Wolfspider
Explorer
I appologize for making a blanket statement against all of the posters here. I was, of course, talking about just a few guilty parties. You know who you are.
*makes a few notations in a small but densely packed book*
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Sean Reynolds rant about terminology
- Thread starter Aaron L
- Start date
- Status
I appologize for making a blanket statement against all of the posters here. I was, of course, talking about just a few guilty parties. You know who you are.
*makes a few notations in a small but densely packed book*
Berandor
lunatic
I'll be the first to admit that ever since I was assaulted by Sean K. in an online discussion where we disagreed on paladin's code, I don't like him.
But I just think this rant is silly. I mean, if this rant would be aimed at game designers, it would be all right content-wise.
But it's not. Or he would have writen some clues into the rant.
It is a rant about people using the wrong terms in flavor text while playing D&D. And to rant about that is... well.
To tell him to get a life or get laid is a but harsh, I agree.
Even so, to tell people of proofreading when WotC employs the Microsoft concept of customer-found errata is pretty hypocritical.
And still, I don't see the DMG descriptions as being errata'd. So next time I want to write some d20 stuff, I don't read the rule books as guides, but call Mr. Reynolds?
Berandor
But I just think this rant is silly. I mean, if this rant would be aimed at game designers, it would be all right content-wise.
But it's not. Or he would have writen some clues into the rant.
It is a rant about people using the wrong terms in flavor text while playing D&D. And to rant about that is... well.
To tell him to get a life or get laid is a but harsh, I agree.
Even so, to tell people of proofreading when WotC employs the Microsoft concept of customer-found errata is pretty hypocritical.
And still, I don't see the DMG descriptions as being errata'd. So next time I want to write some d20 stuff, I don't read the rule books as guides, but call Mr. Reynolds?
Berandor
Henry
Autoexreginated
First of all, it's a rant - categorized as such. It deserves a little slack for its use of direct language.
Second, I thought it was very clear that he was referring to writers who write rules-related material for D&D, not "any use of the word at all." If he came back and said that, it would be just silly. Rather, he is clearly (to me, at least) referring to calling something by a different game term from what it has been established.
For instance, a module designer writes up a new creature. He writes up that the creature has a sonic attack that "stuns" all characters who fail their save, causing them to be helpless for 1d6 rounds. "Stun" carries a specific connotation in the rules now, and it DEFNITELY does not mean "helpless." Would you let something like that slide in a module? What does the designer mean? Are they stunned? Are they helpless? You don't have to be stunned to be helpless, and vice versa.
Third, any time I write a reply that corrects someone's grammar, I check it FIVE TIMES AS MUCH as any other standard reply before hitting the "send" button. I do not mean disrespect to Shawn, but it makes you look like a goofball when correcting someone's grammar, yet you can't even get your own **** straight.
He makes some worthwhile points, particularly where game terminology is concerned. I somehow doubt Sean gives a darn where "In-character speech" is concerned. Sorcerers might well call themselves "Witches" for all they care, and sorcerer is the incorrect term.
Second, I thought it was very clear that he was referring to writers who write rules-related material for D&D, not "any use of the word at all." If he came back and said that, it would be just silly. Rather, he is clearly (to me, at least) referring to calling something by a different game term from what it has been established.
For instance, a module designer writes up a new creature. He writes up that the creature has a sonic attack that "stuns" all characters who fail their save, causing them to be helpless for 1d6 rounds. "Stun" carries a specific connotation in the rules now, and it DEFNITELY does not mean "helpless." Would you let something like that slide in a module? What does the designer mean? Are they stunned? Are they helpless? You don't have to be stunned to be helpless, and vice versa.
Third, any time I write a reply that corrects someone's grammar, I check it FIVE TIMES AS MUCH as any other standard reply before hitting the "send" button. I do not mean disrespect to Shawn, but it makes you look like a goofball when correcting someone's grammar, yet you can't even get your own **** straight.
He makes some worthwhile points, particularly where game terminology is concerned. I somehow doubt Sean gives a darn where "In-character speech" is concerned. Sorcerers might well call themselves "Witches" for all they care, and sorcerer is the incorrect term.
