Kent made a post about originality and the OSR here.
This was my reply: "I think you've missed the mark here by neglecting the differences in variant reading practices. You want to read game material to be inspired; this is reading game material novelistically, so it makes sense that you want attention to language and unassimilable originality. Others read game material because they actually want to use it in play at the table; this is a different reading practice that favors utility and terseness. In the second case the originality you're looking for should be born at the table of a DM interpreting a "tiny idea" and deploying it to the players in his or her own evocative language and fitting it to his or her own unique setting conventions."
I've purchased game material to suit each of those reading practices. Broadly speaking, I buy setting materials for inspiration and adventure materials to be used in actual play(1). I expect a useful terseness in books belonging to the latter category; descriptions should be short enough for me to parse quickly and interpret on the fly to keep the game moving.
If you're writing an adventure and want it to be actually used in someone's games, here are a few pieces of writing advice:
If I know what a room is and what is in it based on its name, don't tell me what it is and what is in there. I know what a kitchen is. I can describe what a kitchen is like. If you tell me the exact number of soup ladles in the kitchen or that it has a stove and shelves and pots and pans you are wasting my time.
You don't need to say that something is "Completely empty." Just say that it is "empty." "Completely empty" does not mean a place is more empty than a place that is simply "empty."
Similarly, you don't need to tell me "There is nothing else in this room." If you've stopped telling me what is in the room I will safely assume you aren't holding something back.
Unless the history of a room is important to what is happening in there right now, I don't need to hear about it. That's great that this chamber was the meeting place for foreign dignitaries two hundred years ago, but if it's just filled with dust and broken furniture there is no reason to care about that at all.
Stop reminding me that as the DM I'm the final arbitrator of something in the dungeon. If I'm the DM I'm the final arbitrator of everything in the game.
Please don't write in faux Gygaxian. Despite all he did for the hobby, Gygax was a pretty terrible writer; don't emulate terrible writers. Emulating terrible writers ruins our verisimilitude and intrudes on our milieu.
(1) But not always. I might, for example, use a Trail of Cthulhu adventure as the inspiration for a Call of Cthulhu adventure.
I read most RPG materials for ideas these days, not their mechanics. Even when mechanics are provided, I'm more interested in the ideas behind the mechanics. Perhaps it comes from playing a decidedly unpopular version of D&D.
ReplyDeleteWhen I'm pouring over someone's dungeon, I expect to be given the pertinent details in a very crisp and to-the-point way, however, before that, and anywhere else applicable within the dungeon, I like to have some kind of information regarding the setting. That is, how the author sees the location. Just something with a bit more meat to describe to me the mood and theme of the place should the author intend such. Here, a more novelistic approach illuminates the work.
I agree that a dungeon (especially a megadungeon) needs some overall detail and novelistic writing (though not prose fiction) to introduce the adventure location. But when it gets down to the location in detail, I think terseness enables you to actually use all the flavor text you've just ingested in the introduction.
Deletelol. I just want to make clear that nothing in italics above is addressing anything I myself have said.
ReplyDeleteImmediately functional supplements should be terse, I agree. Personally, that kind of material doesn't contain anything I couldn't invent on the fly and so I am only interested in work that makes me think and wonder and mull over new ideas.
Sure, the points in italics are just me detailing some ideas of how terseness can be used with purpose for readers looking for utility instead of desiring to read novelistically.
DeleteFor the record I consider Gygax to have been an excellent writer or essayist. On the other hand, writing Fiction well requires a different order of talent and at that he was unremarkable.
ReplyDeletewell, I disagree about Gygax's qualities as an essayist (he sounds like a guy who hangs out with much younger men because they are the only ones who will listen to him pontificate), but I think we can agree that his fictional efforts violate international law.
DeleteI can't think of a rpg writer whose style was more appropriate and entertaining or who had a deeper understanding of gaming concepts and tried to articulate them. I think Greg Stafford comes close. What rpg authors do you think are better writers?
DeleteSometimes we dislike a thing because of the people who like that thing.
I have always found enjoyment browsing the DMG, can you give a specific example of what you don't like in his language?
I think Ken Hite is a more compelling, lucid, and interesting writer.
Delete"Sometimes we dislike a thing because of the people who like that thing," is a wise statement. Gygaxnards have much to answer for.
Here's an example of Gygaxian I find tedious: "Game time is of utmost importance. Failure to keep careful track of time expenditure by player characters will result in many anomalies in the game. The stricture of time is what makes recovery of hit points meaningful."
1) I don't believe any o that is true
2) Those sentences barely develop the thought from the previous line. It keeps going in that fashion.
I think Kent's [a] is a point worth considering. I agree that different uses suggest differing levels of detail and originality, but I think the tenor of most G+ discussion tends to favor chart-level detail and elevator pitch level idea development as an absolute good.
