What reading level are most games written for?

[mmadsen]

Even though the language in most D&D books is pretty simple, I found some pretty hard words in adventure modules (modules by WotC that is). It might be the name of a certain part of an armor or weapon, a rock formation, some type of small river, some kind of bottle; it seems everyday speak is not enough for good descriptions and flavour text. However, I wonder if it's really necessary to use certain vocabulary or if descriptions could be given (to less effect, perhaps) in simpler terms.

When I was younger, I would have loved footnotes explaining difficult vocabulary, the way things work in a quasi-medieval world, etc.

 

[jgbrowning]

Some people seem to be arguing from the standpoint that it is bad if the reading level is "low". That seems off to me. A difficult to read work where those terms aren't needed does not make it "sophisticated."

As Einstein said, things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. As long as you capture the meaning adequately, there is nothing to be gained by having a "higher reading level."

There are few instances where the additional precision that comes from a higher vocabulary are really necessary for communication, but the vast majority of what we gamers are writing probably doesn't fall under that category.

Our litmus test is if there is a simplier word that works just as well, use the simplier one. If there isn't, use the more precise one. I'm a big fan of simple language use. I've found that it actually makes my thoughts behind the language become more clear.

joe b.

 

[Emirikol]

When I was younger, I would have loved footnotes explaining difficult vocabulary, the way things work in a quasi-medieval world, etc.

I think back to B2-Keep on the Borderlands. Gary Gygax stuck a whole lot of words in the Glossary there..mainly describing the various technical elements of castle design.

Personally, I'd like to see some elements of writing that are occasionally a little 'smarter' than the typical writing of products today. It doesn't have to be constant, just occasionally challenging my brain to look up a couple words.

jh

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The things one discovers...I've a new toy now.

Egads! I wish this thread never existed! Just when this thing (Word) got me spelling better (I use flagged mistakes rather than auto-correct for self-improvement purposes and its worked rather well), now it's making me feel inadequate again.

Like I wasn't already over-critical of my own writing to begin with, now I'm going to be re-writing everything because of this!

Damndamndamndamndamn....

 

[francisca]

I think back to B2-Keep on the Borderlands. Gary Gygax stuck a whole lot of words in the Glossary there..mainly describing the various technical elements of castle design.

Personally, I'd like to see some elements of writing that are occasionally a little 'smarter' than the typical writing of products today. It doesn't have to be constant, just occasionally challenging my brain to look up a couple words.

jh

No kidding! The 3.0/3.5 core books have been known to put me to sleep. I can't help but believe it's partly due to the writing level. It seems to me that the 3.5 books are "worse" in this regard, when compared to the 3.0 books.

And while I agree with Psion that there is no need to complicate things for the sake of complication, I can't help but wish the core were written at a higher level. One of the reasons I play D&D is to exercise the brain, afterall.

 

[Gez]

Even though the language in most D&D books is pretty simple, I found some pretty hard words in adventure modules (modules by WotC that is). It might be the name of a certain part of an armor or weapon, a rock formation, some type of small river, some kind of bottle; it seems everyday speak is not enough for good descriptions and flavour text. However, I wonder if it's really necessary to use certain vocabulary or if descriptions could be given (to less effect, perhaps) in simpler terms.

It is both needed and necessary.

'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take "good", for instance. If you have a word like "good", what need is there for a word like "bad"? "Ungood" will do just as well -- better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of "good", what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like "excellent" and "splendid" and all the rest of them? "Plusgood" covers the meaning, or "doubleplusgood" if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words -- in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.'s idea originally, of course,' he added as an afterthought.

A sort of vapid eagerness flitted across Winston's face at the mention of Big Brother. Nevertheless Syme immediately detected a certain lack of enthusiasm.

'You haven't a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,' he said almost sadly. 'Even when you write it you're still thinking in Oldspeak. I've read some of those pieces that you write in The Times occasionally. They're good enough, but they're translations. In your heart you'd prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?'

Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:

'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'

 

[mmadsen]

Orwell's Six Rules

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I just ran a chunk of the SRD through Word (including the class, race, homepage, alignment, skills and ability score sections).

It came back as grade level 9.8.

 

[Ranger REG]

That should be expected. It's written in a rules format.

Now trying running the NFL Rulebook.

 

[shadow]

Flavor Text

It seems to me that most RPG rule books that I have read are written at a middle school reading level at the highest. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing. Afterall, RPG books are meant to provide players with rules, not be a verbose, complex treatise. If the language gets to complex, the rules become obscure.

However, I am disappointed with much of the flavor text being written at such a low reading level. Unlike the rules, flavor text is written to add flavor to the characters and setting. I have read way too many badly written passages of flavor text. This really annoys me when the flavor text is describing an ancient or mythical setting, but it includes a huge amount of modern day slang expressions or colloquialisms. Nothing destroys the atmosphere more than modern colloquialisms! Flavor text doesn't have to include archaic verb forms and obscure language, but I would really like to see some flavor text written above the middle school reading level!