Left-handed Hummingbird
First Post
Granted. But in this case that particular frase - even if it is rather colloquial - isn't about Sean's sexlife, which I'm sure is his business, but about him being somewhat cholerical.Wolfspider said:
Wolfspider said:Ad hominem attacks (like saying that a person lacks a sense of humor instead of logically refuting his claims) is not a valid method of argumentation.
It is not an ad hominem argument when the object of the argument is whether you read the posts the way they were meant. My post were decidedly tongue-in-cheek and if you mistook it for sincerity then it is perfectly valid to point out that it was an attempt at humor.
*snorts soda out her nose as she reads the article*
Hee! That's...well, rather silly.
Enchantment has meant 'magical' long before it was ever used it in D&D. I'll keep using it that way if I bloody well want to and hit anyone with a rolled-up newspaper if they look at me funny for doing it.
And sorceress?
Huh, I have used the term Bardess, because I like it. And the word 'sorceress' has been around for ages, well before D&D, sort of like the way Barons find themselves wedded to Baronesses, and other such specific gender incarnations.
Someone has waaaaay too much time on his hands...
Hee! That's...well, rather silly.
Enchantment has meant 'magical' long before it was ever used it in D&D. I'll keep using it that way if I bloody well want to and hit anyone with a rolled-up newspaper if they look at me funny for doing it.
And sorceress?
Huh, I have used the term Bardess, because I like it. And the word 'sorceress' has been around for ages, well before D&D, sort of like the way Barons find themselves wedded to Baronesses, and other such specific gender incarnations.
Someone has waaaaay too much time on his hands...
hellbender
First Post
I never cared for Sean Reynolds, who to me is the biggest egomaniac at WOTC. I don't care if it is a rant, that means nothing. The fact that the guy is trying to circumvent the English language is amazing
sorceress
\Sor"cer*ess\, n. A female sorcerer.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
He can complain all he wants about gnomish and elvish and anything else, but he could at least take the time to check his sources. Sorceress is an actual word in the English language, regardless of how this guy feels about it. No clericess? Yeah, maybe because it is not a word.
I buy less WOTC material when I see his name on it anyway and this last rant is simply amazing. I don't use FR and seeing his name on it totally turned me off the product line.
hellbender
sorceress
\Sor"cer*ess\, n. A female sorcerer.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
He can complain all he wants about gnomish and elvish and anything else, but he could at least take the time to check his sources. Sorceress is an actual word in the English language, regardless of how this guy feels about it. No clericess? Yeah, maybe because it is not a word.
I buy less WOTC material when I see his name on it anyway and this last rant is simply amazing. I don't use FR and seeing his name on it totally turned me off the product line.
hellbender
Last edited:
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
Wolfspider said:
People who have been in other discussions with me will testify to my sense of humor (I still think the rod is a hamburger, dammit!), but I can't help but be left humorless when confronted with comments like "Damn that guy needs to get laid or something..."
Ad hominem attacks (like saying that a person lacks a sense of humor instead of logically refuting his claims) is not a valid method of argumentation.
Oh jesus it was a joke. He seems quite anal and I got an image of him that was similar to the
sergent in Good Morning Vietnam. So the line Robin Williams had where he told him, "I've never met a man in more dire need of a blowjob" sprang into my mind and I posted something similar.Shard O'Glase
First Post
I have mixed feeling about the man. Yes he rants, and attacks people, and can be flat out rude. (the rants I don't mind the other two I usually find objectionable) But, dang it he writes good source books,(the scarlet brotherhood being one of the best supplements of 2nd edition) and he is helpful about those source books if you are polite when phrasing your questions.
This rant I find a bit odd, and I disagree with him on it especially the 1st paragraph where it almost seems he is saying no one should make house rules because we are the gods of the universe and created the perfect game. But hey what the heck its a rant
This rant I find a bit odd, and I disagree with him on it especially the 1st paragraph where it almost seems he is saying no one should make house rules because we are the gods of the universe and created the perfect game. But hey what the heck its a rant
Wolfspider
Explorer
All of us, apparently! LOL!
Spiteful Dwarf
First Post
I find it apt that a man w. a degree in chemistry is uptight about terminology.
- Status
Similar Threads
