| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would go so far as to say that MOST writing forms cherish precise and concise language. (The two obvious outliers being textbooks and law.)
Do you never wonder why law books are so wordy, given that linguistic skills are highly prized in the legal profession?
Law books, and their convoluted syntax, is what is required to remove all ambiguity from the English language.
Textbooks are just repetition, written for people who cannot understand the first three ways the topic was explained.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Law books (and especially laws) definitively do not remove ambiguity.
That's why Lawyers (and Judges) have jobs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Law books (and especially laws) definitively do not remove ambiguity.
That's why Lawyers (and Judges) have jobs.
No, not completely, but the lack of brevity is the result of attempting to remove ambiguity.
They are certainly far less ambiguous than Patherfinder rulebooks.
For some reason, Orfamay has taken a hardline stance opposed to yours.
I have not. I have said that "in my experience, ... brevity produces more errors than wordiness." If that's hardline, your standards may need recalibration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as a simple example, I remember an editor of mine once tried to convert "we found no evidence to disprove" into "we proved," and the jury's eventual verdict was "justifiable homicide."That's a poor example because it changes the fundamental meaning of the text though.
... which is one of the main way that brevity introduces errors. Brevity encourages oversimplification.
Beyond that, given that the context is clarity here, neither the original nor the edited phrasing are particularly unclear and a reader would not come away from either sentence confused.
The editor who made the change disagrees with you, since he thought the two constructions were synonymous.
If you think there's better talent available to Paizo, I can give you a phone number for that as well.It's not really an issue of talent though. It's pretty obvious here that you have a very low opinion of PDT,
Didn't I state that they are "hiring the best in the business"? Why yes, I did.
The problem comes in that if you're already hiring the best in the business, it's really hard to hire anyone better.
For some reason, Orfamay has taken a hardline stance opposed to yours.I have not. I have said that "in my experience, ... brevity produces more errors than wordiness." If that's hardline, your standards may need recalibration.
No, you actually did.
Yes. And the snark is an appropriate response to such a demonstrably counterfactual assertion.
Which was in response to:
Similarly, I'm sure that the Cleveland Browns would love to have a quarterback with the speed of an Olympic sprinter, the agility of a karate master, the throwing speed of a Cy Young pitcher, the accuracy of a Marine Corps sniper, the resilience of Rasputin, the character of a Boy Scout, and the general physicality of an amorous rhinoceros. What they actually have is Robert Griffin III. If you know where to find an upgrade, I can give you a phone number to call.
All snark aside, it is my assertion that those can both be had with somewhat less consternation than you suggest.
That is A BUNCH of consternation. Suggesting that having both brevity and clarity is akin to finding the combination of olympian, black belt, champion pitcher, sniper, et cetera in a single individual willing to spend their prime playing football is essentially suggesting that no-such-combination can exist.
That is a rather hard line view.
... which is one of the main way that brevity introduces errors. Brevity encourages oversimplification.Just as a simple example, I remember an editor of mine once tried to convert "we found no evidence to disprove" into "we proved," and the jury's eventual verdict was "justifiable homicide."That's a poor example because it changes the fundamental meaning of the text though.
In bad editors, yes I would agree.
Beyond that, given that the context is clarity here, neither the original nor the edited phrasing are particularly unclear and a reader would not come away from either sentence confused.The editor who made the change disagrees with you, since he thought the two constructions were synonymous.
See above
If you think there's better talent available to Paizo, I can give you a phone number for that as well.It's not really an issue of talent though. It's pretty obvious here that you have a very low opinion of PDT,
Didn't I state that they are "hiring the best in the business"? Why yes, I did.
The problem comes in that if you're already hiring the best in the business, it's really hard to hire anyone better.
This is dancing dangerously close to the edge of "no true Scottsman."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would go so far as to say that MOST writing forms cherish precise and concise language. (The two obvious outliers being textbooks and law.)Do you never wonder why law books are so wordy, given that linguistic skills are highly prized in the legal profession?
Law books, and their convoluted syntax, is what is required to remove all ambiguity from the English language.
Textbooks are just repetition, written for people who cannot understand the first three ways the topic was explained.
No I don't wonder. I am relatively comfortable with my assumption that it is because being dense, difficult-to-parse, and still maintaining ambiguity is what keeps the profession employed. Secondarily it allows them to create a barrier to entry as well as manipulate actual law to their favor without being so easily noticed.
For what it is worth, I also assume that being dense, difficult-to-parse, and still maintaining ambiguity is a goal of textbook authors for much the same reason. There is always a need for a better text, there is always need for traditional academics to "explain" (ie lecture), and it has the added bonus that you can charge $1.00 a page for textbooks so profit motive is in play as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: this is at Lilly, above. I was ninja'd and I lack time to properlyquite her. Sorry.