ReplyDeleteYour writing recommendations are spot on. I'd also add: (1) if you're going to use a Clark Ashton Smithian vocabulary word, make sure you know what it means and its general usage. (2) Don't use a fancy word unless it adds something that a less fancy word wouldn't. (3) Don't use multiple sentences to tell me a monster is "bad" (for example) without using those sentences to further define their badness in a useful/interesting way. Otherwise, just tell me once in the most evocative way you know how. (4) Have faith in your reader and don't sweat certain details. If a spell only effects "mothers," in most cases I don't think you have to go into exhaustive detail defining biological motherhood vs. the role of a mother, and in what instances what definition might apply. Let the reader decide how they want to use that tidbit.
Hmm, I do think chart-level detail and elevator pitch level idea development are a good...but only for certain uses. Deeper detail is something I see as a good also, but one that has a different use (one that I would say happens somewhere other than at the table.)
DeleteTaken together, our writing suggestions boil down to "Strunk & White are your new gods." Which is the best advice, really. I've curious about #4 on your list because that sounds way to specific to be a made-up example.
Also, Dwimmermount is a horrible offender on point #3. So much space is waster on telling you that the bad guys will betray the party if they form an alliance with them, but I think that's part of the weird morality that is tacked onto the dungeon.
I phrased poorly: there's nothing wrong with chart-level detail and elevator pitch level idea development except being told it's superior to all other approaches in every circumstance, which I feel is how a lot of discussion begins to sound at times.
DeleteThat example is made up, but yeah I was thinking of something very specific. ;)
Ah, I get what you mean. And I'll totally cop to have a general preference for terseness, but also that it's situational and not something I think is superior across the board. For example, I've never played GURPS (and thus have never used a GURPS book at the table) but damn if the sourcebooks don't make for fine reading as idea mines!
DeleteThey do indeed.
DeleteYeah, I think in all instances, whatever writing style you're going for, "Could this be shorter and more straight-forward? Could this be tighter?" are very important questions to ask yourself.
Yeah, I think a lot of rpg writers aren't as good at writing as they assume. But then, that bar has always been set really low.
DeleteI don't care for Strunk & White and I violate every principle of good writing, which should probably tell me something.
DeleteOh man, Strunk & White is my jam!
DeleteFor me, the ideal module would have both a component that could be read for mood, as well as a separate aid for use at the table (something approaching a one-page dungeon or two-page spread is ideal). Stuff about "was once used by diplomats" or Gygaxian prolixity is fine here (if it adds to the adventure, of course).
ReplyDeleteI actually disagree about the "kitchen" advice. I don't want to have to read an essay, especially if there are important clues or other details hidden within, but I don't have a good enough memory (or good enough note-taking skills) to remember improvised details well. So, if it's a location that PCs are ever likely to visit again, I need more than "kitchen." Something like:
Kitchen: two stoves with chimneys to surface, cabinet full of stuff, larder with skinned halfling.
By "is fine here" of course I mean the longer prose part, not the at-the-table aid.
DeleteActually, that one-line description you posted is perfect for me. Plus, "larder with skinned halfling" is one of those tiny ideas that can become very large and interesting as your describe it in play.
DeleteWhat I object to is a description like this:
Kitchen: In ancient days this chamber was used to prepare food for the King of Castleland and his guests, who frequently came from far and wide because of rumors of gastromic delights to be had therein. This room contains a stove, a work surface, 5 soup ladles, 24 spoons, 23 forks, meat carving knives (2d10), 12 pots, 10 pans, and a larder whose contents have rotted over the years. There are two chimneys to the surface that were constructed by the dwarf architect Dwarmje the Grandificent, who died in 1435 of a plague that swept the Carniferous Mountain."
I think that I don't prefer terseness, but a big part of that is that I actually have little use for the types of products that most benefit from that style. Other than actual, basic, RPG system prose, I prefer all of my RPG material to be idea mines. I have little use for adventures; that's the type of product that I have the least of, and I haven't read much of what I do have.
ReplyDeleteI think D&D (and its derivatives) suffer the most from this type of bloat, part because of the lingering influence of Gygax's writing style, and in part because of Gygax's strategy of splitting AD&D into three books, which is now seen as a de facto standard of some kind. There's really just no need to go into that kind of depth for an RPG system book. Even in d20, which is percieved by most to be a complicated and arcane system, can fit easily into a single book, which includes setting information, in every single d20 game except D&D--Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, d20 Modern, etc. It's like the editors of fantasy book series like The Wheel of Time first cut their teeth editing D&D products; neither one seems to have any will whatsoever to improve, tighten, polish, or most importantly--cut unnecessary text.
So I like details in what I read. I like products that are more in the style of a GURPS sourcebook. But like with a GURPS sourcebook, I'm going to cherry pick details that I'll actually use and discard the rest.
I don't prefer terseness for the kind of product you're talking about either; what I am saying is that different kinds of products require different writing strategies that match the reading practices best suited to that product's use.
DeleteI feel even more confident saying that RPG "lines" that can get their core info deployed in one book instead of Gygax's three-book-split are actually better products. Moldvay's basic D&D, Warhammer 1e, Call of Cthulhu, etc. seem more functional than AD&D and its descendants. Hell, the AD&D DMG isn't particularly useful as a game book; it's also an idea mine meant to be read novelistically.