Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I know the nature of this thread, but there are some terms - derogatory terms - I want to coin, to describe some of the odd-ball concepts the newer games pass off as improvements - like the systematic way the newer game sets up adventures. I remember then Wizards stated that v.3.456 adventures should have 13.7358 encounters per adventure, with challenge factors gauged on the assumption that the party would have access to a +3 Backscratchier and Bigby's Forceful Handjob spell at level 6 - and dont forget to multiply Z by X, and carry the Y, and so on, and so forth! Lots of pointless crap to balance shit out. They really simplified (stupified) things for 4e, with 10 encounters and reward slots per game - each can be adjusted based on equivalent XP/GP values. It all feels so rationed out!

I cant think of good term for the 3.X method, but I kinda like "Ikea Dungeon Design" to describe the 4e setup - basically, "attach treasure slot #4 to monster encounter C."

Mythmere wrote:I think "stack" is a useful word - "cumulate" just seems pretentious when you're swilling cokes, rolling dice, and pretending to be an elf.

My players and I usually just say "add" or "total."

Keolander wrote:Lets see, what game terms do I hate:

Chain Mail
Plate Mail
Scale Mail
Banded Mail
Splint Mail
Ring Mail

While I mostly agree, they are still useful as general terms. At least half of my players aren't interested in learning different names for armour in different regions they travel through, so even when I've tried to implement them, they just broke them all down into "ohhhh, chain mail" or "ohhh, banded mail!"

Malcadon wrote:I cant think of good term for the 3.X method

Math 3.5?

"Math 3.5?"

Now, that's just an insult to math! I'm not fond of math, and I'm taking Pre-Algebra in college, so it is my least favorite subject. Still, this is an insult to math & mathematicians everywhere!

Algolei wrote:

Keolander wrote: Chain Mail
Plate Mail
Scale Mail
Banded Mail
Splint Mail
Ring Mail

While I mostly agree, they are still useful as general terms. At least half of my players aren't interested in learning different names for armour in different regions they travel through, so even when I've tried to implement them, they just broke them all down into "ohhhh, chain mail" or "ohhh, banded mail!"

Quick way to fix that:

Chain (or Mail) Armour
Plate Armour (or Plate and Mail Armour)
Scale Armour
Banded Armour
Splint Armour
Ring Armour

You could also possibly get away with:

Plated Mail Armour
Banded Mail Armour
Splinted Mail Armour

...depending on what you conceived them to be. I typically now just use "Armour Class X" if the players are having difficulty envisioning the armour in question.

Nagora wrote:Get over it, the word was used over a thousand years ago. I admit that the very, very, very early use of "mail" was for chain, but it's been broader than that for at least 800 years and "chainmail" was good enough for Beowulf about 500 years before that.

I don't know what in the hell it is you've been smoking, but the term Chain Mail is anachronistic. Its an invented term of the 19th century.

mail (2)
"metal ring armor," c.1320, from O.Fr. maille "link of mail, mesh of net," from L. macula "mesh in a net," originally "spot, blemish," on notion that the gaps in a net or mesh looked like spots

chain mail
Function:noun
Date:1822
: flexible armor of interlinked metal rings

I would kindly ask you to provide proof that the word Chain Mail is used in an actual version of Beowulf and not a modern translation. Chain mail is both a pleonasm and a neologism.

Let's get real here: when someone says "plate mail" I know what they mean, they know what they mean and you know what they mean as does everyone they're likely to ever say it to. That covers all the requirements of a real word in my book. That's what language does over time. You don't have to like it, but in English there manifestly is such a term, even if there wasn't in Middle English.

IF you could not tell from my last post, I like to say "+3 Backscratchier" to denote magic weapons (see page 123 of the DMG). I use this in context of magic items that are defined by a simple bonus. I never liked this, as it reminds me of how one would save up for next more powerful gear in videogame RPGs. I like magic to be unique and imbued with strange properties. I also say "plus whatever backscratchier" or ass-scratchier when I'm really annoyed!

I use a range of terms. "Waste of Ink" is self-explanatory, and maybe applied to anytype of literature. "Fluffer Feats" are the useless feats from 3.5 that do nothing more then provide skill bonuses. "Girl-made Characters" are PCs with overly detailed backstories and family-trees; "Boy-made Characters" are just the opposite! "Flash-Bang" are the types of spells that are common in high-fantasy, but are out of place in sword & sorcery - like Magic Missiles. "Blood Porn/Wank" (later called "Blood Bath and Beyond") is when players go into excessive descriptions of blood and gore - to which I'm usually guilty off. A "FATAL Mistake" is just a piss-poor idea - on all levels! "Candyland" is a setting that was dumb-down to to be more family-friendly, e.g.: anything 2e. "Throwing the Coconut" is a unique term I use to describe the way some modules would force the GM to have the PCs to be arbitrarily taken someplace to get the plot moving ("it dont matter how the party gets captured - drop a coconut on their heads if you must - they must wake up in a dungeon cell by the next scene." No module actually reads like that, but it close enough). I have others, but I cant remember them all.

Keolander wrote:

Nagora wrote:Get over it, the word was used over a thousand years ago. I admit that the very, very, very early use of "mail" was for chain, but it's been broader than that for at least 800 years and "chainmail" was good enough for Beowulf about 500 years before that.

I don't know what in the hell it is you've been smoking, but the term Chain Mail is anachronistic. Its an invented term of the 19th century.

Even if it was, so what? Lots of words and terms were invented in the 19th century, just like every century. In fact, I have a suspicion that if you dig into it that ALL terms were invented at some point. What's so special about the 19th century that makes a term invented then bad? Why is "chainmail" condemed as anachronistic while, say, "woman" instead of "wife" or "wifmen" is an acceptable modern word? Why were the new words of the C14th better than the new words of the C19th? It's totally arbitary.

