PDA

View Full Version : DMing with an above average vocabulary



Maquise
2012-09-03, 10:05 AM
So, I have an issue that I sometimes run into when I GM. It doesn't crop up often, but it is annoying when it does.

You see, I have what I guess is an above average vocabulary. And while GMing, I find the need to make full use of it. I usually see this as an advantage, being able to verbally describe things in detail is proportionally easier to the number of words you know. However, this leads to the issue of players not knowing what a word means. I then have to stop and explain, which ruins the moment, the entire reason I chose to use that word in the first place.

Problem words so far have included:
Sconce
Brazier
Parapet
copse

Has anyone else had this issue, and does anyone know of a good way to address it?

Andreaz
2012-09-03, 10:12 AM
Point them to google's define: search parameter. Send a few words per day to them.

Seriously, parapet? Copse makes sense, but not knowing what a parapet is sounds...eerie.

Emmerask
2012-09-03, 10:20 AM
I´m not quite sure what you want to hear but in the end it all comes down to two solutions:

a)your players increase their vocabulary (unlikely)
b)you use more common words that your players do know :smallsmile:

Yes it might be hard but making sure that everyone in the group can picture the scene you try to paint for them in their minds is one of the most important requirements for a dm.

Oh there is of course

c) look for a new group that contains members with equally enhanced vocabulary ^^


Point them to google's define: search parameter. Send a few words per day to them.

Seriously, parapet? Copse makes sense, but not knowing what a parapet is sounds...eerie.

The thing is parapet is actually less descriptive then say battlement, it has two very distinct meanings (battlement or decorative pieces) :smallwink:

Then again I had to use wikipedia to know what the term means, though English is not my mother tongue

Lentrax
2012-09-03, 10:22 AM
So long as they know what a gazebo is... :smallbiggrin:

Premier
2012-09-03, 11:06 AM
You might want to check out these threads (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/search.php?keywords=%22vocab+test%22&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=topics&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search)...

Rallicus
2012-09-03, 11:42 AM
Here's how you address it. Just freakin' describe the word if you feel any indication that the players won't understand it. Instead of brazier, say "raised metal fire pit." So on and so forth.

I don't know what a parapet is, deal with it. I also wasn't sure what a dais was when I ran Whispering Cairn recently. Some words just don't stick with people.

This honestly shouldn't even be an issue. Does it really slow down your game so dramatically when someone asks for a definition (which you admit, "doesn't happen often,")?

TheThan
2012-09-03, 12:03 PM
This thread reminds me of the Brassiere of commanding fire elementals. (yes it has to be equipped, and takes up the chest slot).

(just make sure you don’t pronounce brazier like brassiere and you’ll reduce the amount of snickering and off topic discussions.)

Andreaz
2012-09-03, 12:05 PM
Then again I had to use wikipedia to know what the term means, though English is not my mother tongue

It's my third language.

dariathalon
2012-09-03, 01:02 PM
The easiest thing is to just dumb-down your vocabulary to suit their needs.

If you don't want to do this forever, then start working to actively increase their vocabulary. I wouldn't do this in blatant way though; it can come across as insulting to some people. Instead, try to build the vocabulary naturally.

"As you round the next hill, on the far side is a copse of trees. There are about 10 small trees clustered here, with large thorny bushes growing between them. Meliana's keen elven eyes see three or four small humanoid figures trying to hide amongst the undergrowth. There may be ambush waiting as the trail takes you past the copse. What do you wish to do?"

Using the word a couple of times as well as giving the players a good idea what it means in the flavor text will help them learn it. And then later on you can reinforce this by referring back to the battle at the copse as an example.

Raimun
2012-09-03, 01:56 PM
"... and he lights up a brazier."

"Umm... why is HE burning a brazier?"

snoopy13a
2012-09-03, 04:10 PM
I'm going to quote George Orwell:

"Never use a long word where a short word will do" and "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."

Use everyday words. The point is to communicate clearly and concisely, not to impress others with your vocabulary. If you use obscure words, then you'll get three possible reactions:

1) Most people will be upset as they'll have to look up the word's definition. They will also think you're pretentious.
2) About half of the people who know the word's meaning will think you're pretentious for using that word when an everyday word would have worked fine.
3) The other half of the people who know the word's meaning will be impressed and feel better about themselves for knowing the definition of such a complex word.

Fiery Diamond
2012-09-03, 04:55 PM
If you don't want to do this forever, then start working to actively increase their vocabulary. I wouldn't do this in blatant way though; it can come across as insulting to some people. Instead, try to build the vocabulary naturally.

"As you round the next hill, on the far side is a copse of trees. There are about 10 small trees clustered here, with large thorny bushes growing between them. Meliana's keen elven eyes see three or four small humanoid figures trying to hide amongst the undergrowth. There may be ambush waiting as the trail takes you past the copse. What do you wish to do?"

Using the word a couple of times as well as giving the players a good idea what it means in the flavor text will help them learn it. And then later on you can reinforce this by referring back to the battle at the copse as an example.

Best solution is that.


I'm going to quote George Orwell:

"Never use a long word where a short word will do" and "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."

Use everyday words. The point is to communicate clearly and concisely, not to impress others with your vocabulary. If you use obscure words, then you'll get three possible reactions:

1) Most people will be upset as they'll have to look up the word's definition. They will also think you're pretentious.
2) About half of the people who know the word's meaning will think you're pretentious for using that word when an everyday word would have worked fine.
3) The other half of the people who know the word's meaning will be impressed and feel better about themselves for knowing the definition of such a complex word.

Worst solution is that.

I have to put up with this in my everyday life, and it sucks. Catering to the lowest common denominator is a BAD thing, trying to non-insultingly increase the vocabulary of others to match what to you is a perfectly ordinary vocabulary is a good thing. As to those people who think it's pretentious to use normal words instead of dumbed-down language, I think they need to work out their issues and deal. They are the ones at fault (well, them and our education system).

The problem is that they aren't obscure words, or at least they shouldn't be. Dumbing down your language to avoid using normal words in favor of idiot-talk is both insulting to people with an actual vocabulary to speak of and highly irritating.

Why yes, I am a bit bitter.

Also, enhancing one's vocabulary is a good thing; not wanting to learn new words is the sign of a willfully ignorant person, which is one of the worst kinds of people apart from actively hostile types.

Nyes the Dark
2012-09-03, 06:25 PM
The thing is parapet is actually less descriptive then say battlement, it has two very distinct meanings (battlement or decorative pieces) :smallwink:


I'm reminded of the scene in The Amazing Race S17, where Dumb Muscle Nick and Vicki were looking for a flag they were supposed to get from a battlement, and they had no idea what that meant. So they were asking people, "Are you a battlement?" Classic. :smallbiggrin:

On topic: If it's just every so often someone says, "What?", define it in a sound byte. "A battlement is basically the series of ridges at the top of a castle."
Done.

If it happens often, do what dariathalon suggested and use the power of subliminal messaging and/or context clues to plant the meanings in their brains.

Kaun
2012-09-03, 06:55 PM
i would just explain the meaning if there is confusion, hopefully it means you can use the words in the future and they will all know what you mean.

I had to explain the difference between how sound is transmitted and how radio signals are transmitted the other day in a Shadowrun game.

It never hurts if your players leave the table a little more knowledgeable then when they sat down. :smallamused:

valadil
2012-09-03, 07:14 PM
Sconce
Brazier
Parapet
copse


Those all seem like fair game to me. I wouldn't dumb down the game at this point.

You might want to dumb down some NPCs. Your average hired goon probably doesn't have the vocabulary you do. Is he using an appropriate vocabulary or is he using every word you know?

Exediron
2012-09-03, 08:16 PM
Worst solution is that.

I have to put up with this in my everyday life, and it sucks. Catering to the lowest common denominator is a BAD thing, trying to non-insultingly increase the vocabulary of others to match what to you is a perfectly ordinary vocabulary is a good thing. As to those people who think it's pretentious to use normal words instead of dumbed-down language, I think they need to work out their issues and deal. They are the ones at fault (well, them and our education system).

The problem is that they aren't obscure words, or at least they shouldn't be. Dumbing down your language to avoid using normal words in favor of idiot-talk is both insulting to people with an actual vocabulary to speak of and highly irritating.

Why yes, I am a bit bitter.

Also, enhancing one's vocabulary is a good thing; not wanting to learn new words is the sign of a willfully ignorant person, which is one of the worst kinds of people apart from actively hostile types.

I believe that you're misinterpreting the point here. Probably on purpose, but just in case you're not I'll try to explain.

The idea here isn't using 'idiot-talk', as you so charmingly refer to it; it's about making an active (and polite) effort to use the most accessible words known to you which still accurately describe the subjects.

For example, you're trying to describe a scene before the characters. You can say: 'Before you can be descried an assemblage of deciduous vegetation, comprised in the main of the genus Acer pseudoplatanus, the specimens of which have evidently been coppiced for many generations to judge by the prodigious span of their stools.' Or you could just say 'You see a stand of mostly maple trees; they have clearly been cut and harvested for generations to have reached their current size'. Both contain basically the same information, but one of them is worded in an unnecessary and annoying fashion.

Despite my deep-rooted disagreement with the quoted post, I think the best solution here is simply to explain the terms used. I don't consider any of those to be unnecessarily erudite for a D&D group. I also don't really understand what your problem is with explaining the meaning. If you say that there's a copse of trees and someone says 'What's a copse?', why not simply respond with 'It's like a stand, or a thicket'. I would personally assume that the average group would know all of those words, at least to the limited level of comprehension required for them to fulfill their descriptive purposes. You don't have to know the difference between a parapet, breastwork and embrasure to know they all go on the side of a castle.

My issue with the quoted post really boils down to the fact that it can be easily read as 'Your vocabulary reflects your intelligence. Using simple words means you don't know complex ones. If you don't know complex words, you will inflict the curse of stupidity on others, who will themselves go on to use simple words.' This might not have been the intended message, but it comes across as quite offensive to me.

(NOTE: I didn't look up rather or not Sycamore Maple actually is coppiced or not, and I don't particularly care. It's just an example.)

Babale
2012-09-03, 08:20 PM
Every time they don't know what a word means, it's retroactively a monster that eats them! See also: The Deadly Gazebo.

Gamer Girl
2012-09-03, 08:35 PM
Has anyone else had this issue, and does anyone know of a good way to address it?

This has always been a bit of a problem for the game, but needless to ay it has gotten a lot worse in the last couple years. To put it lightly, more and more people have less and less of vocabularies.

The Easy Way Out is to just use common words. Don't say 'brazer' say 'copper pot full of fire'. Don't say 'tor' just say 'hill' and so on.

Another option is to make some vocabulary sheets. In Ye Old Days we made them with #2 pencils on yellow legal paper, but in the 21st century you can do wonders with a computer.

You can also do the 'teacher' way: "On the table you see small square object that is several sheets of paper all bound together with string and this strange, arcane object is known as a 'book' "

And just using the words over and over again, can get the people to know them. Before Star Wars no one knew what a 'droid', 'lightsaber', or 'the force' was.....but most know now.

Fiery Diamond
2012-09-03, 08:40 PM
I believe that you're misinterpreting the point here. Probably on purpose, but just in case you're not I'll try to explain.

