Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e - Is the Terminology the Problem?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sphyre" data-source="post: 4100279" data-attributes="member: 55424"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sphyre, post: 4100279, member: 55424"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e - Is the Terminology the Problem?
Top