Sean Reynolds rant about terminology

[Aaron L]

This is sad. Don't use the word sorceress? Saying a magic sword is enchanted is wrong? I got the very distinct impression that he wanted to come beat me up if I used these terms.

Oh, and a sword made by an elf is elven, and if you say elvish you're dumb. The word gnomish doesn't exist and if you use it you're an idiot.

The game mechanic based rants he has posted are fine and I agree with, but getting mad about how people refer to things in their game worlds is very very pathetic. Swords have been "enchanted" long before the D&D designers decided that "enchantment" meant mind affecting magic only, and Mithril is how I always have and always will spell the material that is taken from Tolkien anyway.

Sorry, this article just completely offended me.

 

[Carnifex]

Where can this article be found?

 

[Aaron L]

Link to it on the front page.

 

[Carnifex]

Wow.

That really is offensive, and garbage too.

Just because D&D, in its rules, chooses to use enchantment as describing a particular type of magic, doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly change the way I speak the frigging english language.

Since most of the rant is in the same vein - 'hey, these are the terms that we've decided on, so no-one else is allowed to use them differently - I have to say, I think it's simply a pathetic piece of writing.

 

[mearls]

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html

I think he's being a little too picky about the exact use of terminology, but overall he has a good point. Bonuses and other effects in d20 must be clearly defined in order for them to properly fit into the overall system.

So, I agree saying "enchantment bonus" v. "enhancement bonus" is an unforgivable gaffe.

But, extending that to flavor text by striking out stuff like "this enchanted blade..." is taking it a little too far. There's a clear distinction between "game speak" and flavor text in that case. In the first case, using enchantment v. enhancement has a clear effect on the game. In the second case, the flavor text could say anything, but it wouldn't change the rules.

- Mearls

 

[Wolfspider]

Well, it is a rant. What did you expect but invective?

But he has some good points. Loose use of terminology can lead to confusion and misunderstanding of rules. It WOULD be best if all D20 publishers used the same game terminology.

 

[Talath]

Like mearls said, I agree that Sean has a good point about terminology. I get annoyed when my players get the terminology wrong.

Maybe it is a bit offensive for cutting in to in character dialogue and such, but then again I got yelled at by a player for called him a wizard in character rather then a sorcerer. Go figure.

All in all, it is a good rant. I like all of his rants.

 

[mearlus]

I found the article to be amusing. It's a RANT. His Pet Peeves. I would think if you spent the amount of time redesigning a game, and redefining the language that the GAME uses you would become irritated when people say it wrong, or use it in the wrong context. It's just like my irritation when someone calls soda, pop. I hate the word pop, I despise it. Although, that is a little different because it is more of a colloquial language that causes changes in that. What I get is that in the game rules, they define what words mean what and how to use them properly in the game. When you create material, make it correctly, with the appropriate language. And it's not like Sean is going to come knocking at your door if you use otherwise and proceed to pummel you.

*shrug* If you take offense to it, I'm sorry for you. Just remember, that in your game you are the creators of the world. You can modify rules, words, meanings the way you want for YOUR game.

Mearlus

 

[Psion]

Wow!

Oh well, it is how he feels. And he usually sports a sig that says he is an opinionated loudmouth. But yeah, I get where you are coming from.

If I am submitting an article for Dragon, I'll make sure my gems aren't enchanted and my armor isn't made of mithril. Those are conventions for clarity in professional writing, which I perfectly understand.

However, my game transcends and predates 3e, and I use conventions from the surrounding genre. So I'll be using enchantment to refer to any persistent magical aura and my singing swords are forged from mithril, thankyouverymuch.

Oh, and I'll address part of his rant with a counter-rant:

"Sorcerer" is a class name. Don't use it to mean "a person who can cast arcane spells." It means "a person of the sorcerer class." You wouldn't use the term "cleric" to describe any divine spellcaster, so don't use "sorcerer" (or, for that matter, "wizard") to describe any arcane spellcaster. The generic term for "arcane spellcaster" is "arcane spellcaster" or "mage."

Hmmm... it would help if it was spelled out somewhere that the generic terms for the clunky term "arcane spellcaster" is mage. I adopted that convention in my own campaign, but not because the 3e rules told me to do so anywhere. Likewise, I use "priest" as a generic term for a divine spellcaster.

 

[Berandor]

I like it.

It is a great spoof, and I laughed really hard at those nit-picking idiots getting it back.

It's a spoof, right?

--------

Actually, it totally fits with all experiences I have had with Sean Reynolds an message boards. He is quite agrressive with his opinion, and sometimes his opinion is silly - like this time.

I mean, aside from misspellings or people who write rules material with wrong names - what's the harm in calling someone a "gnomish sorceress"? Or an "orcish sword"?

Typical Reaynolds:
Agree with his opinion, and all is fine.
If you don't, you get kicked and hit.

Berandor