Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WtF terminology

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Okay. I got the opposite impression from Mage 2E. That mages only learned terms from First Tongue if they didn't have any good translations of their own.


    Bloodline: The Stygians

    Comment


    • #92
      It requires a different biological structure to speak well, even werewolves can't speak it well in human. It comes out cleanest in dalu and gauru. And theirs is only a dialect, not the same as spirits speak.

      There's a spell they can use to speak and understand spirits, but for the most part they would just translate things into their own languages. A great example is the weapon Hexesucher, created by a German mage knight who hunted witches. Hexesucher is, loosely, Witch Finder. The spirit's name is Pathim-Umma, which also means, loosely, Witch Finder.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Incendax View Post
        It is common. For every exception you can name, I can name five or more times where they do keep the same names. Just look a ubiquitous terms like Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Even across game systems that have nothing in common we see many of those terms come up. Sometimes we get slight variations like Might or Endurance, but there is an overwhelming frequency of familiar terms across an enormous number of mediums.
        These aren't jargon terms being used in a spiritual successor to a previous work, these are English words being used for their literal meaning in a variety of works of the same genre. And besides that, no one complains when a game does use Might instead of Strength or whatever. Give me an actual example of an IP using the same made-up word or non-literal meaning of a word for a designation of a unique aspect of its spiritual predecessor and we'll talk.

        Originally posted by Incendax View Post
        I would respectfully argue that you're wrong, for the same reasons we have already discussed. Why are car key holes on the right of the steering column instead of somewhere else because it's a different model? Why do genre movies employ similar tropes instead of avoiding those tropes entirely because they are a different movie? Why do different medical supply companies overwhelmingly put their information stickers on the same place instead of a different place because they are a different company? (going back to the game comparison) Why do countless games use similar user interfaces with only mild variation from one user interface to the other? Why do they make ESC open up an options menu? They are different games! Surely they want to differentiate themselves from other games, right?
        None of these things have anything at all to do with jargon terms being recycled from spiritual predecessor to successor.

        Originally posted by Incendax View Post
        Okay, that was super rhetorical. But hopefully you see where I'm going with this.
        Not unless what you're going for is massive goalpost shifting.
        Last edited by Charlaquin; 03-18-2017, 12:54 AM.


        Onyx Path Forum Moderator

        My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Incendax View Post
          It is common. For every exception you can name, I can name five or more times where they do keep the same names. Just look a ubiquitous terms like Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Even across game systems that have nothing in common we see many of those terms come up. Sometimes we get slight variations like Might or Endurance, but there is an overwhelming frequency of familiar terms across an enormous number of mediums.
          I would respectfully argue that you're wrong, for the same reasons we have already discussed. Why are car key holes on the right of the steering column instead of somewhere else because it's a different model? Why do genre movies employ similar tropes instead of avoiding those tropes entirely because they are a different movie? Why do different medical supply companies overwhelmingly put their information stickers on the same place instead of a different place because they are a different company? (going back to the game comparison) Why do countless games use similar user interfaces with only mild variation from one user interface to the other? Why do they make ESC open up an options menu? They are different games! Surely they want to differentiate themselves from other games, right?

          Okay, that was super rhetorical. But hopefully you see where I'm going with this.
          (Though, once again, this is all 12 year old water under the bridge at this point)
          You're probably right, to a certain degree. We definitely would have questioned it less if it resembled the previous game less. The fewer similarities, the fewer memory triggers, and the fewer breaks from immersion that result from those memory triggers.
          That's a fair justification. I can get behind that.
          The strawmen is strong in this argument.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
            These aren't jargon terms being used in a spiritual successor to a previous work, these are English words being used for their literal meaning in a variety of works of the same genre.
            When a bunch of players sit around and play the same roleplaying game for years or even decades, it develops into a small subculture where those terms absolutely are used (even jokingly) in contexts outside of the game setting itself. Previous posters have even mentioned how they can watch a movie werewolf and think 'Crinos' to themselves. You can rightly point out that the scale of use is different, but that doesn't make it any less real for the people who are actively using those terms in their peer groups.
            Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
            And besides that, no one complains when a game does use Might instead of Strength or whatever.
            Having personally experienced exactly that complaint, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that no one complaints about such things. That's literally happening over on the Scion Forums. They changed the word Strength to Might. Here's a link.
            Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
            Give me an actual example of an IP using the same made-up word or non-literal meaning of a word for a designation of a unique aspect of its spiritual predecessor and we'll talk.
            I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are asking for here. Are you requesting more examples of made up words being used in two related but not identical companies?
            Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
            Not unless what you're going for is massive goalpost shifting.
            The goalposts are my opinion, and I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by convincing me that my opinion is wrong.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Incendax View Post
              When a bunch of players sit around and play the same roleplaying game for years or even decades, it develops into a small subculture where those terms absolutely are used (even jokingly) in contexts outside of the game setting itself. Previous posters have even mentioned how they can watch a movie werewolf and think 'Crinos' to themselves. You can rightly point out that the scale of use is different, but that doesn't make it any less real for the people who are actively using those terms in their peer groups.
              Which is all perfectly fine, but does not lead to the expectation that spiritual successors use those same terms, except apparently in the case of WoD for some reason. Nor is it actually an example of the thing we're discussing.

