Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WtF terminology

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

  • MegaZarak
    started a topic WtF terminology

    WtF terminology

    Just a curiosity I had. Why was so much terminology changed in the switch from WtA? I realize this question is more than a decade behind and has undoubtedly been covered numerous times, but as I was reading through the 2E book it just occurred to me to ask.

  • Bunyip
    replied
    I think it's less a reference of Apocalypse Garou people, and more just getting back to source language and 'First Tongue-izing' a word that is French for 'werewolf'.

    I.e., in Apocalypse, the people were Garou - literally they were 'werewolf'. In Forsaken the people are Uratha, but the classic werewolf form is almost called werewolf.

    (I recall we had a discussion about language sources and meanings when figuring out changes between 1st and 2nd editions. Though Gauru makes everyone think of Garou, IIRC it's not meant to be any more of a link than both games calling them werewolves.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Note that the form is Gauru, not Garou. Although it is undoubtedly a reference to the Garou of Apocalypse, it too fits into the faux-proto-Sumerian language of the Uratha, and roughly translates to "Gift of the Wolf's Maw."

    Leave a comment:


  • Cinder
    replied
    As a little sidenote, I might mention that I, as someone that enjoys both Werewolves greatly (despite and because of their differences), always thought that the reason the Forsaken's battle form was named Garou was an homage towards Apocalypse and how iconic it was there. When I think of the Garou, I always picture them in Crinos as my most immediate reaction. The same does not apply to Forsaken, at least for me: I don't have a "Uratha iconic shape". Not that's a bad thing, Forsaken does a better job at making you appreciate all the forms, something which required some digging beneath the surface in Apocalypse.

    Might also be the reason I always easily accepted the Garou form as "killing machine" form.
    Last edited by Cinder; 03-19-2017, 10:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by Incendax View Post
    Then that would not be talking about something subjective, and I was very specific to include the disclaimer that we are 'talking about something subjective'. In fact, it is extremely troubling that I have to word my posts so carefully in order to avoid your semantic attacks. On a larger level, you've made me feel very unwelcome in this thread and in several other threads over the years. So I officially request that you do not respond to my posts in the future (except when your responsibilities as a Mod require you to do so). I will endeavor to do the same.
    Will do. Sorry for having made you feel unwelcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Incendax
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
    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. At this point, you are being contrary just to be contrary. Please stop. It is a positive assertion, which requires supporting evidence to establish as fact.
    Then that would not be talking about something subjective, and I was very specific to include the disclaimer that we are 'talking about something subjective'. In fact, it is extremely troubling that I have to word my posts so carefully in order to avoid your semantic attacks. On a larger level, you've made me feel very unwelcome in this thread and in several other threads over the years. So I officially request that you do not respond to my posts in the future (except when your responsibilities as a Mod require you to do so). I will endeavor to do the same.

    In the spirit of that request, I will terminate the discussion now so it does not feel like I am 'baiting' you into another response.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tessie
    replied
    LoL is a spiritual successor to DotA, not WC3. However, I do believe creep was already an established term while most or all of the others were created by fans of DotA rather than being introduced by DotA. They are also out-of-setting words for gameplay concepts rather than in-setting terminology, which is what has been discussed the most in this thread. I can also point out that DotA was kinda the first in it's genre so it's a special situation where terms unique to DotA simultaneously are the generally accepted terms of the genre. This is in contrast to werewolves that has been used in media since before any of us were born.
    (Fun fact: The first known werewolf fiction that I could find from a quick google search was from year 8.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Incendax
    replied
    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, 07:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RomulusGloriosus
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • nofather
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Malus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Incendax
    replied
    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, 12:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X