Sean Reynolds rant about terminology

[Wolfspider]

I wonder what analboy thinks of Necromancers modules?

Analboy, eh? More personal attacks?

Can't you refrain from these petty outbursts and focus on rational discourse instead? The point you make is relevent but it's hard to take it seriously because of the personal attack you made.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Is Wolfspider really SKR?

I wonder...

Anyway from now on I'll call him, "SKR High Lord of the anal D&D designers". Is that better? They guy comes off as an ass and I'm sorry if that comes out in my posts. But what can I do about that? Nothing I say! Flexor compromises for no man, with an 18/100 strength you don't have to!

 

[Wolfspider]

Whatever, Flexor.

Maybe someday people will realize that personal insults are not an effective way of arguing your opinions, that insults push people who disagree even further from a compromise instead of bringing them together. If people realized this, then maybe we might actually have a world-wide forum that was able to get something accomplished.

Naw, it'll never happen.

Too many people with 18(00) Strength and 9 Wisdom running around....

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Calling him anal isn't an insult, it's an accurate description of his personality as far as I can tell. It's like saying Flexor is Mighty, well of course he is.

 

[PenguinKing]

anal adj 1: of or related to the anus; "anal thermometer" 2: (psychoanalysis) a stage in psychosexual development when the child's interest is concentrated on the anal region; fixation at this stage is said to result in orderliness, meanness, stubbornness, compulsiveness, etc.

 

[Zappo]

How the heck did this pointless thread about a pointless rant reach page 12?

 

[Bonedagger]

How the heck did this pointless thread about a pointless rant reach page 12?

Well. At some point it was a nice discussion about tea, cookies and similar stuff

 

[Tsyr]

Ya need to up your posts-per-page! This 'ere only be page six.

 

[seankreynolds]

Wow.
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.

Speak English any way you want. But when you write game rules you need to use the right terms. If you say "Prerequisite: Wizard level 3+" and you mean "Prerequisite: Arcane spellcaster level 3+," you are saying one thing and meaning another. When you say "this gem gives you a +2 DC to all enchantments" and you intend enchantments to mean "all spells" instead of "spells from the enchantment school, not only are you saying one thing and meaning another, but if you price the item for "all spells" it's going to look too expensive to the person that (correctly) interprets it as "spells of the enchantment school."

Do whatever you want with flavor text, and do whatever you want in your home game. But if you're presenting something for other people to look at (particularly if it's a print publication), you should make an effort to comply with the terminology used in the rules.

The rules form a common basis for every player to understand the game. We share a common language in the context of the game and if you don't follow the rules of that language you're making it harder for people to understand what you really mean when you talk about the game.

Peace out.

 

[Wolfspider]

How the heck did this pointless thread about a pointless rant reach page 12?

Thank you! You're pointless post has helped push this pointless thread toward page 13!