The idea here isn't using 'idiot-talk', as you so charmingly refer to it; it's about making an active (and polite) effort to use the most accessible words known to you which still accurately describe the subjects.

For example, you're trying to describe a scene before the characters. You can say: 'Before you can be descried an assemblage of deciduous vegetation, comprised in the main of the genus Acer pseudoplatanus, the specimens of which have evidently been coppiced for many generations to judge by the prodigious span of their stools.' Or you could just say 'You see a stand of mostly maple trees; they have clearly been cut and harvested for generations to have reached their current size'. Both contain basically the same information, but one of them is worded in an unnecessary and annoying fashion.

Despite my deep-rooted disagreement with the quoted post, I think the best solution here is simply to explain the terms used. I don't consider any of those to be unnecessarily erudite for a D&D group. I also don't really understand what your problem is with explaining the meaning. If you say that there's a copse of trees and someone says 'What's a copse?', why not simply respond with 'It's like a stand, or a thicket'. I would personally assume that the average group would know all of those words, at least to the limited level of comprehension required for them to fulfill their descriptive purposes. You don't have to know the difference between a parapet, breastwork and embrasure to know they all go on the side of a castle.

My issue with the quoted post really boils down to the fact that it can be easily read as 'Your vocabulary reflects your intelligence. Using simple words means you don't know complex ones. If you don't know complex words, you will inflict the curse of stupidity on others, who will themselves go on to use simple words.' This might not have been the intended message, but it comes across as quite offensive to me.

(NOTE: I didn't look up rather or not Sycamore Maple actually is coppiced or not, and I don't particularly care. It's just an example.)

I did come across kind of harsh; sorry about that. It's a bit of a sore point for me - I live in an area where a high school graduate can tell me, in all seriousness, that I'm using "big words" and need to "use regular English" when I say things like "he's being condescending", "condensation on my windshield", "that's not very aerodynamic", "finish with a flourish", "I find that demeaning", and other such completely ordinary words and phrases. Telling someone not to use their vocabulary because others might not have one as extensive is, in my opinion, a bad thing; instead, use language as you will and explain when others need explanation. There's a difference between deliberately using language like your first example and just casually using any of the specific words you chose for inclusion in that example. The former can be kind of annoying, but the decrying the very use of "deciduous", "vegetation", "specimen", "comprised", "coppiced", or "prodigious" as somehow being a bad thing that needs to be eliminated in favor of "regular English" is something that angers me. Despite the fact that I don't know what "coppiced" means and now must go look it up.

As for the bolded part: Yeah, that's more or less my opinion on the matter - so long as the ignorance is willful. There are a few choices:

1) Never have been exposed to much in the way of vocabulary. Expects others to accommodate their limited vocabulary and protests that those who don't need to use "plain English." This, in my opinion, is stupidity.

2) Has been exposed, but never bothered to learn. Same attitude as #1. This is even worse.

3) Never exposed, but when confronted with new vocabulary asks for definitions and attempts to expand their vocabulary. This is perfectly fine, and in this case I don't think their limited vocabulary is reflective of their intelligence, just of their lack of exposure to new words.

4) Has been exposed, but never uses them because others don't know them. This is bad, and what I'm protesting against. This perpetuates the cycle of limited vocabulary and makes #1 more common.

5) Has been exposed, lords it over others and shows off. This is arrogant and irritating. This is also bad, and mostly what people pushing for #4 are protesting against (as I understand it).

6) Has been exposed, uses vocabulary. When necessary, defines terms for people who fit in #3. This is the best. In my ideal world, only #3 and #6 would exist.

Edit: Erudite would be considered too erudite to be used. Just had to throw that out there. Because the only way I can keep this from driving me insane is to find humor in the bleak reality.

Malak'ai
2012-09-03, 08:52 PM
Worst solution is that.

I have to put up with this in my everyday life, and it sucks. Catering to the lowest common denominator is a BAD thing, trying to non-insultingly increase the vocabulary of others to match what to you is a perfectly ordinary vocabulary is a good thing. As to those people who think it's pretentious to use normal words instead of dumbed-down language, I think they need to work out their issues and deal. They are the ones at fault (well, them and our education system).

The problem is that they aren't obscure words, or at least they shouldn't be. Dumbing down your language to avoid using normal words in favor of idiot-talk is both insulting to people with an actual vocabulary to speak of and highly irritating.

Why yes, I am a bit bitter.

Also, enhancing one's vocabulary is a good thing; not wanting to learn new words is the sign of a willfully ignorant person, which is one of the worst kinds of people apart from actively hostile types.

This I have to make an exception to, and I'll explain my reasoning fairly simply.
I consider myself to have a pretty good vocabulary, but I also have this thing called Dyslexia... Meaning I find it difficult to not only learn how to spell/pronounce new words but also to remember their meanings (not to mention how atrocious my math skills are).
So while I sit there for ages racking my brain trying to remember how to pronounce a fancy word for, as an example, gate, I find that it not only slows the game down but also reduces the amount of fun I have while either playing or DM'ing.

So when you say it's insulting how people use 'idiot-speak' when conversing with you, have you considered that those are the easiest words that they know to fit what they are trying to say? The ones they fully know the meanings of and how to pronounce?

As to people not actively trying to increase their vocabularies, I have met many others who suffer from a large variety of learning disorders and for what ever reason, be it shame, frustration or fear, they don't have the mental strength or endurance to sit there struggling for hours, days, weeks, months or years to the best of their ability to learn new words when the ones they know will serve them perfectly fine in their lives.
Now for those who think that these people must have pretty simple lives or jobs, that's not always true. One of the people I know who is near illiterate in terms of reading and writing is a fully registered and chartered Accountant for quite a large Accounting firm in Wellington, New Zealand.

So for you to say that these people are 'willfully ignorant' is so far off base that it not only offends me, but these others who, through no fault of their own, have accepted the truth of their disability and are continuing on with their lives the best they can.

Emmerask
2012-09-03, 09:10 PM
As for the bolded part: Yeah, that's more or less my opinion on the matter - so long as the ignorance is willful. There are a few choices:


Wow that is a very narrow world view, but at one point or another you will realize that people have different sets of abilities and not everyones is as good in languages (or even their native tongue).
In my days at university I met a lot of people who I would consider more intelligent then me despite them having worse vocabulary (except in their respective fields of study).

/edit oh and similarly I have of course met people who where very eloquent, once I got to know them better though... well there was not much else going on in that brain of theirs :smallwink:

Ravens_cry
2012-09-03, 09:29 PM
Ten-dollar words can be nice and chewy and potentially add a certain archaic flavour to things.
That been said, if the players don't understand the words, then the effect is lost no matter how articulate and well spoken you are.

Exediron
2012-09-03, 11:20 PM
I did come across kind of harsh; sorry about that. It's a bit of a sore point for me - I live in an area where a high school graduate can tell me, in all seriousness, that I'm using "big words" and need to "use regular English" when I say things like "he's being condescending", "condensation on my windshield", "that's not very aerodynamic", "finish with a flourish", "I find that demeaning", and other such completely ordinary words and phrases. Telling someone not to use their vocabulary because others might not have one as extensive is, in my opinion, a bad thing; instead, use language as you will and explain when others need explanation. There's a difference between deliberately using language like your first example and just casually using any of the specific words you chose for inclusion in that example. The former can be kind of annoying, but the decrying the very use of "deciduous", "vegetation", "specimen", "comprised", "coppiced", or "prodigious" as somehow being a bad thing that needs to be eliminated in favor of "regular English" is something that angers me. Despite the fact that I don't know what "coppiced" means and now must go look it up.

I admit that I've run into similar reactions (people telling me that four syllable words are 'big words', for example) from time to time. I would also consider all of your examples to be fairly standard English (particularly Flourish and Demeaning). The only one I would grant is slightly advanced is Aerodynamic - not because of the word itself, but because an actual knowledge of aerodynamics is a somewhat advanced topic and without it one would not be able to accurately respond to your claim. Still, I would expect anyone I meet to at least know what the concept of aerodynamics is about.

As to my example, I concede that most of the words in there aren't all that rare. I didn't feel like looking anything new up, so I just threw a bunch of slightly unusual alternatives in. 'Coppiced' occurred to me because of all the talk about a copse. However, my point is that the descriptions 'an assemblage of deciduous vegetation, comprised in the main of the genus Acer pseudoplatanus' and 'a stand of mostly maple trees' contain the same information, while the second example is not only shorter but also more likely to be understood. The first example contributes nothing except possibly a feeling of superiority on the part of the speaker.

Admittedly, some rarer words are actually more precise; for example, if it was actually important that the trees were coppiced then it would surely be quicker for me to say that than to describe the process of coppicing. That's not the point, however.

My issue here is the equation of complex or precise language with intelligence, and more importantly the implied like relationship of simple language with simple minds. I think it's elitist and pretentious. If a person is capable of adequately communicating a concept with simple language, then why should they use more complex language? I sometimes slip into doing so, but that's because I find constructing elaborate language to be fun, not because I think it makes me somehow better. For some people, knowledge is an end unto itself, but I do not support trying to impose that framework on all people.

Basically, I think that it's perfectly alright to use complex words, just as it is to use simple words, so long as they both get your point across. Complex words are designed to be more precise (or they're just leftovers from a dead culture that people use to impress others), and the only case when it's incorrect to not use one is when you need its precision. In the above example... Actually, I was going to say something about sconces, but then it occurred to me that I wasn't sure if he was going for the light fixture or the improvised artillery fortification. Which actually makes a decent case for saying either torch bracket or earthen fortification.

Anyway, my point is that just because people don't use complex language (grr, I'm getting tired of saying that - I should come up with an alternative) doesn't mean they aren't intelligent, and I fail to see a reason to use it for its own sake. It definitely is my opinion that many people who throw legitimately big words and scientific names around do it to impress others, usually unsuccessfully. Actually, gratuitous scientific names are one of the areas where it makes the least sense - they're universally longer, and mean the same thing anyway. The only difference is that one is in a dead language.

There is one very good reason for having a large and varied vocabulary, and that's to prevent you from reusing words too often, which makes writing look stale and poorly assembled. If you know five ways of saying 'do not', then you won't get stuck using two in a row. But unless you intend to be an author, that's usually pretty minor.


Edit: Erudite would be considered too erudite to be used. Just had to throw that out there. Because the only way I can keep this from driving me insane is to find humor in the bleak reality.

That occurred to me, although I would hope not. It may be that my usual contacts have spoiled me. Although knowing what it is doesn't keep me from wanting to hurt my group when they argue about the Pythagorean Theorem and diagonal movement...

