Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5863641" data-attributes="member: 65726">Every edition of D&amp;D has introduced some jargon. It's unavoidable. We want to know what we're talking about, without having to repeat a 20 word phrase over and over. So we make up a word, stick it in the glossary, and keep on trucking. How much of it we need is debatable.I love how concise 4e rules can be. For me it's a beautiful thing. For many of my friends, it's a load of bullocks. For instance a rule that says:&quot;If you crit, make another attack,&quot;would be perfectly clear and playable for many of the players I play with. But in 4e words, this rule reads like:&quot;Once per round, when you score a critical hit with a barbarian attack power, you can immediately make a melee basic attack as a free action. You do not have to attack the same target that you scored a critical hit against.&quot;It sounds like a lawyer doing the verbal tap dance in a court room. The amount of jargon in the first version is 2 words (crit and attack), the amount of jargon in the second version is 7-8 phrases depending on how you break it up (round, critical hit, barbarian, attack power, melee, basic attack, free action, target). I can see why many people hate this.There is probably some middle ground that can be found to reduce jargon, but still keep it concise, perhaps by making some of the rules simpler, and making some basic common sense assumptions (that lawyers never make). These assumptions are the part that would feel most awkward for those of us going from 4e to D&amp;DN, but I think it's probably a compromise we will have to make, and get used to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mengu, post: 5863641, member: 65726"] Every edition of D&D has introduced some jargon. It's unavoidable. We want to know what we're talking about, without having to repeat a 20 word phrase over and over. So we make up a word, stick it in the glossary, and keep on trucking. How much of it we need is debatable. I love how concise 4e rules can be. For me it's a beautiful thing. For many of my friends, it's a load of bullocks. For instance a rule that says: "If you [B]crit[/B], make another [B]attack[/B]," would be perfectly clear and playable for many of the players I play with. But in 4e words, this rule reads like: "Once per [B]round[/B], when you score a [B]critical hit[/B] with a [B]barbarian[/B] [B]attack power[/B], you can immediately make a [B]melee basic attack[/B] as a [B]free action[/B]. You do not have to attack the same [B]target[/B] that you scored a critical hit against." It sounds like a lawyer doing the verbal tap dance in a court room. The amount of jargon in the first version is 2 words (crit and attack), the amount of jargon in the second version is 7-8 phrases depending on how you break it up (round, critical hit, barbarian, attack power, melee, basic attack, free action, target). I can see why many people hate this. There is probably some middle ground that can be found to reduce jargon, but still keep it concise, perhaps by making some of the rules simpler, and making some basic common sense assumptions (that lawyers never make). These assumptions are the part that would feel most awkward for those of us going from 4e to D&DN, but I think it's probably a compromise we will have to make, and get used to. [/QUOTE]

Verification