D&D 4E How does 4E hold up on verisimilitude?

[Mistwell]

For the folks concerned about elitism, what would you suggest as a non-elitist way to succinctly communicate the concept of verisimilitude, without giving wise-crackers an opening for the old "it's got dragons in it!" line?

The actual definition of the word. It's not a long definition, and all the words in the definition are fairly common. And if you find the definition doesn't fit what you are trying to say, it's a good sign the word didn't fit it either.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Would it be easier if the term was "f'ed up" instead of bloodied?

Honestly? Yes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Would you say that a commentator who used a rich vocabulary was deliberately being elitist? An essayist? An editorialist? An email or letter writer? Could be that they're just using the vocabulary they know to be appropriate or is use of challenging words from an extensive vocabulary enough for elitism?

Well exactly, and I'm quite sure Mistwell does think they're being elitist, as he's so strange that he thinks lawyers using technical terminology amongst themselves are being elitist.

As someone with an unusually broad vocabulary myself, I've always found it extremely irritating that there are some people in the world, inevitably the ones who do know what the words you're using mean, who demand that you not use them because it's possible that someone might not. Even though, nine times out of ten, the potentially-confused person knows what you mean via context or because they've got a larger vocabulary than the self-proclaimed anti-elistist judged them to have.

Frankly, it's rude and condescending behaviour on the part of the "anti-elistists". If you're never exposed to unusual vocabulary, your vocabulary will never grow, and you will never learn the words which have more precise meanings which are appropriate to their particular use, nor can you judge what words someone knows the meaning of particularly easily or reliably. Many people know the meaning of words they can't spell, others ones they can't pronounce, but recognize when others say them.

Versimilitude IS the right word, and it's really, truly absurd to suggest that it's "elitist" to use it amongst generally well-educated people with access to the internet. At worst, one can find out exactly what it means in under five seconds via Google http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/verisimilitude and even that "bad" situation means you vocabulary has increased.

Keltheos - Have you ever listened to sports commentory in your life? I know D&D players are (inaccurately) legendarily sports-phobic, but "dropping in" a word so that they can avoid repeating a particular word over and over again is precisely what most commentators do. Which sometimes leads to some hilarious misuses of words, but is typically fine. Their audience doesn't seem to object to their kind of behaviour.

In the end, obsessive hounding of "elitism" is just another form of aggressive exclusionary behaviour, and this is something we see often in Britain with the class problems British society still suffers from. I'd be interested to hear what Mistwell though of people who speak dialects (much more common in the UK than US, of course). Are the "obscure" words they use attempts to keep people out or merely the appropriate words to them?

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Would it be easier if the term was "f'ed up" instead of bloodied?

But then you have to worry about the kiddies lol

 

[GnomeWorks]

If you didn't like my example, then I welcome your own. Use the definition of verisimilitude in a sentence instead of the word, and then use the actual word, and I think you will find the sentence that uses the definition communicates better. For example "That pirate told a verisimilar tale" is an accurate use of the word, but few people would know what you meant. "That pirate's tale sounded like it was probably true" is a sentence that just about everyone would understand, but has the same meaning, and therefore it communicates better.

You're right - I'd never heard the word used that way before. After reading your example - having it explained - I now know what it means and how it's used.

That's a neat thing called "learning." Your problem shouldn't be with the word, or the word being used - it should be with those who have no interest in defining it for those who don't recognize it, and with those who have no interest in looking things up for themselves.

If you don't know what something means, ask! Or look it up - there's all sorts of resources available, if you're on the tubes, to learn what something is or means. Why should those who know more (or however you'd like to define it) have to cater to those who know less?

You don't jump into a conversation about quantum physics, being held between graduate students, and expect them to define everything for you. The same goes for any field of study or complicated hobby, and gaming is a complicated hobby.

Edit: Ninja'd.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Though there was a big 'realism' debate back in the 80s among D&Ders, the game has never been at all realistic. 'Versimilitude' is pushing it a bit, too, as the game has never really simulated a genre. D&D's genre is D&D, it's defined it's own archetypes and expectations. Each time the rev rolls, the new game is going to be a little (or a lot) different from the last, and may or may not evoke the meta-D&D genre that's built up over the years.

3.0, for intance, felt more like D&D than later 2e did. 4e's abandonment of vancian casting will certainly make it feel less like D&D has for the last 34 years, but, OTOH, it's whole-hearted embrace of hp-abstraction is a mark in it's favor in that regard. If it succeeds, the 'D&D genre' will shift towards it, and it'll seem like playing D&D. Only if it fails miserably will that not be the case. You might expect people to comment, nine or ten years from now, on how much 5e 'feels' like classic D&D.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Particularly for essayists and editorialists, it's often intended to convey a sense of superiority or smugness. And, I think, to try and give a sense of superiority to the reader (thinking that, for example, reading the New Yorker Magazine makes you feel superior to readers of People Magazine).

Wow, that you believe this is sooooo 1980 and "Class War". It's not about "smugness" or "superiority", it's about inclusion of the appropriate social group. The writer in question is not trying to show that they're "better than People Magazine readers". They're not even thinking about them. They're trying COMMUNICATE WELL with the readers of The New Yorker. Why should they even care about people who will never read their product? That's like suggesting everything should be written in Chinese because it's exclusionary to use any language but the most of common one.

You really are stepping beyond the bounds of logic and revealing personality issues of your own, which have nothing to do with true exclusionary behaviour when you suggestions like the one quote.

What you need to understand is that there is no "universal language" and that different language is appropriate to different people and different situations.

 

[Keltheos]

lol.

Seeing as how the 'hit point' system is one of the silliest mechanisms for recording damage (but at least Wizards has given it a more 'generic' purpose - not just real damage, but wounds, loss of stamina, etc) 'bloodied' really would have made more sense if it was 'f-ed up'

 

[Mistwell]

Would it be easier if the term was "f'ed up" instead of bloodied?

F yes.

In fact, I suspect we've already used that phrase instead of bloodied, to describe bloodied.

 

[Keltheos]

What you need to understand is that there is no "universal language" and that different language is appropriate to different people and different situations.

I think that's the point. Is the use of the word appropriate in the situation or not? And since the level of propriety is partially determined by the author's intent when s/he chose the word it does speak to their mindset.