              Originally posted by Incendax View Post
              Having personally experienced exactly that complaint, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that no one complaints about such things. That's literally happening over on the Scion Forums. They changed the word Strength to Might. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7FqViticwNubWNsYjBPQmdIY2M/view"]Here's a link.[/URL]
              Fair enough, but it's still not an example of the thing we're actually discussing.

              Originally posted by Incendax View Post
              I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are asking for here. Are you requesting more examples of made up words being used in two related but not identical companies?
              No, I'm asking for examples of a made up word or repurposed real word being used to describe related concepts in both a product and a product that is a spiritual successor to that product (same or different company, doesn't matter). For example, Apocalypse and it's spiritual successor Forsaken both have a concept of werewolves having an affinity for a certain phase of the moon. Both products use the word Auspice (which is not made up, but has been re-purposed in this case, as the literal meaning of the word does not relate to the phases of the moon) to describe this concept. Can you give me any examples of this same thing happening outside of WoD and CofD?

              Originally posted by Incendax View Post
              The goalposts are my opinion, and I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by convincing me that my opinion is wrong.
              Wha...? No, the goalposts are part of a figure of speech, "shifting the goalposts," a logical fallacy in which someone attempts to change the point being argued. I said "if it's so intuitive for spiritual successors to use the same terminology for the same concepts as their spiritual predecessors, why doesn't this happen more often?", to which you responded byvsaying that it is common and attempting to support that assertion with a whole lot of examples of things that are not spiritual successors using the same terminology as their spiritual predecessors. You are entitled to your own opinion (e.g. "CofD would have done better to recycle more WoD terminology") but you are not entitled to your own facts (e.g. "Recycling terminology from spiritual predecessors is common practice"). If you are going to assert that it is common practice, you must support that assertion with examples of that thing actually happening, not with examples of English words being used for their literal meaning across unrelated works of the same genre, or examples of ergonomic design.


              Onyx Path Forum Moderator

              My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                Having personally experienced exactly that complaint, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that no one complaints about such things. That's literally happening over on the Scion Forums. They changed the word Strength to Might. Here's a link.
                The problem (if any; you're just linking to a preview document and I can't be arsed to find a source to your argument) is most likely about it being changed; which is different from just being used in the first place. Would there be complaints if Might was used in the first edition of Scion?

                Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                The goalposts are my opinion, and I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by convincing me that my opinion is wrong.
                It's not that your opinion is wrong. It's that the arguments you use to support your opinion works on a completely different scale and are actually irrelevant. I don't think that's technically goalpost shifting, but it's a fallacy nonetheless.


                Bloodline: The Stygians

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                  Which is all perfectly fine, but does not lead to the expectation that spiritual successors use those same terms, except apparently in the case of WoD for some reason. Nor is it actually an example of the thing we're discussing.
                  My position has always been that change for the sake of change is a bad reason (when it comes to new editions of a game). If you don't believe that building a brand often revolves around repeating familiar imagery, terminology, and making your product intuitively familiar to your old products except when mechanically necessary, then I don't think we have anything else to discuss.
                  Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                  I'm asking for examples of a made up word or repurposed real word being used to describe related concepts in both a product and a product that is a spiritual successor to that product (same or different company, doesn't matter).
                  I'm honestly having a hard time figuring out what you are asking for. I've consulted several of my collegues for guidance, and they also do not know what you are asking for.

