RPG Writing and Design Needs a Paradigm Shift

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Line of sight is baked into the type of attack it is, and it’s exactly as evocative as the 5e version.

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.

Um…did you play 4e?

Because 4e AoEs tell you their size with a number in squares, and shape by what type of AoE it is. And there are blast and burst and zone and line and others, and each word tells you what it looks like. Duration, casting time, and range are listed in the power, and vary.

4e does what you seem to think it doesn’t do.

I am not saying that the description does not exist, I am saying it adds no flavor. It is redundant because everything in the description we already get from the stat block itself, and it has no flavor because it adds nothing on top of that (just the word 'silvery', which adds no flavor either)

Description of what it looks like is flavor.

Again, this isn’t even a matter of opinion. This is like claiming there is no seasoning in a dish because you find salt and black pepper boring. You can just state the actual opinion part, without making the factually false claim.

no, it has more than one word, for one it says that you need line of sight

It’s has the same information. By virtue of being a ranged attack you have to have line of sight and line of effect in 4e. 4e is more concise.

Both examples tell you what happens and what it looks like within the world.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Flavor text can be evocative but brief. I'll once again point folks to Shadowdark, specifically the monster entries.

Can you share any examples? I don’t own Shadowdark and it isn’t my vibe so I probably won’t buy it.

 

[mamba]

Description of what it looks like is flavor.

Again, this isn’t even a matter of opinion. This is like claiming there is no seasoning in a dish because you find salt and black pepper boring. You can just state the actual opinion part, without making the factually false claim.

you can repeat this as long as you want, I told you that the only part of the 'flavorful description' that is not in the block itself is 'silvery', and that does not make it flavorful. The description is as bland as it can be, but I grant you that Magic Missile is not all that evocative in 5e either. You can keep repeating that it does have flavor and I can keep telling you that it doesn't, but I prefer to stop this sequence here

Not sure what you mean by 'state the actual opinion part, without making a factually false claim'. You can consider everything I post my opinion. If your opinion differs, then that is fine, you are the only one elevating their opinion to a supposed fact ('this part isn't even a matter of opinion')...

 

[Scott Christian]

I actually think most newer RPGs have done a good job of condensing rules in the back of the book. But I really feel to have a solid RPG, especially one that deals with a specific setting, the authors need to extrapolate and example for clarity. So, I guess I disagree. (Even though I think they are already heading that way.)

 

[kenada]

Can you share any examples? I don’t own Shadowdark and it isn’t my vibe so I probably won’t buy it.

I’ll let @Reynard share any particular examples he has in mind, but the Shadowdark quickstart is free and has a bunch of monsters in it.

 

[Lanefan]

I said some posts back that I am ok with adding a mechanical line like 'Range: 150 ft, Radius: 20 ft, Effect: 8d6 fire, Save: Dex, halves' and removing that from the description, so it is not redundant. I am not ok with that being the entirety of the description, the flavor text should remain.

"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."

While flavourful, that first paragraph could be shortened down a bit and still say the same thing:

"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then from that point blossoms with a low roar into a 20-foot radius explosion of flame. Each creature in this area takes 8d6 fire damage; success on a Dexterity saving throw halves this damage."

 

[pemerton]

I believe it’s important to a new player of D&D that they can picture what a fire ball is like.

I feel quite strongly that a visual description of what the spell does is not fluff - it’s essential to the spell. It may not have a mechanical impact but it is required to place the spell into the scenario for both the players and the DM. The fireball mechanics mentions nothing about sound or light but the description allows me to infer these things.

I think it is important to remember that in some games/with some spells, the "fluff" is the most important part of the description. Spells are about what they make happen. They may have damage values and reach and stuff like that, but if it's a great ball of fire that causes the damage, I need to know that to handle situational effects.

<snip>

Also, describing a spell in terms of what happens in-fiction encourages creative use of it, which is something that I consider very important for the enjoyment of spellcasters.

Here is the Fireball text from D&D, Book 1 (Men & Magic), p 25:

Fire Ball: A missile which springs from the finger of the Magic-User. It explodes with a burst radius of 2" (slightly larger than specified in CHAINMAIL). In a confined space the Fire Ball will generally conform to the shape of the space (elongate or whatever). The damage caused by the missile will be in proportion to the level of its user. A 6th level Magic-User throws a 6-die missile, a 7th a 7-die missile, and so on. (Note that Fire Ball from Scrolls (see Volume III) and Wands are 6-die missiles and those from Staves are 8-die missiles. Duration: 1 turn. Range: 24"​

Frankly, that's a bit of a mess.

Here is the Fireball text from Moldvay Basic (p B18), which (as best I recall) is where I first came across this spell:

Fire Ball
Range 240'
Duration: instantaneous

This spell creates a missile of fire that explodes into a ball of fire 40' diameter when it strikes a target. The fire ball will cast 1-6 (1d6) points of fire damage per level of the caster to all creatures within the area. If a victim of a fire ball saves vs Spells, the spell will only do 1/2 damage. EXAMPLE: A fire ball cast by a 6th level magic-user will explode for 6-36 (6d6) points of damage.​

That is pretty similar to 4e's Fireball text (from the PHB p 161):

Fireball
A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at your enemies, and it explodes on impact.

Daily * Arcane, Fire, Implement
Standard Action
Area burst 3 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs Reflex
Hit: 3d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage.
Miss: Half damage.​

The flavour varies across these - a missile shot from a finger vs a globe hurled from the hand - but in all cases it's a ball of fire. It's most obvious creative use is to burn things!

The AD&D and 3E versions are needlessly wordy, and include stuff that covers corner cases which - if it is necessary at all - should be picked up in other general rules (such as, for instance, whether making a saving throw vs the spell means that items carried are free from damage.

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

Surely that they're glowing darts, rather than silvery bolts, makes all the difference!

 

[pemerton]

Which RPG rulebooks do you consider the best written overall?

From the point of view of @Reynard's issue in the OP, I think Agon 2e comes pretty close.

 

[pemerton]

I am not saying that the description does not exist, I am saying it adds no flavor. It is redundant because everything in the description we already get from the stat block itself, and it has no flavor because it adds nothing on top of that (just the word 'silvery', which adds no flavor either)

The stat block doesn't tell us it is a bolt. And I don't see why silvery is not "flavour".

 

[pemerton]

"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.

<snip>

The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."

<snip>

Compare it to 4e's (not harping on 4e...) "A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at your enemies, and it explodes on impact." it again provides a bare minimum flavorless description.

How is the 4e different from the first line of your edited 5e? (The second line of 5e seems to me like something that should be part of general rules, dealing with how burst spells spread, and how items are affected.)

One of the passages has a bright streak that flashes, the other a globe of orange flame that is hurled. The latter explodes, while the former blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. "Blossoms into an explosion of flame" is just a prosier way of saying "explodes". So the only additional information is the low roar. Which arguably is also implied by an explosion - fiery explosions not being known for their quietness!