BootStrapTommy
2012-09-04, 01:04 AM
A rather famous example of poor vocabulary gone bad, from Portable Hole of Beer:

In the early seventies, Ed Whitchurch ran "his game", and one of the participants was Eric Sorenson. Eric plays something like a computer. When he games, he methodically considers each possibility before choosing his preferred option. If given time, he will invariably pick the optimal solution. It has been known to take weeks. He is otherwise, in all respects, a superior gamer. Eric was playing a Neutral Paladin in Ed's game. He was on some lord's lands when the following exchange occurred:

ED: You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.
ERIC: A gazebo? What color is it?
ED: [pause] It's white, Eric.
ERIC: How far away is it?
ED: About 50 yards.
ERIC: How big is it?
ED: [pause] It's about 30 ft across, 15 ft high, with a pointed top.
ERIC: I use my sword to detect good on it.
ED: It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.
ERIC: [pause] I call out to it.
ED: It won't answer. It's a gazebo.
ERIC: [pause] I sheathe my sword and draw my bow and arrows. Does it respond in any way?
ED: No, Eric, it's a gazebo!
ERIC: I shoot it with my bow. [roll to hit] What happened?
ED: There is now a gazebo with an arrow sticking out of it.
ERIC: [pause] Wasn't it wounded?
ED: OF COURSE NOT, ERIC! IT'S A GAZEBO!
ERIC: [whimper] But that was a +3 arrow!
ED: It's a gazebo, Eric, a GAZEBO! If you really want to try to destroy it, you could try to chop it with an axe, I suppose, or you could try to burn it, but I don't know why anybody would even try. It's a @#$%!! gazebo!
ERIC: [long pause. He has no axe or fire spells.] I run away.
ED: [thoroughly frustrated] It's too late. You've awakened the gazebo. It catches you and eats you.
ERIC: [reaching for his dice] Maybe I'll roll up a fire-using mage so I can avenge my Paladin.
At this point, the increasingly amused fellow party members restored a modicum of order by explaining to Eric what a gazebo is. Thus ends the tale of Eric and the Dread Gazebo. It could have been worse; at least the gazebo wasn't on a grassy gnoll. Thus ends the tale of Eric and the Dread Gazebo. A little vocabulary is a dangerous thing.


Personally, one of the more absent members of my common play group is a fellow named Chris. Admittedly, he is a former drug addict, and as a consequence, he isn't the brightest, having given up on education years ago. The other day he got really confused when my buddy Dustin and I used the term "facetious". He went so far as to ask us "How did you guys have such as big vocabulary?"

Dustin facetiously responded "Context. I always figured out the definitions of a word through its context. Of course I had a really hard time figuring out what "context" itself meant. You know, since I couldn't figure it out through context."

Knaight
2012-09-04, 01:07 AM
Problem words so far have included:
Sconce
Brazier
Parapet
copse

Has anyone else had this issue, and does anyone know of a good way to address it?
I've had this issue. However, given the words in question the problem seems to be less one of an above average vocabulary, and more one where your players are unfamiliar with the source material. The listed words are part of the fantasy lexicon, and a significant enough part that failing to know them after having read even a handful of fantasy novels is unlikely. In this case, the easy fix is to suggest that your players read a handful of fantasy novels.


"Never use a long word where a short word will do" and "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."
The bolded parts illustrate the main sticking point. Long words, foreign phrases, scientific words, and jargon can all be used in a pretentious manner to ape intelligence. However, they also tend to have more precise meanings, where avoiding them either involves an imprecise word that doesn't convey the information you want or several sentences.

To use an example from D&D - I've described the light from a bullseye lantern refracting before. That could have been avoided, and the term "bending" could have been used instead. However, that is unclear - it could be reflection as well as reflection, and to note that it was refraction involves some commentary on bending on surfaces. It's inefficient, and refraction is simply better because a short word would not do, and there was not an everyday equivalent; this is quite often the case.

VanBuren
2012-09-04, 05:30 AM
I did come across kind of harsh; sorry about that. It's a bit of a sore point for me - I live in an area where a high school graduate can tell me, in all seriousness, that I'm using "big words" and need to "use regular English" when I say things like "he's being condescending", "condensation on my windshield", "that's not very aerodynamic", "finish with a flourish", "I find that demeaning", and other such completely ordinary words and phrases. Telling someone not to use their vocabulary because others might not have one as extensive is, in my opinion, a bad thing; instead, use language as you will and explain when others need explanation. There's a difference between deliberately using language like your first example and just casually using any of the specific words you chose for inclusion in that example. The former can be kind of annoying, but the decrying the very use of "deciduous", "vegetation", "specimen", "comprised", "coppiced", or "prodigious" as somehow being a bad thing that needs to be eliminated in favor of "regular English" is something that angers me. Despite the fact that I don't know what "coppiced" means and now must go look it up.

As for the bolded part: Yeah, that's more or less my opinion on the matter - so long as the ignorance is willful. There are a few choices:

1) Never have been exposed to much in the way of vocabulary. Expects others to accommodate their limited vocabulary and protests that those who don't need to use "plain English." This, in my opinion, is stupidity.

2) Has been exposed, but never bothered to learn. Same attitude as #1. This is even worse.

3) Never exposed, but when confronted with new vocabulary asks for definitions and attempts to expand their vocabulary. This is perfectly fine, and in this case I don't think their limited vocabulary is reflective of their intelligence, just of their lack of exposure to new words.

4) Has been exposed, but never uses them because others don't know them. This is bad, and what I'm protesting against. This perpetuates the cycle of limited vocabulary and makes #1 more common.

5) Has been exposed, lords it over others and shows off. This is arrogant and irritating. This is also bad, and mostly what people pushing for #4 are protesting against (as I understand it).

6) Has been exposed, uses vocabulary. When necessary, defines terms for people who fit in #3. This is the best. In my ideal world, only #3 and #6 would exist.

Edit: Erudite would be considered too erudite to be used. Just had to throw that out there. Because the only way I can keep this from driving me insane is to find humor in the bleak reality.

Why, though? Why do I need to exercise and show off my large vocabulary? As far as I can tell, words are meant for communicating ideas and thoughts to other people. The inherent value of syllables aside, if I'm not able to communicate my point, then I am in the wrong--whether that be because I am unable or unwilling to use easier words or because I do not know more difficult words that were created for the kind of precision I need.

On the other hand, if I am able to communicate clearly and without confusion... well, then who are you to tell me that I'm doing it wrong?

Jay R
2012-09-04, 07:27 AM
DMing is like teaching. It's assumed you know more about the specific topic than anyone else in the room, but your activity has no purpose unless the others can understand you.

Go back and re-read the gazebo story. Lots of people like to laugh at the player who didn't know the word "gazebo", but this is actually a textbook example of bad DMing. As soon as it became clear that Eric didn't know the word gazebo, the DM should have said "Oh. Eric, a gazebo is not a monster. It's a wooden building with no walls used to provide shade in a park."

Don't try to DM in French to a group that only knows English, and for the same reason, don't say "copse" to people who don't know the word.

Having said that, I've learned that I prefer to DM for people who know the vocabulary of medieval fantasy, just as it's more fun to teach graduate courses than freshman courses.

But when I'm teaching freshmen, I teach on the freshman level.

Iceforge
2012-09-04, 08:30 AM
DMing is like teaching. It's assumed you know more about the specific topic than anyone else in the room, but your activity has no purpose unless the others can understand you.

Go back and re-read the gazebo story. Lots of people like to laugh at the player who didn't know the word "gazebo", but this is actually a textbook example of bad DMing. As soon as it became clear that Eric didn't know the word gazebo, the DM should have said "Oh. Eric, a gazebo is not a monster. It's a wooden building with no walls used to provide shade in a park."

Don't try to DM in French to a group that only knows English, and for the same reason, don't say "copse" to people who don't know the word.

Having said that, I've learned that I prefer to DM for people who know the vocabulary of medieval fantasy, just as it's more fun to teach graduate courses than freshman courses.

But when I'm teaching freshmen, I teach on the freshman level.

Totally agree, when I read it, right when Eric calls out to the gazebo, thats the moment the DM should have stopped to explain what a gazebo is, rather than once again just state its a gazebo, like telling Eric for the 3rd time that it's a gazebo would make him suddenly know that a gazebo is

shadow_archmagi
2012-09-04, 10:59 AM
I say go ahead and use your wordfulness to its full abundant virtue.

D&D is second only to, I don't know, Livejournal maybe, in terms of how much purple prose people are going to expect and tolerate.

I DIDN'T SIGN UP TO MEET A SWORDGUY FROM THE ICE PLACE, I HAVE MSPA FOR THAT. TELL ME ABOUT THE NOBLE WARRIOR WHO HAILS FROM THE FROZEN NORTHLANDS OF THE MJOLNIR WASTES

Andreaz
2012-09-04, 11:16 AM
I say go ahead and use your wordfulness to its full abundant virtue.

D&D is second only to, I don't know, Livejournal maybe, in terms of how much purple prose people are going to expect and tolerate.

I DIDN'T SIGN UP TO MEET A SWORDGUY FROM THE ICE PLACE, I HAVE MSPA FOR THAT. TELL ME ABOUT THE NOBLE WARRIOR WHO HAILS FROM THE FROZEN NORTHLANDS OF THE MJOLNIR WASTES

You clearly never played Exalted, Legends of the Wulin, Nobilis, Weapons of the Gods, Scion, Aberrant, Vampire, Mummy, Mage, Angel, Devil...Really just about anything by whitewolf/onyx path or EOS :p

shadow_archmagi
2012-09-04, 11:29 AM
You clearly never played Exalted, Legends of the Wulin, Nobilis, Weapons of the Gods, Scion, Aberrant, Vampire, Mummy, Mage, Angel, Devil...Really just about anything by whitewolf/onyx path or EOS :p

I meant roleplaying games in general.

Andreaz
2012-09-04, 11:34 AM
I meant roleplaying games in general.I read D&D there. D&D doesn't even come close!
Even the cyberpunk in exalted has strange names that'll make you feel sick that you like them so much.
<pits a duel between Excessively Righteous Blossom, The Maiden of the Mirthless Smile and Uncle Wu>

snoopy13a
2012-09-04, 12:07 PM
The bolded parts illustrate the main sticking point. Long words, foreign phrases, scientific words, and jargon can all be used in a pretentious manner to ape intelligence. However, they also tend to have more precise meanings, where avoiding them either involves an imprecise word that doesn't convey the information you want or several sentences.

To use an example from D&D - I've described the light from a bullseye lantern refracting before. That could have been avoided, and the term "bending" could have been used instead. However, that is unclear - it could be reflection as well as reflection, and to note that it was refraction involves some commentary on bending on surfaces. It's inefficient, and refraction is simply better because a short word would not do, and there was not an everyday equivalent; this is quite often the case.

You're absolutely right. Long words are for capturing a certain nuance or precision, which is probably why the words were invented in the first place. Most of the time, however, nuance and precision aren't necessary and using a more common synonym is preferable.

What Orwell was decrying, at least in these two points, was overuse of jargon--a common fault of every single industry--and "thesaurus writing"--using rarer and more complex synonyms needlessly, often by using a thesaurus to find the rare synonyms. Thesaurus writing is likely the bane* of AP English teachers everywhere :smalltongue: .

Orwell's main concern was the manipulation of language--also a theme in 1984--but that's outside the scope of this discussion.


*I might be contradicting myself by using this word instead of "enemy," but oh well :smalltongue:

huttj509
2012-09-04, 01:21 PM
You clearly never played Exalted, Legends of the Wulin, Nobilis, Weapons of the Gods, Scion, Aberrant, Vampire, Mummy, Mage, Angel, Devil...Really just about anything by whitewolf/onyx path or EOS :p

Tomorrow night my Tsuruchi Wasp will be running around with 2 Crabs (well, one used to be a Lion), and a couple Dragons. We have a Shugenja, but no Courtier.

Man, listening to my friends discuss their L5R adventures REALLY confused me for a while.