                  If you are asking about words that have specific origins but have broadened in use, then Kleenex or Google would be such an example.

                  If you are asking about words that are specific to a certain setting but have escaped that setting and are being used in other settings, then Drow or Lich (an old word, but it's use has been redefined by D&D).

                  If you are asking about nonsense or repurposed words being used across multiple games, then World of Warcraft or League of Legends.
                  Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                  I said "if it's so intuitive for spiritual successors to use the same terminology for the same concepts as their spiritual predecessors, why doesn't this happen more often?", to which you responded byvsaying that it is common and attempting to support that assertion with a whole lot of examples of things that are not spiritual successors using the same terminology as their spiritual predecessors.
                  I wrote a post that stated my opinion, and you replied to my post. That establishes you as the attacker and myself as the defender (to borrow humorous RPG terms). Your reply said "It's weird to me that there is an expectation that they have the same terms in the first place." So I proceeded to attempt to explain to you why it was a pretty common thing for terms, features, and concepts to remain familiar between similar products: for ease of use, and because we are creatures of habit.
                  Originally posted by Tessie View Post
                  Would there be complaints if Might was used in the first edition of Scion?
                  Probably not, as long as the same term was used in both editions. Or there was a good reason why the terms were changed.
                  Originally posted by Tessie View Post
                  It's that the arguments you use to support your opinion works on a completely different scale and are actually irrelevant.
                  Then we shall have to respectfully agree to disagree.
                  Last edited by Incendax; 03-18-2017, 11:19 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Incendax Here's where your argument falls apart: It wasn't change for the sake of change. It's been explained over and over again, that the terminology changed in order to differentiate the games. YMMV. They kept some terms, then shifted others. The reasons of why are hugely documented in the OPP blogs. What Charlaquin is asking for is to put your facts where your mouth is, and provide actual examples that aren't strawmen. It's become incredibly clear that you're unable to, mainly because the issue is mostly pertinent to WoD and ChroD. The other issue is you stating your opinions as fact, don't use the victim card for being called on your logical fallacies.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                      My position has always been that change for the sake of change is a bad reason (when it comes to new editions of a game).
                      And I've been trying to point out that Forsaken is not and never has been a new edition of Apocalypse, so "changes" in terminology, for example "Ragabash" to "Irraka" are not change for changes sake. They're not even changes at all because Forsaken is not a new editon of Apocalypse and no continuity exists between the two.

                      Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                      If you don't believe that building a brand often revolves around repeating familiar imagery, terminology, and making your product intuitively familiar to your old products except when mechanically necessary, then I don't think we have anything else to discuss.
                      This is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that there is no brand to build between Apocalypse and Forsaken because they are different games with different settings and different target audiences. Even when Forsaken was first created with the intent of replacing Apocalypse, it was still done as a spiritual successor, not a direct sequel, and it is not common practice to "build a brand" between a spiritual predecessor and spiritual successor.

                      Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                      I'm honestly having a hard time figuring out what you are asking for. I've consulted several of my collegues for guidance, and they also do not know what you are asking for.
                      I'm stating exactly what I'm asking for in plain English. You know what a spiritual successor is, right? As Yooka-Laylee is to Banjo-Kazooie, Chronicles of Darkness is to World of Darkness. Can you give me an example of intellectual properties with such a relationship, in which terminology from the predecessor is carried over into the successor to describe the successor's equivalent of a the thing that the same term described in the predecessor?

                      Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                      If you are asking about words that have specific origins but have broadened in use, then Kleenex or Google would be such an example.

                      If you are asking about words that are specific to a certain setting but have escaped that setting and are being used in other settings, then Drow or Lich (an old word, but it's use has been redefined by D&D).

                      If you are asking about nonsense or repurposed words being used across multiple games, then World of Warcraft or League of Legends.
                      Not a single one of these things have a spiritual predecessor/spiritual successor relationship.

                      Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                      I wrote a post that stated my opinion, and you replied to my post. That establishes you as the attacker and myself as the defender (to borrow humorous RPG terms). Your reply said "It's weird to me that there is an expectation that they have the same terms in the first place." So I proceeded to attempt to explain to you why it was a pretty common thing for terms, features, and concepts to remain familiar between similar products: for ease of use, and because we are creatures of habit.
                      Yes, and I am challenging you to support your claim that this practice is common when the relationship between those products is one of spiritual predecessor and spiritual successor, as is the case with the topic at hand, Apocalypse and Forsaken.


