| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that's pretty much it. Some people associate "you are wrong" with "you are bad". Mostly since it's become commonplace to be politically incorrect to say otherwise in a lot of situations.
I suppose there's some truth to that Orthos. Our society has seemed to elevate demonization and demagoguery above rational conversation in most areas of public commentary, I suppose it was inevitable that it invaded our hobbies as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Must resist...urge to...correct usage of "allot"...
Alot happy to be helping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never mind alot, how 'bout alright? (Which the spelling filter did not catch; interesting.)
I think we just go nuts when posting on the interwebz, cause there's no face to go with the sentiment, you know? I've been trying to dial back my own cnofrontationality (not a word) ever since I actually communicated with Matt Thomason, but what ever, you all suck for even reading this! :P
No, it's not.
It may be gaining "shadowy acceptance" in British English (see, for example, here: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/all-right-versus-alright ?page=1), but it's not correct in American English.
|
'Gaining shadowy acceptance???'
I was taught at school that, when 'all' and 'right' follow, then condense them into the word 'alright'; don't forget to drop the extra 'L'.
I was taught this before I was ten years old. I turned ten in 1975. Hardly recent.
And what's 'American English' got to do with it? I'm English. The language is called English. English spellcheckers correct 'allright' to 'solemnity'. Why? Because spelling it with two 'Ls' is so alien that it freaks out!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no major style guide that accepts "alright" as correct, so I'm sorry to tell you that while your teacher may have been right about its colloquial acceptance, it's incorrect for formal English.
And American English and British English have different spelling rules (e.g. color vs. colour).
Pretty sure "alright" is alright. It is according to Mr. Webster anyway, although with the caveat that some style guides still frown on it. Stuffy grammarians perhaps.
I use it. And I'm pretty picky about my grammar. It's used commonly enough that MS Word doesn't blink at it.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "major style guides" Jessica.
I wouldn't use it in formal writing, but I would have no qualms using it in a fiction novel. It's certainly far more acceptable than "irregardless" which is now acceptable enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
is it already alright to put all and right altogether? and if not, then why are altogether and already already all right?
I think "alright" was a proper spelling centuries ago, and it kind of dropped off and then was revived last century.
... and nicely alliterative there Bombadil
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been reflecting on the unusually large number of locked threads lately, most of which are about whether GMs or players suck more, but a few have been political or ideological. Some of the same behaviors are present, if not as pronounced, in other threads that have not been locked.
The common dynamic in all of these threads is passion.
I generally think passion is a good thing. I'm a passionate person in just about everything I do. But, as oxymoronic as it might seem, I do try to be passionate in moderation.
I doubt it is possible to avoid passion when it comes to ideology and politics. Or religion I suppose. That sort of goes with the territory.
But is the level of passion I see on these boards about game rules, character builds, and GM or player preferences a good thing?
I dunno. Maybe it's just that I'm getting older, but I find it hard to get all worked up any more about how someone else plays this or any other game. I do get worked up about how people treat each other, but that's different.
I would like to hear from some of the people who have been so passionate on these subjects exactly why it is so important to them that the game be designed, adjudicated, played and enjoyed certain ways.
So I'll pose a few questions:
1. Why is it so important that you play a specific character concept? I understand that you might WANT to play something special, and that you feel it shouldn't be a problem to do so, but that's not what I'm asking. Why do you get so emotionally invested in it?
2. Why is it so important that classes be balanced? At the worst an unbalanced design would mean some characters can do more than others in a mechanical sense. But this is a role playing game, supposedly. There are plenty of ways to enjoy playing a less powerful character, and if you simply can't deal with playing a less powerful character, then why don't you just play a character that satisfies your desire for a certain level of power and move on?
3. If you have a special game world you've built...
Good post, but locked threads and threads locked in large numbers are not new here.
Yes, on passionate matters, absolutely on political disagreements, a thousand times on something sensitive like race, sex or gender the threads are locked over and over again. I've seen threads locked for a critical attitude towards a paizo product (they don't want the cash cow to get lighter, but many things are deserving of critique), for arguing against the premise of a thread and the attitudes of those within as well as threads locked with no explanation given or explanations that don't actually make sense (locked for breaking a rule, but the rule hasn't been broken, it was just used as an excuse).
