D&D 4E 4e - Is the Terminology the Problem?

[wgreen]

Though oddly, this is what bothers me about the kobold minions- if two kobolds with spears show up, I have no idea if they'll be real combatants or die if they trip over a rock.

Hay guyz,

What's the point of having mooks if you don't tell the players which bad guys they are (or, in general, somehow make it obvious)?

-Will!

 

[howandwhy99]

After running a few sessions it occurs to me that at about 5-6 th level a party can conceivably fight monsters from the entire heroic tier.

This is the game as it was. You could, with great difficulty, still beat level 10 monsters even though your PCs were level 1. And level 1 monsters could still prove deadly for level 10 PCs.

 

[Agamon]

Though oddly, this is what bothers me about the kobold minions- if two kobolds with spears show up, I have no idea if they'll be real combatants or die if they trip over a rock.

Hmmm, how is it done in 3E when you have a bunch of goblins led by a 3rd level goblin cleric and 5th level goblin barbarian?

I smell some similarity there...

 

[Hussar]

This is the game as it was. You could, with great difficulty, still beat level 10 monsters even though your PCs were level 1. And level 1 monsters could still prove deadly for level 10 PCs.

In what version of D&D could a level one monster touch a level 10 PC? I'll buy the idea, maybe, of a party getting really, really lucky and taking out a level ten monster (but, not really), but, the other way around?

Not going to happen.

 

[Dausuul]

The words actually fit very well if you know what they are. The problem is that people have to expand their vocabulary and are resistant to learning new words, much less new anything. Therefor they don't understand the true meaning of the words and so they can't see how intuitive they actually are. People drawing false correlations between words and their expectations of the connotation that a word should be used in is the listener's fault, not the speaker's.

No, that's the speaker's fault. If your audience is accustomed to a given word meaning X, and you know that but use it to mean Y, then it's your fault they don't understand it, even if Y is a valid meaning according to the dictionary. You were the one who chose the word; you can pick words to fit your audience's expectations, but your audience cannot magically know when you're using a word in a way they're not familiar with.

 

[mrswing]

Slightly different interpretation of OP's question but I do feel that some terminology is at least a weird choice.

I refer to the Pit Fiend's special power, irresistible command. When I read these words, I imagine them to mean that the fiend has the ability to issue a command to anyone, without a saving throw, to be obeyed without question. So, it can command your fighter to attack the party's spellcaster, or have the wizard firebomb the rest of the group... (an unbalanced ability to be sure). But what does the term actually mean? It summons lesser devils, places them among the PCs and has them explode! Which isn't insinuated in the least by the name of the power.
Maybe this is of no consequence to anyone but me, but I find this kind of disconnect pointless and disruptive.

 

[Sphyre]

No, that's the speaker's fault. If your audience is accustomed to a given word meaning X, and you know that but use it to mean Y, then it's your fault they don't understand it, even if Y is a valid meaning according to the dictionary. You were the one who chose the word; you can pick words to fit your audience's expectations, but your audience cannot magically know when you're using a word in a way they're not familiar with.

Actually communication is two ways. If the speaker never wishes to be understood, the speaker can say whatever one wants without needing to make any sense as long as it makes sense to oneself. Equally true, if the listener does not want to understand, and would rather remain ignorant to what the speaker is attempting to say, no matter what the speaker says, the listener will never understand what the speaker said.

As such, as long as the speaker makes an effort to be understood, the ignorance of the speaker is not at fault. What you said would be correct, if the speaker was attempting to deceive or confuse. But, logically, what good would that be if they were intending on trying to confuse, so we can tell that the speaker in this case is not at fault, because their intention is not to deceive or confuse (due to the premise that they intend on making easy to use rules).

It's ok to admit you don't know something. We all knew nothing when we were born, and constantly accumulate more knowledge as we continue living. If the speaker were to assume that the listener knew what could logically be presumed (which would be nothing) then communication wouldn't even be possible in the first place.

If, though, in your example, you use word X, and people say "What? Y doesn't make sense." You should be prepared to inform the listener of meaning Y as well, since it is the lesser used meaning of Word X. To assume said party is too stupid to comprehend Y is elitism that segregates others and minimizes your ability to communicate in the first place, and you should have not even have said anything in the first place if you're going to assume that people won't understand you without trying in the first place. That's a faulty premise. You don't know until you've tried. To say you're wrong to have tried is to not to attempt to communicate in the first place.

 

[Hussar]

Slightly different interpretation of OP's question but I do feel that some terminology is at least a weird choice.

I refer to the Pit Fiend's special power, irresistible command. When I read these words, I imagine them to mean that the fiend has the ability to issue a command to anyone, without a saving throw, to be obeyed without question. So, it can command your fighter to attack the party's spellcaster, or have the wizard firebomb the rest of the group... (an unbalanced ability to be sure). But what does the term actually mean? It summons lesser devils, places them among the PCs and has them explode! Which isn't insinuated in the least by the name of the power.
Maybe this is of no consequence to anyone but me, but I find this kind of disconnect pointless and disruptive.

