D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[tetrasodium]

I don't think using natural language a terrible choice at all; in that you can use natural language and still keep it tight.

In the features we've been discussing, for example, it'd take changing maybe 2 or 3 words in each one to make the intent crystal clear while still keeping it natural and thus readable.

Changes that would have been seen during editing just as clearly and obviously needed as typos had technical writing been used rather than shrugging it off on how natural language means lruings not rules. Natural language allowed these kind of problems to get published.

Technical writing is by its very nature dull and boring to read; and as part of the point of the core books is to make them engaging enough to get new players (and DMs) to pick them up and read them, boring is a no-no.

No on so many levels.... "Natural language" is not the alternative to "bad technical writing", the alternative is "good technical writing".

3 Myths on Technical Writing

Look at three myths about technical writing and explain why they are not true.

blog.alphanumeric.com