Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8589941" data-attributes="member: 6901101">Of course it depends on which picture you use! Here is Harry Potter: [ATTACH=full]154628[/ATTACH]No one would suspect he is a wizard with this picture. But if you use the correct picture (which is the entire point of my example, you will get everyone answering the same. It is not an argument over the semantics of pictures or the varied approaches pictures can take - it is an argument that classes contain connotation, connotation contains tropes, and tropes are attached to lore. That was my claim. And for the record if you hold up two pictures, and ask 20 people which one is a barbarian, 20/20 get it right. [ATTACH=full]154629[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]154630[/ATTACH]The few things I already mentioned - the ones that let everyone who knows the definition of wizard knows a wizard is doing wizardly things: Wiggling fingers or holding wands or a staff, casting spells, using lore or knowledge, usually being depleted when they cast a bunch of spells. All trademarks of a wizard.&nbsp; For your visualization of a barbarian that may be true. But the word barbarian comes with a trope, and that trope has lore. Just because you see a broader picture doesn't make D&amp;D classes exempt from their connotative meaning. Have you ever taught someone new to fantasy and roleplaying to play D&amp;D? If so, then you will understand what I mean. I can literally just say the word barbarian, wizard, thief, ranger, and add a one sentence descriptor or single example, and they say, &quot;Oh, I know what that is.&quot; As much as your broad paint strokes may fill the room size canvas of a class's definition, the words still force you to use the same primary colored paint.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scott Christian, post: 8589941, member: 6901101"] Of course it depends on which picture you use! Here is Harry Potter: [ATTACH type="full"]154628[/ATTACH] No one would suspect he is a wizard with this picture. But if you use the correct picture (which is the [I]entire point of my example[/I], you will get everyone answering the same. It is not an argument over the semantics of pictures or the varied approaches pictures can take - it is an argument that classes contain connotation, connotation contains tropes, and tropes are attached to lore. That was my claim. And for the record if you hold up two pictures, and ask 20 people which one is a barbarian, 20/20 get it right. [ATTACH type="full" width="314px"]154629[/ATTACH][ATTACH type="full" width="497px"]154630[/ATTACH] The few things I already mentioned - the ones that let everyone who knows the definition of wizard knows a wizard is doing wizardly things: Wiggling fingers or holding wands or a staff, casting spells, using lore or knowledge, usually being depleted when they cast a bunch of spells. All trademarks of a wizard. For your visualization of a barbarian that may be true. But the word barbarian comes with a trope, and that trope has lore. Just because you see a broader picture doesn't make D&D classes exempt from their connotative meaning. Have you ever taught someone new to fantasy and roleplaying to play D&D? If so, then you will understand what I mean. I can literally just say the word barbarian, wizard, thief, ranger, and add a one sentence descriptor or single example, and they say, "Oh, I know what that is." As much as your broad paint strokes may fill the room size canvas of a class's definition, the words still force you to use the same primary colored paint. [/QUOTE]

Verification