Sometimes a mod will follow someone branded as a troublemaker and go nuts with thread locking. It is not pretty when people with some power get petty.
I too find it weird how worked up people get; but one thing is for sure, flagging summons mods right quick.
|
|
Back when America was poor, the colonists decided to save money by not paying the tax on tea.
Later, they decided to save money a different way: don't spend all that money on the letter 'U'.
Unfortunately, some guys in Boston were so embarrassed about turning up at the fancy dress party in the same 'red indian' costume that they forgot about the change and went with the original 'tea-stealing' plan, but they were so drunk they dropped the whole lot overboard.
Does that sound silly to you? Guess how 'gaining shadowy acceptance' sounds to us!
There's a great scene in 'Inglourious Basterds' when ordering three drinks. Doing it wrong got them all killed.
Although (or should I say, 'all though') we are familiar with many little differences in our use of the language (sidewalk/pavement, etc.), there are many differences we have no clue are different. In fact, I was unaware that 'alright' was not alright in America until this very exchange! In a thread about a cat-throwing build I mentioned something about efficient moggy throwing, without realising that 'moggy' was peculiar to Britain.
'Alright' is used in exactly the same ways as the more recent American originated word 'okay'. The Queen would never ask you if you were okay. She would happily ask if youwere alright.
Even if you had a perfect accent, if you expressed the number 103 as 'one hundred three', you'd get shot by the metaphorical Nazis ('Inglourious Basterds' reference there)
If you were to alert a friend to something 'in back' of him, then 'bang, bang, last fag, bang!' would be the order of the day.
There are some things you only know by living your life in a country, and you won't even realise that you don't know them.
We don't consult a style manual before we talk to each other. 'Alright' evolved from 'all right' a very long time ago indeed over here.
EDIT: I've just seen the word F A G bleeped out. It means cigarette. Bang, bang, last cigarette, bang!
'Alright' is used in exactly the same ways as the more recent American originated word 'okay'. The Queen would never ask you if you were okay. She would happily ask if youwere alright.
And y'know, just to illustrate variance within the same country:
I'm in the UK, I have an American friend who says "alright", which I constantly want to keep correcting to the "all right" I was taught :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those interested:
Usage Discussion of ALRIGHT
The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright — Gertrude Stein>.
If publishers let it slide in journalism and business then it's usage isn't wrong, it just isn't usually accepted in formal papers yet. As my favorite language experts say language is constantly evolving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's true Aranna, but in my local newspaper the Governor was quoted as saying he was going to "reign in taxes," rather than "rein in taxes," which, while both correct spellings, are very different statements. Sometimes editors (in journalism or business) just get it wrong.
To the OP. I think there is also a variance that has to be granted to organized players. I dont really care how a ruling goes for a given debate because I only play home games, and at the end of the day we will run it how we think works best...wrongbadfun be damned. Or at the very least delay the rules change/ clarification until after the current campaign wraps up.
But I can certainly see that organized players have a lot more skin in the game. These rulings always directly affect the character they are playing, there is no ability to shrug it off and say " I will just house rule it out". In some cases these people have a couple of years of their life emotionally invested. To change how things work, or clarify how it should have worked all along can really mess up something they have poured a lot of time and creativity into.
For those interested:
Usage Discussion of ALRIGHT
The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright — Gertrude Stein>.If publishers let it slide in journalism and business then it's usage isn't wrong, it just isn't usually accepted in formal papers yet. As my favorite language experts say language is constantly evolving.
It is a very common view that there are no prescriptive rules for languages, only descriptive ones. However, while that may be somewhat true, it is not the whole truth. Every language variant has its own rules, and there are things to gain from following them. Most importantly, following said rules increases the precision of what you say, thereby increasing the chance for correct comprehension. Another gain is that you show your mastery of the language, which often gives you an advantage in status in a discussion, whether you or the other party know it. Third, you can also show a group allegiance through your speech or writing (sociolect). Ignoring these factors is foolish.
