Am I being fair?

[Anthony Adam]

I find myself sitting after a recently made vote questioning whether I was fair.

The situation was two items of pretty much equal mojo, flair, template use, originality and execution.

Now the thing that became the deciding factor for my vote came down to 3 words. Each of those 3 words I had to look up in a dictionary.

So I took the decision that the language used in an entry wasn't matching the general reading level of the target audience/ in line with the language used in the core books. So I down voted the one with the 3 obscure words.

This is why I ask myself whether am I being fair. Just because I didn't know the words, doesn't mean that they are fanciful words used to show "how clever I am with big words". Once I had looked them up, I could see how they were being used/intended.

Now, had this been a case of fanciful words in the name of the item, I probably wouldn't have used this as the deciding criteria, but these were complex words used in the description of the item and how it works.

So I thought I would pose the question here and see what the general consensus is.

Should our language in the description of an item use words that may not be generally used and be of a much higher reading level perhaps than say a thirteen year old would be expected to understand?

[Samuel Kisko]

Your first inclination is likely the correct one. I am fond of short, clear, and concise writing.

[Maurice de Mare]

Superstars create items that are easy to use.

The thesaurus is your friend, as a writer I use it all the time. 13 year old comprehension (PG 13?) is a good level to write for.

So yeah, if all things are equal those 3 words could tip the scales.

[Andrew Marlowe]

Not knowing what the words were or in what context they were used I cannot say definitively whether you were being fair or not however you are probably alright.

Beyond illustrating how clever our ideas and writing are, we are also supposed to be creating something people could conceivably use in their games. That means clarity is paramount. If the language chosen impaired your understanding of the item it will likely confuse someone else.

I imagine clarity is as valid a deciding factor as many of the other more arbitrary things we have all used to parse close entries.

[Coridan]

Obscure words in the name are cool (I learned that nesting dolls are called matryoshka this year). In the rules text not so much.

[cwslyclgh]

Coridan wrote:

Obscure words in the name are cool ... In the rules text not so much.

this is how i look at it too.

[Malach the Merciless]

Long term does not hugely matter, your vote is your opinion anyway, and if you don't like items like that, your opinion, your vote, but with the amount of votes, that won't knock said item out of the top 32.

[Friend]

Yes, that's 100% fair. Style matters.

Don't worry about whether or not others might know the words. Others vote.

[Raphael]

Based on the above comments, Gary Gygax wasn't RPG Superstar material then(!). The 1st edition AD&D DMG was full of obscure words that I had to look up as an 11-year old. Doing so instilled a love of language that I have to this day. There seems to be a "dumbing down" movement in the RPG industry which I think runs counter to the origins of the hobby.

[Eric Hindley]

I'm just going to leave this here.

It's important to remember that what's a common word to you may prove obscure to someone else, and vise-versa. English is a rich language with a great deal of subtlety, especially in adjectives. The difference between black and obsidian or jet or midnight can alter the way we look at an item.

That being said, I think that actual rules text should be as clear as possible, but the name and flavour text is a good place to stretch your vocabulary. I also think that using obscure words for the sake of being obscure tends to show.

Obviously, you can use whatever criteria you like to judge an item, and if odd words are throwing you off, feel free to vote against it.

[Joseph Valoren]

I disagree with all of you.

When I started gaming, I was eleven. There were many words I was introduced to for the first time via gaming books, and I had to look them up, process them, and understand them before I could really grasp the underlying concepts they represented. When I started playing old World of Darkness games at around fourteen, that presented even more extreme challenges.

Many of the words that are traded on in gaming fairly liberally are still mystifying to people outside of the fandom or gamer communities. But tabletop gaming is a reading-intensive hobby that requires being introduced to a massive lexicon of words that don't enter the average citizen's vernacular. The same could be said of many hobbies, but gaming, especially, by virtue of the breadth of words dedicated to its creation, demands an expansive vocabulary. Not to punish or keep out those who don't understand, but to give them a compelling reason to learn.

