Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6983438" data-attributes="member: 42582">He says &quot;we're definitely moving back to a more open game&quot;. This is not synonymous with what you attiribute to him - it uses a verb of process (&quot;moving&quot;), not of completion (&quot;gone back to&quot;); and it uses an adjective of comparison (&quot;more open game&quot;), not of absolutes (&quot;the open gaming&quot;). For a poster who likes to hang many arguments on rather pedantic semantic claims, I find that you are sometimes extremely casual, even to the point of carelessness, in your glossing of others' words.Clearly the game is not completey open, because it has all sorts of rules for being a fighter rather than a wizard rather than a . . .; for things being lightly obscured rather than not obscured at all rather than heavily obscured rather than&nbsp; . . . ; etc, etc.I don't know what variety of RPGs you're familiar with, but I'm pretty confident Mearls - one of the most successful RPG designers of all time - is familiar with many of them. So he will know that there are RPGs which really do rely on natural language rather than jargon for all aspects of PC building (eg HeroQuest revised; Maelstrom Storytelling, a version of which you can download for free from DriveThru under the name &quot;Story Bones&quot;). And he will be equally well aware that 5e is not such an RPG!EDIT: To create a PC in HeroQuest revised, you write out a 100 word description of your character (which is ordinary language by definition), then you underline nouns and adjectives that are candidates to be abilities, ie, something with or whereby a character can solve problems. The only time jargon comes into if everyone agrees as part of the campaign set-up to include certain genre-appropriate keywords, which are little ability-packages (eg the example given is of pre-defining the notion &quot;Londoner&quot;, in which case if your 100 word description inlcudes being a Londoner, you get the benefit of the keyword).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6983438, member: 42582"] He says "we're definitely moving back to a more open game". This is not synonymous with what you attiribute to him - it uses a verb of process ("moving"), not of completion ("gone back to"); and it uses an adjective of comparison ("more open game"), not of absolutes ("the open gaming"). For a poster who likes to hang many arguments on rather pedantic semantic claims, I find that you are sometimes extremely casual, even to the point of carelessness, in your glossing of others' words. Clearly the game is not completey open, because it has all sorts of rules for being a fighter rather than a wizard rather than a . . .; for things being lightly obscured rather than not obscured at all rather than heavily obscured rather than . . . ; etc, etc. I don't know what variety of RPGs you're familiar with, but I'm pretty confident Mearls - one of the most successful RPG designers of all time - is familiar with many of them. So he will know that there are RPGs which really do rely on natural language rather than jargon for all aspects of PC building (eg HeroQuest revised; Maelstrom Storytelling, a version of which you can download for free from DriveThru under the name "Story Bones"). And he will be equally well aware that 5e is not such an RPG! EDIT: To create a PC in HeroQuest revised, you write out a 100 word description of your character (which is ordinary language by definition), then you underline nouns and adjectives that are candidates to be abilities, ie, something with or whereby a character can solve problems. The only time jargon comes into if everyone agrees as part of the campaign set-up to include certain genre-appropriate keywords, which are little ability-packages (eg the example given is of pre-defining the notion "Londoner", in which case if your 100 word description inlcudes being a Londoner, you get the benefit of the keyword). [/QUOTE]

Verification