Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ColonelHardisson" data-source="post: 286275" data-attributes="member: 363">Gygax has a very lively, personable style. That's one of the reasons why I stuck with AD&D when it first appeared; Gary has a way of making one feel like a real, living person is behind the books. He posts here, so I'll let him choose to answer you in detail about his word usage, but overall he helped expand my vocabulary. A good writer is one that challenges the reader on some level; a poor writer is one that panders and assumes the reader is either dumb or lazy.Traveller definitely was more complicated to learn, compared to D&D and maybe even to AD&D, especially if you used the books beyond 1-3 from the boxed set.Again, Gygax's style was quirky, but it lent a certain ambiance to AD&D. Are we supposed to let the language dwindle down to baby-talk because people refuse to pick up dictionaries or encyclopedias? I'd rather be reminded of the richness and depth of the English language than to get to the point of seeing all books reduced to the level of "Dick and Jane" primer: "See the Fighter fight. Fight, Fighter, fight." I think 3e is a better game, but I don't think 3e's books pack in more info then, say, the 1e DMG. Gygax was trying to evoke a mood and feel appropriate to what type of game AD&D was, and I firmly believe he succeeded admirably. I still have and regularly reference, his DMG, simply because the parts where he actually writes - rather than the tables and such - makes the game more easily understood. And anyone who tried to decipher Attacks of Opportunity when the 3e PHB came out knows that "clarity" was not achieved completely with the new, dry, clinical, textbook style.</blockquote>

Verification