-------
I'm not really sure they are. I recognize the reasoning behind it, and I'll bow out of the argument, but I've yet to be convinced that an entire profession built around the concept of, "That doesn't mean what you think it means." (okay: it's only partially built around that concept, lawyers and judges do a lot of other stuff) isn't filled with ambiguity.
And even when it's not ambiguous, it actively hampers its own attempts at communications by attempting to be overly precise. It's one of the reasons so few people read the lie ending agreements: they're boring and irritating and often you've forgotten what it is you've read by the time you get to the part that demands you read it all before you agree. It no longer serves its own purpose of communicating the law.
It often seems to serve to protect the interests of the one who is usually the wealthier and more powerful entity - hm, rather diabolic, in PF terms. But that perception - true or not - is part of the problem: the hefty emphasis on exacting word over spirit (and continuous contention over and arguments about the spirit and letter) weaken people's faith.
Of course, all of this bypasses that RPGs are not legal texts and, according to the dev team, aren't meant to be written or held to a legal matrix like standard, arguing for a more casual approach and a lighter hand - a brevity, as it were.
That said, I understand how hard it can be to edit down. Concept A is written with so many words. Shedding those is haaaaaaarrrrrrrrd. And takes time. And mind space. Several of which are not given to Paizo developers. Because PDT likes to eat. And eating requires money. And money requires turnover of new product in a timely fashion. Sooooo...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me the problem is clearly one of editing. I would love to see the standardization of language usage. If a capability is optional, use the wording of *may* or *can*. In the absence of such keywords, the capability is always active. This is made harder by the inclusion of derivative material, or adding new capabilities that were previously unknown. Previously there was only arcane and divine magic. Adding psychic magic, without a complete sweep of what the impact to the whole rule set is, can introduce ambiguity. Even something as simple as separation of fluff text verses rule text can be difficult if the wording isn't clear. But all of these are expensive, time consuming, and as such unlikely to happen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A true professional writer can absolutely make statements quite clear and concise without having to sacrifice brevity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me the problem is clearly one of editing. I would love to see the standardization of language usage.
Standardization of language is one of my favorite arguments for Pathfinder 2.0
It is too late to try to standardize language in the existing game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. Making it clear what requires "an attack action" (Vital Strike) versus things which allow "an attack" as part of them (Spring attack). Standardization would be nice. Maybe even have it that when discussing the action required in a description, the action is always italicized.
This would make things like Vital strike and spring attack more clear. Something like power attack with no italic action in its benefit do not require an action to use. Telling you that power attack could be used with either feat.
Example:
Spring Attack
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.
Vital Strike
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scientific papers was an example I gave because DrDeth tossed out the ole "you haven't done so fallacy.
Scientific papers are different than fiction are different from technical manuals are different from legal briefs and are different from game manuals.
I have co-authored three papers, two game supplements, a couple of briefs, a couple of short stories, a government internal report (Civil Grand Jury investigation) and quite a few internal desk manuals.
Each calls for an entirely different style of writing. If Paizo wrote their game guides like my scientific papers, they'd both have about the same readership....nearly zero. (I am not sure if even all my co-authors read all of the papers they put their name to...) ;-)
So, yeah, if you havent done it , it's OK to criticize but not to say it's easy.
I found writing gaming stuff damn hard. And, it was really bad, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is a rollercoaster.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is a rollercoaster.
I'm sorry, can you be more clear? Do you think this webpage is actually an amusement park ride or do you only mean that the feelings you get while reading it remind you of riding on said amusement park ride?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is a rollercoaster.I'm sorry, can you be more clear? Do you think this webpage is actually an amusement park ride or do you only mean that the feelings you get while reading it remind you of riding on said amusement park ride?
You snarky bastard.
By which I mean the informal definition of "an unpleasant or despicable person" not someone born to parents not married to each other.
Hot damn that's tedious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A true professional writer can absolutely make statements quite clear and concise without having to sacrifice brevity.
in fact the more codified your wording is, the more easily it is to predict page length of content.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a whole separate problem with Paizo overusing similar sounding terms. There's the attack action and the full attack action, which are mutually exclusive. They're both attacks, but you can spend a standard action to make an attack in other ways and it's not an attack action.
Then the definition of 'attack' itself is applied inconsistently. You can make an attack with a spell, but it doesn't work with the rogue's sneak attack (or at least, the arcane trickster's capstone heavily implies it's not supposed to) despite the latter using the generic term 'attack'.