To the OP. I think there is also a variance that has to be granted to organized players. I dont really care how a ruling goes for a given debate because I only play home games, and at the end of the day we will run it how we think works best...wrongbadfun be damned. Or at the very least delay the rules change/ clarification until after the current campaign wraps up.
But I can certainly see that organized players have a lot more skin in the game. These rulings always directly affect the character they are playing, there is no ability to shrug it off and say " I will just house rule it out". In some cases these people have a couple of years of their life emotionally invested. To change how things work, or clarify how it should have worked all along can really mess up something they have poured a lot of time and creativity into.
This. I think this is very close to the heart of the matter. The other thing I see is people reacting to being called "munchkin" or "cheese" players, and I think the two points are related.
I know that when those words come out that the flame war is not far to come and even actively trying to get in front of it doesn't always (or all ways ;p) help. Many times I will see a rules question and I pop into the thread because I find corner cases to be interesting and am somewhat of a crunch junkie. I also hardly ever have any real skin in the game, because I gm 90% of the time. But if I agree with the generally "more permissive" side of the question then I get told I have ulterior motives, that I am cheeseing (which I always find funny, link NSFW), or being a munchkin. This make me really angry because I know they are lashing out personal attacks based on no evidence. There cannot possibly be anything in my responses which gave those people the impression I played that way, because I don't even play, I GM!
I can only imagine how people who have a couple of years wrapped up in a character will feel when all-of-the-sudden an FAQ comes down restricting their character. They get mildly upset because it was a character they put time, effort, and creativity into it. They had fun playing it. But the next thing they know people are calling them names and accusing them of ulterior motives just for stating a position. I would get upset if someone on the internet told me that what I was doing for fun for 2+ years was (1) wrong, and that (2) I am a bad person for having fun like that, and (3) kept screaming it at the top of their internet lungs without listening to anything I said, or (4) kept reading stuff in my language that was not present. I would get fuming mad and start to call that person out for being a tool.
Also, I will admit to personally calling others out when I witness this on the boards, even a particular developer is regularly guilty of this behavior. I find that to be most saddening as well. In general, I find the "less-permissive" attitude on the forums to be connected with tossing around some pretty offensive accusations in a most cavalier manner, and I think that goes a long way to pushing up the angry responses.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the next thing they know people are calling them names and accusing them of ulterior motives just for stating a position. I would get upset if someone on the internet told me that what I was doing for fun for 2+ years was (1) wrong, and that (2) I am a bad person for having fun like that, and (3) kept screaming it at the top of their internet lungs without listening to anything I said, or (4) kept reading stuff in my language that was not present. I would get fuming mad and start to call that person out for being a tool.
Interestingly, I've actually had someone go beyond assigning motives to me and actually assign motives to my wife (who isn't on the boards). When I got Ultimate Campaign, we were looking through it together, and she stumbled across a trait that has to do with being someone's twin. She hadn't even finished reading it when she excitedly announced that she'd found something cool for our twin PCs that we exclusively play together as a team in PFS.
Not long after, there was a thread in the PFS forums discussing whether trait retraining should be allowed, and I related that story about my wife getting excited about seeing something that fit our kitsune twins and how it was sad that we already had a trait in that category so we couldn't get it even with Additional Traits. Someone pointed out that he thought it was a rather powerful trait and voiced his conclusion that my wife clearly must have had an ulterior motive.
This was someone who has never met my wife (not even online), yet felt qualified to conclude that since the trait she wanted was (allegedly) powerful, she must be trying to game the system. Took me a while to calm down enough not to (verbally) rip the prick's throat out. You do not attack my wife, especially when you know nothing about her.
-----------------------------------------
You know, earlier I was talking about how some of the "passion" seems to be that some folks can't separate "you said I'm wrong" from "you said I'm bad", and how that might stem from having the two used together so frequently that they seem inextricably linked (in that person's eyes). Maybe we've just uncovered one of the places where that's happening.
OK, I get that people might confuse "I don't like to play that way myself" with "I think you are playing wrong" and then inferring that to mean "You must be a bad person to want to play that way."
I think there's a whole lot of psychology we can have fun with looking at the above. Such as "why would people be so quick to infer the worst possible motives in someone else's comments?"
But I'm not even going to go there.
I'm still stuck on "why does it matter so much what other people say?"