For some real life referable examples, I'll point out that in the Penny Arcade Dark Sun podcast, there was a lot of talk about one NPC being carried in a litter. It wasn't until well after multiple uses of the word that one player pointed out that he had no clue what they were looking at. Everyone else knew the term, so they were understanding things about the litter being sliced in half, etc.

For a political example, a few years ago (wait, 13 years ago? Really? I feel old) there was a use of the word '*****rdly' (stingy or miserly) with regard to a proposed budget. He was pushed to resign due to complaints about the 'racial slur.' "Julian Bond, then chairman of the NAACP, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding", he said. "David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back — and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them.""

Edit: Ok, I understand the forum censor, but in context you gotta admit that's amusing.

Gamer Girl
2012-09-04, 06:40 PM
Wow that is a very narrow world view, but at one point or another you will realize that people have different sets of abilities and not everyones is as good in languages (or even their native tongue).
In my days at university I met a lot of people who I would consider more intelligent then me despite them having worse vocabulary (except in their respective fields of study).

/edit oh and similarly I have of course met people who where very eloquent, once I got to know them better though... well there was not much else going on in that brain of theirs :smallwink:

Once upon a time that average person knew 10,000 words(14,000 for women). But over the last couple of decades that number has shrunk down to 3,000 and 5,000. And there are lots and lots of reasons for that....

It's fair to say that most ''D&D'' words are not in common usage. So most people won't even know them. You have to help out new players with 'Vocab Words' just like they do in grade school. Tell them about the word, use it in a context and so forth.

The XP reward never hurts. Giving 5xp for the correct use of a Vocab Word...

Craft (Cheese)
2012-09-04, 06:43 PM
Once upon a time that average person knew 10,000 words(14,000 for women). But over the last couple of decades that number has shrunk down to 3,000 and 5,000. And there are lots and lots of reasons for that....

[citation needed]

Keep in mind there's a big difference between "words a person can recognize and use correctly" and "words a person actually uses and encounters on a daily basis." I wouldn't be surprised if what you're thinking of was actually measuring two different types of vocabulary.

Knaight
2012-09-04, 06:47 PM
Once upon a time that average person knew 10,000 words(14,000 for women). But over the last couple of decades that number has shrunk down to 3,000 and 5,000. And there are lots and lots of reasons for that...
You have two figures for modernity, one of which is 67% higher than the other. All but one of these figures appears to have all of one significant digit. It's a major claim, and you have no citations whatsoever - why should we believe this?

Gamer Girl
2012-09-04, 06:49 PM
[citation needed]

Keep in mind there's a big difference between "words a person can recognize and use correctly" and "words a person actually uses and encounters on a daily basis." I wouldn't be surprised if what you're thinking of was actually measuring two different types of vocabulary.

I'm talking about ''recognize and use''.

After all the words that a person encounters daily is very low, something like less then 200 words.

dps
2012-09-04, 07:22 PM
I've learned that I prefer to DM for people who know the vocabulary of medieval fantasy, just as it's more fun to teach graduate courses than freshman courses.

But when I'm teaching freshmen, I teach on the freshman level.

Well, that brings up the first thing that came to my mind when I read the opening post: how old and how well educated are the players that Maquise is DMing for? If they're college graduates in their mid-to-late 20s or older, then they should be ashamed of themselves and I can understand Maquise's frustration. OTOH, if they're 10 year old grade schoolers, then Maquise should know better than to use those terms in his game.

Knaight
2012-09-04, 07:28 PM
I'm talking about ''recognize and use''.

After all the words that a person encounters daily is very low, something like less then 200 words.

Given the data suggesting that college students say about 20,000 words per day, this sets an average of 100 incidents of word use per word, which only gets higher once one adds in words heard, read, and written. 200 unique words in a day seems extremely low.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-09-04, 07:35 PM
Given the data suggesting that college students say about 20,000 words per day, this sets an average of 100 incidents of word use per word, which only gets higher once one adds in words heard, read, and written. 200 unique words in a day seems extremely low.

Actually, her figures are starting to sound suspiciously like the (known-bogus) Speedtalk data...

Gamer Girl
2012-09-04, 07:45 PM
[citation needed]


Oh, sorry I don't do that.

I know better then to reach across the aisle and get my hand burned by the wall of fiery flames.

Emmerask
2012-09-04, 08:13 PM
Once upon a time that average person knew 10,000 words(14,000 for women). But over the last couple of decades that number has shrunk down to 3,000 and 5,000. And there are lots and lots of reasons for that....


What is Once upon a time?
To find anything regarding your claim I would really need a time frame ^^

Still my comment was more about the claim that eloquence equals intelligence comment which clearly is rubbish, yes language skills are a very small part of intelligence but they do not equal it, there is a lot more to it :smallwink:

Knaight
2012-09-04, 08:16 PM
What is Once upon a time?
To find anything regarding your claim I would really need a time frame ^^

"Over the last couple of decades" places it at 1988 at the earliest, assuming that 25+ years would be counted as three decades and thus violate "couple".

Emmerask
2012-09-04, 08:19 PM
"Over the last couple of decades" places it at 1988 at the earliest, assuming that 25+ years would be counted as three decades and thus violate "couple".

And the avg vocabulary use has shrunken by 50 to 66% in that time frame?
I find that dubious at best really.

Inglenook
2012-09-04, 08:24 PM
The average person using 200 different words per day is a gross underestimate by any measure, I would think. Particularly when you consider how many job-specific terms are used in the workplace. But it's a moot point—there's no standard method for determining a person's vocabulary. Do you count different forms and tenses of verbs as separate words? What about homonyms? Homographs? Plurals? What about words that a person sort of understands, but not entirely?

A "metal bowl filled with fire" is unnecessary; it's called a brazier. It has a name. If a player asks you what it is, that's one thing, but you shouldn't have to dumb down words by replacing them with their own definition. You wouldn't call a tree "a tall, natural-looking thing made of wood, covered in flat green things", after all (unless you're talking to, say, a mountain dwarf who had never before seen a tree).

I'm a fan of precision in language, but not just in meaning—you should also consider connotation, mood, phonology, formality, etc. and select the word that best conveys what you want to get across. During a speech, you might be better off going with a more neutral "many" than possibly-confusing "plethora" or the too-casual "a lot of". There's a huge difference between a "sad yell" and a "heart-rending shriek". "Whisper" sounds, well, like a whisper—much more than "talk quietly". The word "shrill" carries a more unpleasant connotation than "high-pitched", and the sound of the word itself is sort of painful.

As long as you avoid thesaurus-speak and purple prose, keep rocking with your bad self. :smallsmile:

Edited for spelling.

Fiery Diamond
2012-09-04, 08:26 PM
Perhaps it is a narrow worldview that I hold, as at least one person has said. But just like many scientifically-minded individuals believe that learning for learning's sake (rather than needing a particular aim) is a virtue, I hold that having a large vocabulary - strike that, ACQUIRING, not having - is in and of itself a positive value, as are utilizing one's vocabulary (see there: I could have said "using," since utilize is largely a redundant word anyway) to facilitate communication of clear and precise concepts AND to more fully enjoy the language(s) from which one's vocabulary springs.


Also, I very much despise the idea of catering to the lowest common denominator. Having an explanation handy for those who don't know what a word means is obviously important; looking down on those with a lesser vocabulary because they have less exposure to the language is both arrogant and idiotic, as is deliberately attempting to conceal the meaning of your speech by using words you know your audience will not understand. I see absolutely nothing wrong with thinking poorly of people who simply don't care about expanding their vocabulary to the extent that they expect others to use only words they already know, however.


EDIT: The person who posted directly above me expresses some of my opinions rather accurately also. I think the main disconnect between me and others here is that I see ANY dumbing down of vocabulary to be equivalent, in terms of value and worth, to the replacement of tree example.

Emmerask
2012-09-04, 08:34 PM
Okay so the only article I found about it was this:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2724/does-the-average-american-student-have-less-vocabulary-today-than-in-days-gone-by

It pretty much says that this notion about the 60% drop is based on misreading the studies at best or a journalist trying to make sensationalist claims (and selling his article^^) at worst.

It also says that there might be a small drop but it can´t really be substantiated due to the test used for it being extremely old (words from the 1920s).
Since a language is constantly evolving words from 90+ years ago might very well not be in common use anymore and therefore replaced by other for the younger generation.

So if there is no other scientific data backing this I would call the 50-66% drop to be not true

Knaight
2012-09-04, 08:40 PM
It also says that there might be a small drop but it can´t really be substantiated due to the test used for it being extremely old (words from the 1920s).

That test is fundamentally worthless in that case. Linguistic drift guarantees that an increasing proportion of words will not be counted towards vocabulary, regardless of actual changes.

Jack of Spades
2012-09-04, 08:40 PM
It's also worth noting that as more of humanity becomes literate, one would expect average vocabulary to drop slightly as the figure for those being subjected to the tests becomes a figure of the vocabulary of all peoples as opposed to the vocabulary of those who have committed themselves to literature. The point works better when comparing today to the more distant past, but still applies.

Instead of studying vocabulary averages, I think it'd be a bit more fun to study how much more sesquipedalian people become when discussing vocabulary. *Looks up* :smallamused:

VanBuren
2012-09-04, 08:46 PM
The average person using 200 different words per day is a gross underestimate by any measure, I would think. Particularly when you consider how many job-specific terms are used in the workplace. But it's a moot point—there's no standard method for determining a person's vocabulary. Do you count different forms and tenses of verbs as separate words? What about homonyms? Homographs? Plurals? What about words that a person sort of understands, but not entirely?

A "metal bowl filled with fire" is unnecessary; it's called a brazier. It has a name. If a player asks you what it is, that's one thing, but you shouldn't have to dumb down words by replacing them with their own definition. You wouldn't call a tree "a tall, natural-looking thing made of wood, covered in flat green things", after all (unless you're talking to, say, a mountain dwarf who had never before seen a tree).

I'm a fan of precision in language, but not just in meaning—you should also consider connotation, mood, phonology, formality, etc. and select the word that best conveys what you want to get across. During a speech, you might be better off going with a more neutral "many" than possibly-confusing "plethora" or the too-casual "a lot of". There's a huge difference between a "sad yell" and a "heart-rending shriek". "Whisper" sounds, well, like a whisper—much more than "talk quietly". The word "shrill" carries a more unpleasant connotation than "high-pitched", and the sound of the word itself is sort of painful.

As long as you avoid thesaurus-speak and purple prose, keep rocking with your bad self. :smallsmile:

Edited for spelling.

^This says it better than I did. Language is, first and foremost, a tool. As such it should be employed in any and every way that best serves to communicate exactly what you need it to.

Yukitsu
2012-09-04, 09:02 PM
When your vocabulary is above average, you can expect that you will be going over the heads of some individuals. (the majority, in fact)

The purpose of speech when DMing is to clearly convey an idea to your audience. You are not their teacher. You are not here to "improve" your players. You are here to tell them a story, or part of a story. If you cannot speak at the average level while still dramatically conveying your complete idea and tone, then you should script it out in that manner before hand. Capturing your audience is any orators goal, anyone that complains their audience has too small a vocabulary to understand them is a failure as an orator trying to drop the blame elsewhere.

TuggyNE
2012-09-04, 09:07 PM
Oh, sorry I don't do that.

