I think you have it backwards. Option 1 is a "rules-lawyer and munchkin" dream. The more ambiguity and contradictions, the more grounds there is to gain advantage by arguing with the DM.
Whereas in 4E, the DM's answer to such shenanigans is generally: "the rules very clearly state how it works; moving on".
To me, Option 2 makes for better roleplaying. When everyone has a clear picture of how the world works, they can roleplay within it more effectively. The more the world operates on DM whims and judgements, the more roleplaying becomes "try to figure out what your DM is thinking".
I have to disagree on some of that. The more the rule set implies precision of language, the more wrangling I've seen over the meaning of the language. We had rules lawyers back in 1e, but I saw a lot less dickering over RAW and RAI. I think a game master had more authority (as perceived by your average gaming table) to interpret and make a decision.
And for my money, anything that puts a character more into the mood and in immersion is what enhances role playing. That's a strength of evocative prose.
This is coming from my new AD&D kick. I'm loving the Gygaxian prose in the rulebooks and the adventures. I'm wondering if maybe part of the problem with the "sense of wonder" in 4E stems from the clinical, obviously rules-lawyer writing style. HOWEVER... as a trade off, the language is more precise, and there is far less head-scratching over what the text means. It's like a lawyer wrote it (for good or for ill).
So what would you prefer?
1) A more flowery, open-to interpretation writing style, even if it means more vagueness, less precision, and possibly contradictions.
2) A continuation of concise, concrete language using defined terms and keywords.
I'd definitely choose (1). I think 4E would not have rubbed as many people the wrong way if it didn't read somewhat like a frog dissection. Using prose to express the game rules instead of legalese using Official Terms would have removed a lot of the blatantly gamist feel (I didn't have a problem with that, but most people in my group did).
Thoughts?
I prefer 3), a clean, economical writing style that eschews Gygaxian bloat, but also avoids sounding like a textbook or legalese. Keep it focused on the fiction of the game world; make it clear that the mechanics are a tool for shaping the fiction, rather than the fiction being decoration for the mechanics.
The remainder of the entry is a series of paragraphs discussing the various racial traits of half-elves (charm immunity, languages, infravision, etc).Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1e Player's Handbook said:Half-elves do not form a race unto themselves, but rather they can be found amongst both elvenkind and men. For details of the typical half-elf see ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, MONSTER MANUAL under the heading Elf.
A character of half-elven race can play as a cleric (maximum of 5th level), druid, fighter (maximum of 8th level), ranger (maximum of 8th level), magic-user (maximum of 8th level), thief, or assassin (maximum of 11th level). A character of half-elven race can also opt to become a multiclassed individual, i.e. clericlfighter, cleric/ranger, cleric/magic-user, fighter/magic-user, fighte/thief, magic-user/thief, cleric/fighter/magicuser, or a fighter/magic-user/thief. Half-elven characters who choose the cleric as one of their multi-classes aren't limited by that class' proscriptions upon weapons usable, but they are quite restricted in level. Half-elven characters who choose the thief class as one of their multi-roles are limited to the weaponry and armor of that class when operating as a thief. All earned experience is always divided evenly between the classes of the multi-classed character, even though the character is no longer able to gain levels in one or more of the classes. (See CHARACTER CLASSES, and consult the various classes for more detailed information pertaining to half-elven characters operating within the stated classes.)