D&D (2024) Anyone else dislike the "keyword" style language of 5.24?

[Micah Sweet]

I agree with your logic, but how you frame your perspective leaves me thinking that you really don't like 2024 edition and that your bias might be a bit too heavy to reliably judge whether keyword language is good or bad.

That's because it's a subjective judgement.

Just like everyone else's.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I spend considerably more time reading game books than playing games. Having that be as enjoyable an experience as possible is important to me.

So, WotC should design game books that are tailored more to being more enjoyable reads for a tiny minority of players than actually being useful rule books?

Read a novel if you want entertainment. Getting upset that the rulebooks aren’t riveting enough is a you problem. This is like complaining that a cook book spends too much time on recipes and needs more memoirs about eating food.

 

[Scribe]

Keywords are a helpful tool, I admit I default to them mentally pretty hard due to my education/career. There is also no reason that they cannot be inserted into natural language.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Keywords are a helpful tool, I admit I default to them mentally pretty hard due to my education/career. There is also no reason that they cannot be inserted into natural language.

Depends on what "natural language" means, I should think. The way the term has been used WRT 5th edition D&D, such a thing cannot be. If it isn't using natural language as close to 100% of the time as it can achieve, it isn't "natural language" anymore. It's keywords-lite.

 

[Scribe]

Depends on what "natural language" means, I should think. The way the term has been used WRT 5th edition D&D, such a thing cannot be. If it isn't using natural language as close to 100% of the time as it can achieve, it isn't "natural language" anymore. It's keywords-lite.

I dont think its a binary choice, but there is always going to be a degree of subjectivity on what is 'natural'.

 

[Clint_L]

So, WotC should design game books that are tailored more to being more enjoyable reads for a tiny minority of players than actually being useful rule books?

Read a novel if you want entertainment. Getting upset that the rulebooks aren’t riveting enough is a you problem. This is like complaining that a cook book spends too much time on recipes and needs more memoirs about eating food.

I totally disagree that the new style makes the books more usable, and it definitely makes the prose uglier. I also think that the aesthetic pleasure of reading good writing in rule books is its own reward. I often read the Monster Manual for enjoyment, for example, and always have.

It’s not a dealbreaker for me, but I strongly think the writing in these books is a step backwards.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Keywords are a helpful tool, I admit I default to them mentally pretty hard due to my education/career. There is also no reason that they cannot be inserted into natural language.

I agree. The reason to capitalize the first letter in a keyword (if you're going to do that - I mostly like it, but I'm not saying that it's the only way) is to point out within natural language that it is, in fact, a keyword.

This is why, in my earlier post, I say that you can say, "You are Blinded and Deafened" (and you Don't NEED to use the word "Conditions" at that point, precisely because you've capitalized those keywords, and they're conditions. There's no way to confuse them for anything else.

This is, of course, assuming that you don't use the same word for two different Game Elements. 2024's "Poisoned condition" and "Poison" damage come close to the line on that score (though I would argue don't really cross it, thought I've certainly seen games where players have worried that they've taken the Poisoned condition when they've taken Poison damage, so... it's close enough to the line that it might have been better to have found a way to avoid it.

Personally, I'd have made a "Sickened" condition, which Poison damage might sometimes also come with, and other things, could also grant. Heck, psychic damage could sometimes cause "Sickened"...

At any rate, there's a ton of ways that a lot of game elements could be made one way or another. They're just choices, and even when I don't agree with the ones the designers have made, it's usually no where near the "deal breaker" end. Just a "would have been nice..." thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, WotC should design game books that are tailored more to being more enjoyable reads for a tiny minority of players than actually being useful rule books?

Read a novel if you want entertainment. Getting upset that the rulebooks aren’t riveting enough is a you problem. This is like complaining that a cook book spends too much time on recipes and needs more memoirs about eating food.

So I'm not supposed to advocate for something I enjoy because you believe I'm in a "tiny minority of players". Thanks but no thanks.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

So, WotC should design game books that are tailored more to being more enjoyable reads for a tiny minority of players than actually being useful rule books?

Read a novel if you want entertainment. Getting upset that the rulebooks aren’t riveting enough is a you problem. This is like complaining that a cook book spends too much time on recipes and needs more memoirs about eating food.

This argument confounds me, it's a set of rule books for a fantasy RPG, not an emergency manual to land a plane if the pilot dies mid-flight.

The SRD is there for those that want a stripped down version of the ruleset. The books should convey the rules in a way that is enjoyable, easy to read and look at. Not as a sterile jargon filled white paper or a website with hyper links that was printed and bound.

The keyword writing style gives me the impression the books were made for DDB and printed, where as the previous books were made for print. Which is off putting and comes across as both a cost saving and lazy choice.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This argument confounds me, it's a set of rule books for a fantasy RPG, not an emergency manual to land a plane if the pilot dies mid-flight.

The SRD is there for those that want a stripped down version of the ruleset. The books should convey the rules in a way that is enjoyable, easy to read and look at. Not as a sterile jargon filled white paper or a website with hyper links that was printed and bound.

The keyword writing style gives me the impression the books were made for DDB and printed, where as the previous books were made for print. Which is off putting and comes across as both a cost saving and lazy choice.

So--this leads to a few questions.

Why should only people with an internet connection get access to a useful, made-for-reference book?

What if you were to learn that your impression (IMO, more like "gut feeling") that "the books were made for DDB and printed" were completely incorrect? That is, a lot of this sort of feeling, of alienation because it uses defined terms, seems to arise from a fear of such a thing without even once ever actually...y'know...doing that thing. People said much the same of 4e, which never got a video game. It never got this "made for computers" thing everyone was so fearful of. If that thing never actually manifested--if the game never actually did the thing your gut reaction was responding to--what does that say about that gut reaction? Because to me, it says that that gut reaction ought to be examined and questioned. It may be that you are dealing with self-inflicted problems because you have jumped to conclusions about what a game-design element is for, rather than fairly judging that game design element on its merits first and then deciding what it is "really for."