I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Hoo Boy
Using the words in rules-specific case is one thing...using them in conversation is another.
Having something that makes someone "stunned, helpless for 1d6 rounds," to me, obviously means they are helpless for 1d6 rounds and "stunned" is just a descriptive term for being helpless.
Perhaps it's the game to blame, because the border between rulespeak and everything else isn't very clear.
If my players assume I'm talking about the class when I describe a "sorcerer casting spells at them," than I ask them: What would have made your characters think she is a sorcerer? Does that prove she is? No? Well, then, aparently you assumed something that was not true.
Because there is a clearer distinction in play than in the books. There's a diference between description and exaction. When I'm describing a scene using flowery English it's a lot different from when I say "Roll a Fortitude save." A character would never describe a metagaming concept in-game. A character would never say: "Crap, my BAB is too low to hit!"...they might say "I'm not skilled enough to hit!"...which *doesn't* translate into "I don't have a high enough rank in my Hit skill!"
It's this blending of meta-terms and in-character terms that seems to be throwing everyone off. Certainly, my character would call is sword "enchanted." In a rules-sense, it may just be Masterwork, however.
It's part of the beauty of the English language -- the ambiguity, the lack of exact meanings, the layers of synonyms and homonyms.
He can rant all he want, but so can we rant about his ranting, and if he wants to discuss it, he can rant further.
So, this is a rambling discourse, but I think the point is made. There's a clear barrier between meta-speak and in-character-speak. Meta-speak should be rather exacting and clear. In-character-speak can describe a wizard as a "Sorcerer," an "Enchanter," a "Weaver of Mystic Energies," even if (in rule-speak) she's a wizard who specializes in Evocation and just took a Weaver of Mystical Energies PrC.
The warrior example serves the best. In rule-speak, "warrior" refers to a particular NPC class. Out of rule-speak, "warrior" can use the usual dictionary definition...which just happens to be nearly the same as "Fighter," "Knight," and "Combatant."
Using the words in rules-specific case is one thing...using them in conversation is another.
Having something that makes someone "stunned, helpless for 1d6 rounds," to me, obviously means they are helpless for 1d6 rounds and "stunned" is just a descriptive term for being helpless.
Perhaps it's the game to blame, because the border between rulespeak and everything else isn't very clear.
If my players assume I'm talking about the class when I describe a "sorcerer casting spells at them," than I ask them: What would have made your characters think she is a sorcerer? Does that prove she is? No? Well, then, aparently you assumed something that was not true.
Because there is a clearer distinction in play than in the books. There's a diference between description and exaction. When I'm describing a scene using flowery English it's a lot different from when I say "Roll a Fortitude save." A character would never describe a metagaming concept in-game. A character would never say: "Crap, my BAB is too low to hit!"...they might say "I'm not skilled enough to hit!"...which *doesn't* translate into "I don't have a high enough rank in my Hit skill!"
It's this blending of meta-terms and in-character terms that seems to be throwing everyone off. Certainly, my character would call is sword "enchanted." In a rules-sense, it may just be Masterwork, however.
It's part of the beauty of the English language -- the ambiguity, the lack of exact meanings, the layers of synonyms and homonyms.
He can rant all he want, but so can we rant about his ranting, and if he wants to discuss it, he can rant further.
So, this is a rambling discourse, but I think the point is made. There's a clear barrier between meta-speak and in-character-speak. Meta-speak should be rather exacting and clear. In-character-speak can describe a wizard as a "Sorcerer," an "Enchanter," a "Weaver of Mystic Energies," even if (in rule-speak) she's a wizard who specializes in Evocation and just took a Weaver of Mystical Energies PrC.
The warrior example serves the best. In rule-speak, "warrior" refers to a particular NPC class. Out of rule-speak, "warrior" can use the usual dictionary definition...which just happens to be nearly the same as "Fighter," "Knight," and "Combatant."
so I guess I should cut him slack. 