I can accept that there is more "skin in the game" for organized PFS play. But even then, it's still a game, and even when a ruling might not go the way I like, I'm still going to manage to have fun.
As I said before, I don't make money from this hobby, I don't gain any sense of self-worth from playing a particular character and I generally don't think the people attacking me actually have any idea of how I actually play anyway, they are just reacting to their own interpretations. You will see that I frequently tell people on the boards that in spite of our arguments I think we'd probably enjoy playing together. That's because I assume that the great majority of disagreements that become flame wars are almost entirely due to misunderstandings, not real differences.
In fact if there is anything about playing this game where I do gain any sense of satisfaction about my personal worth, that comes from my ability to play the game like an adult and get along with my friends so that we all have a good time. That is important to me. Getting an additional 2d6 on a full attack against humanoids on alternate Tuesdays really isn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good post, but locked threads and threads locked in large numbers are not new here.
Yes, on passionate matters, absolutely on political disagreements, a thousand times on something sensitive like race, sex or gender the threads are locked over and over again. I've seen threads locked for a critical attitude towards a paizo product (they don't want the cash cow to get lighter, but many things are deserving of critique), for arguing against the premise of a thread and the attitudes of those within as well as threads locked with no explanation given or explanations that don't actually make sense (locked for breaking a rule, but the rule hasn't been broken, it was just used as an excuse).
Sometimes a mod will follow someone branded as a troublemaker and go nuts with thread locking. It is not pretty when people with some power get petty.
I too find it weird how worked up people get; but one thing is for sure, flagging summons mods right quick.
I would suggest checking this thread regarding locked threads for reasons why threads are locked. If you notice a thread that is locked or a moderator decision that seems off you can let us know via email or the Website Feedback forum.
OK, I get that people might confuse "I don't like to play that way myself" with "I think you are playing wrong" and then inferring that to mean "You must be a bad person to want to play that way."
I think there's a whole lot of psychology we can have fun with looking at the above. Such as "why would people be so quick to infer the worst possible motives in someone else's comments?"
But I'm not even going to go there.
I'm still stuck on "why does it matter so much what other people say?"
I can accept that there is more "skin in the game" for organized PFS play. But even then, it's still a game, and even when a ruling might not go the way I like, I'm still going to manage to have fun.
As I said before, I don't make money from this hobby, I don't gain any sense of self-worth from playing a particular character and I generally don't think the people attacking me actually have any idea of how I actually play anyway, they are just reacting to their own interpretations. You will see that I frequently tell people on the boards that in spite of our arguments I think we'd probably enjoy playing together. That's because I assume that the great majority of disagreements that become flame wars are almost entirely due to misunderstandings, not real differences.
In fact if there is anything about playing this game where I do gain any sense of satisfaction about my personal worth, that comes from my ability to play the game like an adult and get along with my friends so that we all have a good time. That is important to me. Getting an additional 2d6 on a full attack against humanoids on alternate Tuesdays really isn't.
I think the kind of anger you are describing is pretty rare; where someone on the board would go immediately from "no sneak attack for you" to "NERDRAGE!!!" I believe if examined that most of the time someone has been insulted and then reacts. They may re-react after a ruling comes down (probably because they then perceive the developers as being in agreement with the slight against them). The insult may have even taken place away from the boards and all that animosity comes with them onto the site.
I also believe that insults get thrown around far to haphazardly. It is too easy to see something you don't like and call it "cheese" or "grognardly" or whatever. The people who make those statements have associated that view with that word, and it becomes far to easy to fight "cheese" rather than have a discussion with people.
That's true Aranna, but in my local newspaper the Governor was quoted as saying he was going to "reign in taxes," rather than "rein in taxes," which, while both correct spellings, are very different statements. Sometimes editors (in journalism or business) just get it wrong.
[Thinks to himself]
Oh man, I've been "reigning in" all over the Obamacare threads.
[facepalm]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh.
Heh, "rein vs reign" is one of my favorite grammatical errors. I get a mental picture of the queen hauling back on the reins when people use it wrong...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, I get that people might confuse "I don't like to play that way myself" with "I think you are playing wrong" and then inferring that to mean "You must be a bad person to want to play that way."
