Hey Rube! and other archaic knowledge

[ExploderWizard]

So stretching and challenging a reader's vocabulary is all well and fine in novels or textbooks, but in something designed for 10-12 year olds to read and understand well enough to run on their own (like Basic D&D supposedly was) -- without the breadth of knowledge and experience of a 30-50 year old prodigious reader -- sometimes you should dial down the archaic language and references.


Bullgrit

I disagree. Children are smarter and pick up on more things than they are given credit for. PnP rpgs require reading and some degree of active thought. Why write game material for the lowest common denominator when such readers are likely to have little interest in the games anyhow?
It is better that the written material be interesting and engaging for the active minds of those who enjoy it.

Writing game material for the " see Spot run" crowd isn't doing the hobby or prospective players any favors.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Writing game material for the " see Spot run" crowd isn't doing the hobby or prospective players any favors.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Bullgrit]

why would you think they were made of dog ears

Because I was 13 years old and had never heard the term before.

I'm sure y'all were well read and worldly at that age and that era.

A rube was someone who'd trade you a Mickey Mantle card for a Willy Stargell, just because he was born in Pittsburgh.

Your "definition" has nothing at all to do with "Hey Rube!" In fact, if that's what you think when you see "Hey Rube!" then I bet that text in B2 was even more confusing for you.

Bullgrit

 

[Umbran]

<derail>This is what I find sad. As a teacher, I often wonder, "What's so wrong with challenging folks?" That they might have to actually look something up or, gods forbid, learn something new?</derail>

In a general sense, there's nothing wrong with challenging folks.

But, let's be clear - selling RPG books is not a "general" activity. It is a very specific business. Educating and challenging the customer's vocabulary is a far lower priority than getting them to buy the product, and have the product be good at its primary purpose as a gaming supplement.

 

[Bullgrit]

Writing game material for the " see Spot run" crowd isn't doing the hobby or prospective players any favors.

<sigh> There's always someone who must reduce an interesting discussion to ridiculous hyperbole.

Bullgrit

 

[ExploderWizard]

<sigh> There's always someone who must reduce an interesting discussion to ridiculous hyperbole.

Bullgrit

Sigh. If the contents of some gaming related materials were not so ridiculous then my commentary would actually be hyperbolic.

I would rather enjoy reading a gaming manual that might prompt me to reach for a dictionary once or twice than suffer through having to read the word "fun" seven or more times on one page. YMMV.

 

[Desdichado]

It is better that the written material be interesting and engaging for the active minds of those who enjoy it.

There seems to be an implicit assumption here that stopping to look up words in the dictionary is interesting and engaging. I'd argue that mostly that's the opposite of interesting and engaging.

Writing game material for the " see Spot run" crowd isn't doing the hobby or prospective players any favors.

And making statements like that isn't doing this discussion any favors.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And making statements like that isn't doing this discussion any favors.

If the discussion includes the idea that some relatively common words/terms are too advanced for readers of gaming materials, then countering that idea is doing this discussion a huge favour.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There seems to be an implicit assumption here that stopping to look up words in the dictionary is interesting and engaging. I'd argue that mostly that's the opposite of interesting and engaging.

And making statements like that isn't doing this discussion any favors.

Entertainment does not have to be devoid of educational value or meaningful substance to qualify as such. There is a wide variety of mindless entertainment available, and rpgs do not have to be among them.

 

[Desdichado]

If the discussion includes the idea that some relatively common words/terms are too advanced for readers of gaming materials, then countering that idea is doing this discussion a huge favour.

Well... it doesn't. The comments that this is a response to were of a generic nature. "See Spot run" is entirely hyerbolic.

Frankly, though, if you want to "go there", I find the idea that someone should be reading the DMG to expand their vocabulary pretty messed up anyway. There's a lot better material out there to expand your vocabulary. Like I said earlier: Clark Ashton Smith.

But also like I said earlier, Gygax had an overly affected writing style, and was poorly suited for stuff like gaming books. I'm struggling to wrap my head around any argument that justifies the writing style as appropriate for the venue in which it appeared. Despite your earlier "mad face" posting, nostalgia as an explanation seems to make more sense than anything else I can think of. It's good because it was written that way, and that's how you remember it, therefore, if it isn't overly Byzantine and arcane in style, it isn't D&D or something along those lines. Circular argumentation. That's just a preference based on personal quirks, not a coherent reason for why the DMG was written the way it was.

But if I could think of another reason that had any objective value to it, I'd take it.