An everchanging gaming language?

[Iosue]

I think my point is that its not really the way your typical Pathfinder player (which crowd I am now in) would talk about it either. There is a subset of players who I guess do, but that's why I don't think some of this is edition specific. If I was explaining or arguing the rules, yes (at least sometimes), or if I am in an actual design discussion related to writing; but generally, in just talking about the game, the internal mechanics rarely raise their head in my conversations about 3e or Pathfinder. I never tell players they find a sword with a +1 enhancement bonus. I generally just say that its a +1 sword.

But because 3e +1 swords give a +1 enhancement bonus to BAB, and BECMI swords give a +1 to-hit, that "+1 sword" doesn't mean the same thing to the BECMI player as it does to the 3e player. It's not just that terms have changed, it's that the meaning of shared terms has changed.

Its such a subtle distinction that I am not sure its much more than a semantic distinction. Like I said, I was using the terms that way pre-3e. So that particular example doesn't do it for me.

That it's a semantic distinction is the whole point. It's a distinct syntax difference with a subtle semantic difference.

 

[Wicht]

But because 3e +1 swords give a +1 enhancement bonus to BAB, and BECMI swords give a +1 to-hit, that "+1 sword" doesn't mean the same thing to the BECMI player as it does to the 3e player. It's not just that terms have changed, it's that the meaning of shared terms has changed.

Eh, potato/potahto. I roll a d20 and the sword allows me to add a +1 to the roll. That's what its always meant to me, no matter how you want to swing it. I've played both, I think you overstate the practical differences in the mechanical changes (at least in this example; others I will grant you though).

I don't really see that as an example of linguistic confusion. Sorry.