It's remarkable how seldom I see anyone say something to the effect of "I don't like to play that way myself", and how often I see things like "Once you outgrow the powergaming phase and play like an adult..." or "Quit trying to ruin the game [by selecting option X]" and the like. When the way you play is explicitly labeled as something to outgrow, or a deliberate attempt to do harm, etc, then hearing "you must be a bad person to want to play that way" isn't exactly "inferring".
I think there's a whole lot of psychology we can have fun with looking at the above. Such as "why would people be so quick to infer the worst possible motives in someone else's comments?"
But I'm not even going to go there.
Having a degree in psychology, that's the first place I go. ;)
I'm still stuck on "why does it matter so much what other people say?"
Probably because words are one of the deepest ways in which human beings connect with each other. I know a lady who as a youth was told by a random stranger on the sidewalk that she "looked like garbage", and it haunts her to this day. Conversely, I once helped a (different) lady get to the bus she needed to go downtown for jury duty, and that evening when I got back to my car at the Park and Ride lot, I discovered a note under my windshield wiper thanking me for my help. I was smiling for the next two days.
Words matter.
I can accept that there is more "skin in the game" for organized PFS play. But even then, it's still a game, and even when a ruling might not go the way I like, I'm still going to manage to have fun.
That's the ideal, though sometimes an entire build gets shut down to the point that a PC suddenly becomes illegal. Hard to "still manage to have fun" when you suddenly can't play (that character) anymore.
You will see that I frequently tell people on the boards that in spite of our arguments I think we'd probably enjoy playing together.
Sadly, some folks manage to weaponize this sentiment. That is, they respond to being disproved with a "maybe you want to keep arguing, but I'd certainly be ready to enjoy playing together", so that the other person can't continue the discussion at hand without being painted as being more interested in being right than in having fun.
...play the game like an adult and get along with my friends so that we all have a good time. That is important to me. Getting an additional 2d6 on a full attack against humanoids on alternate Tuesdays really isn't.
Agreed. And sadly, this is another good sentiment that some people manage to weaponize, in a sort of "Oh, you think X is legal? Well, I'm more interested in having fun than in trying to squeeze every last +1 out of the system." Which is unfortunate. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, very solid and rational response. All very good points.
And you are right, I do see a lot of veiled accusations of badwrong fun in supposedly innocent responses to questions. I see that a lot in the "Advice" forum especially. And I would be lying if I didn't admit to sometimes having an urge to respond with "Oh, so you want to exploit that well-known broken rules synergy do you?"
Words do matter, and I admit that I react to comments I think are unreasonable with escalations myself. I am trying hard to stop that though. I'm more than a little tired of the flame wars.
I do try to reserve my real passion for actual gaming though. It can be easy to get sucked into a flame war here on the boards and spend so much time arguing about some fine point of rules detail while my actual game prep suffers, which makes my games less fun for my players.
Passion is a good thing, but I wish there was some means of reducing the level of intensity that I see in many of these online "discussions". But I suppose that's a futile wish. And as I have admitted, I'm hardly innocent myself, I've allowed my own passion to infuse several threads already.
Perhaps this post is really an exercise in self-reflection and a way for me to attempt to back away from the loaded keyboard in the future.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And you are right, I do see a lot of veiled accusations of badwrong fun in supposedly innocent responses to questions. I see that a lot in the "Advice" forum especially. And I would be lying if I didn't admit to sometimes having an urge to respond with "Oh, so you want to exploit that well-known broken rules synergy do you?"
I don't spend a whole lot of time in Advice, so I'll take your word on that. Most of my time is spend in the PFS forums, where these condemnations often come from veteran GMs. For instance, when the "SLAs count for spellcasting prereqs" thing first came about (before the "yes, it really means that" confirmation), I posted a thread meant as sort of a "heads up, this is a thing now, don't get surprised at the table" that basically just gave a rundown of the information available at that point and what folks were saying it meant (again, before they were confirmed to be right).
It didn't take long for multiple veteran GMs to start using terms like "abuse", "exploit", "loophole", "creative interpretation of a gray area", etc; and generally assault the moral fiber of anyone who might bring an early-entry PrC build to a PFS game. There was a sense of pride in some GMs' declarations of their intent to ban any such PCs at their tables.
