Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(contact)" data-source="post: 1120639" data-attributes="member: 41">This is an example of where good at-the-table flavor can actually hurt the telling of a D&D story in this format.  I still maintain that part of the appeal of a story hour (as opposed to a novel) is the level of shared understanding and expectation that we all have as D&D players.After all, Jespo might really (according to his own tradition) have summoned the "Arms of Tharizdun's Spawn," but you and I know what an Evard's black tentacles spell does.For an encounter where one or two spells are going off this "describe what it does, and let the reader figure out the spell," might make a lot of sense-- but in a spell-battle like the next update?  Whoo, lawd.IME, a big spell-fight is a messy affair to narrate, and having the core-names as a shorthand (for both spells and their affects) is an amazingly useful tool.Using proper D&D spell names in a D&D story essentially frees me of the obligation of explaining what a mass charm is supposed to do-- and why it may not have worked the way Pris meant it to (hilarity ensues).Using the core spell-names and magic system also lets me play with the assumption, and add game-specific flavor to the mechanics (like meeting the celestial who answers your communes by casting a planar ally in your diety's realm) without having to go into further exposition or break out an aside.I have to tell you that writing that kind of exposition might make me want to chew on pencil leads until I went blind.That's "Lord," thank you very much!</blockquote>

Verification