When playing in a game that utilizes enough powers that you need them in a list format (like 3E's spells), which do you prefer?:
1) Descriptive descriptions so you know what the power is supposed to do without being gamed by numbers.
2) Cold numerical descriptions using game terms so you know just what the power does.
I'm leaving out the "somewhere in between" answer because I think that's where most people lay. Writing descriptions somewhere in the middle makes them very long. I'm currently writing following #2, but I'm not liking how they feel; they are the most utilitarian, though.
Vote for 2.
Limited space to skim spells necessitates quick look-thrus. Things like GM screens are far preferred to rulebooks. The more compact, the quicker I can get to the action in the game. If I want to roleplay, then I should have done research ahead of time by looking in the rulebook to describe the action. During gameplay It's best not to waste time and #2 decreases chances of that.
I'm not talking about a list that's used in gameplay; sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm talking about a list that is primarily used when selecting powers, which seems like something done at level-up or at least between encounters. Even the spell lists in 3E were insufficient to use solely for your spells.
Ok. In that case, my justification for a choice will change, but my choice remains the same. The lists in 3E seemed fine to me if a little too brief at times. They appear to have followed your #2 option. If someone wants more detail, then they can look up the actual spells. Any more information and the utility of your proposed index is obviated.
So you would prefer cold numerical descriptions over short non-numerical descriptive descriptions. Gotcha. That's 4 votes for that so far.
Gotta go with non-numerical. I never had a head for numbers, and that's probably why I spent more time with video games than tabletops - because they did the counting for me. :P It's not that I CAN'T do it - I just don't like the arduous task. As a result, I have a sort of aversion to things that throw a huge amount of numbers at me - I will prefer word much more.
I know this is the maybe answer you didn't want, but you could write cold utilitarian descriptions in descriptive language:
"Disintegrate: Causes Massive damage to a single creature. Can remove obstacles"
(maybe have a few words like Massive which have a sort fixed meaning, like the creature sizes (Huge, Medium, etc.))
So you're talking something like the spell lists instead of spell descriptions? I think a line of text under the power title with numerical info to the right of it (in convenient columns) would be my preference. I hate to say both when you said not both, but a concise version of "effect" with numerical entries for range, target, and save would be good. Since "effect" isn't cold and numerical (though I guess that depends on what the powers are), I see no need to squeeze it down too much.
#2 definitely facilitates quick ease of use. From a game-play standpoint, it is often preferable. #1 would be desirable in a setting manual or if you are talking about flavor and wanting to get that across.
Of course, in a less rules-based game than D&D, #1 might be better.
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
I know this is the maybe answer you didn't want, but you could write cold utilitarian descriptions in descriptive language:
"Disintegrate: Causes Massive damage to a single creature. Can remove obstacles"
(maybe have a few words like Massive which have a sort fixed meaning, like the creature sizes (Huge, Medium, etc.))
That's not cold and utilitarian, that's descriptive. Cold would be:
"Disintegrate: 10d6+Int damage to single target."
That's actually the distinction boiled down. The lists will be brief, either way they're done.
I like the way the 3.5 PHB handled spells - give you a list with the basic description of the spell and then a glossary in the back with all the spells in alphabetical order.
I'm assuming, E_E, that means you prefer barebones descriptions with numbers where appropriate? Fireball, for example, is described as "1d6/level (10d6 max) fire damage in 20 ft. radius" or something like that.
The 3E spell list/description is exactly what I'm going for, but in writing descriptions I started to question whether numbers were even necessary at that point in power selection.
*Xeviat casts raise thread*
Here are some examples, drawn from 4th Edition D&D.
Rules-y Descriptions: Votes 1
[ic=Fighter Powers list, Version 1]Level 1 - At-Will Attacks
Brash Strike: Melee, 1[W]+Str with +2 to hit, you grant combat advantage to target; with Axe, hammer, or mace, +Con damage. (MP)
Cleave: Melee, 1[W]+Str, an other target takes +Str damage. (PHB)
Crushing Surge: Melee, 1[W]+Str. you gain Con mod temp hp. (MP)
Dual Strike: Two-weapon, Melee, 1[W] against two targets. (MP)
Footwork Lure: Melee, 1[W]+Str, you shift and slide your target with you. (MP)
Grappling Strike: Free Hand, Melee, 1[W]+Str, grab target 1 round. (MP2)
Knockdown Assault: Melee, Fort, Str damage that also knocks the target prone; can be used on a charge. (PHH1)
Reaping Strike: Melee, 1[W]+Str; +1/2 Str damage (+Str with two-handed) on a miss. (PHB)
Resolute Shield: Shield, Melee, 1[W]+Str, you gain +Con resistance against target's attacks. (Dragon)
Shield Feint: Shield, Melee, 1[W]+Str, you gain a +3 to hit on next attack against target. (Dragon)
Slash and Pummel: Free hand, Melee, 1[W], then vs. Ref attack for 3+Str against same target. (MP2)
Sure Strike: Melee, 1[W] with +2 bonus to hit. (PHB)
Threatening Rush: Melee, 1[W], marks each enemy adjacent to you; can be used on a charge. (MP2)
Tide of Iron: Shield, Melee, 1[W]+Str, pushes target, you can follow. (PHB)
Vicious Offensive: Melee, 1[W]+Str, marks an additional target. (DS)
Weapon Master's Strike: Melee, 1[W]+Str, gains different bonuses with different weapons. (Dragon)
Wicked Strike: Two-handed, Melee, 1[W]+Str+Con with -2 to hit; can be used as a basic attack. (Dragon)[/ic]
Less-rules-y Descriptions: Votes 1
[ic=Fighter Powers List, Version 2]Level 1 - At-Will Attacks
Brash Strike: A melee attack that gains accuracy and damage by sacrificing defense; axe, hammer, or mace. (MP)
Cleave: A melee attack that can damage a second target. (PHB)
Crushing Surge: A melee attack that also grants temporary hit points. (MP)
Dual Strike: A low-damage melee attack against two targets; two-weapon. (MP)
Footwork Lure: A melee attack that draws an opponent to follow you. (MP)
Grappling Strike: A melee attack that lets you grab your target; free-hand. (MP2)
Knockdown Assault: A low-damage melee attack that knocks your target prone. (PHH1)
Reaping Strike: A melee attack that even deals damage on a miss. (PHB)
Resolute Shield: A melee attack that gives you resistance against your target's damage; shield. (Dragon)
Shield Feint: A melee attack that grants an attack bonus on your next attack against the target; shield. (Dragon)
Slash and Pummel: A low-damage melee attack followed by an unarmed attack against the same target; free hand. (MP2)
Sure Strike: A melee attack that trades damage for accuracy. (PHB)
Threatening Rush: A low-damage melee attack that also marks each enemy near you. (MP2)
Tide of Iron: A melee attack that pushes your target back. (PHB)
Vicious Offensive: A melee attack that marks an additional enemy. (DS)
Weapon Master's Strike: A melee attack that gains different obnuses with different weapons. (Dragon)
Wicked Strike: A melee attack that trades accuracy for damage. (Dragon)[/ic]
I'm thinking a lot can be done with superscripts for keywords, especially those that are requirements (like little "w"s or "i"s for weapon and implement powers), maybe even one for melee, ranged, close, and area. It would help avoid the repetative "a melee attack that ..." language.
Thoughts?
I definitely like version 2.
I prefer version 1.
1.25.
Quote from: Xeviat
*Xeviat casts raise thread*
Here are some examples, drawn from 4th Edition D&D.
(snip)
I'm thinking a lot can be done with superscripts for keywords, especially those that are requirements (like little "w"s or "i"s for weapon and implement powers), maybe even one for melee, ranged, close, and area. It would help avoid the repetative "a melee attack that ..." language.
Thoughts?
Keywording is good. Your description sounds a lot like my range/area keywords in the recent thread (target, melee, zone, and sight). Keywords are good for damage types, status effects, range/area, and even weird quirky effects (my system includes the keyword "soft" to describe why you can't effectively block with a whip or similar weapons). It's a great way to save space and avoid the feeling of recycled powers. It would be good to get keywords into new places. You might be able to use more complicated movement (for example) if the concepts were chunked out under a few keywords.
Quote from: Steerpike
1.25.
Do you mean something slightly more descriptive than 1, but closer to 1 than 2?
For this example, I vote Option 1.
The reason being that Option 2 does nothing to inform you how to actually apply the power/skill/ability in the game. It describes the action, not how to use the action. I agree with LD's impression that concise mechanics are important to smoothly running a game, and that's what short-lists should be for.
And honestly, for things like 3.5 Spells, I've been more entertained by the variety that players can bring to the table with how they may choose to describe casting magic and how it takes effect, rather than it be clearly spelled out in the book. I recall a particular Beguiler who did most of his spells with either a flourish of a wand or a magician's top-hat. Theatrical and funny.
I also think that Steerpike is suggesting that the mechanics and numbers are necessary, but they can be couched in some descriptive text-- either in the same line or separated, as with most flavor text. Or like 3.5 feats short-lists-- some of those were fairly comprehensive for short-lists, though not all made use of numerical effects.
List one for players, list two for game-masters
Quote from: Señor Leetz
List one for players, list two for game-masters
That's probably a very decent solution.
Everyone is aware that I'm not suggesting a list to substitute for power cards, I'm suggesting a list as an aid to choosing your powers so you can look over the 18+ options per level and decide which 1 or 2 you are going to select. The list will not be used in play, it will only be used while leveling up or retraining.
Some of the replies were talking about usefulness in play, so I wasn't sure if I miscomunicated.
Quote from: Xeviat
Everyone is aware that I'm not suggesting a list to substitute for power cards, I'm suggesting a list as an aid to choosing your powers so you can look over the 18+ options per level and decide which 1 or 2 you are going to select. The list will not be used in play, it will only be used while leveling up or retraining.
Some of the replies were talking about usefulness in play, so I wasn't sure if I miscomunicated.
Well if that's the case, definately number 1. there is nothing worse than building your character into a worthless ability corner because you weren't aware of costs and whatnot.
Looks like I need to come up with a 1.5 then, as I'm getting pretty even between the two.