Then came the official confirmation that this was not a questionable interpretation, but the correct one; not a loophole being abused, but the ruling being applied as intended.
Wanna take a wild guess how many GMs apologized for their put-downs? :/
I've also seen it quite a bit in Rules Questions. For example, there's a FAQ stating that you only take TWF penalties when you employ that mechanic to gain an extra attack above and beyond your normal iteratives; if you go +6 with one hand and +1 with the other, you're not TWFing.
I remember the thread leading up to that FAQ. Everyone whose interpretation matched the future FAQ was declared to be abandoning common sense in favor of power, and otherwise had both their character and their intelligence called into question. (The intelligence remarks went both directions, to be fair.) Even after the FAQ went up, the people who "lost" started trying to salvage their positions by saying "well, the FAQ says you don't take the 'penalties', but you still only get half-STR damage on the second attack!" and went right back to the assigning of motives and attacking of intent. Then Sean K Reynolds came in and explained that this too was incorrect; none of the TWF mechanics are involved if you just happen to use two different weapons with your normal iteratives. Even this earned a (quickly deleted) attack against SKR (and against all the posters who were right).
Words do matter, and I admit that I react to comments I think are unreasonable with escalations myself. I am trying hard to stop that though. I'm more than a little tired of the flame wars.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I like to think I've made progress since showing up a couple of years ago, but I've still got some work to do on my own behavior.
Perhaps this post is really an exercise in self-reflection and a way for me to attempt to back away from the loaded keyboard in the future.
Self-reflection is far too rare these days.
Pretty sure "alright" is alright. It is according to Mr. Webster anyway, although with the caveat that some style guides still frown on it. Stuffy grammarians perhaps.
I use it. And I'm pretty picky about my grammar. It's used commonly enough that MS Word doesn't blink at it.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "major style guides" Jessica.
I wouldn't use it in formal writing, but I would have no qualms using it in a fiction novel. It's certainly far more acceptable than "irregardless" which is now acceptable enough.
Webster also has "ain't," if I recall correctly. Speaking as someone who's been a professional editor for a decade, the fact that it's in the dictionary doesn't mean it's proper English. Major style guides are the things we use as arbiters of what is and isn't correct, e.g. the Chicago Manual of Style, the AP Stylebook, the MLA Style Manual, etc.
Irregardless is also not acceptable. And given that "alright" and "all right" are pronounced identically (unlike words like "ain't," which has a place in dialogue to indicate how people actually speak), "alright" should be corrected in dialogue/fiction as well, unless it's in something written by a character and intended to show the character doesn't know any better.
EDIT: I've just seen the word F A G bleeped out. It means cigarette. Bang, bang, last cigarette, bang!
As our company is located in the US, and that word is highly offensive here, you'll have to settle for using "cigarette" instead when you're posting here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alot wondering why so much fuss.
That's true Aranna, but in my local newspaper the Governor was quoted as saying he was going to "reign in taxes," rather than "rein in taxes," which, while both correct spellings, are very different statements. Sometimes editors (in journalism or business) just get it wrong.
This is why it is wiser to examine the usage of a word rather than it's definition. That way you can differentiate between a properly used word that is less common and less formal versus a word that is flatly being used incorrectly.
It is a very common view that there are no prescriptive rules for languages, only descriptive ones. However, while that may be somewhat true, it is not the whole truth. Every language variant has its own rules, and there are things to gain from following them. Most importantly, following said rules increases the precision of what you say, thereby increasing the chance for correct comprehension. Another gain is that you show your mastery of the language, which often gives you an advantage in status in a discussion, whether you or the other party know it. Third, you can also show a group allegiance through your speech or writing (sociolect). Ignoring these factors is foolish.For those interested:
Usage Discussion of ALRIGHT
The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright — Gertrude Stein>.If publishers let it slide in journalism and business then it's usage isn't wrong, it just isn't usually accepted in formal papers yet. As my favorite language experts say language is constantly evolving.