                      Onyx Path Forum Moderator

                      My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                        My position has always been that change for the sake of change is a bad reason (when it comes to new editions of a game). If you don't believe that building a brand often revolves around repeating familiar imagery, terminology, and making your product intuitively familiar to your old products except when mechanically necessary, then I don't think we have anything else to discuss.
                        Werewolf the Forsaken is not part of the Werewolf the Apocalypse brand. This whole thread has many, many posts trying to point that out.

                        Some people may think 'crinos' when they see a big werewolf in the movies, others may think 'gauru.' Because not everyone used Apocalypse as a stepping stone to Forsaken.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by nofather View Post
                          Some people may think 'crinos' when they see a big werewolf in the movies, others may think 'gauru.' Because not everyone used Apocalypse as a stepping stone to Forsaken.
                          I most definitely think Gauru form. I played Forsaken 1e for almost a decade before I ever even tried Apocalypse (which I really do not care for AT ALL, but that's beside the point) so I resent the idea that there are no fans of Forsaken who didn't do Apocalypse first.

                          Now, if this argument was being made in 2005, over ten years ago, when the only Werewolf game that had existed prior was Apocalypse, and they were replacing Apocalypse with Forsaken, then this argument would totally be worth having. But we are now living in 2017 where there is W20 that is a legit new edition of Apocalypse and Forsaken 2e which is not a new edition of Apocalypse, so...

                          Yeah? They made the changes because they wanted to do different themes. Ta-da! Where does the discussion go now?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RomulusGloriosus View Post
                            Yeah? They made the changes because they wanted to do different themes. Ta-da! Where does the discussion go now?
                            The thing is, I think even in 2005 that would have been the answer. Because even though Forsaken was replacing Apocalypse, it was still not Apocalypse, and the "changing" of terms was a part of defining Forsaken's distinct identity from Apocalypse. You can see all of the gamelines did this, even Requiem, though Requiem was the most conservative about it, and each successive gamelines was a bit bolder about it than the one before.


                            Onyx Path Forum Moderator

                            My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Malus View Post
                              Here's where your argument falls apart: It wasn't change for the sake of change. It's been explained over and over again, that the terminology changed in order to differentiate the games.
                              And I consider that to be a bad reason, which made clear in my very first post in this thread. I also stated that changing the words to match a consistent language (First Tongue) was a good reason, and I accept the justification of Fortitude being changed. But change for the sake of differentiating your gamelines is not a good reason in my book.
                              Originally posted by Malus View Post
                              The other issue is you stating your opinions as fact, don't use the victim card for being called on your logical fallacies.
                              We're posters on a forum talking about something subjective. All our posts are about opinions, not facts.
                              Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                              And I've been trying to point out that Forsaken is not and never has been a new edition of Apocalypse [...] I am arguing that there is no brand to build between Apocalypse and Forsaken because they are different games with different settings and different target audiences. Even when Forsaken was first created with the intent of replacing Apocalypse, it was still done as a spiritual successor, not a direct sequel, and it is not common practice to "build a brand" between a spiritual predecessor and spiritual successor.
                              And I have been trying to point out that it doesn't matter. It doesn't stop players from building up expectations, getting confused, and grumbling about it. You said you thought that was weird. I'm explaining why it happens. Our conversation has never been about anything else.
                              Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                              Can you give me an example of intellectual properties with such a relationship, in which terminology from the predecessor is carried over into the successor to describe the successor's equivalent of a the thing that the same term described in the predecessor?
                              Then it sounds like you are talking about the third option. Defense of the Ancients (Warcraft 3) had a spiritual successor named League of Legends, where terms such as Creeps, Lanes, Pushing, Carries, and Bruisers were repeated from the original game, in addition to an enormous amount of slang that eventually became an genre standard.
                              Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                              Yes, and I am challenging you to support your claim that this practice is common when the relationship between those products is one of spiritual predecessor and spiritual successor, as is the case with the topic at hand, Apocalypse and Forsaken.
                              Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity, and I am happy to provide more upon request. But focusing on specific words is getting off track, because this is a conversation about human emotion.
                              Originally posted by nofather View Post
                              Some people may think 'crinos' when they see a big werewolf in the movies, others may think 'gauru.' Because not everyone used Apocalypse as a stepping stone to Forsaken.
                              Originally posted by RomulusGloriosus View Post
                              I most definitely think Gauru form. I played Forsaken 1e for almost a decade before I ever even tried Apocalypse (which I really do not care for AT ALL, but that's beside the point)
                              Exactly! You're already starting to look at other forms of media and think "Gauru" when you see werewolves. So if they change it to a third word in Werwolf: the Whatever, you are going to be like "Wait, what?" and you are probably going to be, at the very least, confused. You personally might have an easier time accepting it for whatever reason, but plenty of people are going to struggle with it for a while and grumble about it. And that reaction is pretty normal human behavior, which has always been my point.
                              Last edited by Incendax; 03-18-2017, 06:18 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                                We're posters on a forum talking about something subjective. All our posts are about opinions, not facts.
                                That's just not true. If I post "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", it does not become an opinion simply because it is on a games forum. It is important, even when discussing fictional settings, to recognize the difference between facts and opinions so we can have rational discussion. "Reusing terminology is a common practice" is not an opinion. It is a positive assertion, which requires supporting evidence to establish as fact.