I know better then to reach across the aisle and get my hand burned by the wall of fiery flames.

Za? Collegial*, scholarly* inquiry is a harsh and unreasonable standard to meet?


* I chose these words deliberately because shorter would not have worked.


Instead of studying vocabulary averages, I think it'd be a bit more fun to study how much more sesquipedalian people become when discussing vocabulary. *Looks up* :smallamused:

A modicum of increase is to be expected, I presume. :smalltongue:

1
It's not unreasonable to make some adjustments in language used depending on your current audience. In fact, shifting vocabulary based on current peer group is a rather important social skill; a programmer shouldn't use the same words with their fellow coders that they should with their friend who happens to be an interior designer, and a chemist talking to their spouse is likely to switch vocabulary rather thoroughly (except for occasional exceptions for humor value).

Still, throwing in an occasional word someone doesn't know shouldn't be too big a deal, as long as it's fairly easy to work out the meaning. (Gazebo being an example of failure here.)

Fakeedit: Yukitsu's point about the purpose of DMing is a good one; you should use more or less ordinary language as you would at any other time, because DMing is not about teaching, but about running a world of fantasy. If normally you tend to word-drop, and that works fine for you, keep it up, but don't suddenly elevate your prose style just for the purpose.

Talyn
2012-09-04, 09:35 PM
Don't limit your vocabulary to compensate for their ignorance. If they don't know what a word means, they can ask - that is, in fact, how one increases one's vocabulary.

VanBuren
2012-09-04, 09:39 PM
Za? Collegial*, scholarly* inquiry is a harsh and unreasonable standard to meet?


* I chose these words deliberately because shorter would not have worked.



A modicum of increase is to be expected, I presume. :smalltongue:

1
It's not unreasonable to make some adjustments in language used depending on your current audience. In fact, shifting vocabulary based on current peer group is a rather important social skill; a programmer shouldn't use the same words with their fellow coders that they should with their friend who happens to be an interior designer, and a chemist talking to their spouse is likely to switch vocabulary rather thoroughly (except for occasional exceptions for humor value).

Still, throwing in an occasional word someone doesn't know shouldn't be too big a deal, as long as it's fairly easy to work out the meaning. (Gazebo being an example of failure here.)

Fakeedit: Yukitsu's point about the purpose of DMing is a good one; you should use more or less ordinary language as you would at any other time, because DMing is not about teaching, but about running a world of fantasy. If normally you tend to word-drop, and that works fine for you, keep it up, but don't suddenly elevate your prose style just for the purpose.

Again though, I would never use "brazier" in RL--well, at least I haven't needed to--but it conjures up a very fantasy atmosphere, which is what historiasdeosos was getting at, I think. Words have more than just their literal meaning, but also the baggage they carry with them. That needs to play a huge part in which words you use when. You can think of poetry as the ultimate expression of this skillset.

TuggyNE
2012-09-04, 09:52 PM
Again though, I would never use "brazier" in RL--well, at least I haven't needed to--but it conjures up a very fantasy atmosphere, which is what historiasdeosos was getting at, I think. Words have more than just their literal meaning, but also the baggage they carry with them. That needs to play a huge part in which words you use when. You can think of poetry as the ultimate expression of this skillset.

Well, yeah. That's kind of what I was getting at, but I didn't manage to express it too well in the end >_>.

Don't try to elevate the vocabulary of your fellow players, but do try to use the right words. Compromise.

Inglenook
2012-09-04, 10:08 PM
Again though, I would never use "brazier" in RL--well, at least I haven't needed to--but it conjures up a very fantasy atmosphere, which is what historiasdeosos was getting at, I think. Words have more than just their literal meaning, but also the baggage they carry with them. That needs to play a huge part in which words you use when. You can think of poetry as the ultimate expression of this skillset.
Exactly. I associate brazier very strongly with fantasy, and I think I first learned it when reading David Eddings' Belgariad in sixth grade. The shades of meaning attached to a word, as you said, are all-important.

But I do agree that you that the ability to tailor your vocabulary to your audience is important as well, especially in public speaking or writing. In day-to-day speech it's fine to use whatever words you want, but when you have the chance to plan what you're going to say, you also have the chance to analyze your audience and how you can best connect with them. You're free to throw all the ten-dollar words you want into your novel, but don't act all shocked and outraged when you lose your audience. I think that's where a lot of bad writers go wrong, actually—not with poor plot but with poor word choice that makes what had the potential to be a great story into something unreadable.

All the words the original poster used are quite fine, I think. It's not like he chose to use some purple, archaic word for a brazier; he just called it what it is.

P.S. The "plethora" example I used is from real life, sadly. My friend use it during her salutatorian speech during our high school graduation, knowing that our county's English program has been a joke for the last forty years. Maybe 20% of the people in the room got it, but the remaining 80% acted like she'd just committed an act of witchcraft on stage. They were actually turning to one another, scowling and muttering discontentedly. Very surreal, felt like I was in a movie.

VanBuren
2012-09-04, 10:33 PM
Exactly. I associate brazier very strongly with fantasy, and I think I first learned it when reading David Eddings' Belgariad in sixth grade. The shades of meaning attached to a word, as you said, are all-important.

But I do agree that you that the ability to tailor your vocabulary to your audience is important as well, especially in public speaking or writing. In day-to-day speech it's fine to use whatever words you want, but when you have the chance to plan what you're going to say, you also have the chance to analyze your audience and how you can best connect with them. You're free to throw all the ten-dollar words you want into your novel, but don't act all shocked and outraged when you lose your audience. I think that's where a lot of bad writers go wrong, actually—not with poor plot but with poor word choice that makes what had the potential to be a great story into something unreadable.

All the words the original poster used are quite fine, I think. It's not like he chose to use some purple, archaic word for a brazier; he just called it what it is.

P.S. The "plethora" example I used is from real life, sadly. My friend use it during her salutatorian speech during our high school graduation, knowing that our county's English program has been a joke for the last forty years. Maybe 20% of the people in the room got it, but the remaining 80% acted like she'd just committed an act of witchcraft on stage. They were actually turning to one another, scowling and muttering discontentedly. Very surreal, felt like I was in a movie.

I might have used "thicket" as opposed to "copse", but that's just my own level of familiarity bleeding through. They're fine words that not only represent specific ideas, but also bring with them a sense of setting. So yeah, good choices.

Jay R
2012-09-05, 09:52 AM
It's also worth noting that as more of humanity becomes literate, one would expect average vocabulary to drop slightly as the figure for those being subjected to the tests becomes a figure of the vocabulary of all peoples as opposed to the vocabulary of those who have committed themselves to literature. The point works better when comparing today to the more distant past, but still applies.

The measurable difference is far more than you represent. The only way to measure vocabulary in any time other than the present is to measure written vocabulary. That used to mean the extreme elite, as most people couldn't (or didn't) write. As the percent of people who actually write and leave written records grows, the measure of average vocabulary slowly changes from a measurement of the vocabulary of the highly educated elite to a measurement of the vocabulary of the average person.

Obviously, the highly educated of an earlier time has a higher vocabulary than the average person of that time, so it's not particularly meaningful that they probably had a higher vocabulary than the average person of our time as well.

This is similar to the differences between old school gamers and modern gamers. They have different interests because they are different demographics. The earliest D&D players were almost exclusively college-educated adult wargamers with a developed interest in weaponry and tactics - an extremely small minority. OF COURSE their interests and playstyles differed from those of today's mainstream hobbyists.

Wardog
2012-09-05, 04:59 PM
Problem words so far have included:
Sconce
Brazier
Parapet
copse



"Sconce" seems quite an unusual word to me - I never saw/heared it until playing Freelancer (it's the "brand name" of one of the shield classes), and don't think I've seen it since.

Parapet doesn't seem that unusual, although maybe its a bit flowery, and a more precise workd could be used.

But "copse" and "brazier" seem absolutely normal words to me, and not at all "fantasy vocabulary". One is just a small cluster of trees, and the other is just a metal basket or container for lighting a fire in. I tend to associate it with the improvised ones (typically made out of an old oil drum) used by outdoor labourers, or strikers on a picket line.
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/N9KLvqkLzXp/CWU+Continue+Strike+Action+Agreement+Yet+Reached/Xt2I4ZtnPz1
http://www.bridekirkfineart.co.uk/The%20Brazier

Gamer Girl
2012-09-05, 07:11 PM
Za? Collegial*, scholarly* inquiry is a harsh and unreasonable standard to meet?
* I chose these words deliberately because shorter would not have worked.


You have to learn to just not bother with 'them people'. I'd love to say more, but it's not allowed.

Madara
2012-09-05, 07:16 PM
I'm going to quote George Orwell:

"Never use a long word where a short word will do" and "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."

Use everyday words. The point is to communicate clearly and concisely, not to impress others with your vocabulary. If you use obscure words, then you'll get three possible reactions:

1) Most people will be upset as they'll have to look up the word's definition. They will also think you're pretentious.
2) About half of the people who know the word's meaning will think you're pretentious for using that word when an everyday word would have worked fine.
3) The other half of the people who know the word's meaning will be impressed and feel better about themselves for knowing the definition of such a complex word.

Ironic considering 1984's view on language.

Frenth Alunril
2012-09-05, 07:17 PM
I once used the word "Glower" with my players, all of whom were English teachers. They told me I was making things up. Fortunately I keep a dictionary handy just for such disputes.

"He glowers at you"

"Now you are just making things up."

"Oh, the Oxford English Dictionary says that he is not."

But I have learned that communication, especially across countries, becomes quite a problem. I always ask my players for their summary of things that happened, so I can see what communication issues have happened since last we played. It's often quite a chore.

huttj509
2012-09-06, 01:28 AM
I once used the word "Glower" with my players, all of whom were English teachers. They told me I was making things up. Fortunately I keep a dictionary handy just for such disputes.

"He glowers at you"

"Now you are just making things up."

"Oh, the Oxford English Dictionary says that he is not."

But I have learned that communication, especially across countries, becomes quite a problem. I always ask my players for their summary of things that happened, so I can see what communication issues have happened since last we played. It's often quite a chore.

Heck, that's just good policy so you know what they noticed, what they missed, and if they think of Lord fountleroy von streichnaus as "that fancy guy" you know know not to use "Streichnaus" casually expecting them to know who that is.

Alejandro
2012-09-06, 07:41 AM
If you have a great vocabulary, use it. If others want to understand, they will learn, or ask questions. If they don't want to understand, you cannot teach them and they will remain less intelligent. :)

I don't think English (or whatever language is being used) should get a pass, but, say, math does not. When you say "1/4th of that" it has a specific meaning. So does vocabulary.

There's my pro-words rant. :) And for humility's sake, I have run into plenty of words I did not understand...so I made the effort to learn them.

Andreaz
2012-09-06, 08:11 AM
Ironic considering 1984's view on language.Not ironic at all. Keeping it simple makes it easy to understand within that simplicity's scope. If the language doesn't support a concept, and no one is used or willing to "look it up", that concept would, in his view, disappear or be supressed.

brutticusforce
2012-09-06, 10:54 AM
Use the word, and if one of them asks what it means, define it. Keep using it after that. They learned something new. Teach them. :)

Exediron
2012-09-06, 02:02 PM
If you have a great vocabulary, use it. If others want to understand, they will learn, or ask questions. If they don't want to understand, you cannot teach them and they will remain less intelligent. :)

I don't think English (or whatever language is being used) should get a pass, but, say, math does not. When you say "1/4th of that" it has a specific meaning. So does vocabulary.