Following old rules blindly is foolish too. You ARE correct in that the true purpose of language is to communicate with each other. The English language is constantly evolving. If you went back in time to the late seventeen hundreds nobody would likely understand anything you were saying. As language changes so do the rules and if you want to be perfectly understood and not sound like some dusty misunderstood relic in a museum then it IS wise to learn about current usage of words.
As for sounding like you belong to a certain group via the way you speak or write; Exactly! If you were speaking to a certain group of people why not make the effort to learn their words and bend your speech to match theirs in an effort to be better understood?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jessica, I was a professional editor for more than a decade myself. While I would have immediately rejected "ain't" or "irregardless" in a submitted article, editorial or product review, I consider "alright" to be a borderline case and I honestly can't say with great confidence that an "alright" or two didn't slip through my own editing or our other editors.
And if a few did, I wouldn't lose any sleep over them.
*shrug* Journalism/web standards tend to be different given that it's time-limited content -- you see it there a lot. Doesn't mean it's actually correct.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It doesn't come up much in gaming products, but "y'all" should be formally adopted by and incorporated into the English language. The lack of a plural second person noun in English is painful. And I say this as a yankee, not a person who grew up with y'all.
Now, "all y'all" is a different kettle of fish. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Jessica "correct" is exactly what is debatable in this discussion. As has been pointed out, most respected dictionaries list "alright" as acceptable in all but the most formal of documents. And I suspect if you really looked, you'd find it used quite a bit even there.
I certainly wouldn't bat an eye to see it in use in a game rulebook.
|
|
EDIT: I've just seen the word F A G bleeped out. It means cigarette. Bang, bang, last cigarette, bang!As our company is located in the US, and that word is highly offensive here, you'll have to settle for using "cigarette" instead when you're posting here.
Noted. I wouldn't consciously use that word in that sense, and since it is likely to cause offense despite my intent I will avoid using it here.
I hope you realise that the offensive use of that word simply isn't a factor over here (although we are aware of the American usage), and that the only meaning in my mind when I typed was 'cigarette'.
1. Why is it so important that you play a specific character concept? I understand that you might WANT to play something special, and that you feel it shouldn't be a problem to do so, but that's not what I'm asking. Why do you get so emotionally invested in it?
As a GM I want my players to be emotionaly invested in their characters and when I play I want to be invested. It is what I love about Role Playing games over card or board games. Yes it can be carried to an extreme but so can anything.
2. Why is it so important that classes be balanced? At the worst an unbalanced design would mean some characters can do more than others in a mechanical sense. But this is a role playing game, supposedly. There are plenty of ways to enjoy playing a less powerful character, and if you simply can't deal with playing a less powerful character, then why don't you just play a character that satisfies your desire for a certain level of power and move on?
To some extent the game needs balance for players to feel like they are an equal part of the story. At least this is the current state of gaming.
But it is my un-asked-for opinion that 3.5, Pathfinder, and MMO's have chosen that "balance" needs to be reflected in combat. In older editions of D&D a thief was hardly balanced in battle but made up for it with a array of skills unique only to them. So it retained an odd feeling of balance without the thief having to prove himself on the field of battle.
3. If you have a special game world you've built yourself, why is it so important to you? If you are routinely telling players that the world can't accommodate certain concepts, why is that? Is it the work involved that is making you push back? Or is it something more closely associated with the creation and ownership of your world?
This question might not get many responses as any responder is immediately cast in a negative light, but I'll take a stab.
I've played with GM's like this and it can cause problems for certain personality types. That being said I've had the good fortune of playing in some of the most amazing games with these controling type GM's.
4. If a particular rule is interpreted in a way you don't agree with, why is it so hard to simply accept it and move on? There are plenty of ways to adjust characters, why would one rule adjustment cause emotional responses?
If the rule effects a character that a player has invested time and energy into (see question 1) than it's not easy for them to just accept. GM's would do well to listen. That does not mean you roll over but I would not dismiss a players passion.
5. Why do people get so upset and angry about an activity that they are presumably doing to relax and have fun?
I don't know man. My heart rate goes up and I yell at the TV when I watch MMA or Football. I cry when watch Grave of the Fireflies.
It's part of the human experience I guess...