If we stop raising the bar of the understanding of the young and the newest additions to the hobby by insisting we create a dialog using only the words they can easily understand as a child, we do them a disservice by depriving them of the educational benefits of gaming, and we do ourselves a disservice by gutting one of the most positive, beneficial side effects of the hobby.

Edit: Almost all of you. Big ups, Raphael.

[Pedro Coelho]

As a non-native speaker, I'm all for obscure words. Comics, books and RPG have taught me more about the english language (especially regarding vocabulary) than any classes I've ever taken.

[Raphael]

I wanted to say what Joseph said, but words failed me. His post is exactly what I was thinking.

Good work, sir!

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

This is a tough one.

While I agree that obscure words in RPG material, novels, comic books, et. al. have helped my vocabulary and helped me become a better reader, writer, and has increased my reading comprehension.

I think that our society tends to speak to the lowest common denominator, and teach in our schools to such as well, in that we, as a whole, have become lazy when it comes to our vocabulary and reading comprehension. To wit, how many times have you (or someone you know) read only half a spell, or half of a paragraph of a rule, and assume you knew what it did, only to be shown that if you’d actually read the entire spell or entire rule, you would need to do it a different way. I know I have, and I tend to be on the more anal side of reading the entirety of rules and spells and such.

Secondly, in a contest like this, where you literally read hundreds of ideas, and you have to parse which one you like better, reader fatigue can become a huge thing. If I don’t understand your item without having to look up several words, then I believe for a contest like this, you were trying too hard (or just trying to make yourself look smart.) Either way, bad idea in my mind.

You have to, in many cases, write to your audience and for the circumstances. While some in the audience may be ok with obscurity, the circumstances certainly don’t support it.

[Feros]

I have no problem with words I don't know and having to look them up. My vocabulary gets better and my visualization of what is being described becomes clearer as a result. But even Gygax tended to use simple words in explaining rules points (not anywhere near to always, but at least he tried to make things as clear as possible). If the words were used in the fluff section of the item, then I would say that wasn't necessarily the right call. If it was in the crunch part—trying to explain to a GM using the item on the fly in some cases—then it would be the right call.

Ultimately it is your decision. If it wasn't clearly defined I would consider it flawed and vote it down if all else was equal.

[Joseph Valoren]

Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

If I don’t understand your item without having to look up several words, then I believe for a contest like this, you were trying too hard (or just trying to make yourself look smart.) Either way, bad idea in my mind.

You can vouch for your own vocabulary, but can you vouch for everyone else's? What exactly is the line regarding whether a contestant is "trying too hard"? Is it when you don't know the word? Because I haven't encountered any words I haven't known, yet. What if someone whose vocabulary isn't as expansive as yours saw your entry and downvoted it because they couldn't understand a given word without looking it up? At what point does the responsibility fall on the reader?

"I'm tired of voting and don't want to have to look up words that I don't already know" is a lazy, fatuous reason to downvote. Vote less or read more.

[Anthony Adam]

General consensus in the main seems to be use them in the name for flavor but keep the description easy to flow so that you do not have to stop your game mid flow to look up a word when referencing for a rule call.

Thanks everyone. I thought it would be a good discussion point, and feeling slightly better with myself.

I obviously didn't list the words to maintain the entrant and item anonymity, let's just say the were getting close to words like...

Honorificabilitudinitatibus

(It's from Shakespeare)

[Samuel Kisko]

Raphael wrote:

Based on the above comments, Gary Gygax wasn't RPG Superstar material then(!). The 1st edition AD&D DMG was full of obscure words that I had to look up as an 11-year old. Doing so instilled a love of language that I have to this day. There seems to be a "dumbing down" movement in the RPG industry which I think runs counter to the origins of the hobby.

Good point, although I point out that Gygaxian prose is practically its own narrative form of art. Regardless, most of his items are rather straight-forward with much of the rules in the hands of the DM.

