Plain language - or "How to get out of your own way"

[Beoric]

Everyone knows what "verbal" and "oral" mean, and most people assume them interchangeable. Whether you say "he communicates it orally" or "he communicates it verbally", the players are going to picture the same thing: a dude talking. But if you say "he communicates it as a phonocentrist would", you're just being an asshole. You're deliberately obfuscating the transmission of information between DM and player (or author and DM), and as Bryce likes to remind us: modules are designed *for running adventures*.

The oral/verbal thing is kind of the opposite of what I was talking above; here the word "verbal" had a general meaning which has become specific. But you have still lost a word, because now, instead of talking about verbal communication in it's original meaning, you have to use the phrase "oral or written communication" or (worse yet) "verbal or written communication." And unlike a description of fortifications, this is something that comes up frequently.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The nuance of it is kind of irrelevant. Like, if there's a very specific situation in-game where you absolutely need to clarify "verbal" instead of "oral" (and I can't for the life of me imagine when that would ever be), then sure. Make sure it's defined. Whatever.

But usually there's no need for such hardcore specificity - if you need to be so specific about something that you require a word nobody knows, then maybe you need to rethink what you're writing, because you are supposed to be writing for a reader, not writing for yourself. (inb4 "but maybe I write for myself!"... that's not what we're talking about)

 

[Malrex]

I googled oral and the first thing that popped up was oral sex.....just wanted to share. Keep on with the discussion...
*backs away slowly*

 

[Beoric]

The nuance of it is kind of irrelevant. Like, if there's a very specific situation in-game where you absolutely need to clarify "verbal" instead of "oral" (and I can't for the life of me imagine when that would ever be), then sure. Make sure it's defined. Whatever.

My bad, I run into this issue a lot, but not in a gaming context.

I googled oral and the first thing that popped up was oral sex.....just wanted to share. Keep on with the discussion...
*backs away slowly*

I suspect that is why "verbal" has ended up being redefined, to avoid the snickering from dudes who can't see a reference to the number sixty-nine without saying "Nice!"

 

[Malrex]

My bad, I run into this issue a lot, but not in a gaming context.


I suspect that is why "verbal" has ended up being redefined, to avoid the snickering from dudes who can't see a reference to the number sixty-nine without saying "Nice!"

Haha..ya, probably. Seems a lot of words are being changed or redefined.

I just saw I had posted this elsewhere that seems relevant with the original title post:

"There must be some sort of gray line here, because I'm not looking to read a book. I understand an adventure needs to help the DM run it--so it may be dry like a textbook. But a lot of stuff that may be termed 'fluff' sometimes is useful for me to visualize it? Bryce is always harping on evocative writing, and I can understand the importance of that, but sometimes I feel designers just open a thesaurus and put in some different, interesting words to try to make their descriptions more evocative--and that doesn't help my brain, it actually makes me eyeroll a bit. I dont want to look up a word in a dictionary so that I can visualize the room better, ya know?"

So ya DP...I think we are in an agreement over here. I think one difference that I can think of is using a name to label something, like your shrine example...call it what it is....but with descriptive words, there is a bit more leeway. "A gaping hole" hits a little different than "A large hole".

 

[Beoric]

Haha..ya, probably. Seems a lot of words are being changed or redefined.

Yes, I have noticed this too.

"There must be some sort of gray line here, because I'm not looking to read a book. I understand an adventure needs to help the DM run it--so it may be dry like a textbook. But a lot of stuff that may be termed 'fluff' sometimes is useful for me to visualize it? Bryce is always harping on evocative writing, and I can understand the importance of that, but sometimes I feel designers just open a thesaurus and put in some different, interesting words to try to make their descriptions more evocative--and that doesn't help my brain, it actually makes me eyeroll a bit. I dont want to look up a word in a dictionary so that I can visualize the room better, ya know?"

When I am going through the exercise of coming up with evocative language, I try to find something that I can feel on an emotional level, on the assumption that is more likely to do the same for players - even if it elicits a different emotion. Picking words out of a thesaurus that are new to you and the players isn't going to accomplish that.

