"For a fan of RPGs that constantly make up words to describe things that could easily be described in plain english, you are certainly being picky now."
Actually, we usually just use existing words. Neologisms in games mostly refer to rules terms -- "blindfighting" is not actually a real word, for instance, and "race" ought not to be used interchangeably with "species." On the other hand, Quinteesence in Mage fits the actual original definition of quintessence. Archaic terms in new contexts is a common device in all sorts of creative work, including the fiction that inspires games like Vampire. Plus, of course, for flowery language, you need look no further than HP Lovecraft.
"I agree that GURPS has this kind of pretentiousness. Specifically because the system tends to break at very high power levels, thus making it at least a very poor universality."
More to the point -- it just doesn't model some things according to experience. John Clements (a well-known historical swordmanship expert) outlined what a "realistic" combat system might be like; it had five or so ranks and no skills for individual weapons, and asserted that even slightly better fighters dominate less skilled ones. This in no way resembles how GURPS combat works. We'll leave aside the fact that the game just ignores any psychological dimension and TLs don't make any historical sense.
"Vampire and other white wolf products (right up to and including the new WoD main book) make claims that they are "storytelling games" that are an inherently superior experience to "roll-playing games""
They don't . . .
"(and yes, the latest WoD corebook drags that old chestnut howling from the vaults), creating something inherently more "meaningful" than the aformentioned."
. . . and it doesn't. In fact, it specifically declaims that. It does use an accessible term for gaming styles that over-fixate on using game mechanics, and as this can even be a problem in highly gamist D&D (where rules arguments can derial play), it's good advice. It doesn't make any claims about the WoD RPG's virtues, though. Pretentiousness is a claim.
"It is not inherently superior, and it does not create an inherently more meaningful experience. Therefore its pretentious."
It does not claim to be either.
"I agree, and it fits the defintion used in this thread which you've tried to ignore: OtE makes no claims about intelligence or originality and yet its one of the most intelligent and original RPGs around."
The games yu don't like don't make any such claim, either. You keep fibbing about what the books say -- actually, let's say you make an unfounded claim. There's a word for that, you know . . . .