A tip of the hat to Mr. Gygax, whose Harlot table taught me that the difference between a Slovenly Trull, Saucy Tart and a Expensive Doxy are by no means trivial.

[Jacob W. Michaels]

Personally, I've enjoyed a handful of words I've had to look up in the contest.

That said -- and maybe this is voter fatigue starting to settle in -- when I've got two items that I feel are equal, both with good template use, pricing, mechanics, etc., I have to find SOME way to distinguish them (or use the neither button, I suppose, but like others I try to avoid that). If that's what you chose, I don't know that it's any less valid a method than flipping a coin.

I try to remind myself that in the scheme of things, one vote is probably not going to really eliminate an item. If both are really good, they'll have risen to the top over the course of the voting. If neither are good enough to be in the top, my vote to say one is the 300th best item and the other is 301st also really isn't going to change the Top 32.

ETA: Also, as others noted, people's vocabulary is different. I used the word "susurrus" in an item I didn't submit and was surprised when one of my friends had never seen it before. This is a guy who's smart, been gaming much of his life, is in theater (and thus has read Shakespeare and such works) ... I never would have thought it was an obscure word, but to him it certainly was.

[Jason S]

Short Answer: I don't blame you and it's your personal preference (there is no right or wrong answer).

Long answer: I personally don't like reading material that uses obscure words that I've never seen in my entire life. One word might be ok, especially if it's the name of the item, but nothing beyond that. So I don't do it to others. When writing technical documentation, we aim for a grade 5 reading level. When writing game mechanics, the designers seem to write in a similar concise style.

[Joseph Valoren]

Jason S wrote:

When writing technical documentation, we aim for a grade 5 reading level. When writing game mechanics, the designers seem to write in a similar concise style.

That's simply not accurate. Technical documentation is not hobby fantasy roleplay mechanics. The former has to be understood by any layperson on the project, the latter by an in-group of dedicated hobbyists.

"No apologies for the language in Dungeon. Part of the joy of this hobby is reading, and part of the joy of reading is learning new words." - Erik Mona

[Anthony Adam]

I quite agree with everyone ( even when conflicting :) ).

I think what we are all saying is that it is fun to find new words (it is), but there is a place for them.

You want the crunch, the rules, to be easy and fast to pick up and resolve any rule disputes as quickly as possible, but I agree there is no problem with putting them into the fluff, i.e. the visual descriptions of what things look like. Also the name is a very good place as it immediately makes you think "what does this do?" and so you look.

The item I had in question used unusual phraseology in the rules part of the description, and personally, had I had the item presented to me by a player at my table, it would have slowed things down whilst I researched the words.

We won't ever eliminate this due to varying levels of reading, comprehension, location, and even variance of "English" language, but we shouldn't be making things harder for ourselves or for new people coming into the hobby.

It's a mental note for myself too as a designer.

I must write at the same level of the game books I am designing for.

[Raphael]

Samuel Kisko wrote:

A tip of the hat to Mr. Gygax, whose Harlot table taught me that the difference between a Slovenly Trull, Saucy Tart and a Expensive Doxy are by no means trivial.

Yes, I remembering reading those in the DMG and then using them in the schoolyard, circa 1983. They have served me well.

[agirlnamedbob]

I'm kind of mixed on this one. From a publishing standpoint, there is something to be said for keeping the overall reading level of a work at a certain level. Hobby industries do get to play by different rules, BUT they do still need to be mindful of how broadly they can appeal to people. At the end of the day, Paizo is still a business and they want to sell their product to as many people as possible.

Not to riff on Gygax (I love the man and am proud to live but a stone's throw from his home town), but he didn't approach all of this with the mind of a publisher...it started as something he did with his friends and it grew in the same way Tolkien's work grew and wound up shaping an entire genre. Gygax also used vocabulary to really drive points home.

