How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Thomas Shey]

Yup. Magic circles. You find similar kinds of things in the rest of the country, based on the folks that settled in those areas. The upper midwest had strong Nordic immigration and so you see folk magic of that sort.

The point is: this stuff isn't the purview of formal education, but tradition. Some rube from Hardbottle might not be able to read the runic circle but probably knows what it is.

This can be an important distinction in games that are not class-based and thus have no hard line between spellcasters and not, especially when the latter bleeds into the community commonly. As a notable example, the vast majority of RuneQuest characters know some magic, albeit not high end; in an equivalent setting, I'd expect most characters to at least recognize a protective circle, if perhaps not all the details about it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Does it matter if they can tell a real one from a fake one, or tell what it provides for protection from?

What havoc can some crafty Kobolds cause if they put a bunch of fake ones everywhere in a dungeon that has a couple real ones?

You can easily call a situation where the distinction between a real one and a genuinely fake one is pretty stark; where one that pass as a magic circle, is, well, a magic circle, but perhaps a misdesigned one.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have a leg on both sides of this.

On one hand, you're correct that the terms are describing the same function.

On the other hand, semantic loading matters, and people who don't think it does are to at least some extent, failing at communication.

I would say that the folks who've gone out of their way to explain the phrase are not failing at communication.

If someone wants to insist that a word or phrase they don't like MUST carry their idiosyncratic connotation, then I'd say that they are the ones with the issue.

I made a bit of a joke earlier in the thread about not liking the term "sandbox" because it refers to a child's toy, and I think comparing RPGs to sandboxes infantilizes the hobby and its participants.

Would you cater to this interpretation and find some other term to use than sandbox? I doubt it. Nor would you consider yourself having failed at communication for not doing so.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would say that the folks who've gone out of their way to explain the phrase are not failing at communication.

If someone wants to insist that a word or phrase they don't like MUST carry their idiosyncratic connotation, then I'd say that they are the ones with the issue.

That's always a possibility, but I also have to point out that "The connotation you're responding to is idiosyncratic and not something I'm going to care about" is an easy out used by people who don't like to pay attention to connotational meaning, too. This may very well be a case that Micah is just sensitive in this area and needs to get over it, but its a bad habit to get into thinking that's always the case because a term works for you.

I made a bit of a joke earlier in the thread about not liking the term "sandbox" because it refers to a child's toy, and I think comparing RPGs to sandboxes infantilizes the hobby and its participants.

Would you cater to this interpretation and find some other term to use than sandbox? I doubt it. Nor would you consider yourself having failed at communication for not doing so.

I might. It would depend on whether I'd seen sign that your usage was genuinely idiosyncratic or just not a majority usage.

Basically, I've seen a few too many people who only wanted to care about denotational meanings and ignore semantic loading to be blase about this sort of thing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's always a possibility, but I also have to point out that "The connotation you're responding to is idiosyncratic and not something I'm going to care about" is an easy out used by people who don't like to pay attention to connotational meaning, too. This may very well be a case that Micah is just sensitive in this area and needs to get over it, but its a bad habit to get into thinking that's always the case because a term works for you.



I might. It would depend on whether I'd seen sign that your usage was genuinely idiosyncratic or just not a majority usage.

Basically, I've seen a few too many people who only wanted to care about denotational meanings and ignore semantic loading to be blase about this sort of thing.

What is there to "get over"?

 

[Thomas Shey]

What is there to "get over"?

The connotation he sees in the term. Connotational associations are always, to some degree, emotional in nature; that's what distinguishes connotational from denotational meaning.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The connotation he sees in the term. Connotational associations are always, to some degree, emotional in nature; that's what distinguishes connotational from denotational meaning.

And this is something for which others should change? A descriptor of an action taken in a game is emotionally loaded enough that others who don't share the connotation should find a new phrase?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Could you guys disagree about something more interesting, please? Magic circles were more fun than the terminology.

 

[Reynard]

This can be an important distinction in games that are not class-based and thus have no hard line between spellcasters and not, especially when the latter bleeds into the community commonly. As a notable example, the vast majority of RuneQuest characters know some magic, albeit not high end; in an equivalent setting, I'd expect most characters to at least recognize a protective circle, if perhaps not all the details about it.

I am trying to think whether there has ever been a good treatment of folk magic in D&D. I feel like there might have been a Dragon article at some point (but I don't recall any specifics) but otherwise I am coming up blank.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Could you guys disagree about something more interesting, please? Magic circles were more fun than the terminology.

Ugh magic circles.

I'm not really disagreeing with what Thomas said. I just don't think that any phrase used thus far in this thread is actually problematic.

No one's parents were killed by scene-framing!