dealing force damage. This is a plus in my book!

so nothing the block didn’t already tell you without that line, that means it is neither concise (as it is redundant) nor evocative. The 5e one is better because it talks about requiring line of sight, so at least it is not pointless like the 4e one

 

[mamba]

4e Magic Missile

"A glowing blue bolt of magical energy hurtles from your finger and unerringly strikes the target. "

that is not the text from the spell block

It's hard to imagine a more precise and evocative bit of color.

eh, it now is blue, not silvery and adds a few more words like ‘unerringly’ but it does not add much value either.

It still is redundant and contains nothing that the stat block does not tell me already (besides the color, just like before).

It is too verbose, not very precise (it says nothing about line of sight, unlike the 5e one… was that not required in 4e?), and not very evocative.

I grant you that basic spells have a hard time being evocative, my objection was against actively removing it from spell descriptions in a pursuit of a purely technical description, not a requirement to add it at all cost where it is not needed

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

that is not the text from the spell block


eh, it now is blue, not silvery and adds a few more words like ‘unerringly’ but it does not add much value either.

It still is redundant and contains nothing that the stat block does not tell me already (besides the color, just like before).

It is too verbose, not very precise (it says nothing about line of sight, unlike the 5e one… was that not required in 4e?), and not very evocative.

I grant you that basic spells have a hard time being evocative, my objection was against actively removing it from spell descriptions in a pursuit of a purely technical description, not a requirement to add it at all cost where it is not needed

Sure, I think what 4e aimed at is a description that could be used at the table. You can basically reel off the MM description at the table and it works. Mechanically the color never conveys any mechanical information.

Anyway the text I quoted was the revised version, which is a bit more descriptive. You are correct that it is unnecessary to specify things like line of site, the rules are very precise about that stuff and spell it all out based on attack type etc. Effect blocks can provide alternative rules if a power needs it.

 

[Lanefan]

People seem to be assuming that concise rules have to be presented in a dry and boring manner.

Yes. I've yet to see an example that greatly contradicts this. Why? Because the way to make rules concise is to remove any words or phrases that aren't part of the rule, making the end result both very functional and dry as dust.

The ultimate horror is the full rule-set for Magic: the Gathering. Every rule is presented as clearly and concisely as possible, and if you can get through three screens of it at one go without nodding off to sleep you've had too much coffee.

 

[mamba]

Yes. I've yet to see an example that greatly contradicts this. Why? Because the way to make rules concise is to remove any words or phrases that aren't part of the rule, making the end result both very functional and dry as dust.

I’d argue the 5e Fireball is concise. Concise does not mean as short as possible, only as short and precise as you can get without losing information. If you lose the evocative part, you have lost information, just not mechanically relevant information

 

[Lanefan]

Well, 4e packs a lot into a few words by virtue of sophisticated design, effects are mostly standard, as are duration, target type, AOE, etc.

That standardization comes at cost of being interesting, though, at least IMO.

For example, if every AoE spell has a different-sized or different-shaped area of effect (e.g. some spherical, some square, some odd-shaped, some shaped by the surroundings, etc.), that's far more interesting than shoehorning them all into "blast 3" or similar. Ditto for duration, casting time, and range: standardization comes at a cost.