-MD
Muad'Dib,
Thanks for responding with such a clear and rational response. Some thoughts though:
It's the limits to emotional investment that I'm exploring. I get emotionally invested in playing football in the park, or playing Monopoly with my kids. I like to compete and it gets my blood going when the competition is challenging. But I wouldn't go online to post my indignation that I played Monopoly with some dude who didn't allow me to pick up the kitty when I hit "Free Parking." My reaction would be "oh well" not "you don't know how to play!"
I simply do not agree with the premise that classes have to be mechanically balanced for players to contribute equally in the game. I can play the weakest character in the party and still totally steal the spotlight if I want to. It has been my observation that player skill and game mastery is FAR more of a factor in character "imbalance" in actual game play than class mechanics. In fact I sometimes enjoy playing one of the "lower tier" classes just for the challenge they provide.
When it comes to world building, I'm one of those GMs who has a world that I created and which has limits to what I expect. So my question in that case was somewhat rhetorical. I know exactly what my own motivations are for my campaign world "restrictions". And being a "controlling GM" is not one of them. At least I don't think so.
I invest a lot of time in building my characters. But I enjoy that. If I don't get to play the character right this minute, I still enjoyed creating them and will be able to play them in the future. I can wait.
I've been known to get worked up over a playoff game or the odd Superbowl, so I understand the whole "yell at the TV" thing. Well, I sorta understand. I tend not to be a yell at the TV sort of person. Which might explain why I find so much of this behavior so perplexing. I've got real life issues to worry about. If playing this game is adding to my stress, I better find another hobby before my head explodes.
The emotional investment limit is a facinating idea. I've frankly never hit that limit when it comes to RPG's. I think of RPG's at communal storytelling and who gets tired of a good book? So with that in mind I would like to experience similar reactions in game as I would when reading a book. Heartache, fear, joy, anger,...all that stuff.
I've had moments like these at the game table. They are not often but they happen.
I would agree 100% with your assesment about balance. However at any given game table that may not the reality.
AD, I suspect we would greatly enjoy playing at the same table.
-MD
It is a very common view that there are no prescriptive rules for languages, only descriptive ones. However, while that may be somewhat true, it is not the whole truth. Every language variant has its own rules, and there are things to gain from following them. Most importantly, following said rules increases the precision of what you say, thereby increasing the chance for correct comprehension. Another gain is that you show your mastery of the language, which often gives you an advantage in status in a discussion, whether you or the other party know it. Third, you can also show a group allegiance through your speech or writing (sociolect). Ignoring these factors is foolish.For those interested:
Usage Discussion of ALRIGHT
The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright — Gertrude Stein>.If publishers let it slide in journalism and business then it's usage isn't wrong, it just isn't usually accepted in formal papers yet. As my favorite language experts say language is constantly evolving.
Following old rules blindly is foolish too. You ARE correct in that the true purpose of language is to communicate with each other. The English language is constantly evolving. If you went back in time to the late seventeen hundreds nobody would likely understand anything you were saying. As language changes so do the rules and if you want to be perfectly understood and not sound like some dusty misunderstood relic in a museum then it IS wise to learn about current usage of words.
As for...
Damn straight. You are alright Aranna.
Swedish actually has a pretty strong prescriptive tradition, centered on the Swedish Academy, a group of eighteen well-known masters of the language, who publish a word list and a word book every so often. They have in recent years added a few words to their lists that have gotten quite noticed. Most strikingly, they claimed that "guzz" (turkish word for girl, IIRC) and "keff" (turkish word for stupid, IIRC) were Swedish words. In some way, I guess it was done to raise a debate about "immigrant Swedish", but it IS formally correct to use these words in Swedish now. Even so, outside discussions about them adopting the words, I haven't seen them in print ANYWHERE, I haven't heard anyone using them. Resulting penetrance: 0%. Frankly, I think it's a bit presumptuous to take two words from one of the very local dialects/pidgin-like languages spoken by immigrant youths here, and say that these are new Swedish words, but I guess they were trying for a statement.
Rules change, and it is vital to understand how they currently look. I am not saying that old rules are better... but not using existing rules in favour of no functioning structure is always a bad idea. Just as it would be to use "guzz" to refer to girl in official swedish.