There's my pro-words rant. :) And for humility's sake, I have run into plenty of words I did not understand...so I made the effort to learn them.

Or you could say a quarter, which means the same thing :smallsmile:

I don't think vocabulary gets any more of a 'pass' than math at all; the same thing certainly applies. If a person uses gratuitous higher math in conversations, I definitely consider that to be excessive. I'll ignore the first part of what you said, since I've already argued enough against that viewpoint.

RFLS
2012-09-06, 04:36 PM
Oh, sorry I don't do that.

I know that if I try to cite my sources, they'll be burned to the ground because they're either nonexistent or entirely unreliable.

Fixed that for you.

Slipperychicken
2012-09-09, 12:45 PM
Fixed that for you.

If Gamer Girl reaches into fire, the damage will bypass her (Ex) Regeneration and she'll have to heal it normally.


Ironic considering 1984's view on language.

I read the essay where Orwell said that ("Politics and the English Language". You can easily google it for yourself; it's a wonderful read). He argues that the tendency to use obscure (or generally inaccessible) language for its own sake results in tolerating horrors like Russian totalitarianism because their description is worded to hide meaning. When you read the essay, it's very easy to see his real-life inspiration for Newspeak, the fictional language used in 1984.


(Brief sample)

Orwell, Excerpt from Politics and The English Language
People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

"While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement."

Ravens_cry
2012-09-09, 12:54 PM
On topic, the point of language is to communicate.
If you have to stop and explain every minute or so, you have failed at communication.
Since words, with minor visual aids, are your only tool for creating the world being played in, by failing to communicate you fail at Dungeon Mastering.
I love words, big chewy ones, small curt ones, old ones, new ones, obscure ones and well known.
But if your goal is communication and you aren't, then you are failing.

Averis Vol
2012-09-09, 02:57 PM
OP: Your vocabulary doesn't seem that advanced to me. I went to a continuation school for half my high school days and all your problem words seem basic to me. The only way I could see it causing a problem would be if your players really weren't into the whole story thing of fantasy and instead preferred stuff like shadowrun or D20 modern games.

RFLS
2012-09-09, 04:48 PM
If Gamer Girl reaches into fire, the damage will bypass her (Ex) Regeneration and she'll have to heal it normally.

Like this? (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Troll)

TuggyNE
2012-09-09, 05:03 PM
Like this? (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Troll)

Don't explain the joke (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke) :smallyuk:

I make no, or few, apologies for linking to That Site.

RFLS
2012-09-09, 06:45 PM
Don't explain the joke (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke) :smallyuk:

I make no, or few, apologies for linking to That Site.

I wanted to make sure she got it. =D. But seriously. Explaining jokes makes everything funny, right?

Nepenthe
2012-09-09, 07:55 PM
I can't believe how many people, especially in this community, are actively advocating ignorance.

The goal of a DM should be to paint a mental picture for his players, so let's explore painting as an analogy. Color blind people exist. These people have difficulty distinguishing between shades of red and green. It is also well known that women can distinguish more shades of red than can men. Does this mean that every artist should abstain from using red in his paintings? Non-color blind women may have the best experience of a certain work, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't enjoy it also. It might take a little more effort for some individuals to fully appreciate it, but if they care at all they'll at least try. "It's hard" is nothing but an excuse for laziness.

Ravens_cry
2012-09-09, 08:30 PM
If you were painting a picture for someone colour blind, for specifically them, would you use colours they could not see?

Knaight
2012-09-09, 08:33 PM
If you were painting a picture for someone colour blind, for specifically them, would you use colours they could not see?

Extending this analogy to fit the actual situation, I would do so when using said colors gave them an opportunity to develop vision including those colors.

Ravens_cry
2012-09-09, 08:39 PM
Extending this analogy to fit the actual situation, I would do so when using said colors gave them an opportunity to develop vision including those colors.
Yes, but that is hardly the goal. The goal is to paint a picture they will comprehend and enjoy.
Playing teacher is far, far secondary.

Knaight
2012-09-09, 08:49 PM
Yes, but that is hardly the goal. The goal is to paint a picture they will comprehend and enjoy.
Playing teacher is far, far secondary.

The additional colors help you paint the picture they comprehend and enjoy; these are not conflicting goals. When you need a particular shade, you can use it, as you don't run into the problem of that shade being forever off limits as you would within the context of color blindness. The shade can be learned, which is not a trait of colors (though there is some very interesting information regarding linguistic representation of colors and perception thereof).

To use a more concrete example: Say you are describing a medieval town during a festival, and listing what is going on. If you list "hastiludes" it will feel much more medieval than if you list "games of arms". It's not necessarily a particularly well known term, but it simply fits the setting better, and the brief explanation once allows it to fit the setting better during the entire period of the festival.

Ravens_cry
2012-09-09, 08:54 PM
The additional colors help you paint the picture they comprehend and enjoy; these are not conflicting goals. When you need a particular shade, you can use it, as you don't run into the problem of that shade being forever off limits as you would within the context of color blindness. The shade can be learned, which is not a trait of colors (though there is some very interesting information regarding linguistic representation of colors and perception thereof).
Help you maybe, but how does it help them, in play?
It just makes things confusing, for them.

Nepenthe
2012-09-09, 09:19 PM
If you were painting a picture for someone colour blind, for specifically them, would you use colours they could not see?

If the painting included a fire truck or a bowl of apples or tomatoes, absolutely. If he wants to know whether those tomatoes are green or red he can ask. I'm not going to paint them blue and tell him they're red. And I'm certainly not going to pretend that tomatoes don't exist.

Malak'ai
2012-09-09, 09:38 PM
I can't believe how many people, especially in this community, are actively advocating ignorance.

The goal of a DM should be to paint a mental picture for his players, so let's explore painting as an analogy. Color blind people exist. These people have difficulty distinguishing between shades of red and green. It is also well known that women can distinguish more shades of red than can men. Does this mean that every artist should abstain from using red in his paintings? Non-color blind women may have the best experience of a certain work, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't enjoy it also. It might take a little more effort for some individuals to fully appreciate it, but if they care at all they'll at least try. "It's hard" is nothing but an excuse for laziness.

Oh yes? And what of those people, the likes of that I mentioned in my first post back on page 1, who have a learning disability but really want to join in the game because their friends play it, or who have brilliant imaginations and was genius's when it comes to Math but have a reading age of the average 6 year old?
Are these people, who through no fault of their own, banished from you table because you deem them Lazy because for them it IS to hard to trawl through dictionaries or thesaurus's trying to find the definition of the words you use?

VanBuren
2012-09-09, 09:43 PM
Oh yes? And what of those people, the likes of that I mentioned in my first post back on page 1, who have a learning disability but really want to join in the game because their friends play it, or who have brilliant imaginations and was genius's when it comes to Math but have a reading age of the average 6 year old?
Are these people, who through no fault of their own, banished from you table because you deem them Lazy because for them it IS to hard to trawl through dictionaries or thesaurus's trying to find the definition of the words you use?

If you can't use complicated vocabulary, then you need not apply. Not my argument and, I suspect, not his. But it seemed unfair that only he gets to create a strawman.

Knaight
2012-09-09, 09:45 PM
Are these people, who through no fault of their own, banished from you table because you deem them Lazy because for them it IS to hard to trawl through dictionaries or thesaurus's trying to find the definition of the words you use?

If by "trawl through dictionaries or [thesauruses]" you mean "ask you to clarify" this really seems quite reasonable. If you are unwilling to so much as ask for clarification on a description in game, you probably aren't invested enough to be a decent player.

Malak'ai
2012-09-09, 09:54 PM
If you can't use complicated vocabulary, then you need not apply. Not my argument and, I suspect, not his. But it seemed unfair that only he gets to create a strawman.

If I were to respond to this how I really wanted, nearly my whole post would consist of asterisks.


If by "trawl through dictionaries or [thesauruses]" you mean "ask you to clarify" this really seems quite reasonable. If you are unwilling to so much as ask for clarification on a description in game, you probably aren't invested enough to be a decent player.

Asking what a word or phrase means is fine, but the way I interpreted what Nepenthe was saying is that the players had to go away and find the meaning themselves as to not destroy the happy little image in his/her mind.
If I am wrong, that's fine and I take back what I said, but as I said, that was my impression of what was meant.

Ravens_cry
2012-09-09, 10:02 PM
If by "trawl through dictionaries or [thesauruses]" you mean "ask you to clarify" this really seems quite reasonable. If you are unwilling to so much as ask for clarification on a description in game, you probably aren't invested enough to be a decent player.
Have you ever been frustrated by a Fantasy or Science Fiction novel that has a huge glossary of made-up words? How immersion breaking it is to have to flip to the back to find out what something is?
Having the game constantly interrupted by having to find out definitions would have a similar effect in my opinion.
I'm not 'advocating ignorance', I am saying that you should know your audience.

DabblerWizard
2012-09-09, 10:05 PM
If people cannot understand me because of my vocabulary, then I have not communicated effectively. So, I regularly modify my vocabulary (and my syntax), based on who I am around, to increase the chances that I will be understood. That's a type of adaptation.

Communicating ideas clearly is important for every social situation, including the world of work.

Knaight
2012-09-09, 10:07 PM
Have you ever been frustrated by a Fantasy or Science Fiction novel that has a huge glossary of made-up words? How immersion breaking it is to have to flip to the back to find out what something is?
Having the game constantly interrupted by having to find out definitions would have a similar effect in my opinion.
I'm not 'advocating ignorance', I am saying that you should know your audience.

Yes, but only for unrelated reasons. I also fail to see how a huge glossary of downright fictional words is a reasonable analog for the use of real words, in the shared language, where they make sense. I'm not advocating deliberate obfuscation, nor do I condone it; these attitudes appear to be shared by everyone else in the thread. As such, constant interruption is unlikely regardless.

VanBuren
2012-09-09, 10:12 PM
If I were to respond to this how I really wanted, nearly my whole post would consist of asterisks.

Redacted.

This was not, as it turns out, the droid I was looking for.

Ravens_cry
2012-09-09, 10:18 PM
Yes, but only for unrelated reasons. I also fail to see how a huge glossary of downright fictional words is a reasonable analog for the use of real words, in the shared language, where they make sense. I'm not advocating deliberate obfuscation, nor do I condone it; these attitudes appear to be shared by everyone else in the thread. As such, constant interruption is unlikely regardless.
What is the difference between a word you don't know that's real and a made up one? The only real difference is one is in a dictionary.

Knaight
2012-09-09, 10:20 PM
What is the difference between a word you don't know that's real and a made up one? The only real difference is one is in a dictionary.

If I learn a word that was made up for Drizzt Book Q, that exists only within Drizzt Book Q, when is it useful? When reading, discussing, or referencing Drizzt Book Q, and at literally no other time. The utility of an actual word is much greater.

OzzyKP
2012-09-09, 10:27 PM
I'm going to quote George Orwell:

"Never use a long word where a short word will do" and "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."

Use everyday words. The point is to communicate clearly and concisely, not to impress others with your vocabulary.

Completely right.