                                Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                                And I have been trying to point out that it doesn't matter. It doesn't stop players from building up expectations, getting confused, and grumbling about it. You said you thought that was weird. I'm explaining why it happens.
                                I understand why it happens, that doesn't stop it from being weird.

                                Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                                Our conversation has never been about anything else.
                                Yes, it has, because in your argument you made an assertion that I did not accept at face value, and I have since been trying to get supporting evidence out of you and you have been dancing around it this whole time.

                                Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                                Then it sounds like you are talking about the third option. Defense of the Ancients (Warcraft 3) had a spiritual successor named League of Legends, where terms such as Creeps, Lanes, Pushing, Carries, and Bruisers were repeated from the original game, in addition to an enormous amount of slang that eventually became an genre standard.
                                Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity, and I am happy to provide more upon request.
                                Hmm... I wouldn't have called Leage a spiritual successor to Warcraft 3, but alright, I'll buy that. Yes, multiple examples would be appreciated, as one alone does not establish the practice as being common, as you asserted.

                                Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                                But focusing on specific words is getting off track, because this is a conversation about human emotion.
                                No, it's not. This is a conversation about the reasoning for the terminology of Forsaken being different from the terminology of Apocalypse. I am making the argument that it should not be expected that they share terminology because they are different settings. You seem to be disagreeing with my argument on the basis that shared terminology between spiritual predecessor and spiritual successor is common practice, the factual accuracy of which I am calling into question.

                                Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                                Exactly! You're already starting to look at other forms of media and think "Gauru" when you see werewolves. So if they change it to a third word in Werwolf: the Whatever, you are going to be like "Wait, what?" and you are probably going to be, at the very least, confused.
                                Not really, no, because I would understand that as a different intellectual property it would be under no obligation to use the same terminology. In fact, sharing names for things like werewolf forms would seem contrived to me, since the werewolves in this hypothetical setting would not be the Uratha of Forsaken, and the Uratha would not exist in this hypothetical setting, so why would they use the terms Uratha use?

                                Originally posted by Incendax View Post
                                You personally might have an easier time accepting it for whatever reason, but plenty of people are going to struggle with it for a while and grumble about it. And that reaction is pretty normal human behavior, which has always been my point.
                                I don't know that it is. It's not the least bit confusing that, for example, werewolves in the Underworld series are called "Lycans" instead of "Uratha" or "Garou" or however it's spelled. Because despite the Underworld series drawing heavy inspiration from World of Darkness, everyone recognizes that it is a different setting and therefore uses different terms. The confusion in the case of World and Chronicles of Darkness comes more from the latter's abundance of repurposed terms from the former, particularly early in the latter's publication history, making the distinct nature of their settings from one another unduly ambiguous. If anything, the confusion makes it clear that they would have done better to have changed more terminology to begin with, to better distinguish the settings and avoid this ambiguity. A mistake which the Second Edition has taken steps to correct, to its credit.


                                Onyx Path Forum Moderator

                                My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X