Two last comments on Sean's rant

[Zamdrist]

Don't mean to beat a dead horse but...

Sean Reynolds, sorry, Sean K. Reynolds is dead wrong on the adjective forms for Elf and Dwarf.

Don't believe me? Look them up at: Merriam-Webster

Elf = Elfish
Dwarf = Dwarfish

And yes, sorceress is the proper term for a female sorcerer. Just because wizardess or clericess isn't proper doesn't mean sorceress isn't, that's just an example of how odd the Engl-ish language can. Look it up at m-w.com too.

Also, look at echantment, says nothing about mind control. It's simply derived from 'chant'.

Sure...he wasn't quoting the dictionary he was quoting the 'PH'. But there isn't any real good reason why gaming books shouldn't follow agreed upon definitions by scholars who know more about languages than you or I.

The rant was stupid and frivulous, but hey, he's entitled to it, even if he is wrong.

Zamdrist

 

[Darkness]

Re: Don't mean to beat a dead horse but...

Don't mean to beat a dead horse but...

We still have an active thread about that. Thus, I'll add yours to it now. See you there!

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: Don't mean to beat a dead horse but...

Sure...he wasn't quoting the dictionary he was quoting the 'PH'. But there isn't any real good reason why gaming books shouldn't follow agreed upon definitions by scholars who know more about languages than you or I.

Unless Merriam-Webster now has a decent definition for hit points, armor class, or spell slots, I think there's a good reason. As long as their definition of druid doesn't include the ability to wildshape at 5th level, I think there's a great reason.

On thinking about the rant, however, there is a problem I have with it:

His examples don't matter!

If a book says that a sword "has an enchantment" that petrifies enemies, what effect will this misnomer have? Do we believe that a player whose PC has a +2 bonus vs. enchantments will argue that he's not petrified? If so, do we think that the DM won't smack the player silly and tell him not to be a fool?

I think that it'll be really rare that the "misuse" of the word "enchantment" will harm gameplay. And that's the whole issue with jargon: at its best, it keeps vague word use from bogging down a technical discipline.

But if misuse of "enchantment" or "elfin" or "sorceress" isn't bogging down the game, then it's not hurting anyone's game. So a game designer whose dwarfs speak dwarfish isn't going to confuse anyone. Not even if they're wearing mithril armor.

The only harm I can see coming from the use of alternate terms is that WOTC's brand identity might be diluted: the "feel" of D&D, they may claim, is bound up in particular words, and if those words aren't used, they lose control over the game's "feel." But I doubt SKR would try to make that argument.

Daniel

 

[Henry@home]

Re: STOP!

JEEZ! The rant is for game designers. All he is saying is use consistent terms in game products to avoid confusion. That's all. There is no need to pull out the OED.

Hear, Hear, Simon!

We are becoming way too fixated on this point.

Does anyone here disagree that when writing for a specific game system you should use that game's terms specifically as they are meant in all text that uses game mechanics?

If so, then no more can be argued. We have to stop right there. The d20 STL and the OGL are licensed for this game, and to misuse it's terminology is to misuse the license in spirit, if not in letter. Refer to my "stunned and helpless" example in the previous thread on this topic.

If this point IS in agreement however, is there anything more that needs be said?The rest is a matter of opinion, not good game design.

 

[SableWyvern]

Re: Re: STOP!

Hear, Hear, Simon!

We are becoming way too fixated on this point.

Does anyone here disagree that when writing for a specific game system you should use that game's terms specifically as they are meant in all text that uses game mechanics?

If so, then no more can be argued. We have to stop right there. The d20 STL and the OGL are licensed for this game, and to misuse it's terminology is to misuse the license in spirit, if not in letter. Refer to my "stunned and helpless" example in the previous thread on this topic.

If this point IS in agreement however, is there anything more that needs be said?The rest is a matter of opinion, not good game design.

Yes, that point seems largely to be agreed upon.

But, a large part of the discussion relates to the distinction between mechanical terms and flavour text. Sean's rant does not appear to acknowledge that distinction. As I posted earlier, it appears that Sean would have a problem with elves in a d20 Middle Earth speaking Quenya, Sindarin or any of their other dialects. And that a descriptive passage cannot refer to the "devious enchantress".

To say that such examples are a misuse of the spirit of hte d20 license seems absurd. That's the perspective from which I'm looking at this, and waiting on a response from Sean to see his view clarified.

 

[seankreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: STOP!

But, a large part of the discussion relates to the distinction between mechanical terms and flavour text. Sean's rant does not appear to acknowledge that distinction.

I revised and updated the rant on 2/19 in response to comments here and on the other thread. Read the second sentence of the revised rant.

 

[Nightfall]

Hey Mister Reynolds! Any chance you'll do a book on Wild Magic for D&D 3rd? I think it would be cool!

 

[Darkness]

My point being that WoTC took a concept created by someone else long years ago and replaced the I with an A. They didn't change what it was, they just changed the spelling. In other words, to paraphrase, a rose by any other name is still the same darn thing.

Your point being...? See, WotC have mithral; Tolkien has Mithril. Are you writing for D&D or for LotR? If the former, your spelling is incorrect. But as I said in my post above, if you point out that you are using "Mithril" but using the official Mithral's stats, all is well.

WotC is NOT the authority on the word Mithril.

Right - thus, they are not using it.

They pulled the word, and the concept, wholecloth from Tolkien.

Your point being...?

His definition (and spelling ) is the authoratative.

For LotR - yes. For D&D - no. Plus, WotC don't even have the rights to use the word "Mithril" because of Tolkien's authority on it.

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Re: Re: STOP!

I revised and updated the rant on 2/19 in response to comments here and on the other thread. Read the second sentence of the revised rant.

A move in the right direction, but unfortunately the point is easily lost because all of your examples feel like descriptive-text, not rules-text. The quote about seeing an orc on a battlement, the gem bearing an enchantment, and the advice against referring to "sorcery" (which has no place in rules-text whatsoever) all feel like what you call "flavor text".

Even with the revision to one sentence, the overall tone of the essay and its examples does not feel like it is meant to be restricted to rules-text.

 

[seankreynolds]

Hey Mister Reynolds! Any chance you'll do a book on Wild Magic for D&D 3rd? I think it would be cool!

WotC hasn't announced any plans for such a thing, so until they do, I can't say that I will be working on such a thing.

I do have notes of some of the wild magic spells that I plan to convert and post on my site, though.