Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Carlsen" data-source="post: 5861444" data-attributes="member: 61749">This is an important, nay, crucial point. The language of Fourth Edition is one of the two most different and divisive elements. The other being power-based class design.I'm willing to claim that most fans of Fourth Edition can accept alternative class designs, so long as characters have a solid selection of options and can regularly do cool things.But the language issue is a bigger challenge. For many, the simple act of not using the Fourth Edition terminology feels like a judgement on their preferred edition. Not only that, but they're used to thinking in those terms, and in a very real sense, changing the terminology changes the game. Personally, I prefer natural language with a minimum of game terms blended in (to an extent). Some find that cumbersome. No matter the final design, people will have to be willing to compromise for it to work.The best solution I can think up is this: You need consistent terminology, but care must be taken so that it doesn't draw attention to itself. Ground the terms in reality where possible. Avoid contentious terms, such as surge, in favor of more edition neutral terms. In addition, descriptions should be kept concise and consistent, but still have mechanical weight. Refluffing should be aided through advice and examples.Finally, it's important that we all be willing to compromise a little. What I've seen implies that the language will have elements from each edition bent to new needs. There's likely going to be things that make us all sigh.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Carlsen, post: 5861444, member: 61749"] This is an important, nay, crucial point. The language of Fourth Edition is one of the two most different and divisive elements. The other being power-based class design. I'm willing to claim that most fans of Fourth Edition can accept alternative class designs, so long as characters have a solid selection of options and can regularly do cool things. But the language issue is a bigger challenge. For many, the simple act of not using the Fourth Edition terminology feels like a judgement on their preferred edition. Not only that, but they're used to thinking in those terms, and in a very real sense, changing the terminology changes the game. Personally, I prefer natural language with a minimum of game terms blended in (to an extent). Some find that cumbersome. No matter the final design, people will have to be willing to compromise for it to work. The best solution I can think up is this: You need consistent terminology, but care must be taken so that it doesn't draw attention to itself. Ground the terms in reality where possible. Avoid contentious terms, such as [I]surge[/I], in favor of more edition neutral terms. In addition, descriptions should be kept concise and consistent, but still have mechanical weight. Refluffing should be aided through advice and examples. Finally, it's important that we all be willing to compromise a little. What I've seen implies that the language will have elements from each edition bent to new needs. There's likely going to be things that make us all sigh. [/QUOTE]

Verification