Two last comments on Sean's rant

[herald]

It could also be argued that a writer could want to make a show of differance from his work and the work done by WOTC.

In WOTC game world Orcs speak Orc. If I print a game world with D20, Orcs will speak Orcish, Gnomes will speak Gnomish and so on and so forth as long I deem it so.

I understand that this is SKR personal feelings on the matter, and not WOTC. But Sean needs to be careful of the D20 market here. D20 needs to be nurtured here, not shaken apart.

 

[Darkness]

Why? Theater, Theatre. Grey, Gray. Armor, Armour. Mithril, Mithral. The spelling is different, the definition is the same.

These "examples" (apart from mithril vs. mithral, but I'll get to that in a sec) are British English vs. American English - which is not a valid comparison since they are different dialects of a language and so these spellings are not really interchangeable unless one doesn't care about linguistics. Of course, I could be wrong, English not being my native language, but all English professors that I've met wouldn't accept using both British and American spelling in the same text (maybe in a dialogue between a Brit and an American, or in a quote, or something like that, but not otherwise).

Mithril as a spelling was around a looong time before the SRD or the 3rd edition PH, DMG or MM. The fact that some nebulous "we" decided to favor one existing spelling (of the name of a completely fictional metal no less!) over another doesn't mandate the same choice for everyone else.

You assume that D&D's mithral is the same as LotR's mithril. But is it? Only WotC knows for sure - for all we know, it could be a slightly different alloy or even something else altogether.
D&D has proven time and again that it's not using the same terms as LotR. Take D&D trolls vs. LotR trolls, for example - not very similar, are they?

 

[Randolpho]

Drops a bag of Troll feed on the counter.

You assume that D&D's mithral is the same as LotR's mithril. But is it? Only WotC knows for sure - for all we know, it could be a slightly different alloy or even something else altogether.
D&D has proven time and again that it's not using the same terms as LotR. Take D&D trolls vs. LotR trolls, for example - not very similar, are they?

Um... "only WotC knows for sure"? Does it even really *matter* what "alloy" it might be? No it does not. All that matters, to the game rules, is the bonuses mitr(i/a)l grants. Everything else is the domain of the setting. Hell, even the bonuses could arguably be different from domain to domain.

I think SKR is being a bit anal about the spelling here, but it's not like most of us even care what he rants about. We can go on referring to it as mithril or mithral all we want.

What matters is not spelling, but communication. If I can understand what you mean whether you write mithril or mithral, the *meaning* has been communicated. You know what I'm referring to, because there aren't two unique metals, one mithril, the other mithral.

The only time spelling or terminology really matter is if there is ambiguity in the statement. Take for example, the following statement: "... the mage wields a morningstar."

Said in the context of, say, an encounter description, wherein there is only one spellcaster, does it matter that I said "mage" rather than "Wizard" or "Sorcerer"? No, it does not.

If, however, I say it in the context of a detailed character description it *does* matter, because the character might suffer a non-proficiency penalty (Wizards are non-proficient, but Sorcerers are proficient). At this point class distiction becomes imperitive.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

These "examples" (apart from mithril vs. mithral, but I'll get to that in a sec) are British English vs. American English - which is not a valid comparison since they are different dialects of a language and so these spellings are not really interchangeable unless one doesn't care about linguistics.

I think they do apply, but I won't argue the point. How about:

Magic, Magik, Magick. (Hate the last two, but I see them all the time.)

Fey, Fay, Fae.

You assume that D&D's mithral is the same as LotR's mithril. But is it? Only WotC knows for sure - for all we know, it could be a slightly different alloy or even something else altogether.

Slightly different alloy? Mithril (however you spell it) is a completely fictional concept. It's a precious, lightweight, silvery supermetal. That's what it is in Tolkien, that's what it is in D&D.

 

[Mindcrime]

What I really want to know is why is it in the Monster Manual for creature sizes "Medium-Size" always has "-size" appended to "Medium" but none of the other sizes when they appear in the critter stat blocks do.

Chris

 

[EricNoah]

maybe to distinguish between other medium things, like medium range for spells?

 

[SableWyvern]

Guys, what's a scone?

I know it's some sort of English food but that's it.

A scone is what I believe Americans refer to as a biscuit.


On topic:

If I were to publish a d&d campaign setting, my languages would be named more imaginatively than elven and orc, as with Tolkien's Quenya, Sindarin et al.

What I'm wondering is if Sean would have a problem with this? What happens if you wish to have more than one language for a particular race? Or if the terms wizard and sorcerer are used as mechanics only, and "magic using classes" are referred to by the denizens of the world by other terms?

Sean. how do you rationalise your stance with these sorts of circumstances?

 

[s4dfish]

Semantics!?!

I'm thinking that the issue here is one of annoyance. I know it annoys me when someone (publisher or otherwise) renames something that's in the SRD for no apparent reason. If you're going to refer to a character by class, at least get it right! If you're referring to magical properties, use the proper terminology. If there is a precident, follow it.

If you're using a race that is identical to elves in everything but name, why aren't they elves? If you're using elves that are drastically different from those in the SRD, why are they elves? If there is some reason to use/not use the names, state it an move on. But renaming/reapplying the basics purely for flavor?

I appreciate that people want to distinguish their campaigns from the norm, but it's a pet peeve of mine to do it superficial ways.

As far as non-gaming language is concerned, I'm aslo for a genderless lexicon. Gender, to me, is an oppressive institution. Gender based terminology reinforces that oppression.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Gender, to me, is an oppressive institution.

Should we assume then, that you look forward to the day the human race breeds by asexual budding?

 

[hellbender]

Not fan of SKR here (as my previous posts in the first thread stated), but jiminy, I must concede that the guy did go over that rant and clear issues up, then he posted a thread stating so.

Now if only he could spell and grammar check his 'If I was in charge...' drivel. My girlfriend, an immigrant native to Spain, laughed heartily at his 'If I was in charge' tangent, then tore his English and grammar to pieces. English isn't her native language and she was shocked and amused by the glaring mistakes. That spellchecker must take loooooooooooong holidays.


hellbender