Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Darkness" data-source="post: 66716" data-attributes="member: 13">Ruin,You have experience with Austrian English professors? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> (Just joking, my friend. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />)Anyway, while it might be difficult at times to discern the origin of a given spelling, there is, by and large, a certain standard that the US is adhering to - and a different one for Great Britain. Thus, anyone publishing a book for the market of one of those countries should best adhere to that. And if there is doubt, they should use the precedent set by WotC (although WotC aren't perfect, either, of course: I remember Monte Cook pointing out that there was some issue with the plural of &quot;staff&quot; or something like that). Now, I'd say that regional standard is more important the WotC standard. That is, a British d20 publishing company has all rights to use their country's spelling if that's what they want to do. Also, an American company might do the same (i.e., use British spelling) if they wanted. What I'd like to see, though, is internal consistency: Either use US spelling, or British spelling - but not both - for everything.So much for spelling in general. Now on to rules terms vs. flavor text:Yeah, well, IC, anything can happen. E.g., if a half-orc bartender is talking about a spellcaster who happens to be a sorcerer, but &quot;sorcerer&quot; isn't the general - or the only possible - term for such people in the region in question, or else he has incorrect information, he might call him a &quot;wizard&quot; or &quot;necromancer&quot; or &quot;gawddamn magic-worker&quot; or whatever. Dammit, in OA, there is even a table for the culturally different names for the base classes! So IC, anything goes. (Anything that's consistent with the world in question that is.)Now, if the DM - or the writer of an adventure module - is giving the players an objective description, the language he uses should not be misleading (unless appropriate, IC), but rather consistent with the campaign world in question. Example: In a &quot;generic&quot; D&amp;D world (say, Greyhawk) it's wrong for the DM to say to the PCs &quot;you see a sorcerer&quot; if he means &quot;arcane magic-user of an uncertain type.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Darkness, post: 66716, member: 13"] Ruin, You have experience with [i]Austrian[/i] English professors? :D (Just joking, my friend. :)) Anyway, while it might be difficult at times to discern the origin of a given spelling, there [i]is[/i], by and large, a certain standard that the US is adhering to - and a different one for Great Britain. Thus, anyone publishing a book for the market of one of those countries should best adhere to that. And if there is doubt, they should use the precedent set by WotC (although WotC aren't perfect, either, of course: I remember Monte Cook pointing out that there was some issue with the plural of "staff" or something like that). Now, I'd say that [i]regional[/i] standard is more important the WotC standard. That is, a British d20 publishing company has all rights to use their country's spelling if that's what they want to do. Also, an American company might do the same (i.e., use British spelling) if they wanted. What I'd like to see, though, is internal consistency: Either use US spelling, or British spelling - but [i]not[/i] both - for everything. So much for spelling in general. Now on to rules terms vs. flavor text: Yeah, well, IC, anything can happen. E.g., if a half-orc bartender is talking about a spellcaster who happens to be a sorcerer, but "sorcerer" isn't the general - or the [i]only[/i] possible - term for such people in the region in question, or else he has incorrect information, he might call him a "wizard" or "necromancer" or "gawddamn magic-worker" or whatever. Dammit, in OA, there is even a [i]table[/i] for the culturally different names for the base classes! So IC, anything goes. (Anything that's consistent with the world in question that is.) Now, if the DM - or the writer of an adventure module - is giving the players an objective description, the language he uses should not be misleading (unless appropriate, IC), but rather consistent with the campaign world in question. Example: In a "generic" D&D world (say, Greyhawk) it's wrong for the DM to say to the PCs "you see a [i]sorcerer[/i]" if he means "arcane magic-user of an uncertain type." [/QUOTE]

Verification