That said, I don't flat-out think that complex words are a bad thing. It's a personal judgement call. For me, it boils down to this. Did they use the RIGHT word? Words have subtleties to them and they can invoke various imagry and connotations when used properly. Sometimes an obscure word is perfect...sometimes a simpler one carries more weight. If I have to look a word up, but I come away feeling like "Wow...perfect word choice," then good on you. ...If it feels like you were trying to score brownie points by using the "Thesaurus" feature in Word and just ended up with word salad? Now I'm annoyed. Somewhere in the middle? Well, we're back to personal judgement call.

[Kiel Howell]

I think the Superstar part is knowing when the word will cause issues. Part of being an excellent designer is knowing when obscure and flavorful words should be used and when they should not. Rules are generally not a place you want to use those words that need a dictionary pulled out, unless there is absolutely no other simpler word. Pretty much everything else, though, can have as big and fluffy of words as desired.

Obfuscating Mist sounds cool, but a lot of people may not know what that word means right off the bat. Obscuring Mist is a more common word and gets the point across.

"A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary. The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet." uses the common word to make it quick and easy to understand so a GM doesn't have to stop gameplay to look it up. "A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary. The vapor obfuscates all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet." could potentially grind things to a halt for a few minutes.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Joseph Valoren wrote:

Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

If I don’t understand your item without having to look up several words, then I believe for a contest like this, you were trying too hard (or just trying to make yourself look smart.) Either way, bad idea in my mind.

You can vouch for your own vocabulary, but can you vouch for everyone else's? What exactly is the line regarding whether a contestant is "trying too hard"? Is it when you don't know the word? Because I haven't encountered any words I haven't known, yet. What if someone whose vocabulary isn't as expansive as yours saw your entry and downvoted it because they couldn't understand a given word without looking it up? At what point does the responsibility fall on the reader?

"I'm tired of voting and don't want to have to look up words that I don't already know" is a lazy, fatuous reason to downvote. Vote less or read more.

Well either you haven't run into a couple of these items yet, or your vocabulary is in the upper echelon of Mensa. Seriously.

If its a word that you don't see when reading even the most complex of fantasy novels or even high end literature, then it probably is a word that doesn't belong in this particular contest.

I've also seen made up words within the mechanics of an item.

Overall, you want to write something so that it is easily understood. When 50% of the people in the world that might play your game have to look up a word to understand how to use a magic item, then it is probably a word that doesn't belong in that context.

[Anthony Adam]

Pendin Fust wrote:

"A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary. The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet." uses the common word to make it quick and easy to understand so a GM doesn't have to stop gameplay to look it up. "A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary. The vapor obfuscates all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet." could potentially grind things to a halt for a few minutes.

I cancelled my post as your example was far neater than mine. This was the sort of situation I had.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Raphael wrote:

Samuel Kisko wrote:

A tip of the hat to Mr. Gygax, whose Harlot table taught me that the difference between a Slovenly Trull, Saucy Tart and a Expensive Doxy are by no means trivial.

Yes, I remembering reading those in the DMG and then using them in the schoolyard, circa 1983. They have served me well.

But Slovenly, Trull, Saucy, Tart, Expensive, and Doxy are not the obscure words we are referring to here. Those are rather standard words in my mind.

[Joseph Valoren]

agirlnamedbob wrote:

Did they use the RIGHT word? Words have subtleties to them and they can invoke various imagry and connotations when used properly. Sometimes an obscure word is perfect...sometimes a simpler one carries more weight.

This. I'm no advocate for using big words simply because they're big, but if the right word for the job is a more esoteric one, you do yourself and your reader a disservice by dumbing down your language.

There is, of course, also a point where one is making a piece qualitatively more difficult to read by virtue of the language one selects. I think you can make a compelling case for showboating when that happens, but that loses points from me more for being hostile to the reader as an overall work than for poor word selection.

