Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Recontriving The Ring
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 7721831"><p>There's something in writing called "purple prose" which is writing that is needlessly elaborate or ornate. It may seem dull to say "it's a blue dress" but it's accurate. Rulebooks exist for the sake of accuracy, it's one reason I find Exalted fun to read but less fun to play. It's one reason I'm a strong supporter of 4E over more "prosey" rules. </p><p></p><p>There's an important difference between using words in an evocative sense such as "The Pegasus soared high overhead, his wings glittering like crystal in the noonday sun." And using words in an explanation sense "The pegasus is a winged horse." The latter may be dull to read, but it's clear (provided you know what a horse is and what wings are).</p><p></p><p>There is issue in exchanging words like "race" for "culture". Race can seem loaded, especially in human-centric settings. Replacing it with "culture" makes it <em>worse</em>, not better, even in human-centric cultures because any ethnicity may be raised in any culture. Race at least applies to both physical appearance <em>and</em> set of customs, depending on the context. If we're talking simply about the <em>physical</em> and we're looking for a less-loaded word, then the operative word is "species" for a multi-humanoid setting and probably "ethnicity" for a single-humanoid one. Now we can address customs and culture separately and decide if our human was raised like an elf, our elf raised like a drow, or our dwarf raised like orcs. Sub-species or "offshoot" or "variant" for what are traditionally "sub-races" are acceptable replacements because they are clear in what they are. We are presented with "an elf" and then shown several different types aka: variants of elves.</p><p></p><p>Another word change I take issue with above was the choice to use "game master character". For starters, it's not common nomenclature and that will immediately cause confusion, indeed taking the words alone my initial thought it more of "DM PC" or "Gandalf". A quasi-quest-giving NPC who travels with the party, is regularly run by the DM, but is clearly set apart from the rest of the crew. It's confusing and doesn't add anything of particular value to the system <em>plus</em> it creates ambiguity on what you call a character run by a player who is not a full-blown character (such as a minion, hireling or summon). Are those now <em>player characters</em>? They're still something totally different from what people conceptualize as a "player character" but they're not game-master characters either.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: some more issues:</p><p></p><p>For example, the article claims there are problems with the term "Dungeon Master", but identifies the only problem as "not all games involve dungeons". Well, okay, but then it goes on to state that there are "unwanted connotations" with the term Master. But fails to specify what they are. Are we talking about slavery? Are we talking about BDSM? The Dom may be the "master" of the "dungeon" but sure isn't a "Dungeon Master". But then the article goes on to say the situation was resolved with the term "Game Master". Wait what? I thought there were problems with the term "master"? Okay, we've opened up the term to all games, but what have we substantially gained? Not all D&D games include dungeons either...or dragons for that matter! If there were problems with both words, we've only resolved 50% of the problems.</p><p></p><p>Further down, the article points out that his British books include variant spelling on words, but does that affect anything other than the fact that the book was printed in Britain? No. I, an American, spell certain words the British way, for no other reason than thats what I'm used to but it doesn't fundamentally change anything. I doubt the British would be in much of an uproar if it was spelled the American way, or vice-versus. </p><p></p><p>In the <em>very</em> next paragraph, the author has decided to change "DM/GM" to "King of Dungeons", which he denotes is needlessly verbose, more difficult to understand, and not very inclusive for <em>no other reason</em> than he's in charge and that's what he wants it to be. Literally NOTHING has been gained by him being creative, in fact his game has been <em>reduced</em> for it. As it is in almost <em>every single game</em> where I have experienced such needless word-games. The Author's further word changes add additional complexity and confusion. "Foe" is clear...as long as your target is an <em>enemy</em>. With the elimination of "target" what now do we call allies or neturals? How does one use a healing spell when it says "effects foe"? It may be shorter, but that shortness has caused a loss in clarity. Which is only consistent in that it's what "he wants to do because he wants to do it", otherwise his reasoning is completly contrary to his statement only a few lines above, where he made something <em>simple</em> and something <em>clear</em> "Game Master" into something confusing and obtuse. </p><p></p><p>Indeed I could go on. It is one thing to be <em>creative</em>. It is another to be needlessly obscure or arcane for no reason other than "Its my game and I'm going to do it my way!" Those are not the arguments of creativity. Those are arguments of petulance. </p><p></p><p>There are times when word change is good: when there are words that are derogatory, offensive, crude or otherwise disrespectful when a perfectly neutral word would suffice. But when word change leads to additional ambiguity it is not a positive change for a rule set. </p><p></p><p>Being creative with the language is fine, but rules are designed for clarity and understanding and therefore brevity and accuracy are paramount. Let the players get creative with how they swing their sword, how they carry their bow and what manner of dress they wear. There's no need to muddy the waters of a ruleset with unnecessary prose and ambiguity. If players need examples of how to get creative, provide some "sample characters" in an index. But so far, I haven't seen a word change exampled in this thread demonstrate any necessity beyond "The guy running the game likes this better."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 7721831"] There's something in writing called "purple prose" which is writing that is needlessly elaborate or ornate. It may seem dull to say "it's a blue dress" but it's accurate. Rulebooks exist for the sake of accuracy, it's one reason I find Exalted fun to read but less fun to play. It's one reason I'm a strong supporter of 4E over more "prosey" rules. There's an important difference between using words in an evocative sense such as "The Pegasus soared high overhead, his wings glittering like crystal in the noonday sun." And using words in an explanation sense "The pegasus is a winged horse." The latter may be dull to read, but it's clear (provided you know what a horse is and what wings are). There is issue in exchanging words like "race" for "culture". Race can seem loaded, especially in human-centric settings. Replacing it with "culture" makes it [I]worse[/I], not better, even in human-centric cultures because any ethnicity may be raised in any culture. Race at least applies to both physical appearance [I]and[/I] set of customs, depending on the context. If we're talking simply about the [I]physical[/I] and we're looking for a less-loaded word, then the operative word is "species" for a multi-humanoid setting and probably "ethnicity" for a single-humanoid one. Now we can address customs and culture separately and decide if our human was raised like an elf, our elf raised like a drow, or our dwarf raised like orcs. Sub-species or "offshoot" or "variant" for what are traditionally "sub-races" are acceptable replacements because they are clear in what they are. We are presented with "an elf" and then shown several different types aka: variants of elves. Another word change I take issue with above was the choice to use "game master character". For starters, it's not common nomenclature and that will immediately cause confusion, indeed taking the words alone my initial thought it more of "DM PC" or "Gandalf". A quasi-quest-giving NPC who travels with the party, is regularly run by the DM, but is clearly set apart from the rest of the crew. It's confusing and doesn't add anything of particular value to the system [I]plus[/I] it creates ambiguity on what you call a character run by a player who is not a full-blown character (such as a minion, hireling or summon). Are those now [I]player characters[/I]? They're still something totally different from what people conceptualize as a "player character" but they're not game-master characters either. EDIT: some more issues: For example, the article claims there are problems with the term "Dungeon Master", but identifies the only problem as "not all games involve dungeons". Well, okay, but then it goes on to state that there are "unwanted connotations" with the term Master. But fails to specify what they are. Are we talking about slavery? Are we talking about BDSM? The Dom may be the "master" of the "dungeon" but sure isn't a "Dungeon Master". But then the article goes on to say the situation was resolved with the term "Game Master". Wait what? I thought there were problems with the term "master"? Okay, we've opened up the term to all games, but what have we substantially gained? Not all D&D games include dungeons either...or dragons for that matter! If there were problems with both words, we've only resolved 50% of the problems. Further down, the article points out that his British books include variant spelling on words, but does that affect anything other than the fact that the book was printed in Britain? No. I, an American, spell certain words the British way, for no other reason than thats what I'm used to but it doesn't fundamentally change anything. I doubt the British would be in much of an uproar if it was spelled the American way, or vice-versus. In the [I]very[/I] next paragraph, the author has decided to change "DM/GM" to "King of Dungeons", which he denotes is needlessly verbose, more difficult to understand, and not very inclusive for [I]no other reason[/I] than he's in charge and that's what he wants it to be. Literally NOTHING has been gained by him being creative, in fact his game has been [I]reduced[/I] for it. As it is in almost [I]every single game[/I] where I have experienced such needless word-games. The Author's further word changes add additional complexity and confusion. "Foe" is clear...as long as your target is an [I]enemy[/I]. With the elimination of "target" what now do we call allies or neturals? How does one use a healing spell when it says "effects foe"? It may be shorter, but that shortness has caused a loss in clarity. Which is only consistent in that it's what "he wants to do because he wants to do it", otherwise his reasoning is completly contrary to his statement only a few lines above, where he made something [I]simple[/I] and something [I]clear[/I] "Game Master" into something confusing and obtuse. Indeed I could go on. It is one thing to be [I]creative[/I]. It is another to be needlessly obscure or arcane for no reason other than "Its my game and I'm going to do it my way!" Those are not the arguments of creativity. Those are arguments of petulance. There are times when word change is good: when there are words that are derogatory, offensive, crude or otherwise disrespectful when a perfectly neutral word would suffice. But when word change leads to additional ambiguity it is not a positive change for a rule set. Being creative with the language is fine, but rules are designed for clarity and understanding and therefore brevity and accuracy are paramount. Let the players get creative with how they swing their sword, how they carry their bow and what manner of dress they wear. There's no need to muddy the waters of a ruleset with unnecessary prose and ambiguity. If players need examples of how to get creative, provide some "sample characters" in an index. But so far, I haven't seen a word change exampled in this thread demonstrate any necessity beyond "The guy running the game likes this better." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Recontriving The Ring
Top