You and I have very different viewpoints on the inherent beauty of creative use of language. I’m not good at it myself, but I can appreciate a wordsmith. If that’s pretentious, then I’m pretentious.
An identikit world like the one you describe is one I’d find very drab.
There's something in writing called "purple prose" which is writing that is needlessly elaborate or ornate. It may seem dull to say "it's a blue dress" but it's accurate. Rulebooks exist for the sake of accuracy, it's one reason I find Exalted fun to read but less fun to play. It's one reason I'm a strong supporter of 4E over more "prosey" rules.
There's an important difference between using words in an evocative sense such as "The Pegasus soared high overhead, his wings glittering like crystal in the noonday sun." And using words in an explanation sense "The pegasus is a winged horse." The latter may be dull to read, but it's clear (provided you know what a horse is and what wings are).
There is issue in exchanging words like "race" for "culture". Race can seem loaded, especially in human-centric settings. Replacing it with "culture" makes it
worse, not better, even in human-centric cultures because any ethnicity may be raised in any culture. Race at least applies to both physical appearance
and set of customs, depending on the context. If we're talking simply about the
physical and we're looking for a less-loaded word, then the operative word is "species" for a multi-humanoid setting and probably "ethnicity" for a single-humanoid one. Now we can address customs and culture separately and decide if our human was raised like an elf, our elf raised like a drow, or our dwarf raised like orcs. Sub-species or "offshoot" or "variant" for what are traditionally "sub-races" are acceptable replacements because they are clear in what they are. We are presented with "an elf" and then shown several different types aka: variants of elves.
Another word change I take issue with above was the choice to use "game master character". For starters, it's not common nomenclature and that will immediately cause confusion, indeed taking the words alone my initial thought it more of "DM PC" or "Gandalf". A quasi-quest-giving NPC who travels with the party, is regularly run by the DM, but is clearly set apart from the rest of the crew. It's confusing and doesn't add anything of particular value to the system
plus it creates ambiguity on what you call a character run by a player who is not a full-blown character (such as a minion, hireling or summon). Are those now
player characters? They're still something totally different from what people conceptualize as a "player character" but they're not game-master characters either.
EDIT: some more issues:
For example, the article claims there are problems with the term "Dungeon Master", but identifies the only problem as "not all games involve dungeons". Well, okay, but then it goes on to state that there are "unwanted connotations" with the term Master. But fails to specify what they are. Are we talking about slavery? Are we talking about BDSM? The Dom may be the "master" of the "dungeon" but sure isn't a "Dungeon Master". But then the article goes on to say the situation was resolved with the term "Game Master". Wait what? I thought there were problems with the term "master"? Okay, we've opened up the term to all games, but what have we substantially gained? Not all D&D games include dungeons either...or dragons for that matter! If there were problems with both words, we've only resolved 50% of the problems.
Further down, the article points out that his British books include variant spelling on words, but does that affect anything other than the fact that the book was printed in Britain? No. I, an American, spell certain words the British way, for no other reason than thats what I'm used to but it doesn't fundamentally change anything. I doubt the British would be in much of an uproar if it was spelled the American way, or vice-versus.
In the
very next paragraph, the author has decided to change "DM/GM" to "King of Dungeons", which he denotes is needlessly verbose, more difficult to understand, and not very inclusive for
no other reason than he's in charge and that's what he wants it to be. Literally NOTHING has been gained by him being creative, in fact his game has been
reduced for it. As it is in almost
every single game where I have experienced such needless word-games. The Author's further word changes add additional complexity and confusion. "Foe" is clear...as long as your target is an
enemy. With the elimination of "target" what now do we call allies or neturals? How does one use a healing spell when it says "effects foe"? It may be shorter, but that shortness has caused a loss in clarity. Which is only consistent in that it's what "he wants to do because he wants to do it", otherwise his reasoning is completly contrary to his statement only a few lines above, where he made something
simple and something
clear "Game Master" into something confusing and obtuse.
Indeed I could go on. It is one thing to be
creative. It is another to be needlessly obscure or arcane for no reason other than "Its my game and I'm going to do it my way!" Those are not the arguments of creativity. Those are arguments of petulance.
There are times when word change is good: when there are words that are derogatory, offensive, crude or otherwise disrespectful when a perfectly neutral word would suffice. But when word change leads to additional ambiguity it is not a positive change for a rule set.
Being creative with the language is fine, but rules are designed for clarity and understanding and therefore brevity and accuracy are paramount. Let the players get creative with how they swing their sword, how they carry their bow and what manner of dress they wear. There's no need to muddy the waters of a ruleset with unnecessary prose and ambiguity. If players need examples of how to get creative, provide some "sample characters" in an index. But so far, I haven't seen a word change exampled in this thread demonstrate any necessity beyond "The guy running the game likes this better."