There may be some exceptions to that; some words just sound evocative, even if you don't know what they mean the first time you hear them. I know the first time I encountered the word "hoary" (I think it was in one of McKillip's Riddlemaster books, describing frost covered trees, perhaps?), it had a strong impact on me, and I inferred enough of its meaning to get something out of it.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

"There must be some sort of gray line here, because I'm not looking to read a book. I understand an adventure needs to help the DM run it--so it may be dry like a textbook. But a lot of stuff that may be termed 'fluff' sometimes is useful for me to visualize it? Bryce is always harping on evocative writing, and I can understand the importance of that, but sometimes I feel designers just open a thesaurus and put in some different, interesting words to try to make their descriptions more evocative--and that doesn't help my brain, it actually makes me eyeroll a bit. I dont want to look up a word in a dictionary so that I can visualize the room better, ya know?"

This is the sentiment exactly.

Adventure/module writing is technical writing, first and foremost. The main purpose of technical writing is in communicating instructions in a clear way with minimal room for error. Big, obscure words have always been a huge "NO-NO" in technical writing.

But there's one thing that separates technical writing from adventure writing: in adventure writing, the reader (the DM) always needs to communicate the contents of the document to a third party (the players), with minimal reading directly from the document. So not only does the original document need to be simplified so a DM can absorb it quickly, it also needs to be so simple that the DM is able to juggle several chunks of consequential information at once and distribute them piecemeal to the players. Fancy flourish words hinder that effort.

 

[The1True]

I googled oral and the first thing that popped up was oral sex.....just wanted to share. Keep on with the discussion...
*backs away slowly*

yep. try to avoid words like oral and brazier around my 50-going-on-14 players...

 

[The1True]

who can't see a reference to the number sixty-nine

Dude!

Sweet!

 

[grodog]

Bastion is an interesting example. I'd wager at least 50% of people probably know what a "bastion" is, by definition - if not in the architectural context, then at least in the context of a defensive stand of some kind. They've probably at least heard the term "bastion" before, unlike some related but still very insider terms, like "tenaille" or "hornwork" for example.

But more importantly, the term "bastion" is still pretty interchangeable with other plain-language terms like "fortification" or "defensive position" with minimal impact.

I recently had cause to explain the nuance of bastion to my wife while reading aloud a novel to her:





And while I agree with the sentiment that losing some of the specific meaning of bastion isn’t completely borked, I do appreciate the nuance of the term

Allan

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Wait wait wait wait wait.... the "novel" you're reading to your wife is called "Historic Architecture Sourcebook"? Do you guys just save Encyclopedia Britannica for date nights, or what?

I mean, yeah, what is basically a dictionary does have to be pretty specific with it's definitions or it will lose the meaning, but...

 

[grodog]

Wait wait wait wait wait.... the "novel" you're reading to your wife is called "Historic Architecture Sourcebook"? Do you guys just save Encyclopedia Britannica for date nights, or what?

LOL. No, I’m reading Pale Lights aloud to her: https://palelights.com/

Allan.

 

[squeen]

LOL. No, I’m reading Pale Lights aloud to her: https://palelights.com/

Allan.

Reading to each other seems a solid foundation for marriage! Sounds like you won one of life's lotteries.

(I've just added that book to my wish list.)

 

[grodog]

Reading to each other seems a solid foundation for marriage! Sounds like you won one of life's lotteries.

Indeed—she’s a keeper I’ve read aloud to Heather The Hobbit, LOTR, Harry Potter, Dan Brown’s _Angels & Demons_ and _Da Vinci Code_, _Kite Runner_, _Life of Pi_, and Shannon Chakraborty’s _City of Brass_.

With the boys I’ve read TH/LOTR, HP, Amber, Elric, Dune, Wirld of Tiers, HPL, ERB, Fritz Leiber, and more. They’re keepers

(I've just added that book to my wish list.)

I wasn’t aware it was available in real book form—I wonder if they edited it further, as the web chapter postings are pretty raw text…

Allan.

 

[Ineffective Voulging]

Yes too many fancy words.
I change “rods, staves, and wands” to “sticks”

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I change “rods, staves, and wands” to “sticks”

Save vs. Rods, Staffs, Wands, Scepters, Batons & Magic Sticks.

It's better than Save vs. Breath Weapon & Deadly Halitosis.