[Jeff Lee]

With all due respect to Mr. Gygax and his major influence on the improvement of my vocabulary, I think Anthony had a perfectly valid reason to vote the way he did. And when you think about it, it's only one vote. It's not likely to tip the scales of the overall outcome. I've had items, that were equal when it came to the overall presentation, where I voted one over the other simply because "[blank] items are cooler than [blank] items."

[Joseph Valoren]

Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

Well either you haven't run into a couple of these items yet, or your vocabulary is in the upper echelon of Mensa. Seriously.

If its a word that you don't see when reading even the most complex of fantasy novels or even high end literature, then it probably is a word that doesn't belong in this particular contest.

I've also seen made up words within the mechanics of an item.

Maybe I just haven't seen the item(s) in question, then, because I'm neither that smart nor that well-read.

I said something above, and I want to clarify: I don't think a person should be penalized for using the right word simply for the reason that the reader doesn't know it. Made-up words, and words that are deliberately selected for being ostentatious or rare when there exist equally useful analogs, should be avoided, and on that I think we can all agree. I just also advocate raising the bar of readers' vocabulary whenever it's reasonably practical.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Pendin Fust wrote:

I think the Superstar part is knowing when the word will cause issues. Part of being an excellent designer is knowing when obscure and flavorful words should be used and when they should not. Rules are generally not a place you want to use those words that need a dictionary pulled out, unless there is absolutely no other simpler word. Pretty much everything else, though, can have as big and fluffy of words as desired.

Obfuscating Mist sounds cool, but a lot of people may not know what that word means right off the bat. Obscuring Mist is a more common word and gets the point across.

"A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary. The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet." uses the common word to make it quick and easy to understand so a GM doesn't have to stop gameplay to look it up. "A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary. The vapor obfuscates all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet." could potentially grind things to a halt for a few minutes.

This.

Although having played a ton of Vampire the Masquerade, obfuscate is not obscure to me. Although I definitely can see how some might feel so.

The point is, if its a word you've never seen before, and/or it isn't used in standard conversation (especially not in standard conversation with genre-specific crowds) then it probably doesn't make sense to use it in the context of this contest.

Defenestration is a cool word. I know what it means. I'm sure many of you all also know what it means.

But lets say you have an item that allows you to throw someone out of a window. In the fluff or even the item name, using the word defenestrate defenestration, or some other derivative, is probably ok.

But in the mechanics if you say, "when the user decides to defenestrate their enemy, they must make a CMB check with a +2. If the check succeeds then they defenestrate their enemy."

How many gamers you know would respond to that in one of these ways:

1) Cool, I rolled a 26, does that successfully defenestrate the guy?
2) Huh, what the heck does defenestrate mean? GM: Sorry, you can't do that, because I don't know what defenestrate means. Player: Oh, I looked it up for you, it means you can throw them out the window. GM: Oh, ok, that's fine then. You throw the guy out the window.
3) <eye roll> Really? Was that necessary? Couldn't they have just said, "when the user decides to throw their enemy out the window..."

I vote for 3. Most of my extremely intelligent, well-read gamer buddies, despite knowing the word, would roll their eyes and wonder what the developer was thinking in using that word in that context.

[Jeff Lee]

I had one item that used a word I wasn't familiar with in the name. I looked it up, problem solved. Granted, I could also argue that the word isn't exactly in the common vernacular (it's rare that I just don't know a word. I often look them up even if I do to refresh my memory or be sure of alternate meanings and nuances) but it fit the theme of the item so no real harm done.

There have been a couple that used words I didn't know, only for me to look them up and realize that I don't know them because they don't exist. That's a mark down for me. Even if you're creating a word, which is perfectly acceptable to me, if your neologism doesn't convey meaning, then it's a wasted effort.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Joseph Valoren wrote:

Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

Well either you haven't run into a couple of these items yet, or your vocabulary is in the upper echelon of Mensa. Seriously.

If its a word that you don't see when reading even the most complex of fantasy novels or even high end literature, then it probably is a word that doesn't belong in this particular contest.

