Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swanosaurus" data-source="post: 9272687" data-attributes="member: 7044220">While for vertain values, brevity and clarity and author's voice might be mutually exclusive, I think that's only true if you really want the text to go full tech manual. While I initially said I prefer brevity and clarity, maybe I'm more on the &quot;authors voice matters most&quot; side ... but I still like it if the author writes in a clear and concise voice (evocative is a bonus). For example I think Greg Stolze usually does this very well: He has a very distinct voice, but his rules-writing is typically very well-organized. You could trim something like his &quot;Reign&quot; down a lot (and he did, publishing the short version &quot;Reign Enchiridion&quot;), but it is a joy to read and still very usable at the table.Regarding spell descriptions:I think it is important to remember that in some games/with some spells, the &quot;fluff&quot; 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. A rules-lite game like Cairn has only &quot;fluff&quot; in its spell descriptions, no &quot;crunch&quot;. 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swanosaurus, post: 9272687, member: 7044220"] While for vertain values, brevity and clarity and author's voice might be mutually exclusive, I think that's only true if you really want the text to go full tech manual. While I initially said I prefer brevity and clarity, maybe I'm more on the "authors voice matters most" side ... but I still like it if the author writes in a clear and concise voice (evocative is a bonus). For example I think Greg Stolze usually does this very well: He has a very distinct voice, but his rules-writing is typically very well-organized. You could trim something like his "Reign" down a lot (and he did, publishing the short version "Reign Enchiridion"), but it is a joy to read and still very usable at the table. Regarding spell descriptions: 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. A rules-lite game like Cairn has only "fluff" in its spell descriptions, no "crunch". 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification