Write this game for adults

[Lanefan]

But Gygax wasn't writing the AD&D DMG for your parents. He was writing it for you. I don't want Wizards fine-tuning D&D so that it's more enjoyable for you-now than it would have been for you-then.

It needs to be enjoyable for him-then and him-now, is the trick; just like it needs to be enjoyable for new-player-now and same-new-player-in-2040.

The 1e books pulled this off, so we know it's possible.

A well written manual isn't something you read for the enjoyment of the thing, it's to learn how to do something.

I don't curl up at night with a good VCR instruction booklet.

You're missing the point, I think.

A VCR instruction booklet exists to give instructions, nothing more.

A D&D book exists for two reasons: to give instructions, and to entertain while doing so. I think the entertainment piece has been let slide a bit as each new edition has come along, which is unfortunate.

Lanefan

 

[Orius]

Clarity and ease of reference I think are fairly important. These are books that may be referred to in a game, and I doubt groups want to wait as the DM flips through pages looking for a rule. The actual grade level of writing makes little difference to me, the utility at the game table is more important.

People talk about how evocative the 1e books were, but I've also read much about how they weren't exactly great at organization. The old school gamers might have a sweet tooth for Gygaxian prose, but yeah, there are times where it probably would be out of place in a rulebook. The 2e books were written fairly well. Decent organization, easy enough to understand, but still pretty evocative in places. The (early at least) 3e books weren't bad either, they feel similar to 2e, though the writing is a bit crisper. I cannot comment on 4e.

A good balance would probably be something like this: the crunchiest parts of the rules, the ones most likely to be looked at during gameplay should have a no-nonsense approach and written for ease of use and clarity. This doesn't mean written stupid, it means written in a way that doesn't bog down the DM. So stuff like combat rules, rules for class abilities, skills, feats, spells, and so on, stat blocks, magic item descriptions, at the least the section that details the abilties, these are the parts that should be written like this. Other sections like advice for players on RPing, various elements of DM advice, flavor text in modules and setting books and the like, and so on can go for the older, more favorful and evocative approach, as these are things that aren't going to be read during a game session.

 

[Oni]

I was thinking about usability the other day when I was running the Kingmaker AP for my Pathfinder game. The APs are fun reading, but I was looking for specific information I knew was buried in the text and I thought how nice it would be to have a sidebar along side the long form prose to let me grab the pertinent information on the fly without having to dig around for it. It might be nice to have basic rules laid out in a very succinct bullet point format in a sidebar along a with a more detailed and evocative explanation in the text. I realize it is a bit redundant, but it would suit both those looking for reference and those looking for a read. This would work great for something like grappling or the like. I think though you would have have to be careful how, and what, you separate out, for instance the hard division between fluff and mechanics in powers/spells and magic items in 4e was a huge turnoff to me and made each feel too sterile and mechanical. They shouldn't be afraid to mix fluff and rules together and encourage DMs to take into account both when making their rulings, the fiction is important in RPGs and should influence outcomes when it would be logical it do so.

 

[pemerton]

I read and reread a lot of RPG books, looking for new ideas, or reminders of old ideas, or trying to understand how some rule might work, or trying to work out how I might incorporate some mechanical or some story element into my game.

I seem to be in something of a minority in not finding the 4e books particularly juvenile or patronising. I mean, obviously they lack the personality and idiosyncracy of the best of Gygax, or Luke Crane in the Burning Wheel books, but they're no more anodyne (in my view) than say the HeroWars/Quest books.

For me, what stands out about WotC books (3E and 4e) isn't any particular tone. Rather, it's just their bad writing - and particularly their bad fiction.

Here is a passage from 4e's MM3 (p 12) that is completely typical:

Over the ages, a few spells of epic magnitude have reverberated throughout history. Spells that provide enough power to slay gods, bind primordials, annihilate empires, and create astral dominions leave behind some of their essence. In time, that essence can form a living spell, which stalks the universe and destroys everything in its path.​

That is just drivel. It's repetive ("over the ages", "throughout history", "in time"). It has poorly formed noun phrases. I mean, what the hell is this: "Spells that provide enough power to slay gods, bind primordials, annihilate empires, and create astral dominions "? And after that overblown thing, look at the boring verb phrase that follows it: "leave behind some of their essence". There is also an error of usage - I'm pretty sure that these things aren't stalking the universe but stalking through the universe.

Unfortunately, the amount of this sort of guff in Monster Manuals has been increasing over the lifetime of 4e. Hopefully, the D&Dnext books will be more tightly written, particularly where they include fiction.

And for the curious, here's my first pass at rewriting the objectionable passage:

[sblock]A few spells of epic magnitude reverberate throughout history: spells that provide enough power to slay gods, bind primordials, annihilate empires, and create astral dominions. These leave behind some of their essence when cast, forming a living spell that stalks through the universe destroying everything in its path.[/sblock]

 

[Ranganathan]

By the audience widening, I am specifically talking about those people who might like the game later, but can't handle it now. This is not going to include many adults, as gaming isn't rocket science. (Adults will like it, or they won't.) You can write the game dumbed down to try to get every 11 year old that you might possibly get. You'll lose the people who don't like being patronized, which happens to include a fair number of 11 year olds. The patronized ones are probably lost for good. The 11 year old that is not quite ready to handle the more interesting text may still be available at 14 or 17 or 20.

And here I thought you'd left this logical fallacy behind, oh well. Clearly you're fixated on age and making sure gaming appears more adult.

Of course, most people won't have any interest at 11 or later, no matter how you write it. That's why games only sell so much, and have been on the decline. A lot of those people in the 70s and 80s that bought because there wasn't much to do, wouldn't have bought then if they'd had the options we have now.

I'm sorry, but are you now arguing that people only bought D&D because there was nothing else to do? You've lost any hint of credibility.

Admin here. Discuss this without personal attacks. If you have to resort to insults, you've already lost. - PCat

 

[Kynn]

For example, very few people tolerate fiction written at an 8th grade level. Heck, most 8th graders can't even stand it. (That would be around age 14 for you folks not in the USA.)

I call shenanigans.

Harry Potter is immensely popular, including with 8th graders, and it's written at 5th to 7th grade level.

You are simply wrong.

 

[Kynn]

However, most people can sense the difference between, say, newspaper writing and something a bit more or less engaging. For example, very few people tolerate fiction written at an 8th grade level. ...

The valuable skill is consciously choosing the grade level for your audience and writing in that. Writing at a higher grade level conveys nuance. With a lot of work, you could convey this nuance in a lower grade level, but it will take a lot of text.

Do you think anyone here had trouble following what I just wrote?

Just so you know, what you wrote here was rated at grade level 7.58 and a Fog Index of 9.15.

So, no, what you wrote wasn't hard to understand. Because it wasn't even up to 8th grade reading levels.

Look it up here:

Tests Document Readability

My point, of course, is not that you are a poor writer who "dumbs down" what he writes, but rather that very few of us communicate with "high grade level" writing because we want to be clearly understood. Just like in an RPG.

 

[fuindordm]

I would like the writing level to aim high rather than low.

If the game and the art are compelling enough, the Tweens will be inspired to use a dictionary, just as I once was.

4e did have that technical manual feel. It was easy to find information, partly because the kept repeating it, but it did nothing to draw me into the world of the game.

 

[Kynn]

Here is a passage from 4e's MM3 (p 12) that is completely typical:

Over the ages, a few spells of epic magnitude have reverberated throughout history. Spells that provide enough power to slay gods, bind primordials, annihilate empires, and create astral dominions leave behind some of their essence. In time, that essence can form a living spell, which stalks the universe and destroys everything in its path.​

Apart from being drivel (and I don't disagree with you), it's also written at 11th grade level, which is amusing given how many people think 4th edition was written for 5th graders.

 

[Kynn]

I would like the writing level to aim high rather than low.

Why?

Lower writing level means it's easier for everyone to understand.

This reminds me too much of Monte Cook's ideas about "system mastery." It's a kind of false elitism that really doesn't belong in the game.