I've also seen made up words within the mechanics of an item.

Maybe I just haven't seen the item(s) in question, then, because I'm neither that smart nor that well-read.

I said something above, and I want to clarify: I don't think a person should be penalized for using the right word simply for the reason that the reader doesn't know it. Made-up words, and words that are deliberately selected for being ostentatious or rare when there exist equally useful analogs, should be avoided, and on that I think we can all agree. I just also advocate raising the bar of readers' vocabulary whenever it's reasonably practical.

I can agree with that.

[Greg Monk]

Pendin Fust wrote:

Defenestration is a cool word. I know what it means. I'm sure many of you all also know what it means.

But lets say you have an item that allows you to throw someone out of a window. In the fluff or even the item name, using the word defenestrate defenestration, or some other derivative, is probably ok.

But in the mechanics if you say, "when the user decides to defenestrate their enemy, they must make a CMB check with a +2. If the check succeeds then they defenestrate their enemy."

How many gamers you know would respond to that in one of these ways:...
1) Cool, I rolled a 26, does that successfully defenestrate the guy?
2) Huh, what the heck does defenestrate mean? GM: Sorry, you can't do that, because I don't know what defenestrate means. Player: Oh, I looked it up for you, it means you can throw them out the window. GM: Oh, ok, that's fine then. You throw the guy out the window.
3) <eye roll> Really? Was that necessary? Couldn't they have just said, "when the user decides to throw their enemy out the window..."

Actually, my group would definitely go with 1.) But that's 'cause we LIKE the word Defenestrate.

Also, we're weird.

I do have to mention, though - "defenestrate" = 1 word. "throw out of a window" = 5 words. Kinda depends on how close to the 300 word count you were getting...

In all seriousness, if you need to use 5 or more words to get the meaning of one word, and even then it doesn't have the right flavor, I'd be more likely to go with the one obscure word. Sometimes a word is obscure specifically because it denotes a thing or action that is rarely used in everyday language, but is spot on for the specific writing task in front of you. Perfect example (from a previous post) = proboscis.

[DM] “O.k., Zorc, you take [rolls dice]… uhh, 4 points of damage from the stirge’s… ummm, long pointy thing in the front of his face….”
Now, certainly, not everyone knows the meaning of that word (though most of us do, or at least, those of us who have run into stirges before.) But obscure as it might be for some, what word would you use, instead? I guess stinger would work – but it doesn’t have the same connotation for me. ("What? It waved it’s but at me?”)

Just sayin’.

I will agree, though, that using a made-up word, or an obscure one where a more common word would have worked just as well, esp. if it feels like someone is just verbally showing off, would likely be wrong in this contest.

[Kiel Howell]

@Greg Monk

Again, describing what he is taking damage from is fluff type stuff, not a rule that needs to be adjudicated. Mandible would work too :)

I didn't mention it but I do completely agree with word count limits. This is where being a Superstar comes in. Being under word count and using words that allow flavor and ease of use.

[Kenton Abel]

As pointed out, if you are ranking items 301 vs 302, you are worrying needlessly about how to rank either. Regarding the bigger question, one enumbrened word may fettlen the submission, thrice is unquaynt.

[Anthony Adam]

Wow, who would have thought I would learn so many new words from one simple question. I really love these forums.

[Joseph Valoren]

All perfectly cromulent words, no doubt.

[Kenton Abel]

Joseph Valoren wrote:

All perfectly cromulent words, no doubt.

Perhaps not perfectly cromulent truth be known, but indubitably quasi-cromulent....

[Sean McGowan]

Joseph Valoren wrote:

All perfectly cromulent words, no doubt.

Having one's vocabulary embiggened is always a good thing.

[agirlnamedbob]

There's a clear difference between fluff and mechanics. General descriptions can be a great place for heavy hitting words as they tend to have more fluffy bits and are more meant to give the reader an idea of what the item is and what it does in a general sense. You're selling the reader on the item's "cool" or "useful" factor.

