Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bullgrit" data-source="post: 4987627" data-attributes="member: 31216">&quot;Hey Rube!&quot; is considered a common term? I'm 42 years old, and an avid reader (since ~13), and I have only encountered this term/concept exactly twice -- first time in B2, once just recently. Twice in 42 years.I have open on my desk, right now, a Funk &amp; Wagnells New Comprehensive International Dictionary of the English Language, copyright 1978 (1,930 pages; as thick as my hand is wide!) -- &quot;Hey Rube!&quot; is not listed in this tome.&quot;Dog-eared,&quot; I wouldn't say is common, but it's not esoteric like &quot;Hey Rube!&quot; For the record, I'm not suggesting that D&amp;D writing should be (or should have been) written at a low vocabulary level. (Note that some classic D&amp;D books had glossaries at the back to define terms that you and I now know easily.) But an author shouldn't assume that his audience (especially an audience that included, specifically targeted, 10-12 year olds) has as vast a vocabulary and world experience as a 30-50 year old buff.Anyone else find it ironic that EGG used many varied and uncommon words for so many things in the books, but he stuck with &quot;level&quot; to refer to so many different things? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />Bullgrit</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bullgrit, post: 4987627, member: 31216"] "Hey Rube!" is considered a common term? I'm 42 years old, and an avid reader (since ~13), and I have only encountered this term/concept exactly twice -- first time in B2, once just recently. Twice in 42 years. I have open on my desk, right now, a [i]Funk & Wagnells New Comprehensive International Dictionary of the English Language[/i], copyright 1978 (1,930 pages; as thick as my hand is wide!) -- "Hey Rube!" is not listed in this tome. "Dog-eared," I wouldn't say is common, but it's not esoteric like "Hey Rube!" For the record, I'm not suggesting that D&D writing should be (or should have been) written at a low vocabulary level. (Note that some classic D&D books had glossaries at the back to define terms that you and I now know easily.) But an author shouldn't assume that his audience (especially an audience that included, specifically targeted, 10-12 year olds) has as vast a vocabulary and world experience as a 30-50 year old buff. Anyone else find it ironic that EGG used many varied and uncommon words for so many things in the books, but he stuck with "level" to refer to so many different things? :-) Bullgrit [/QUOTE]

Verification