Really? I look at it this way - the Pit Fiend is a leader. Thus, the other demons around him are his followers/servants/slaves. Who else would a Pit Fiend command? It makes no sense for him to be able to command the PC's, unless of course, they were allies.

It doesn't actually summon anything. You should reread the Pit Fiend description. Irresistable Command simply does the following:

Ranged Irresistible Command (minor 1/round; at-will) • Charm, Fire
Range 10; affects one allied devil of lower level than the pit fiend; the target immediately slides up to 5 squares and explodes, dealing 2d10+5 fire damage to all creatures in a close burst 2. The exploding devil is destroyed.

So, the problem with the meaning is actually entirely your own.

And this speaks so much to this thread. People on both sides of the fence seem to be taking a lot of information second hand at face value. Instead of looking at something with a critical eye and saying, "Hey, hang on, that doesn't make sense", people are jumping the gun and claiming things that aren't true.

 

[Dausuul]

What you said would be correct, if the speaker was attempting to deceive or confuse. But, logically, what good would that be if they were intending on trying to confuse, so we can tell that the speaker in this case is not at fault, because their intention is not to deceive or confuse (due to the premise that they intend on making easy to use rules).

There's another possibility, however, which is that the speaker is trying to communicate but doing a bad job of it. In which case it is still the speaker's fault that communication fails.

If, though, in your example, you use word X, and people say "What? Y doesn't make sense." You should be prepared to inform the listener of meaning Y as well, since it is the lesser used meaning of Word X.

That's all very well if you are in fact communicating two ways--though it's still very bad form to use a lot of terms that you know will require explanation. You shouldn't have to issue your listeners a dictionary to understand what you're saying, nor should you be constantly stopping to explain your terms. Use language appropriate to your audience.

However, a written book, like the D&D rulebooks, is NOT two-way communication. It goes one direction only, writer to reader. So you have to make assumptions about what your audience will and will not understand. The burden is on the writer to estimate the reader's knowledge and write accordingly.

If I write a book for children to be published in Australia, and mention the United States Electoral College without explaining what it is, and most of the Aussie kids reading my book assume I'm talking about an institution of higher learning--that isn't their fault. It's my fault. As the writer, I know (or ought to!) that Australian children aren't going to know about the intricacies of the U.S. political system. If knowledge of the Electoral College is at all important to the story, my book should explain what the heck it is.

On the other hand, if I write a book for political science professors in the U.S., then I can talk about the Electoral College without including an explanation. It is safe for me to assume that my audience knows what the Electoral College is.

The key is knowing your audience. As I said--if I use a word to mean Y, when I know my audience expects it to mean X, it's my fault if they don't get what I'm saying. If I don't know what my audience expects, then the question becomes whether I could reasonably have been expected to know. If the answer is yes, it's still my fault for failing to learn about my audience. If the answer is no, then and only then should the audience be held responsible.

As a rule, if one is addressing a large audience, and most of the audience does not understand, it is much more likely to be the speaker who's at fault.

 

[Sphyre]

The key is knowing your audience. As I said--if I use a word to mean Y, when I know my audience expects it to mean X, it's my fault if they don't get what I'm saying. If I don't know what my audience expects, then the question becomes whether I could reasonably have been expected to know. If the answer is yes, it's still my fault for failing to learn about my audience. If the answer is no, then and only then should the audience be held responsible.

You can't know. You can prepare contingencies, but you can't know. If you know, then the communication is two ways already. The audience told you something about themselves. Thus invalidating your mention that it's not two way conversation.

As a rule, if one is addressing a large audience, and most of the audience does not understand, it is much more likely to be the speaker who's at fault.

The speaker who does not adequately know their target audience would be ineffective at presenting a point, but it's not they're work is internally inconsistent. You must have knowledge, and to gain knowledge you must communicate.

Your general rule works absolutely great in terms of addressing people in a speech, yet when it comes to books it's a very poor rule. If you don't know how to read, you shouldn't be reading books. Don't blame people for your inability to learn a word that you found in the medium of a book. It'll happen all through your life. If you neglect learning, then you're not even in the target audience because you don't want to learn the new system in the first place.

Especially when it comes to rule sets for games, which people have become accustomed to, you can name something a standard action, and there is no real world parallel to what a "standard action" is. But it's defined in the game. You don't even need to know what the word exploit is, to use exploit as a mechanical name for martial powers.

The intention of calling them exploits is extremely fitting, not intended to confuse, and you don't even need to know the word exploit to play the game. As such, it is an excellent name, and if you want to choose to confuse it with something that it is not, that's your prerogative, not the writer's responsibility to not use a word based on your bias.