New D&D: What's Really Important

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Dungeons & Dragons is a game where people sit around a table, and dream together. They don't want to play Strikers, Leaders, Defenders, and Controllers; they want to play mysterious wizards, and gallant knights, and grim warriors, and wild druids who dance in moonlit groves and continually make love to the raw essence of nature. They don't want to battle Skirmishers, Elite Soldiers, and Minion Artilleries; they want to battle savage orcs, and dreadful dragons, and mind-violating horrors from beyond the void.

I don't see why anyone cares if spells and swords have similar effects during combat. Warriors should feel like Conan, thives should feel like Bilbo, paladins should feel like Galahad, and mages should feel like Merlin. Magical items should be rare and mysterious things of wonder, not required mechanical benefits. Swinging axe should should be a genuinely different experience from hurling a bolt of magic. Orcs should be diseased, horrific cannibal fiends; and the players should really experience this when fighting them. Mind flayers should be terrifying alien entities, unknowable and unfathomable, and the players should feel this as they are mercilessly mind-raped.

Adventurers should delve into forgotten catacombs and ruined temples, facing horrifying creatures and sadistic traps, either emerging rich or dying entertainingly. Problems should be simple, men should be mighty, cities should be great, women should be beautiful, dragons should be vile, and fae should be beguiling.

This is Dungeons & Dragons.

[Waddacku]

I don't see why anyone cares if spells and swords have similar effects during combat.

Swinging axe should should be a genuinely different experience from hurling a bolt of magic.

Aren't you contradicting yourself a little here?

[navar100]

If my wizard casting a spell is similar to Bob's fighter swinging his sword, then I'm not feeling like a wizard at all. I'm just a fighter who wields a sword but I call my sword "magic". I want them to be different. The fighter should certainly be able to do cool nifty stuff with his shtick of poking monsters with pointy sticks commensurate with the cool nifty stuff of the wizard's shtick of casting spells for spectacular effects. I just don't want them to be the same thing but labeled differently.

[gkathellar]

I'm going to quibble a little, but my quibbling is going to lead to a point. Bear with me.

They don't want to play Strikers, Leaders, Defenders, and Controllers; they want to play mysterious wizards, and gallant knights, and grim warriors, and wild druids who dance in moonlit groves and continually make love to the raw essence of nature. They don't want to battle Skirmishers, Elite Soldiers, and Minion Artilleries; they want to battle savage orcs, and dreadful dragons, and mind-violating horrors from beyond the void.

Do any of those things have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't my mysterious wizard be a Controller, if that's what he does on the battlefield? Why can't my cunning Rogue be a Striker, if that perfectly describes his role in a fight? And why do the tactical wargame elements of the game and the roleplaying elements have to conflict with each other? I never played a lot of 4E, but when I did I played Strikers, because the conceptual image of a Striker fit exactly what I wanted to do with my character. A friend of mine played Defenders for the same reason. Those character roles helped me figure out what I wanted to do and fueled my imagination. And I understand that they turn people off, but ... they're just mechanical labels, as they would be in any game.

I don't see why anyone cares if spells and swords have similar effects during combat.

I agree. The only thing that matters is whether the guy with swords and the guy with spells both feel valuable to the game session, and have at least a somewhat distinct feel.

Warriors should feel like Conan, thives should feel like Bilbo, paladins should feel like Galahad, and mages should feel like Merlin. Magical items should be rare and mysterious things of wonder, not required mechanical benefits.

Really? I'd rather my warriors feel like Musashi or Ip Man or Lichtenhauer. I'd rather my thieves feel like Imoen or Rattrap or Odysseus. I'd rather my paladins feel like Aragorn or Faramir or Paksennarion or Optimus Prime. I'd rather my mages feel like the Laughing Man, like Sisyphus, like Sandman's Morpheus or the Elf-Queen Skuld. And every once in a while, I like playing in Eberron or a world full of Magitek, where magic items really do seem to grow on trees.

Swinging axe should should be a genuinely different experience from hurling a bolt of magic.

So long as you can have fun either way.

Orcs should be diseased, horrific cannibal fiends; and the players should really experience this when fighting them. Mind flayers should be terrifying alien entities, unknowable and unfathomable, and the players should feel this as they are mercilessly mind-raped.

I don't know, I like me some shamanic Warcraft-orcs (and no, I'm not a WoW player). And sometimes it's fun to walk into a room full of eldritch horrors, knowing everything about them and knowing things they don't. Maybe there's room for all of these things. I don't see why there wouldn't be.

Adventurers should delve into forgotten catacombs and ruined temples, facing horrifying creatures and sadistic traps, either emerging rich or dying entertainingly. Problems should be simple, men should be mighty, cities should be great, women should be beautiful, dragons should be vile, and fae should be beguiling.

Adventurers should run detective agencies in bustling cities full of magic, face evil men with good intentions and good men with evil ones, and come out of it knowing that they have made a difference in a world full cruelty, however small. Problems should be complicated, men should be weak in some ways and strong in others, cities should living beings growing and decaying all at once, women should be whatever they damn well please, dragons should be awful and majestic and larger than life, fae should be otherworldly and always a little bit off, and people should be people.

This is Dungeons & Dragons.

That's your Dungeons & Dragons. It's not mine. It's not everyone's. I wouldn't mind sharing in your Dungeons & Dragons, it sounds beautiful.

But it could never be mine.

And this is my point — the new edition, whatever it is, it can't be just one person's vision. It was drifting away from that by 2E, it was far afield of that by 3E, and in 4E it's hard to say if it tried too hard to be one person's or if it thought it was everyone's D&D and so only tried to look like some people's on the surface. But 5E can't be one person's vision. We've moved too far afield of that.

[Dr. Yes]

The thing that sets D&D apart from the beautifully-rendered, fully realized computer and console RPGs available on today's market is the ability to customize and really tell your own story. If you want to make everything conform to the old high fantasy archetypes, you might as well just play Diablo or Oblivion. If you want to make your own characters with their own biases and unique reactions to situations, or if you want to create a world with its own history and cosmic mysteries, THEN you're in business, because that's what tabletop games do best.

[Zeru the Dark]

Dungeons and Dragons is a Halfling gunslinger in a duster with a six-shooter blessed by a lost God, it is the shining knight in the quest for the Grail, it is Eberron, Faerun, Greyhawk, and much more besides; D&D is a lot of numbers and math that gives rules to a game of imagination. Everything else doesn't matter; settings are neat, but I can devise my own setting, or use one from another system or book for all it matters. What I want from D&D is all that math and all those numbers, so I don't have to make them up myself. Every group has a markedly different idea of what D&D is to them, and in fact, that IS D&D. It needs to be flexible enough to do all of that.

[Yora]

This is what in regard to 4th Edition has become known as "disassociated mechanics".

When the book presents you a table labled Fireball, what you do in the game is "I deal 6d6 area fire damage" or "I deal 2d4 single target damage". You don't send a ball of flame that sets everyone on fire and screaming, or conjure magical orbs of energy that blast from your fingers and leave a scorched mark in your enemies chest.

Presentation is very important.

[TheThan]

This is what in regard to 4th Edition has become known as "disassociated mechanics".

When the book presents you a table labled Fireball, what you do in the game is "I deal 6d6 area fire damage" or "I deal 2d4 single target damage". You don't send a ball of flame that sets everyone on fire and screaming, or conjure magical orbs of energy that blast from your fingers and leave a scorched mark in your enemies chest.

Presentation is very important.

This is very true. When I play a wizard, I want to feel like I’m playing a wizard. I don’t want to use mechanic 686 on enemy 124. I want to throw fireballs, and enchant NPCs and screw with the elemental forces of nature, not use a generic mechanic.

[Yora]

I've seen some people say that there are even a couple of abilities about which nobody really has any idea what the character is supposed to be doing to his enemy. The name of the ability isn't really helpful and the description only list the mechanical effect.
That's really bad when you consider that in "the good old days" all a fighter had was standard attack and everything else was the players having creative ideas what things their character would do.

[gkathellar]

This is what in regard to 4th Edition has become known as "disassociated mechanics".

When the book presents you a table labled Fireball, what you do in the game is "I deal 6d6 area fire damage" or "I deal 2d4 single target damage". You don't send a ball of flame that sets everyone on fire and screaming, or conjure magical orbs of energy that blast from your fingers and leave a scorched mark in your enemies chest.

Presentation is very important.

This makes me curious. Let's compare flavor text.

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

A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point.

3.5's flavor text is a little more substantive, but not especially. The flavor text is mixed in with the rules text, which makes it impossible to skip over. On the other hand, in 4E's case the flavor text is the first thing after the spell's name, while in 3.5 the various descriptors and spell levels and details are placed first.

I think the way 3.5 presents flavor in this case is a little stronger, because you can't really skip it if you're trying to get the full rules for the spell. On the other hand, I don't think the difference is as big as you're making it out to be.

EDIT: This raises the question, of course: do you think 4E's spells and powers would be more relatable if the flavor text was lengthened, and perhaps a little more poetic?

[Seerow]

This is what in regard to 4th Edition has become known as "disassociated mechanics".

When the book presents you a table labled Fireball, what you do in the game is "I deal 6d6 area fire damage" or "I deal 2d4 single target damage". You don't send a ball of flame that sets everyone on fire and screaming, or conjure magical orbs of energy that blast from your fingers and leave a scorched mark in your enemies chest.

Presentation is very important.

Um, Fireball doing 6d6 fire damage in an area isn't disassociated. It's basically exactly what's expected of a fireball. Extra descriptive effects have always been left to the players/GM, to allow more creative interpretations.

A disassociated mechanic is when what the power actually does, and what the flavor says it should do, don't line up. Or when there is no way for a character to explain in character how his abilities work. For example, a Fighter's daily powers are disassociated, because there's no real sensible explanation for why the given daily power may only be used once per day. There's a lot of half-assed explanations, but none really hold up when examined closely. But a Wizard if asked what his fireball does, will answer "It lights things on fire in an area" and that's exactly what the mechanics do. Not disassociated at all.

[Yora]

I admit, as someone who never played 4th edition, I made this example up. I don't have anything to quote from.
But when I did try to read the rulebooks, that's how it felt to me and that's what I've seen a number of 4th Ed. players claim.

[gkathellar]

I admit, as someone who never played 4th edition, I made this example up. I don't have anything to quote from.
But when I did try to read the rulebooks, that's how it felt to me and that's what I've seen a number of 4th Ed. players claim.

I think this attitude may stem largely from 4E presentation being very different than 3E presentation (moreso than the difference between 2E and 3E). Gone are the class tables, gone are the seven qualifiers before you get to the text to every spell ... 4E is short and to the point in its presentation, and its mechanics are largely internally consistent and connected.

The problem is, D&D traditionally isn't any of those things, so the clean, concise presentation really throws people for a loop. (Note I'm not insulting said people or praising 4E in saying this: I'm just suggesting that sloppy presentation may be one of the sacred cows people reacted to the death of.)

[Eldan]

If we are talking presentation, know what I'd really like to get back from 3E books?

Pictures in the back of pages that look like ink or pencil or coal sketches done by someone in the world, as opposed to highly detailed painting done by a modern artist. It just feels better to me.

[DefKab]

My problem with most people's complaints about 4th Ed, is that what they're complaining about is themselves. If your Fighter and your Wizard feel the same, then maybe it's not the mechanics you use (cause I'd like to see a wizard from ANY addition try the tactic of walking up to a creature and using the mechanic labeled 'sword' on them. Dare ya), but your creativity? If you can't look past simplistic damage formula and uniform attack procedure, if that's all that roleplaying to you is, then, yes, everything looks the same. But if you live your wizard, act like he's a wizard, and flavor your actions as if he was a wizard, then maybe you'd feel like you're playing a wizard...

I've played 4th Edition for a long while now, and I can honestly say that a Sword and Board Human Fighter didn't even feel the same as my Sword and Board Dwarven Fighter... They were completely different characters, and though they had similar powers, and the EXACT same mechanics, I played them different. Drastically different, and that's about the Role you Play, not the Roll you Play.

My Dungeons and Dragons? It's Roleplaying.

[Eldan]

It is, and fluffing is a big thing in any edition. But you know what? I want my mechanics to do whta they should represent. A fireball should be round and set things on fire and not damage a fire elemental. A vorpal sword should not work on a headless zombie. I shouldn't be able to poison or throw sand in the eyes of a skeleton. I should not be able to trip an ooze. (I'm reasonably sure many of those are examples I've seen mentioned in 4E. I wouldn't know, I never got past about half of the 4E PHB before getting bored).

[Seerow]

It is, and fluffing is a big thing in any edition. But you know what? I want my mechanics to do whta they should represent. A fireball should be round and set things on fire and not damage a fire elemental. A vorpal sword should not work on a headless zombie. I shouldn't be able to poison or throw sand in the eyes of a skeleton. I should not be able to trip an ooze. (I'm reasonably sure many of those are examples I've seen mentioned in 4E. I wouldn't know, I never got past about half of the 4E PHB before getting bored).

To be fair, a Vorpal Sword shouldn't be required to behead someone. A magic property that says "I kill anything on a crit because of awesome magic in my weapon" should work on a headless zombie, a slime, or anything else.

[gkathellar]

Drastically different, and that's about the Role you Play, not the Roll you Play.

Which is all well and good for you, but it's right there in the name: Roleplaying and Game. They embark on the winding spiral path! The paths of imagination and rules intersect! Only when game mechanics and roleplay work in harmony has one truly achieved the Tao of the RPG!

[Fiery Diamond]

My main problem with 4E (yes, I have played it a little) is that everyone is equalized. Not in terms of power - that's fine; I don't have a problem with a sword-swinger being able to kick the same amount of butt just as easily as a wizard or sorcerer. No, in terms of presentation:

"I swing my sword, and special, magical-ish stuff happens. I can do this once an encounter."
"I cast a spell, and magic happens. I can do this once an encounter."

"I swing my sword and deal extra damage. This can only be done once a day."
"I cast a spell, and deal damage. This can only be done once a day."

"I select my option to swing my sword."
"I select my option to cast my spell."
(This one threw me for a loop, actually. Imagine my surprise to learn that "attacking" wasn't a basic and common mechanic! Instead you have your "at will" - which is swinging your sword for a fighter and casting a minor spell for a caster. I don't use the same mechanic for trying to slash someone with my knife if I'm a caster as the fighter-type does for trying to slash someone with his sword. Buh-whuh?)

It seems like everyone has a drop-down list of things to pick from, like in an RPG video game like Final Fantasy, and the only difference is in what the titles and headings are. Magic doesn't do anything that can't be done with either a sword or bow, really. Likewise, swords and bows don't really do anything that magic can't do.

You know, I think that was the big problem with magic in 3.5. Magic should be able to do things that can't be done without it... but swords, bows, and wits should be able to do things that magic can't.

[DefKab]

My main problem with 4E (yes, I have played it a little) is that everyone is equalized. Not in terms of power - that's fine; I don't have a problem with a sword-swinger being able to kick the same amount of butt just as easily as a wizard or sorcerer. No, in terms of presentation:

"I swing my sword, and special, magical-ish stuff happens. I can do this once an encounter."
"I cast a spell, and magic happens. I can do this once an encounter."

"I swing my sword and deal extra damage. This can only be done once a day."
"I cast a spell, and deal damage. This can only be done once a day."

"I select my option to swing my sword."
"I select my option to cast my spell."

It seems like everyone has a drop-down list of things to pick from, like in an RPG video game like Final Fantasy, and the only difference is in what the titles and headings are. Magic doesn't do anything that can't be done with either a sword or bow, really. Likewise, swords and bows don't really do anything that magic can't do.

You know, I think that was the big problem with magic in 3.5. Magic should be able to do things that can't be done without it... but swords, bows, and wits should be able to do things that magic can't.

"Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I ask you to really think about that for a little bit.
What this says to me is that magic is inherently tied to world physics. It has to be able to be done at all, if it is to be done by magic. Look at a fireball, in comparison with a bomb. Both are round explosions that set things on fire. The magic is in that you dont need a bomb to make the explosion. Magic is making the possible quick and easy, not doing the 'impossible'.

And to prove my point, try to make a system with a core mechanic that has completely different feels for magic and conventional means. You cant. Magic will have its own mechanic, meaning it breaks away from your world's mechanics. And while thats fine, it doesnt support the idea that everything is woven from the same cloth, which is 4ths aim.

The sad truth is that magic and conventional weaponry are in no competition. As soon as your fighter leaps 30 feet in the air and cuts off the arm of the enemy, you're no longer playing with conventional physics. Your fighter is now using magic.

[Shyftir]

Um, actually the Basic Attack options do work the same way for everyone. It's still just d20 +stat+bonus. It's just that at-will powers add an extra effect on top of damage, so they are generally more useful than basic attacks.

Anyway I want a game that is tactical because D&D always was. The tactics have altered some but they've always been there. I do however want the abilities to be more flavorful and more off-the-cuff. I don't want a "feat' or "power" to be required to attempt to push someone down or move them back. I just wanna be able to do it. (in case you are wondering that criticizes both 4e and 3.5, and I've never played AD&D so I'm not being especially grognard-y here.)
I want D&D to be a storytelling game, but I also want it to involve fun and interesting combat. (I want to play a character whose personality shines in combat. I want my role & roll to compliment and drive each other.)

[gkathellar]

I do however want the abilities to be more flavorful and more off-the-cuff. I don't want a "feat' or "power" to be required to attempt to push someone down or move them back. I just wanna be able to do it.

IIRC the Book of Iron Might is a 3rd-party sourcebook that provides excellent (if somewhat complicated) rules for this. Now guess who wrote the Book of Iron Might.

Mike Mearls. Who is in charge of developing 5E. Which could, in theory, bode well for this. Maybe. Mearls wrote everything good in Malhavoc's catalog, but outside of Malhavoc Press his work has been spotty. EDIT: And of course, he's working with Monte Cook, who wrote everything bad in Malhavoc's Catalog.

[Urpriest]

If you want an actual example of Fluff-Mechanics disassociation in 4e, take a look at the warlock's Infernal Moon Curse. I have no idea what that thing is supposed to do or how that fluff came about besides as a justification for the mechanics.

Fighter dailies aren't an example. They work for the same reason ToB maneuvers are once per encounter: you only get the opportunity to use the power once in a while. Most of the time circumstances aren't right for it. Think of any movie ever. If the hero does some awesome stunt in the final battle, you don't ask "why didn't they do that for every battle?" It's a story, stories work like that.

[navar100]

My problem with most people's complaints about 4th Ed, is that what they're complaining about is themselves. If your Fighter and your Wizard feel the same, then maybe it's not the mechanics you use (cause I'd like to see a wizard from ANY addition try the tactic of walking up to a creature and using the mechanic labeled 'sword' on them. Dare ya), but your creativity? If you can't look past simplistic damage formula and uniform attack procedure, if that's all that roleplaying to you is, then, yes, everything looks the same. But if you live your wizard, act like he's a wizard, and flavor your actions as if he was a wizard, then maybe you'd feel like you're playing a wizard...

I've played 4th Edition for a long while now, and I can honestly say that a Sword and Board Human Fighter didn't even feel the same as my Sword and Board Dwarven Fighter... They were completely different characters, and though they had similar powers, and the EXACT same mechanics, I played them different. Drastically different, and that's about the Role you Play, not the Roll you Play.

My Dungeons and Dragons? It's Roleplaying.

Sorry, I don't fallacy that wind of storm. Game mechanics are equally as important to me as the character personality. If I don't have fun with the mechanics, I'm not having fun at all.

[Blacky the Blackball]

I think the big problem in 4e (and I say this as someone who liked the edition) wasn't in the powers themselves but in the presentation. The whole "you can re-fluff" thing put too much emphasis on the mechanics of each power rather than the description of what the character was doing.

The emphasis was on:

"You can achieve [Mechanical Effect] once per round/encounter/day. It is described as your character doing [Action]. You are free to change [Action] to whatever other description you like, providing it still does [Mechanical Effect]."

It should have been the other way around:

"Your character can reliably do [Action] once per round/encounter/day. This normally results in [Mechanical Effect]. The DM is free to change [Mechanical Effect] based on the current situation, if [Action] would have a different result in those circumstances."

The latter emphasis would have guided people towards creativity much more, I think. The former emphasis makes it more like - as has been described earlier in this thread - simply choosing from a drop-down of powers rather than creatively deciding what to do (and using a power as a tool to do that).

[Coplantor]

Sorry, I don't fallacy that wind of storm. Game mechanics are equally as important to me as the character personality. If I don't have fun with the mechanics, I'm not having fun at all.

This is pretty much my lately experience with games, my top three RPGs right now are DnD 3.5, alternity and Cthulhutech.

I've built and rolled far more 3.5 characters than I'll ever play, even gave them full descriptions and personalities mostly because I find extremely enjoyable looking for the right feat, class level and skill combinations to create the exact character I want, sometimes I think of a concept and look for the best mechanics to represent it, or I think of some cool mechanic, make a character and then think "well, what does those numbers mean?" (when I played 2nd ed I rolled randomly and then try to make sense out of the numbers in the best possible way)

Alternity is not DnD, it's got some simpler mechanics and some other are more complex, the die rolling in particular. PRetty much, you roll a d20 and if you roll equal to or less than the DC, then you succeeded, to make things easier or harder, when you roll your d20, you either add or substract the result from another die (easiest tasks substract a d12 and the hardest ones add 3d20). But I love it, just rolling the dice is so much fun. And the same can be said about Cthulhutech which uses only d10, but you have to look for combinations in order to get higher results (you either add equals or three or more consecutive numbers).

Some of those games are rules heavy, some give you a lot of options, some are full of fluff, some are just a skeleton with no flesh, meant for you to give life to it. Fluff and crunch are not mutually exclusive, the system should be capable of being fun by itself, so anyone looking for roleplaying or "rollplaying" should have good time with it.

[Tengu_temp]

If your group is good at roleplaying and telling stories, then you can achieve what the OP wants no matter what game you're playing.

If your group is just interested in killing monsters and taking their stuff, then you won't achieve what the OP wants no matter what game you're playing.

[Kurald Galain]

I've seen some people say that there are even a couple of abilities about which nobody really has any idea what the character is supposed to be doing to his enemy.

Yes, there are several of those, and it starts with the really basic things like Marking and Sneak Attacks. It is impossible to give these abilities consistent fluff in a way that does not contradict their crunch.

For example, if you Mark an enemy (which fighters and paladins do all the time), it gets a penalty to attack people other than you... somehow. It doesn't matter where you are, what you're doing, or whether you're blinded and stunned at the time; it just gets a penalty. Also, any mark overrides a previous mark, regardless of whether this prior mark was a spell, a tricky sword maneuver, or a divine curse. So yes, your tricky sword maneuver dispels divine curses... somehow.

It is true that many players don't mind this. However, there are also players that find that 4E combat basically means you stop roleplaying and play a board game for awhile.

3.5's flavor text is a little more substantive, but not especially. The flavor text is mixed in with the rules text, which makes it impossible to skip over. On the other hand, in 4E's case the flavor text is the first thing after the spell's name, while in 3.5 the various descriptors and spell levels and details are placed first.

That's not really the point. The thing is that 3E's fireball consistently acts like a ball of fire (e.g. it doesn't work underwater), whereas 4E's fireball does not (e.g. fire elementals are not immune to it).

3E assumes "this spell makes fire" and figures out the effects from there, depending on circumstances; 4E assumes "this deals 6d6 damage" and figures out the fluff from there, depending on circumstances. Basically what Blacky is saying above.

I'm not saying either approach is wrong or better, but there is a clear difference here.

[NowhereMan583]

The emphasis was on:

"You can achieve [Mechanical Effect] once per round/encounter/day. It is described as your character doing [Action]. You are free to change [Action] to whatever other description you like, providing it still does [Mechanical Effect]."

The former emphasis makes it more like - as has been described earlier in this thread - simply choosing from a drop-down of powers rather than creatively deciding what to do (and using a power as a tool to do that).

Not only that, but saying that "you are free to change [Action] to whatever other description you like" contains within it the implication that your decision there isn't really important. It almost comes off as "Yeah, whatever you want, kid. It still does [Mechanical Effect], right? Okay."

Earlier in the thread, it was pointed out that in 3E, flavor and mechanics were entwined in spell descriptions. This gives us the impression that they're equally important -- in fact, it looks very much like the distinction is not acknowledged.

By putting all the flavor text in one sentence at the beginning of the description, and saying we're free to change it if we like, the book makes it easy to just skim past it. Sure, it's placed first, right after the title... but so are the acknowledgements in a book, or the FBI warning on a film. Separating flavor from mechanics by placement (and, IIRC, typeface) is a stylistic choice that makes it more difficult for the reader to intuitively combine the thought "I'm casting Fireball" with the thought "There's an explosion of flame, detonating with a low roar".

[Wyntonian]

Do you know what I have?

Spoiler

Show

Not petty semantics, appreciation!