[OSRIC] v1.01 release date

[Faraer]

I don't criticise him for doing so, and I've been happy to stick with it in the US English version because I think it's expected. In the British English version I've chosen to prefer "dwarfs".

How is 'dwarves' more American than British? Since 'dwarves' is legitimate, and moreover it's the established plural for D&D dwarves (whereas Warhammer dwarfs are dwarfs), I wouldn't make this change.

But do use British punctuation: single quotation marks, commas not brought inside them, no compulsory 'Oxford' comma, etc.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

How is 'dwarves' more American than British? Since 'dwarves' is legitimate, and moreover it's the established plural for D&D dwarves (whereas Warhammer dwarfs are dwarfs), I wouldn't make this change.

I think "dwarves" is a non-standard usage deriving from Tolkein, which has de facto become the standard assumption in US RPG writing. I think the Warhammer usage "dwarfs" (Warhammer being a British game) shows that this isn't the case in British RPG writing.

I agree that there are persuasive arguments in favour of other views, but I was swayed by the above in my selection of "dwarfs" for the British English and "dwarves" for the US English versions of OSRIC.

But do use British punctuation: single quotation marks, commas not brought inside them, no compulsory 'Oxford' comma, etc.

House style for OSRIC in either dialect is:

• Double quotation marks (and I disagree that single quotation marks are "British")
• Commas fall inside quotation marks used to indicate speech
• Commas and full stops fall outside quotation marks and parentheses except where a complete phrase or sentence is within these marks, in which case they fall inside
• The serial comma is used

 

[RFisher]

Despite being a Texan (y'all), I'll be sorely tempted to order the UK version.

Thorn and eth were useful letters! I want them back!

One of Þem, yes. I never understood Þe need for boð, Þough.

(I mean, I can understand Þe linguists using Þem to distinguish between voiced & unvoiced. I can't understand any non-linguist boðering to do Þat, Þough.)

I hope that my Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Canadian, Australian, and other Commonwealth friends will be satisfied with my British English...

It'd be hillarious to have versions in various dialects. I'd love to see an "Anglish" version.

I've preferred the form "he or she" throughout the text where either gender could apply.

I support epicene they myself.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

Despite being a Texan (y'all), I'll be sorely tempted to order the UK version.

You would not be alone.

 

[dcas]

One of Þem, yes. I never understood Þe need for boð, Þough.

I'm afraid you've got ðem quite backwards. The thorn (Þ) is hard (or unvoiced), the eth (ð) is soft (or voiced).

(I mean, I can understand Þe linguists using Þem to distinguish between voiced & unvoiced. I can't understand any non-linguist boðering to do Þat, Þough.)

Why not? We distinguish between voiced an unvoiced with other letters all the time. For example:

s z
t d
p b
f v
ch j
k g

 

[Fifth Element]

Wikipedia (Wikipædia? ) has a good article on this subject... Canadian English seems to contain a few intrusions from the American dialect, but our Canuck friends appear to be rather defiantly resisting any further such influxes.

I think 'defiantly' is a good choice of word there...we're still holding on to the Queen as our head of state, so we'll be damned if we start dropping the 'u' from armour any time soon...

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

we're still holding on to the Queen as our head of state

Yeah, when I was in Canada I drove down the Queen Elizabeth Way. That was a nice touch.

 

[xrpsuzi]

It's producing the version in Yankistani that's the "trouble".

Don't go throwing the term "Yank" around too freely once you get south of the Mason Dixon line...

Glad to see there are multiple electronic and print versions so people can pick up OSRIC as they prefer.

-Suzi

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Hi Suzi!

When's Witch Head due out? I'm looking forward to that!

 

[jdrakeh]

Concerning a dial-up verison, I'm on dial-up (crappy dial-up, at that) and the standard 1.0 file poses no problems for me. What you might try doing is compressing the artwork when assembling the PDF, or afterward, via a program like GSView. I've reduced a 15 meg file to 5 megs using GSView. More publishers should do this, as it makes their files more accessible and doesn't degrade the artwork noticeably (if at all). This being the case, there's no good reason not to reduce file size in such a fashion. Start a trend!