Overused DnD words for 2005 (it's that time again) [merged]

How about any word used improperly? I would also like to ban the useless banning of words based on a poor understanding of the English language. For example:

session, n. An assembly of people for a common purpose or because of a common interest.
gathering, n. An assembly of persons; a meeting.

I would say that if there is to be any banning of words, it should be words which have been misappropriated and purported clever usages rather than just a critique of others' choice of verbiage.

For example, I agree completely with the banning of "fluff," because it carries the connotation of triviality, as in:

fluff, n. Something of little substance or consequence, especially light or superficial entertainment.

So it's an inherently biased term, and its gaming usage was probably in fact coined by somebody who feels it is inferior to so-called "crunch." (Which term, by the way, I have no problem with.) But crunch and its complement should form some sort of synergistic whole, and not definitionally ascribe a particular value judgement.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Harold as a Verb said:
That's imprecise. An example, perhaps, of the mistaken use of a word, because it seems more fancy or clever, in place of a common or plain one, when there are actually subtle but important differences in meaning between the fancy and the plain.

You beat me to it, so I'll add this: "verisimitude" is the depiction of realism, not realism itself. Therefore, for the discussion of RPGs it's a nearly essential word, unless one is okay with imprecision or inflated word-count.

"Verisimilar," BTW, is the adjective form. As realism is to realistic, verisimilitude is to verisimilar.
 

I'd actually say "Core" since it seems ther e are quite a few definitions for it and people like to throw the word around without saying what they think core is. Core can be SRD only, core books only, Wizards books only, specific campaign setting only, etc.
 

nopantsyet said:
fluff, n. Something of little substance or consequence, especially light or superficial entertainment.

So it's an inherently biased term, and its gaming usage was probably in fact coined by somebody who feels it is inferior to so-called "crunch."

While I don't really have a problem with your premises, I don't think your conclusion follows. I believe "fluff" and "crunch" were coined more or less simultaneously. The underlying metaphor is "candy" -- some people like nougats, whipped up and up into fluff, and some people like peanuts, almonds and a crispety-cookie crunch. (And some people like varying mixtures of both.)

I, for one, never perceived or projected any bias in the word "fluff," and I very much doubt many people have. Especially considering that the prevailing view among RPG fans now is one favoring fluff over crunch.


Jeff
 



Dark - This term is far too broad. It's used for settings where the end of the world is nigh, where the PCs face an inevitable decline (Steve Perrin's original manuscript for CoC), where the authorities are corrupt*, or where there's a high PC death rate.

Roll-playing - Used solely to denigrate people who are good tactical thinkers.


*In this sense, Star Wars is a dark setting
 


An entire phrase: "My hat of d02"...

I like Verisimilitude, ubiquitous, and session. They are generally used correctly.

But I'll let you keep Uber, with or without umlaut. (And can you make an umlaut without breaking eggs?)

People who use either Woot or \/\/00+ should be shot. (Thankfully the latter is rare, being ignored even by the 133+ crowd.)

The Auld Grump
 


Remove ads

Top