When it comes time to explain how that neat ability functions mechanically? The KISS method is usually the best approach. Because that's the bit I'm looking for in a hurry to make a quick decision when I'm at the table. I want to be able to read one or two sentances and immediately know the answer to my question, because there are dice to roll and orcs to kill, dagnabbit!

Though word salad, as you guys are pointing out, should still be avoided everywhere. When "this effervescing bottle is cold to the touch and smells faintly of sulfur" becomes "this effervescing decanter is arctic to the fingers and perfumes hazily of sulfer" it sounds like someone looked at the thesaurus and decided more was definitely better. ...And didn't bother to make sure they were even using accurate synonyms.

I haven't run into a lot of that last one, but there have been a few...

[Jason S]

Joseph Valoren wrote:

Jason S wrote:

When writing technical documentation, we aim for a grade 5 reading level. When writing game mechanics, the designers seem to write in a similar concise style.

That's simply not accurate. Technical documentation is not hobby fantasy roleplay mechanics. The former has to be understood by any layperson on the project, the latter by an in-group of dedicated hobbyists.

"No apologies for the language in Dungeon. Part of the joy of this hobby is reading, and part of the joy of reading is learning new words." - Erik Mona

I'm sorry, but game mechanics are written in a technical writing style, not in a narrative style. This is my observation. If you disagree, please point out even a single example. I’ll still be able to point to 1000 other examples where the vocabulary is straightforward, but I honestly haven’t seen any word in the core rulebook that exceeds my vocabulary and seems overly... pompous.

Even when reading the narrative in a module or scenario, it's extremely rare that I'll find even a single word that I don't know. However, when viewing items in this competition there always seems to be the odd person who is trying to impress us with their thesaurus.

[Raphael]

Greg Monk wrote:

Perfect example (from a previous post) = proboscis.

[DM] “O.k., Zorc, you take [rolls dice]… uhh, 4 points of damage from the stirge’s… ummm, long pointy thing in the front of his face….”
Now, certainly, not everyone knows the meaning of that word (though most of us do, or at least, those of us who have...

Deja vu! I was having lunch with a certain Paizo freelancer several weeks ago, and that example was cited! Small world.

[Curaigh]

1. For truth, I was reading some of my old Dragons last night. The Editors page was Erik Mona talking about the words he learned from D&D. Weird coincidence?
2. When I was 8, I had a friend who laughed at me, saying I accused him of being sesquipedalion. I looked it up, thought" "you a$$," and dinnae talk to him for a week.
3. Read rule 20.

Joseph Valoren wrote:

... What exactly is the line regarding whether a contestant is "trying too hard"? Is it when you don't know the word? ... At what point does the responsibility fall on the reader?

OH! OH! Pick me. Pick me, I know this one!: When the story gets disrupted. :)

speaking for myself only of course:

For me it comes down to how I find out the meaning of the word I dinnae know. First, how is it used in the sentence? Adjective or adverb no problem continue reading. Noun (especially subject) no problem, the rest of the paragraph should tell me about it. Verb is a bit more tricky, when she 'obscureverbated' him I have to know if what just happened to him. Did he like it? Did she need tools for it? Could she be arrested for that? Now I have stopped reading, I look at the word for a root that I recognize. If I find one; close enough continue reading. If I cannot, dictionary.com here I com. I have left the story (book or the game) to visit reality for a minute. Not good, but not bad. This is done subconsciously at this point in my life.

Until I have to do it three times. Then I am spending more time out of the story than in it. At the fourth that is too much.

Of course that is from the reader's end, the writer has a more difficult task of knowing when he will lose his readers.

[Jeff Lee]

On the question of "trying too hard," there's a Dickens character whose name escapes me that was a perfect example. He speaks in a lofty, overblown manner, using all the 25 cent words he can. Using a good word is fine. Using a whole bunch of good words to convey something simple is not.