The purpose of communication is to be understood. If you communicate in such a way that your listener doesn't understand you, you are doing a poor job.

It isn't a matter of "dumbing yourself down" as others suggest. Perhaps you can most accurately capture exactly what you are trying to say in German. But if your listener doesn't speak German, are you "dumbing yourself down" to speak their language? No. Obviously it would be ideal if both sides of the conversation spoke German, or knew lots of big words, but that isn't the case. So you have to adapt to the circumstances.

Ravens_cry
2012-09-09, 10:28 PM
If I learn a word that was made up for Drizzt Book Q, that exists only within Drizzt Book Q, when is it useful? When reading, discussing, or referencing Drizzt Book Q, and at literally no other time. The utility of an actual word is much greater.
The distraction factor is exactly the same however, and the utility grows increasingly doubtful depending on how arcane and esoteric the word in question is.

Seerow
2012-09-09, 10:29 PM
If I learn a word that was made up for Drizzt Book Q, that exists only within Drizzt Book Q, when is it useful? When reading, discussing, or referencing Drizzt Book Q, and at literally no other time. The utility of an actual word is much greater.

On the other hand, if most of the people you know and interact with have read Drizzt Book Q, then that word can be integrated into your conversations when appropriate just as much as any other word could be. I mean where do you think slang and jargon come from?

I mean last I checked "CoDzilla" isn't a real word, but we can use it in conversations on these forums and just about everyone will instantly know what is being referenced. Tarrasque I'm pretty sure doesn't show up in Merriam-Webster, but if I say "strong as a Tarrasque" you know what I'm referring to.

Sure an actual word will see more widespread uses, but made up words exist within niche pockets and survive for a reason. Some of them even spread and eventually get recognized as "real" words because they're widely used enough.

VanBuren
2012-09-09, 10:53 PM
Completely right.

The purpose of communication is to be understood. If you communicate in such a way that your listener doesn't understand you, you are doing a poor job.

It isn't a matter of "dumbing yourself down" as others suggest. Perhaps you can most accurately capture exactly what you are trying to say in German. But if your listener doesn't speak German, are you "dumbing yourself down" to speak their language? No. Obviously it would be ideal if both sides of the conversation spoke German, or knew lots of big words, but that isn't the case. So you have to adapt to the circumstances.

Precisely. The simple truth is that it's never as simple as "harder words" or "simpler words". The ideal is that fine balance between using the words you need to paint the scene--a sparse or detailed as it needs to be--while being able to be understood by your audience. As with most things, it's all about your personal judgement. Which is what makes it beautiful, but is also totally a pain in the tuchus.

Malak'ai
2012-09-09, 11:08 PM
Well I truly am sorry you feel that way. But I'm not particularly happy with the way you characterized the opposing side as "advocating ignorance". That's fairly insulting, so you'll forgive me if I'm not terribly apologetic about having proved my point with regards to unfair caricatures.

I said nothing about "Advocating Ignorance". My statement was in response to my impression of Nepenthe's unwillingness to bend to the needs of those who don't understand the words or phrases he uses.
As I said in my reply to Knaight, if my impression was wrong, then I'm sorry and I retract it, but your claim that "If you can't use complicated vocabulary, then you need not apply" is, once again IMO, nothing but a form of prejudice.
The way I see it, there is no difference between that and me saying to someone "no you can't join my game because you have red hair" or "no you can't join my game because you don't have a PhD in Applied Astrophysics.
That in anyone's belief, I'd hope, is not acceptable.

Now, before this turns into nothing but a personalized flamewar, I'm going to leave this here with the hope that we can accept that is a case where we will just have to agree to disagree.

VanBuren
2012-09-09, 11:26 PM
I said nothing about "Advocating Ignorance". My statement was in response to my impression of Nepenthe's unwillingness to bend to the needs of those who don't understand the words or phrases he uses.
As I said in my reply to Knaight, if my impression was wrong, then I'm sorry and I retract it, but your claim that "If you can't use complicated vocabulary, then you need not apply" is, once again IMO, nothing but a form of prejudice.
The way I see it, there is no difference between that and me saying to someone "no you can't join my game because you have red hair" or "no you can't join my game because you don't have a PhD in Applied Astrophysics.
That in anyone's belief, I'd hope, is not acceptable.

Now, before this turns into nothing but a personalized flamewar, I'm going to leave this here with the hope that we can accept that is a case where we will just have to agree to disagree.

Actually, let's back up a bit. First off, it seems that I quoted the wrong post. I was addressing what he said, not you. And that sentiment of "need not apply" if you'll look at the context, was sarcastic, which I noted in the very next sentence.

So I think we're actually on the same side here. Because the position I'm taking is not that different than the one you're espousing.

Malak'ai
2012-09-09, 11:29 PM
Actually, let's back up a bit. First off, it seems that I quoted the wrong post. I was addressing what he said, not you. And that sentiment of "need not apply" if you'll look at the context, was sarcastic, which I noted in the very next sentence.

So I think we're actually on the same side here. Because the position I'm taking is not that different than the one you're espousing.

Then I am honestly and deeply sorry for anything I may have said that upset or insulted you.

VanBuren
2012-09-09, 11:31 PM
Then I am honestly and deeply sorry for anything I may have said that upset or insulted you.

A mistake you only made because my own post wasn't clear, for which I apologize.

Inglenook
2012-09-09, 11:46 PM
I think this is being blown out of proportion a little. Can't we all agree that "brazier" and "copse" aren't terrifically hard/overblown words, and that as long as the players are willing to politely ask what he meant and that he's happy to define them, there's no real problem here?

Gravitron5000
2012-09-10, 08:59 AM
Have you ever been frustrated by a Fantasy or Science Fiction novel that has a huge glossary of made-up words? How immersion breaking it is to have to flip to the back to find out what something is?


A Clockwork Orange wouldn't be the book that it is if you took out the linguistic barrier that is nadsat. In some cases it pays dividends to force upon your audience a certain mental shift that comes with unfamiliar or setting specific vocabulary. One can go to far, of coarse, but when done well you can end up with something great.

*Edited to add

The way I see it, there is no difference between that and me saying to someone "no you can't join my game because you have red hair" or "no you can't join my game because you don't have a PhD in Applied Astrophysics.

If my game requires a level of knowledge of applied astrophysics in able to effectively play, and you don't have that level of knowledge, it would be fun for no one if you were invited and joined in. Sometimes people want to enjoy a specific subject or tone, and if you don't have any background in that area you will limit everyone's experience. That said, in roleplaying, I've never found vocabulary to be a large enough barrier that I would exclude anyone from joining in based on it. I would however expect a willingness to pick up some of the vocabulary that we regularly use. Not that I would be assigning home work, but an honest attempt to understand and/or have terminology explained is appreciated and brings you closer to the setting that has been created.

I'm was not going to address the red hair comment ... but you could dye it to protect our sensibilities. (joking of coarse)

TheHarshax
2012-09-10, 12:05 PM
So, I have an issue that I sometimes run into when I GM. It doesn't crop up often, but it is annoying when it does.

You see, I have what I guess is an above average vocabulary. And while GMing, I find the need to make full use of it. I usually see this as an advantage, being able to verbally describe things in detail is proportionally easier to the number of words you know. However, this leads to the issue of players not knowing what a word means. I then have to stop and explain, which ruins the moment, the entire reason I chose to use that word in the first place.

Problem words so far have included:
Sconce
Brazier
Parapet
copse

Has anyone else had this issue, and does anyone know of a good way to address it?

When I know a $2 dollar word to describe an object, I ensure that I know at least 20 ten cent words to explain what that means. To me, being able to define such big words in the very simplest terms is both a measure of your understanding of that big word, and a true expression of your competence with the language in question.

So, if someone doesn't know what a brazier is, you better be able to break it down for that person. While you might feel that having to stop and explain a word ruins the moment for you, I'll be it is equally momentum-breakage for the person doing the listening.

I disagree with previous posters that you should always opt for the simplest word to describe something, especially if you're roleplaying a snooty intellectual NPC. :)

Ravens_cry
2012-09-10, 02:08 PM
A Clockwork Orange wouldn't be the book that it is if you took out the linguistic barrier that is nadsat. In some cases it pays dividends to force upon your audience a certain mental shift that comes with unfamiliar or setting specific vocabulary. One can go to far, of coarse, but when done well you can end up with something great.

Of course. Tolkien wouldn't have the depth and resonance he has without his invented languages.
And yes, TheHarshax, sometimes you want to be obtuse and arcane, sometimes it fits a character. But for narrative descriptions?
Know your audience.
The same is true if you are playing with people who have a broader vocabulary than you; make sure you know what those words mean and how to pronounce them correctly.

TheHarshax
2012-09-10, 02:17 PM
Of course. Tolkien wouldn't have the depth and resonance he has without his invented languages.
And yes, TheHarshax, sometimes you want to be obtuse and arcane, sometimes it fits a character. But for narrative descriptions?
Know your audience.
The same is true if you are playing with people who have a broader vocabulary than you; make sure you know what those words mean and how to pronounce them correctly.

Narrative descriptions also have a voice. I remember the first Glen Cook book I read, where the narrative was written by a character who was learning to read and write throughout the novel. I had never read anything before that hadn't used good spelling or grammar. It was an excellent tool to associate the reader to the narrator's viewpoint.

Of course, this example doesn't seem like a useful approach when the narrator is suppose to be omniscient. Otherwise, you'll have players sneaking up on gazebos and trying to backstab braziers, before it can retaliate with flame attacks.

One option, which involves a lot more writing for you, is reinforce observations by using variance in language.


Black smoke curls up from iron vessels on either side of the entryway to the temple. Beyond these cruel braziers, can be heard wails of agony. Surely you have reached the fane of the Mad God.

Ravens_cry
2012-09-10, 05:14 PM
In books, certainly.
But I've almost never seen a non-omniscient narrator in an pen-and-paper RPG.
Narrative deception almost feels like cheating because the players have nothing else really to go on but your word.
Red herrings and blind alleys sure, but saying one thing and acting all triumphant when the players do the logical thing based on that description, but behind the screen something different was happening, smacks of railroading.

Knaight
2012-09-10, 06:13 PM
But I've almost never seen a non-omniscient narrator in an pen-and-paper RPG.
Narrative deception almost feels like cheating because the players have nothing else really to go on but your word.

I generally restrict narration to character perception, and as I understand this this is the norm. Added to that, if you have some idea of how a character thinks and what they know, you can introduce mood and tone in how the description works. It's a tool that warrants careful use, but when used well it can be highly effective, particularly with smaller groups where you can split what is perceived so that each player gets a slightly different description tuned to their character, while also having the descriptions for the other characters given to the other players to clarify what is going on.

Nepenthe
2012-09-10, 11:19 PM
People are completely misconstruing my point. I even said specifically that people who don't understand can ask for clarification. Also people seem to be equating ignorance with stupidity. Let me emphasize: there is no reason to feel bad for not knowing what a word means. As has been brought up before, ignorance is usually caused by nothing more than a lack of exposure. Some people might need considerably more exposure than others to learn new words, but they will never learn if we refuse to provide that exposure.

I have a family member with diagnosed reading and learning disabilities. He graduated high school at the top of his class without any special consideration just by working harder than everyone else. My position is one of empowerment. I'm saying that people with disabilities can learn new things and better themselves. How is that in any way offensive?

It was harder for my family member to succeed in school than it was for his classmates, but he did it. It was harder for me to hike the Appalachian Trail than it was for my friends on the track team, but I did it. And do you think it was easy for this guy to complete the Spartan Race? http://i.imgur.com/NPHIb.jpg

Now let's look at the definition of lazy: averse or disinclined to work. So yes, if any of us had given up because it was hard, that would have been laziness.

VanBuren
2012-09-10, 11:35 PM
People are completely misconstruing my point. I even said specifically that people who don't understand can ask for clarification. Also people seem to be equating ignorance with stupidity. Let me emphasize: there is no reason to feel bad for not knowing what a word means. As has been brought up before, ignorance is usually caused by nothing more than a lack of exposure. Some people might need considerably more exposure than others to learn new words, but they will never learn if we refuse to provide that exposure.

I have a family member with diagnosed reading and learning disabilities. He graduated high school at the top of his class without any special consideration just by working harder than everyone else. My position is one of empowerment. I'm saying that people with disabilities can learn new things and better themselves. How is that in any way offensive?

It was harder for my family member to succeed in school than it was for his classmates, but he did it. It was harder for me to hike the Appalachian Trail than it was for my friends on the track team, but I did it. And do you think it was easy for this guy to complete the Spartan Race? http://i.imgur.com/NPHIb.jpg

Now let's look at the definition of lazy: averse or disinclined to work. So yes, if any of us had given up because it was hard, that would have been laziness.

A DM is not an English teacher. Explain to me why I should challenge my players by going out of my way to find difficult words instead of spending that same effort finding words that communicate the scene in the most effective way, whilst being understandable to my players. Language is a tool, and harder words aren't always better words. If a PC with 6 INT stumbles onto something or asks for a description of something, why are complicated words more appropriate?

They are not.

Nepenthe
2012-09-10, 11:50 PM
I didn't say go out of your way to use difficult words. What I said is to use the most appropriate words and don't go out of your way to use "simple" ones. Especially considering that people have different ideas of what words are "simple." Earlier someone suggested using the phrase "stand of trees" instead of copse. I have never heard that phrase before. If it had come up at the table, I would have asked, "Is that something like a copse (assuming enough context to make the connection)?" I was, and am now no longer, ignorant of that term. I learned something! Is that really such a bad thing?

VanBuren
2012-09-10, 11:56 PM
I didn't say go out of your way to use difficult words. What I said is to use the most appropriate words and don't go out of your way to use "simple" ones. Especially considering that people have different ideas of what words are "simple." Earlier someone suggested using the phrase "stand of trees" instead of copse. I have never heard that phrase before. If it had come up at the table, I would have asked, "Is that something like a copse (assuming enough context to make the connection)?" I was, and am now no longer, ignorant of that term. I learned something! Is that really such a bad thing?

No. I am arguing against the notion that it is inherently a virtue rather than a means to an end. It all comes down to a very, very simple test.

Is it working? Then you're doing it right.

Is it not working? Then you're doing it wrong.

Ravens_cry
2012-09-11, 12:09 AM
I generally restrict narration to character perception, and as I understand this this is the norm. Added to that, if you have some idea of how a character thinks and what they know, you can introduce mood and tone in how the description works. It's a tool that warrants careful use, but when used well it can be highly effective, particularly with smaller groups where you can split what is perceived so that each player gets a slightly different description tuned to their character, while also having the descriptions for the other characters given to the other players to clarify what is going on.
Ah. Most of my experience is with pre-written modules, which mostly preclude that.

Nepenthe
2012-09-11, 12:12 AM
And I believe the pursuit of knowledge is inherently virtuous. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Knaight
2012-09-11, 12:19 AM
Ah. Most of my experience is with pre-written modules, which mostly preclude that.

This is one of the reasons I don't use pre-written modules if I can avoid it. Weaving in details based on who the characters are and what they know makes the game richer, and the only way modules have a chance at that is if they also have pregens. As is, they tend to be jarring in some way, either through the omission or inclusion of information that simply does not jive well with what a character would notice. There's a description of the specific fauna and flora in a forest, which is fine, except for the players are all playing desert nomads who really have no reason to know any of this. Once you get into the desert though, it's suddenly flat sand, dunes, oasis, with a conspicuous absence of details that the characters would now be noticing.

Ravens_cry
2012-09-11, 12:27 AM
And I believe the pursuit of knowledge is inherently virtuous. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Everything has a time and place.

Jay R
2012-09-12, 11:36 AM
But I've almost never seen a non-omniscient narrator in an pen-and-paper RPG.

You're kidding, right?

I routinely have exposition come from NPCs. And the NPC reports what he saw: "And then he turned into a wolf right in front of me, and I turned and ran all the way back to the village." The NPC does not know he faced a vampire; he only knows it transformed into a wolf.


It all comes down to a very, very simple test.

Is it working? Then you're doing it right.

Is it not working? Then you're doing it wrong.

But until we have a clear, unambiguous definition of "working" that we all agree on, that isn't a simple test. It's simply a tautology, akin to "It's wrong if it's wrong."

Yukitsu
2012-09-12, 11:49 AM
But until we have a clear, unambiguous definition of "working" that we all agree on, that isn't a simple test. It's simply a tautology, akin to "It's wrong if it's wrong."

It's usually pretty darn obvious when something is working. It's even more obvious when it isn't.

Ravens_cry
2012-09-12, 01:38 PM
You're kidding, right?

I routinely have exposition come from NPCs. And the NPC reports what he saw: "And then he turned into a wolf right in front of me, and I turned and ran all the way back to the village." The NPC does not know he faced a vampire; he only knows it transformed into a wolf.

I consider that 'dialogue', not narration.

VanBuren
2012-09-12, 04:13 PM
You're kidding, right?

I routinely have exposition come from NPCs. And the NPC reports what he saw: "And then he turned into a wolf right in front of me, and I turned and ran all the way back to the village." The NPC does not know he faced a vampire; he only knows it transformed into a wolf.



But until we have a clear, unambiguous definition of "working" that we all agree on, that isn't a simple test. It's simply a tautology, akin to "It's wrong if it's wrong."

You going to have to make do without, I'm afraid. Since oddly enough, no two gaming groups are the same.

Jay R
2012-09-13, 10:01 AM
It's usually pretty darn obvious when something is working. It's even more obvious when it isn't.

It may be "pretty darn obvious" to a single person, but we still don't agree.

For some in this discussion, it's working when the DM explains any word he uses that the players don't know. For others, it's not working if that has to occur.

For some, it's working if poor play leads to character death. For others, that shows it's not working.

For some, it's working if a player cleverly talks somebody into helping. For others, it's only working if that's done with a die roll.

If there is anything "pretty darn obvious" after reading the discussions in these forums, it's that there is no clear nagreement about when the game is working.

Yukitsu
2012-09-13, 03:34 PM
It may be "pretty darn obvious" to a single person, but we still don't agree.

For some in this discussion, it's working when the DM explains any word he uses that the players don't know. For others, it's not working if that has to occur.

I don't get how it's "working" to those people. He literally came here because there's a problem with it, in other words, it's not working.

Also, every single one of your examples are about "working as intended" and not about whether something works or not. In the OP's case, his use of certain words is neither working as intended, nor working at all. He says them, and the idea is not understood by his target audience.

VanBuren
2012-09-13, 09:47 PM
It may be "pretty darn obvious" to a single person, but we still don't agree.

For some in this discussion, it's working when the DM explains any word he uses that the players don't know. For others, it's not working if that has to occur.

For some, it's working if poor play leads to character death. For others, that shows it's not working.

For some, it's working if a player cleverly talks somebody into helping. For others, it's only working if that's done with a die roll.

If there is anything "pretty darn obvious" after reading the discussions in these forums, it's that there is no clear nagreement about when the game is working.

Are people having fun? If they aren't, then that's a pretty clear sign that it isn't working. And since not everyone finds the same things fun, then it might be time to admit that the right answer might differ from group to group and any attempt to create a uniform solution to be applied across the board is essentially doomed to failure from the moment you begin.

Ormur
2012-09-13, 10:15 PM
The only time this happened to me it was very appropriate. As the DM I was role playing a wizard asking the party sorcerer about her powers. I used some fancy word referring to her magic and the player didn't recognize it. The other players rationalized that it would be completely in character for a sorcerer not to understand some of the magic jargon a wizard would use over her own power.

Rockphed
2012-09-14, 09:01 PM
To use a more concrete example: Say you are describing a medieval town during a festival, and listing what is going on. If you list "hastiludes" it will feel much more medieval than if you list "games of arms". It's not necessarily a particularly well known term, but it simply fits the setting better, and the brief explanation once allows it to fit the setting better during the entire period of the festival.

Hastiludes is a positively dead term. Furthermore, the OED implies that it is refers to a single type of tounament using a spear. That sort of word is fine in NPC diction or on a poster, but not in general description of a setting.

Knaight
2012-09-14, 11:15 PM
Hastiludes is a positively dead term. Furthermore, the OED implies that it is refers to a single type of tounament using a spear. That sort of word is fine in NPC diction or on a poster, but not in general description of a setting.

The OED is wrong in this case, and it is hardly dead. It is merely specialized terminology that any decent medieval military historian knows, along with many with an interest in medieval military history. The term hastilidium is a dead Latin predecessor which does heavily imply a single type of tournament, but that means little regarding the status of the English version. I can also guarantee that it is a term my entire group would know; I fail to see how it is somehow wrong as a description.

Jay R
2012-09-15, 10:19 AM
The term hastilidium is a dead Latin predecessor which does heavily imply a single type of tournament, but that means little regarding the status of the English version.

Exactly. Etymology is not definition, or "digital computing" would mean counting on your fingers.

Rockphed
2012-09-15, 01:50 PM
"Spear-play; a name for a kind of tilt or tournament." That is the extent of the OED's definition of Hastilude (well, that and the etymology and the quotes). Now, if your group is composed entirely of medieval historians who use that word regularly, it is fair game. This all ties back to knowing your audience. Some words, like sconce or copse or brazier, are general enough that you can expect you audience to learn them. But a highly technical bit of historian jargon that is only different from tournament in being specific on some details involved is not. I doubt I will forget the word, but I also doubt I will ever encounter it again.

Knaight
2012-09-15, 03:24 PM
"Spear-play; a name for a kind of tilt or tournament." That is the extent of the OED's definition of Hastilude (well, that and the etymology and the quotes). Now, if your group is composed entirely of medieval historians who use that word regularly, it is fair game. This all ties back to knowing your audience. Some words, like sconce or copse or brazier, are general enough that you can expect you audience to learn them. But a highly technical bit of historian jargon that is only different from tournament in being specific on some details involved is not. I doubt I will forget the word, but I also doubt I will ever encounter it again.

As I said, the OED is wrong here. Hastilude would be better translated as general "games of arms". Take a look at the Wikipedia page, which is actually fairly good at highlighting usage.

Beleriphon
2012-09-15, 03:50 PM
"Sconce" seems quite an unusual word to me - I never saw/heared it until playing Freelancer (it's the "brand name" of one of the shield classes), and don't think I've seen it since.

Its a small wall mounted light, somethings in a recessed portion of the wall. It shows up all of the time in those home reno shows on Home and Garden Network.