Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5732933" data-attributes="member: 54877">I was playing shortly thereafter. I'm aware of that. The point is that as soon as &quot;cleric&quot; and &quot;thief&quot; got attached to mechanical packages, people started quibbling about the archetypes in their heads that went with those labels and how the package didn't match them. I believe Umbran made this point a couple of times already. &nbsp;As to what should be done about it, I don't know. It would be nice if people would take labels that are specialized, in the context of what they represent, but the resistantance is enormous. See the 20 year fight to get people to treat radio buttons as single selection and a row of check boxes as multiple selection. Some UI experts arbitrarily decided to reinforce that distinction because they knew that if it were enforced, everyone would be more productive. Yet people still fight it. My boss, of all people, still wants multiple selection radio buttons. &nbsp;&quot;Fighter/Fighting Man&quot; wasn't even an archetype when it was coined. &quot;Warrior&quot; was an archetype. The former has become an archetype only because D&amp;D players have made it one.&nbsp;So I think communication about games would be a lot more clear if we could have labels for mechanics that did not take on archetypical connotations. Given the resistance to that in forums, I don't know that we could ever get there. &nbsp;So yeah, this aspect has been going downhill since people started attaching their own archetypical ideas to &quot;cleric&quot; and &quot;thief&quot;--and expecting everyone else to have the exact same archetypical ideas.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5732933, member: 54877"] I was playing shortly thereafter. I'm aware of that. The point is that as soon as "cleric" and "thief" got attached to mechanical packages, people started quibbling about the archetypes in their heads that went with those labels and how the package didn't match them. I believe Umbran made this point a couple of times already. As to what should be done about it, I don't know. It would be nice if people would take labels that are specialized, in the context of what they represent, but the resistantance is enormous. See the 20 year fight to get people to treat radio buttons as single selection and a row of check boxes as multiple selection. Some UI experts arbitrarily decided to reinforce that distinction because they knew that if it were enforced, everyone would be more productive. Yet people [B]still[/B] fight it. My boss, of all people, still wants multiple selection radio buttons. "Fighter/Fighting Man" wasn't even an archetype when it was coined. "Warrior" was an archetype. The former has become an archetype only because D&D players have made it one. So I think communication about games would be a lot more clear if we could have labels for mechanics that did not take on archetypical connotations. Given the resistance to that in forums, I don't know that we could ever get there. So yeah, this aspect has been going downhill since people started attaching their own archetypical ideas to "cleric" and "thief"--and expecting everyone else to have the exact same archetypical ideas. [/QUOTE]

Verification