Sean Reynolds rant about terminology

[Pielorinho]

It's the first of either his or Monte's rants I've read that I totally disagreed with.

Well, maybe not totally: it CAN be confusing if rules use incorrect terms.

But dammit, if the party sees a group of elementals headed up by a woman casting spells, I'll call her a sorceress if I want to -- and I don't care if she's actually a wizard. And if WOTC was so concerned about confusion from misusing terms, why didn't they call the school of magic "beguilement" or something similar? Enchantment and charm both have many meanings beyond the simple meanings of mind-affecting magic.

He kind of reminds me of everyone's least favorite high-school English teacher. The one who marks your paper down for having split infinitives in it, because the teacher has some vague understanding that in the vague past some prescriptive grammarians with a vague grasp of Latin realized that a split infinitive is impossible to ever create in a language with one-word infinitives, and somehow thinks that this requires a rule against splitting infinitives in English.

Ranting about rules requires a thorough knowledge of the rules -- and I think Reynolds has demonstrated that knowledge. Heck, he BETTER have a thorough knowledge of the rules.

But this was a rant about language, and I think he hasn't demonstrated an entirely clear understanding of how language works.

Daniel
ranting himself

 

[Midnight Rider]

What do you expect for someone who created a website named after himself?

You get these types of ranting ditties from people who stand on their own soap box. He apparantly doesn't know about the early internet admonishment against websites named after their creator. It is rather tacky. Go there at your own risk! MonteKook.com is another one, where the Brave New Masters tell you what you can and cannot think about... <chuckle> fantasy!

http://www.seankreynolds.com/
http://www.montecook.com/

 

[d20Dwarf]

What I find funny is that he stands on a book that calls magic weapon abilities enchantments and then chastises people for doing the same. Yes, he mentions that in his article, but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical or arrogant. I have to pay close attention to terminology, and I've known about these little style conventions for quite some time, but it doesn't surprise me that the average gamer would incorrectly use a lot of 3e terminology since it isn't spelled out in the books.

I guess if Sean really feels passionate about this he will post the WotC internal style and design guides so that every gamer can benefit from those documents.

 

[Zappo]

Hehe! The part with 'sorceress' not to be used because you also don't use 'clericess' or 'elvess' strikes me.

You see, in Italian (and most Latin languages), you can change the ending of a word so that it becomes the female equivalent of itself. So, there's no problem at all with expressing the concept of 'a female elf', or cleric, or whatever - I'd just say "un'elfa", or "una chierica".

The funny bit is that there is no female form for "stregone" ( = 'sorcerer'), except for "strega", which however has an evil connotation (in fact, it's the precise translation of "witch").

Where's the funny? It's that I have exactly the opposite problem as English-speakers! You've got 'sorceress' (no matter what Reynolds says), and nothing else, while I've got everything but 'sorceress'. Isn't it odd?

Ok, I'm easily amused, so what?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Damn that guy needs to get laid or something...

But who cares? His opinion means as much to me as this pile of lint collecting on my desk.

 

[Aaron L]

I've never read anything I didn't like at Monte Cooks site. I think I've completely agreed with all of his rants, actually.

 

[Wolfspider]

But dammit, if the party sees a group of elementals headed up by a woman casting spells, I'll call her a sorceress if I want to -- and I don't care if she's actually a wizard.

Fair enough, but what if your players assume (and rightfully so) that she is a member of the sorcerer class and take that into account in their planning--perhaps using magic on her to drain Charisma or using other tactics that would work against a sorcerer. Assuming the character is actually a wizard or maybe a psion or perhaps a cleric, then you have by your terminology misleaded them a bit. When she exhibits abilities that a sorcerer wouldn't have, or, worse yet, manages to kill one of the characters because of their miscalculations, be prepared to defend your choice of terms.

Of course, you could always say that you didn't mislead them because you used the term sorceress instead of the official sorcerer.

 

[ninthcouncil]

This is all tediously reminiscent of Certain Games (White Wolf are particularly guilty in this respect) which have all the Nouns describing Game Mechanics beginning with Capital Letters, just so you know they a Very Important, and Not To Be Messed With.

What a tiresome fellow you are, Sean K Reynolds. The phrase "get a life" springs to mind.

 

[Berandor]

Well, if I'd tell my players the king is a "charming fellow", and they take that to mean he is a wizard and constantly charms everyone, that's their fault.

BTW, Zappo - we also have female versions of most classes and races

B

 

[Wolfspider]

This is all tediously reminiscent of Certain Games (White Wolf are particularly guilty in this respect) which have all the Nouns describing Game Mechanics beginning with Capital Letters, just so you know they a Very Important, and Not To Be Messed With.

Or maybe those tedious and useless textbooks that put certain terms in bold or italicized text in order to facilitate understanding. What a pointless endeavor, trying to make sure people have a good understanding of a subject.