Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6296859" data-attributes="member: 221">The words you are looking for is &quot;arguementative,&quot; &quot;contentious,&quot; and &quot;contrary.&quot; As in, arguing merely for the sake of arguing.I thought I had been perfectly clear before.Authors and designers tend to choose words because those words convey a certain meaning. Words have a history apart from the thing being written and thus draw in the reader without the fuss of creating a whole new language.&nbsp; If I personally was designing a game, and I included a power called regeneration and it applied in any fashion to a persons health, then I would most certainly be cognizant of the fact that &quot;flesh knitting itself back together&quot; is the basic idea the word conveys; it is the most natural understanding of the word in the context of the body.&nbsp; Just as a fireball evokes, by the very name, a sphere of flaming matter, so too does regeneration evoke the idea of flesh knitting itself back together.It is reasonable for another person reading my rules to expect me to be cognizant of the broader context of a word and the visual cues and mental ideas associated with the word. It would be reasonable to think I was trying to convey a certain idea through the use of that word and that I had chosen it on purpose. It would be reasonable to believe tha tthe mechanical definition would not replace the imagery of the word, it would instead inform and explain it within the context of the rules as applied to the gameworld.To the immediate point, arguing that a power which grants regeneration does not actually give you regeneration, is simply being contentious.&nbsp; Moreover, it assumes the authors were somewhat incompetent in their use of words. I may not play 4e, but I will grant the designers the benefit of the doubt as to the fact they were not incompetent word-smiths.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wicht, post: 6296859, member: 221"] The words you are looking for is "arguementative," "contentious," and "contrary." As in, arguing merely for the sake of arguing. I thought I had been perfectly clear before. Authors and designers tend to choose words because those words convey a certain meaning. Words have a history apart from the thing being written and thus draw in the reader without the fuss of creating a whole new language. If I personally was designing a game, and I included a power called regeneration and it applied in any fashion to a persons health, then I would most certainly be cognizant of the fact that "flesh knitting itself back together" is the basic idea the word conveys; it is the most natural understanding of the word in the context of the body. Just as a fireball evokes, by the very name, a sphere of flaming matter, so too does regeneration evoke the idea of flesh knitting itself back together. It is reasonable for another person reading my rules to expect me to be cognizant of the broader context of a word and the visual cues and mental ideas associated with the word. It would be reasonable to think I was trying to convey a certain idea through the use of that word and that I had chosen it on purpose. It would be reasonable to believe tha tthe mechanical definition would not replace the imagery of the word, it would instead inform and explain it within the context of the rules as applied to the gameworld. To the immediate point, arguing that a power which grants regeneration does not actually give you regeneration, is simply being contentious. Moreover, it assumes the authors were somewhat incompetent in their use of words. I may not play 4e, but I will grant the designers the benefit of the doubt as to the fact they were not incompetent word-smiths. [/QUOTE]

Verification