There was also a recent FAQ that suggested that "with a weapon" was shorthand for "with a manufactured weapon" in text language. Which means that attacks with natural weapons don't benefit from those options, even though both manufactured and natural weapons are called weapons.
It's confusing.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Writing "standard attack" would, in hindsight, probably be clearer than "the attack action".
The issue here though is that you just can't anticipate everything. Software gets refactored and patched. We've been developing mechanisms to do localized changed without breaking the greater whole for decades now. Which also isn't easy (not all updates go off without a hitch), but at least computers are less b!&++y about it and there are many more ways to do automatic integration testing in software development.
In RPGs, you generally get one chance to do it right, and if you mess it up you may be stuck doing errata constrained by pagination on the next printing, or waiting until a new edition. Those are really hard circumstances for delivering quality and coherence.
The language related to "must I use a feat" was really not so sensitive when feats first appeared, because at that time feats were beneficial only. So the need to clearly specify whether you have to use them just wasn't important.
If top-notch software development can't anticipate every new requirement, why would it be reasonable to expect game developers to anticipate everything?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue here though is that you just can't anticipate everything.
There is a difference between anitcipating everything and using the same word for four completely different things. There is a difference between anticipating everything and not putting text saying the feat gives you profiviency in the benefits section of a proficiency feat (seriously, RAW, the armor proficiency feats do absolutely nothing).
The problem is that the CRB never layed a good foundation. Why repeat that spell casting rules in the class discription of every magical class instead of putting them into the magic section? Why add "The [class] must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat" and "These bonus feats are in addition to the feats that a character of any class gets from advancing levels." to bonus feats throughout the game instead of making a bonus feats entry in a glossary where those general rules are stated? Why not properly stating once how temporary and permanent bonuses to ability scores as well as ability damage work, instead of putting down six incomplete lists and stating only half the necessary information, but six times?
And I haven't even started about how the CRB only really works for the core classes, and for instance the extended casting time for spontanous casting + metamagic always talks about "sorcerer and bard" and not about spontaneous casting in general.
It is also IMHO almost impossible for authors to see all of the various rule interactions past, present and future.
Which is the biggest reason why precice and concise language is so important. The more fluff and unnecessary words you put in, the greater the chance of unwanted interaction is. For instance, as written, the Animal Fury rage power makes the bite attack in a full attack action in which the barbarian attacks with only natural attacks as a primary attack that is nonetheless done at BAB-5. In any case, it adds only half strength on damage rolls. All because the writer thought it would be a great idea to repeat the general rules on how natural attacks work, but then wrote them wrong.
I'd say what Paizo is lacking is editors that play the game. When I see a fighter archetypes that says it trades out the fighter bonus feats at 3rd and 5th level, I'm kinda loosing faith in Paizo. I immediately noticed that when I read the archetype. It can happen that the writer's brain did some funny stuff there - it happens to all of us. But a single person who has played the game a bit reading that archetype should notice that glaring mistake. Likewise, in Unchained, the literally first thing I thought when I read the sidebar for the Revised Action Economy was "What about UnMonk's Flurry?". I get that the different parts in unchained were written by different people, but how can an editor not catch that? How can an editor not catch spells that are lacking components, lack a duration, say "Saving Throw: Yes (harmless)", "Range: short (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)" (this one's in five different books), "Range: close (20 ft.)", or "School: Transformation"? All of these appeared in hardcover books, by the way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark,
That speaks to a fundamental problem in games publishing. From what you described, no one really "works for" anyone. They're all freelancers and do something closer to seasonal work rather than having a core team that devotes its time to a single product or even a single game.
Is that because there isn't enough work? Are employers in this industry too cheap? Is turn over so high on a product to product basis no one wants to work full time? Lots of questions there.
My background is pretty corporate. So, even though I can potentially change jobs half a dozen times in a year, at any one point all my attention is on one thing and I can really focus on that and the pay is consistent and predictable so I don't have to worry about it. I know that's not all industries, but then it really strains any credibility to claims that any company "hires the best" when there really isn't any hiring going on per se. It's more like renting and renting on a time share at that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Often from what I have seen other authors have not even seen or read other peoples sections in the book, so you can see how problems would arise from this method.
Right, which is where the editor is supposed to come in.
A true professional writer can absolutely make statements quite clear and concise without having to sacrifice brevity.
While the true scottsman plays bagpipes in the background?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think a game company these days would greatly benefit from a series of web-based tools that authors can work from that give automatic references, highlight words that are close to game terms and give suggestions, highlight known game terms and provide definitions, can point out some super-super obvious errors in ability text and so on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a pretty good read about how these errors get made and how difficult in can be to address them. Basically, mixing game terminology with natural writing is a mixed bag in results, and that is compounded by writers and editors with vastly different backgrounds in RPG terminology.