"It is my notion that it is necessary for us to perambulate to the nearest mercantile where victuals can be purchased" is not as good as simply stating "We should go to the store and buy food."

So, yes, go ahead and stretch when naming objects and dust off the thesaurus for descriptive language, but don't overload it and bog things down.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Additionally, might I add, for fluff and item names, make sure your fifty cent words actually fit the theme of your item.

For example, last year I wrote an item that didn't make the cut.

Irisating Tabard.

Since irisating is a derivative of iris and has greek origins, I was thinking it would be cool if the piece of clothing was greek in nature. I went through many other clothing item names based on greek culture before I simply went with Tabard.

Neil Spicer actually had a fairly in depth commentary about this item and about the word Irisating. He had to look up the word, and found out what it meant, and then commented that the fluff text of the item fairly well fit the name, although he was expecting more iridescent colorings.

But if you just use a big word, to use a big word, and there is no thematic reason to use the big word, why use it?

If it fits the cultural aspects of the item, or the emotive feel of the item, or you are trying to relay that this item belongs in the hands of someone pompous, then sure, big words could get that across quite well.

But if I'm reading the item and I see a big word (even if I know it) and its like... <eye roll> ok smarty pants, why'd you use that word instead of a simpler one?

Using big words for the sake of using big words just irritates me.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Shadowborn wrote:

On the question of "trying too hard," there's a Dickens character whose name escapes me that was a perfect example. He speaks in a lofty, overblown manner, using all the 25 cent words he can. Using a good word is fine. Using a whole bunch of good words to convey something simple is not.

"It is my notion that it is necessary for us to perambulate to the nearest mercantile where victuals can be purchased" is not as good as simply stating "We should go to the store and buy food."

So, yes, go ahead and stretch when naming objects and dust off the thesaurus for descriptive language, but don't overload it and bog things down.

There was also an "In Living Color" character played by (forget if it was one of the Wayans or Jamie Fox) who was a homeless drunk who would get thrown in jail and then belabor everyone with big words that he used incorrectly (in some cases made them up). If I feel like that when reading your item, you shouldn't have used that word.

[Monica Marlowe]

Anthony Adam wrote:

I find myself sitting after a recently made vote questioning whether I was fair.

The situation was two items of pretty much equal mojo, flair, template use, originality and execution.

Now the thing that became the deciding factor for my vote came down to 3 words. Each of those 3 words I had to look up in a dictionary.

While I spent my formative years carrying around an age inappropriate novel and a very well worn MW's dictionary, I do find it kind of a pain in the rear to have to parse out what an entry is about. Especially since I might make it to Marathon before the end of this endless voting night and challenging vocabulary just slows me down :-)

[Herremann the Wise]

agirlnamedbob wrote:

...That said, I don't flat-out think that complex words are a bad thing. It's a personal judgement call. For me, it boils down to this. Did they use the RIGHT word? Words have subtleties to them and they can invoke various imagery and connotations when used properly. Sometimes an obscure word is perfect...sometimes a simpler one carries more weight. If I have to look a word up, but I come away feeling like "Wow...perfect word choice," then good on you.

Very much this!

Jack Vance (one of my very favorite authors) is renowned for his florid style. His use of overblown language was fantastic at getting across the pretentiousness and/or intellect of many of his characters. However despite this and perhaps the reason why he could get away with it was his faultless diction. And while I have always appreciated a dictionary nearby when reading his stuff, such mastery of the English language is both beautiful and enriching to read.

In terms of RPG Superstar though, I think you you dance a very fine line when putting your vocabulary out there for everyone to see. Never use a complex word when a simple word suffices. However, riffing off of agirlnamedbob, the more correct word in my opinion is always better, even if it is the more complex word.

I think Adam was correct though to ding the item with the three words as they obviously distracted him from the item; and when you're looking for a reason to differentiate between two items, the reasons given were perfectly valid.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise