RPG Writing and Design Needs a Paradigm Shift

[mamba]

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

the spell name is magic missile already, if you want ‘silvery bolt’ as the additional information, be my guest, neither adds flavor to me, even if it adds a little detail over the block description.

The 5e fireball is evocative, the 4e one is bland but functional, magic missile is bland in either version.

As I wrote earlier, I am not saying we need to needlessly complicate descriptions to try and squeeze in flavor everywhere, I just do not want it removed for the sake of a short, sterile, technical description.

How is the 4e different from the first line of your edited 5e?

do both describe a ball of fire exploding at a target? Yes. 4e is the police report version, 5e is not.

If you see no difference, I won’t be able to convey the difference it makes for me any better than I already did when I said that if I had to describe a D&D Fireball spell in the blandest way possible, I’d arrive at 4e’s description.

If the description is no better than what I can think of in 5 seconds, then it checks the box of there being a description, it adds no value to me.

When I envision the description in my head, 4e is the storyboard version, 5e is the finished movie. Not sure I have a better analogy to explain it

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm of the opinion that the closer your rulebook turns to a reference manual for ease-of-use in learning the "game" part of "roleplaying game"... the better that probably is for someone who actually knows how most RPGs work. They already understand how roleplaying and characterization and story and narrative and DM / player communication and interaction is meant to go... and thus the important part for them that is separate from that (the game specific dice bits) should be front and center and very easy to find and reference. That's the difference between one RPG and another that a player needs to remember-- the dicey-rolly bits-- and I wouldn't disagree with that necessarily. If you are already up on making the roleplaying dynamic and creative and interesting, just making sure you know how the rules work is the only other thing you need for that specific game.

The problem though is that games can't just serve those players. Almost all roleplaying games have to teach what makes a roleplaying game what it is, because the assumption is it might be read by someone who is completely new and has no idea what all of this is about. And thus that usually involves adding story, and narrative and flavor and imagination and creativity into and amongst the "game rules" because once you actually start playing, you will have story and narrative and flavor and imagination and creativity happening in and amongst the "game rules". Having a rulebook that interlaces the two together helps players get into the mindset that this is what is going to actually go on at the table when you play.

If you separate the two... if you have one section that is just the story and imagination and description part, and the other section that is just the rules of how pieces move and what dice you throw at what times and what those dice do... in my opinion you are not presenting the game in the manner in which you actually will be playing it. And I think that makes it more difficult for players to understand how the roleplaying game is supposed to go. The game is not "Improv scene" first then "Board game" second then "Back to improv scene" then "Back to board game"... but rather both occur together simultaneously and overlap all the time. So in my opinion the rulebook would work better if its presentation helped illustrate that.

Sure, that makes it more difficult for an experienced player to just find the "crunchy bit" that they need... but then again if you are an experienced player you are already more inclined to be able to remember how the crunchy bits work after a couple reads, and even if there are parts you don't... you know how best to find those crunchy bits relatively quickly because you've done it so many times before in some many different games. So really... how fast or easy do we experienced roleplayers really need these books to be?

Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.

 

[Manbearcat]

@mamba , I'm sure whatever is happening for you to juxtapose these things the way you are isn't hair-splitting in your head. But I can't even conceive of how these micro-differences you're concerned with would impact my GMing of any game ever. Here are some thoughts on two of the three games I'm presently running (I can do Stonetop as well if you'd like, but these two should suffice) and some information that serves as an input for the GM-side role. Maybe take a look and tell me how you're envisioning these (IMO hair-splittingly small) inputs would consequentially impact my situation/obstacle-framing and my consequence-handling as GM.

DOGS IN THE VINEYARD

Here is the abstract of play:

Here are some things about one of the PCs.

And here are a few of the Sins:

And here is the abstract of Stewardship:

And here is a list of things you might find in a Town:

---

D&D 4E

This game is Paragon Tier now. Here is a Paragon Path blurbs and level 11 features for one of the PCs:

Here is the abstract of The Elder Spirit Stoneroot that serves as her guiding totem in this world:

Here is an abstract for the Primary Antagonist, the Primordial Vezzuvu The Burning Mountain, that has been opposing her with worldly agents/opposition:

And here is a related Player-authored Quest, Skill Challenge Goal, and Action Declaration that the player of this PC generated and resolved during play:

Pa’avu Major Quest: To access the mythical aspects of my heritage, I will travel to Stoneroot’s Perch to commune with the venerable K’mniich’ himself.

Skill Challenge Goal: Sojourn to the Spirit Realm, locate the Elder Spirit of the Earth, Stoneroot, and receive his blessing (6 Successes). Then find your way back (2 Successes - This part should include at least 1 move for whomever is remaining in the material world to help guide the spirit back into the body and revitalize whoever sojourns).

PA'AVU gazes longingly up the ascending path, her l'pahb'gin pulled sympathetically toward the call of the Primal Beast. However, her protective nature gives an even stronger pull toward the downward spiraling path where she can see rising steam and smoke. She extends her spiritual body into the earth in order to draw strength and power from it, swelling her spiritual persona into a goliath of ... err ... GOLIATH proportions. If the Spirit Realm needs her protection, she feels bound to heed the call.

Then her concentration stutters.

HAZARD, sensing her intent, bristles his thick fur and begins to froth at the mouth, snarling and snapping, to reinforce the ferocity of a Warrior able to tame Him. The Hound also senses something off about his Beloved Friend: she seems too distracted to be as intimidating a presence as usual.

* Primary Skill Intimidate check to make clear to the Primordial Vezzuvu that the Spirit Realm is not unprotected: r(4) + 11 + 2 (SP) - 2 = 15 vs. 24 Hard DC. Failure.

---

So my question is; how are you envisioning any of the above entries, modified in prose to have more or subtly different adjectives or adverbs (or whatever is the crux of the distinction you're imagining is consequential), would impact my GMing responsibilities or play generally?

 

[mamba]

@mamba , I'm sure whatever is happening for you to juxtapose these things the way you are isn't hair-splitting in your head. But I can't even conceive of how these micro-differences you're concerned with would impact my GMing of any game ever.

I am not saying it changes gameplay, the mechanical parts are untouched after all. The difference is my interest in reading the book and playing the game.

I am not reading tractor operator manuals for enjoyment, I read novels. The same logic applies here, and I have stopped reading novels because I do not like the writing (or read them for the writing more than the story)…

 

[Campbell]

I'm not seeing how the differences in the 4e text or 5e text for fireball speak to design principles. It is not as if one set of designers set out to make a less evocative description than the other. I personally find neither all that evocative nor do find either makes the case that clarity and evoking emotion / portraying a fantastic world are somehow conflicting. I think you can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. This example from Vampire: The Requiem I feel shows that you can be clear, address game mechanics concisely and evoke the stakes involved.

Confidant ••
The vampire doesn’t have to shout to be heard, and in a crowd that he’s already Awed, sometimes speaking quietly is the best way to get attention. With little more than a soft voice and a knowing look, the vampire brings someone new into the fold and becomes her trusted confidant.

Cost: None
Requirement: The vampire must use Awe on the victim.
Dice Pool: Presence + Empathy + Majesty vs. Resolve + Blood Potency
Action: Contested; resistance is reflexive

Roll Results

• Dramatic Failure: The vampire slips up, letting some of what he wants the victim to feel leak back into himself. He’s affected by the Swooning Condition (p. 306) for the victim.
• Failure: The victim doesn’t feel that she’s worthy of joining the vampire’s inner circle just yet.
• Success: The vampire successfully charms his victim. She gains the Charmed Condition (p. 301).
• Exceptional Success: It’s incredibly hard to resist the force of the vampire’s personality. The victim’s Charmed Condition lasts for nights, rather than hours

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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')...

This seems like dancing goalposts to me. His response to you was specifically to the post where you compared the flavor text of Fireball, and both @doctorbadwolf and I replied to that, and you respond with something about Magic Missile. I agree that Magic Missile is a fairly vanilla spell and in ALL editions the actual color amounts to not much. The 4e Essentials version that I quoted seemed the most colorful of all though. I think THE BEST you can really assert is you, or I, like certain individual descriptions more or less. At a random guess if we're both being unbiased and comparing 5e and 4e descriptions of things, we'd only expect to agree half the time, right? Honestly I don't know why you want to die on this hill, as we actually seem to agree that flavor text is fine, and neither of us seems to be objecting to segregating it from mechanics. So what is the dispute here? If it is just "4e is always wrongbad" then I guess we're done, 'cause I don't think that way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

The only beef I had with Agon is that the rules for things like Harm, and the effects of keywords, and the effects of various options (helping vs someone expending a bond to get your assistance for example) etc. are scattered willy-nilly through the rulebook. What saves it is the handout, which condenses all of that into a fairly succinct 4-5 page PDF. The rule book is nicely written though from a standpoint of explicating the game and giving an idea of the genre, etc. The fact that you CAN condense the entirety of the mechanics down to a digest format is a big plus. I mean, it is a relatively simple RPG in a mechanical sense, but it was a lot of fun. Very colorful!

 

[mamba]

This seems like dancing goalposts to me. His response to you was specifically to the post where you compared the flavor text of Fireball, and both @doctorbadwolf and I replied to that, and you respond with something about Magic Missile. I agree that Magic Missile is a fairly vanilla spell and in ALL editions the actual color amounts to not much.

they replied to my post about MM, so that is what I replied to. I said MM has zero flavor however, which is what they referred to and twisted into having no description, which I never claimed, so no, it was not about Fireball.

Even so, I also said 4e Fireball is as bland as it gets, so not sure how that were shifting goalposts even if it were about that.

At a random guess if we're both being unbiased and comparing 5e and 4e descriptions of things, we'd only expect to agree half the time, right?

on which one is more flavorful? If both had the same amount of flavor yes, if one has drastically less intentionally then no

Honestly I don't know why you want to die on this hill, as we actually seem to agree that flavor text is fine, and neither of us seems to be objecting to segregating it from mechanics. So what is the dispute here?

well, the post I originally replied to was advocating for getting rid of flavor, and then there were people asking why I care about the difference or even what difference I see.

I am not trying to convince anyone that 5e’s Fireball is the more flavorful one, I am trying to explain why 1) I want flavor and 2) why it is to me / what difference it makes for me (since I was specifically asked that)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

well, the post I originally replied to was advocating for getting rid of flavor, and then there were people asking why I care about the difference or even what difference I see.

I am not trying to convince anyone that 5e’s Fireball is the more flavorful one, I am trying to explain why 1) I want flavor and 2) why it is to me / what difference it makes for me (since I was specifically asked that)

Right, and we both agree there's reasons to have flavor. I only ever argued that it should be separate from mechanics. I have no issue with, say, 5e's description of fireballs, I just want the damage, range, and other information to be where I don't have to pick through it all to find. I think I also noted that I am an advocate of making most of the mechanics into common rules that are shared with all the other spells/powers as required, for reasons of playability. Another poster apparently hated that idea, but I think I adequately explained my reasoning.

On the whole, I was disappointed in the way 5e's presentation regressed. I'd have been fine with expanding the flavor text if that made more people happy, it's really no skin off my back, but going back to 3e/AD&D style 'block of text' formats turned me right off of 5e hard.

 

[mamba]

Right, and we both agree there's reasons to have flavor. I only ever argued that it should be separate from mechanics. I have no issue with, say, 5e's description of fireballs, I just want the damage, range, and other information to be where I don't have to pick through it all to find.

I have no issue with that, I agree that it makes it more ‘user friendly’ for lack of a better term

I think I also noted that I am an advocate of making most of the mechanics into common rules that are shared with all the other spells/powers as required, for reasons of playability.

It helps making things concise, it ends up having information for one thing in different places. I can go either way on that but having common mechanical rules is probably better. I never addressed this point before, I was only wanting to not throw out flavor for brevity