I would kindly ask you to provide proof that the word Chain Mail is used in an actual version of Beowulf and not a modern translation. Chain mail is both a pleonasm and a neologism.

By at least the 1500s "mail" could mean scales as well as rings (Caxton and KJ Bible). From that point on "chainmail" is not a pleonasm, while being a neologism is not in itself a valid criticism - all words were neologisms once.

I confess that I've not seen the chain mail reference in Beowulf myself as I only have translations. I'm pretty sure Matt mentioned that there is a single such reference in the original and I've been told the same by several people I've met who know OE. If I'm incorrect it still does not push the emergence of chainmail into the 19th century and even if it did that's still not actually a problem for anyone except a few Internet wannabe liguists who seem to fret endlessly about this.

Meaning is everything in language - if chainmail, and platemail (at least) convey something clearly and univerally then it doesn't matter a tinker's damn if they were invented yesterday.

Keolander wrote: I would kindly ask you to provide proof that the word Chain Mail is used in an actual version of Beowulf and not a modern translation. Chain mail is both a pleonasm and a neologism.

I read an article a while back that indicated Beowulf contained the kenning "chain mail" in lines 1545-1549, but on further investigation it seems to be a rather spurious claim:

Ofsæt þa þone selegyst ond hyre seax geteah,
brad ond brunecg, wolde hire bearn wrecan,
angan eaferan. Him on eaxle læg
breostnet broden; þæt gebearh feore,
wið ord ond wið ecge ingang forstod.

(ll. 1545-9)

The kenning in question is "breostnet broden", which translates roughly to "braided breast mail" (mail in the sense of net or web). The meaning is similar, but it is stretching things to see "chain mail" as a survivor of this phrase, I think.

When they actually wore chainmail they were "spikkin' a difrenn lankwich" anyway so does chain and mail put together make it harder to know what they're referring to or does it add differentiation?

Its a fine clarification for the different forms although "wow, armor!" should be the "total immersion" knowledge of any NPC even an armorer how does that lend any flavor? Its like stripping away all the monster entries and regarding them by interchangeable powers, HD and size while this adds variation it can't always be this way or the players lose the attachment to broader imaginations.

Not much of a game there.

geneweigel wrote: When they actually wore chainmail they were "spikkin' a difrenn lankwich" anyway so does chain and mail put together make it harder to know what they're referring to or does it add differentiation?

Its a fine clarification for the different forms although "wow, armor!" should be the "total immersion" knowledge of any NPC even an armorer how does that lend any flavor? Its like stripping away all the monster entries and regarding them by interchangeable powers, HD and size while this adds variation it can't always be this way or the players lose the attachment to broader imaginations.

Not much of a game there.

Middle English is pretty darn close to modern English, much more so than Old English. In this particular case the constructed 19th century taxonomy of armour has proven to be false and next to useless, with "chain mail" being the only term that persists with the same meaning as it had at that time.

It is really quite interesting to note from Gygax's two sets of descriptions of armour in the DMG that he is using completely different meanings from the 19th century ones for almost all of them. Much like his use of "long sword" he has pretty much invented "official" meanings for most of them based on his various readings and own thoughts. The influence of D&D is extremely widespread, the idea that "cleric's use blunt weapons to avoid shedding blood" is a particularly good example of a false idea that persists mainly through D&D and its analogues (though even modern historians are guilty of restating this).

Usually the main point of contention occurs when "gamers" and "historians" try to communicate with one another using terms that mean different things to each of them. The two spheres of interest cross over, but their terminology has diverged.

Matthew wrote:Usually the main point of contention occurs when "gamers" and "historians" try to communicate with one another using terms that mean different things to each of them. The two spheres of interest cross over, but their terminology has diverged.

Yeah, its not that big a deal.

If you wanted to get technical with D&D games it would eventually come out ridiculous sounding....

"With that damage you must have really hit him in the pillicock!!!"

geneweigel wrote: Yeah, its not that big a deal.

Of course not, but the degree to which it grates will differ from person to person. For my part, I try to stay away from D&Disms when they cause problems of communication and use them when they do not.

Matthew wrote:

Algolei wrote:

Keolander wrote: Chain Mail
Plate Mail
Scale Mail
Banded Mail
Splint Mail
Ring Mail

While I mostly agree, they are still useful as general terms. At least half of my players aren't interested in learning different names for armour in different regions they travel through, so even when I've tried to implement them, they just broke them all down into "ohhhh, chain mail" or "ohhh, banded mail!"

Quick way to fix that:

Haha, no. "Quick" and "my players" don't belong in the same thought. Doesn't matter what I call anything, they change it back to the "official D&D terminology" so they don't need to think about it any more than they already have to.

Algolei wrote: Haha, no. "Quick" and "my players" don't belong in the same thought. Doesn't matter what I call anything, they change it back to the "official D&D terminology" so they don't need to think about it any more than they already have to.

That's interesting, so if you say "mail armour" to them, they will say "chain mail armour" back to you? I would have thought laziness would win out because I have found that questions like "What sort of armour is he wearing?" can be answered with "banded" or "splint" without invoking the "mail" suffix. That is to say the players are naturally inclined to abbreviate the term themselves. You do end up with "chain armour" more often than "mail armour", though. Ah well, hard to predict how individual groups will respond.

Matthew wrote:

Much like his use of "long sword" he has pretty much invented "official" meanings for most of them based on his various readings and own thoughts.

I read an article in Dragon some years ago concerning swords in which the author claimed that Gygax had confused the nomenclature of 'long sword'. He asserted that 'broad sword' is more historically accurate for what was intended. Any thoughts?