What I think he misses, though, is that the whole point of Dungeons and Dragons as a role-playing game is the immersive aspect of it. The language is a part of that immersive aspect. When you change the language, you are essentially changing the nature of the game. When I want to play a "role," I want to think about magic as my character would. The world should represent that.
Having watched all of his other videos and how he thinks and acts as a Dungeon Master, I actually believe that he's not "missing" this aspect per se... but rather just believes that making the game immersive is the role of the DM. That's his job. And thus what is written in the book doesn't really matter, because the DM is meant to take those things and flourish (or not flourish) them as much (or as little) as they want.
Now if some DMs want (or expect) their game books to do a lot of the flourishment
for them... then that's fine, and there are plenty of books and games that do. "Naturalistic language" and "flavor text" and "long descriptions" (that you might find in 5E or 3E) definitely evoke a different feel while
reading it than the more mechanical blocks that make up 4E's manuals. But when you actually play the game... if your combat is mechanical, it's cause you're allowing and playing it
as mechanical. But you can just as easily play it as "naturalistic" or "flavorful" if you put in the effort. I just don't know how many DMs, players or tables really put in that effort.
So you can take 4E and play it gridless or "theater of the mind", and evoke all the flavor and description you want if you actually just do it yourself. A 4E
Sleep spell thrown at the table can be virtually identical to a 5E
Sleep spell thrown at the table so long as you decide to describe the casting of the spell, rather than just throw down its mechanical function. Thus it doesn't matter whether one is a "Daily power" versus one that uses a "1st level spell slot"... unless you actually are running the game (and combat especially) from a mechanical terminology point of view.
And THAT'S where your point of "language is important" comes into play-- because I think the real issue ended up being not that people didn't like 4E's "mechanical language" versus 3/5E's "naturalistic language"... it was that they didn't like 4E's "mechanical language" versus 3/5E's
"mechanical language".
Colville's right in that there really is no difference between calling something a "Daily power" versus a "1st level spell slot". They're both mechanical expressions to dictate how often someone can use something. Likewise there's no difference between a "tank" versus a "Defender" because they both have the same job and do that job. And no difference between an "Encounter power" and a spell with a "1 minute duration" because they both last for generally a single fight. "Healing surge" versus "Hit dice"? Sam general principle, same general effect.
But it's only because most players were so used to using the "mechanical language" of 3E (and what got re-imported into 5E) that the 4E "mechanical language" just seemed jarring and felt wrong. There was nothing actually wrong with the language in of itself (and indeed, those people who started with 4E never seemed to have these issues of mechanical language)... it was only older players who saw the language change for what they felt was for real no reason (and probably more importantly no real gain) that fought against it.
I remember quite clearly when
Essentials was released, and all of the new "powers" of each PC were written graphically in the style of 3E spells rather than the color-coded blocks of standard 4E that many players said "If original 4E had looked and felt like this, more people probably would have been more accepting of the game." And I think that might very well have been true.
Essentials basically presented the exact same 4E game with 4E mechanics but just used the 3E style and it became a bit more tolerable for many older players. Because the "mechanical language" that moved more towards "naturalistic language" just felt better... despite there being literally no difference in the game itself.
I think we're pretty much saying the same thing at the end of the day-- the language does matter. But I think it only matters when you're reading the book, and not when you're at the table. At the table, durations are durations, targets are targets, effects are effects, and attacks and damage are attacks and damage... regardless of the terminology the book uses to describe them. And if you're a Dungeon Master... and that terminology actually matters to you during the game... then your job as a DM is to make the game what you want. You don't
need the book itself to do the work for you.
If it
does do the work for you... then great, you lucked out! The book feels like it was written specifically for you! (And why I think so many previous edition players find themselves drawn back to 5E). But it doesn't have to be written that way for you to still play it and run it the way you want it to... using any and all naturalistic and/or mechanical language you so choose. So pull that 4E monster power out of the 4E Monster Manual and tape it to your 5E Adult Black Dragon statblock! There's no reason why you shouldn't, and if the language matters just change the language of that power to the language you prefer when you do! No harm, no foul! Whatever works best for you!