I get how that stuff gets written, what SKR doesn't explain is why there is no editor correcting those inconsistencies.
A big problem is when the PDT strait up breaks that guideline. SKR basically says "if it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". But then the PDT comes along and says "if the rage power says it increases the barbarian's damage reduction, and you do have damage reduction from a barbarian class feature, but one that's not called damage reduction... it does not qualify." Doesn't matter that the author added the rage power to the list of suggested rage powers to take with that archetype.
How can we deduct intention and use common sense when the PDT grossly violates common sense and goes against explicit author intend?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, and part of it is that SKR had some influence on how the rules were being made. With him gone I have noticed the design direction has changed so some "unwritten design rules" are not what they used to be, is what it seems like.
As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.
I agree, and part of it is that SKR had some influence on how the rules were being made. With him gone I have noticed the design direction has changed so some "unwritten design rules" are not what they used to be, is what it seems like.
As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.
Which is why "unwritten rules" are a dumb thing for a company to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why "unwritten rules" are a dumb thing for a company to use.I agree, and part of it is that SKR had some influence on how the rules were being made. With him gone I have noticed the design direction has changed so some "unwritten design rules" are not what they used to be, is what it seems like.
As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.
I really think that "unwritten rules" was a misnomer that took on a life of it's own. As I understand it, the term is used to describe design guidelines, for example, stuff like "Don't give a class evasion until they have at least +3 to their reflex save." That won't ever make it into a rulebook, but it is still important to the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's different between SKR's views and the FAQ in regards to Take 10?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's different between SKR's views and the FAQ in regards to Take 10?
Don't have a handy quote but I believe SKR had said that the check itself couldn't prevent take 10. So a jump over a lava pit was allowed even though lava was hot and dangerous. However if you were being shot at no luck. (I would have said no dice but you actually need them for this)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's different between SKR's views and the FAQ in regards to Take 10?Don't have a handy quote but I believe SKR had said that the check itself couldn't prevent take 10. So a jump over a lava pit was allowed even though lava was hot and dangerous. However if you were being shot at no luck. (I would have said no dice but you actually need them for this)
I'm not seeing anything in the Core FAQ that contradicts that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not seeing anything in the Core FAQ that contradicts that.What's different between SKR's views and the FAQ in regards to Take 10?Don't have a handy quote but I believe SKR had said that the check itself couldn't prevent take 10. So a jump over a lava pit was allowed even though lava was hot and dangerous. However if you were being shot at no luck. (I would have said no dice but you actually need them for this)
When Wraithstrike mentioned the Take 10 FAQ, I *think* they were referring to the non-FAQ which basically said that it is totally up to the GM because *drama*.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why "unwritten rules" are a dumb thing for a company to use.I agree, and part of it is that SKR had some influence on how the rules were being made. With him gone I have noticed the design direction has changed so some "unwritten design rules" are not what they used to be, is what it seems like.
As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.
When I say "unwritten" rules I mean the design rules that are in place, such as making sure characters of low levels dont get access to certain things or making sure PC's don't come into something they can't deal with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's different between SKR's views and the FAQ in regards to Take 10?
The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.
The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.
I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?
Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things.
The take 10 FAQ says nothing about it being used to like this. They said it was used a rule to help the GM pace the adventure.
As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.
where is that FAQ?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think a game company these days would greatly benefit from a series of web-based tools that authors can work from that give automatic references, highlight words that are close to game terms and give suggestions, highlight known game terms and provide definitions, can point out some super-super obvious errors in ability text and so on.
And anyone who can program that would likely have a very profitable software to market.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.
The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.
I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?
Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things.
The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.
SKR seems to think that taking 10 is used to help adventures maintain an active pace, to get to interesting challenges. That's what the FAQ says, too.
The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is... That's what the FAQ says, too.
1. That's not a PDT FAQ answer, they explicitly said "No FAQ required", so it's NOT a ruling.
2. What FAQ? Link?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A true professional writer can absolutely make statements quite clear and concise without having to sacrifice brevity.
Since it doesn't say "may", does this mean that they have no choice but to do so?
Professional writers try to do so. They don't always succeed. This isn't a question of "no TRUE professional writer ever writes something too briefly to be clear", it's a question of "not everything works out the way you intended."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And anyone who can program that would likely have a very profitable software to market.
A fallacy in software development is the "build it and they will come" mindset. Getting a product off the ground is so much more connections and marketing than it is objective quality.