D&D General Houserules - Do You Collaborate or Dictate?

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, make it short and simple but at the same time make it accurate! Do whatever it takes to ensure Rules-As-Written and Rules-As-Intended line up with each other.

My problem is that "make it short and simple" and "make it accurate" are usually moving in precisely opposite directions. Simplicity, especially paired with brevity, almost always means a loss of accuracy. Unless, of course, you use precise accuracy in, say, a glossary of terms, and then refer back to those terms.

At which point, you just should not use words like "target" (if they are jargon terms) in a non-jargon way. That's just trying to have your cake and eat it too, and as a result, ending up instead baking a cake and failing to eat it.

 

[overgeeked]

Well, in part because many words have different meanings in different contexts; and oftentimes using a jargon-y word in a non-jargon-y way causes headaches.

A perfect example of this just came up in another thread: a 5e spell write-up (for a scrying spell of some sort) uses the word "target" numerous times even though the range of the spell is "self" and the spell isn't capital-T Targetted. Target is, in D&D, a jargon word that invokes specific rules and meanings, so using it in a non-jargon-y way in the write-up causes needless confusion. And it's trivially easy to fix; they just didn't do it.

Sure, make it short and simple but at the same time make it accurate! Do whatever it takes to ensure Rules-As-Written and Rules-As-Intended line up with each other.

More designers should read Strunk & White along with William Zinsser.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Or, in my case, an almost entirely revised/rebuilt edition of the game.

That's the logical end result of I WILL FIX IT, yes.