What is the source for 5e defaulting to plain English readings of non-game terms?
up vote
29
down vote
favorite
In many discussions involving rules interpretations the meaning of words is often called into question. Often, people will claim that if the game doesn't define the term that it defaults to the plain English reading of the word.
Is this stated somewhere explicitly in the rules or in designer comments? What is the source (or sources) for this claim?
dnd-5e terminology
edited Nov 6 at 20:12
V2Blast
17.8k248113
asked Nov 6 at 15:20
Rubiksmoose
43.3k5216330
add a comment |
up vote
29
down vote
favorite
In many discussions involving rules interpretations the meaning of words is often called into question. Often, people will claim that if the game doesn't define the term that it defaults to the plain English reading of the word.
Is this stated somewhere explicitly in the rules or in designer comments? What is the source (or sources) for this claim?
dnd-5e terminology
edited Nov 6 at 20:12
V2Blast
17.8k248113
asked Nov 6 at 15:20
Rubiksmoose
43.3k5216330
27
I am very confused by this, simply because I cannot imagine what else you would use instead. What other option is there? Clarifying that would improve the question to me.
– KRyan
Nov 6 at 18:08
7
@KRyan: It isn't incredibly often but occasionally people will try to use definitions from previous editions (where the word may have had a defined mechanical meaning). Obviously problematic on a lot of levels, but that is one (wrong) way I've seen done.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 6 at 18:10
2
I kind of agree with KRyan on this, but at the same time I think this question is valuable because it gives us something to point to. It seems like it would be obvious, but it's good to have anyway.
– Jason_c_o
Nov 6 at 20:17
add a comment |
up vote
29
down vote
favorite
up vote
29
down vote
favorite
In many discussions involving rules interpretations the meaning of words is often called into question. Often, people will claim that if the game doesn't define the term that it defaults to the plain English reading of the word.
Is this stated somewhere explicitly in the rules or in designer comments? What is the source (or sources) for this claim?
dnd-5e terminology
edited Nov 6 at 20:12
V2Blast
17.8k248113
asked Nov 6 at 15:20
Rubiksmoose
43.3k5216330
In many discussions involving rules interpretations the meaning of words is often called into question. Often, people will claim that if the game doesn't define the term that it defaults to the plain English reading of the word.
Is this stated somewhere explicitly in the rules or in designer comments? What is the source (or sources) for this claim?
dnd-5e terminology
dnd-5e terminology
edited Nov 6 at 20:12
V2Blast
17.8k248113
asked Nov 6 at 15:20
Rubiksmoose
43.3k5216330
edited Nov 6 at 20:12
V2Blast
17.8k248113
asked Nov 6 at 15:20
Rubiksmoose
43.3k5216330
edited Nov 6 at 20:12
V2Blast
17.8k248113
edited Nov 6 at 20:12
V2Blast
17.8k248113
edited Nov 6 at 20:12
V2Blast
17.8k248113
17.8k248113
asked Nov 6 at 15:20
Rubiksmoose
43.3k5216330
asked Nov 6 at 15:20
Rubiksmoose
43.3k5216330
asked Nov 6 at 15:20
Rubiksmoose
43.3k5216330
43.3k5216330
27
I am very confused by this, simply because I cannot imagine what else you would use instead. What other option is there? Clarifying that would improve the question to me.
– KRyan
Nov 6 at 18:08
7
@KRyan: It isn't incredibly often but occasionally people will try to use definitions from previous editions (where the word may have had a defined mechanical meaning). Obviously problematic on a lot of levels, but that is one (wrong) way I've seen done.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 6 at 18:10
2
I kind of agree with KRyan on this, but at the same time I think this question is valuable because it gives us something to point to. It seems like it would be obvious, but it's good to have anyway.
– Jason_c_o
Nov 6 at 20:17
add a comment |
27
I am very confused by this, simply because I cannot imagine what else you would use instead. What other option is there? Clarifying that would improve the question to me.
– KRyan
Nov 6 at 18:08
7
@KRyan: It isn't incredibly often but occasionally people will try to use definitions from previous editions (where the word may have had a defined mechanical meaning). Obviously problematic on a lot of levels, but that is one (wrong) way I've seen done.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 6 at 18:10
2
I kind of agree with KRyan on this, but at the same time I think this question is valuable because it gives us something to point to. It seems like it would be obvious, but it's good to have anyway.
– Jason_c_o
Nov 6 at 20:17
27
27
I am very confused by this, simply because I cannot imagine what else you would use instead. What other option is there? Clarifying that would improve the question to me.
– KRyan
Nov 6 at 18:08
I am very confused by this, simply because I cannot imagine what else you would use instead. What other option is there? Clarifying that would improve the question to me.
– KRyan
Nov 6 at 18:08
7
7
@KRyan: It isn't incredibly often but occasionally people will try to use definitions from previous editions (where the word may have had a defined mechanical meaning). Obviously problematic on a lot of levels, but that is one (wrong) way I've seen done.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 6 at 18:10
@KRyan: It isn't incredibly often but occasionally people will try to use definitions from previous editions (where the word may have had a defined mechanical meaning). Obviously problematic on a lot of levels, but that is one (wrong) way I've seen done.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 6 at 18:10
2
2
I kind of agree with KRyan on this, but at the same time I think this question is valuable because it gives us something to point to. It seems like it would be obvious, but it's good to have anyway.
– Jason_c_o
Nov 6 at 20:17
I kind of agree with KRyan on this, but at the same time I think this question is valuable because it gives us something to point to. It seems like it would be obvious, but it's good to have anyway.
– Jason_c_o
Nov 6 at 20:17
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
47
down vote
Jeremy Crawford (who makes "official" rulings, see this related question) has affirmed that this is indeed the way the rules are supposed to be read in this tweet:
Unless the rules explicitly expand, narrow, or completely redefine a word, that word retains the meaning it has in idiomatic English. #DnD
Going back to the original articles detailing the design goals for the 5th edition (see this related answer for more details) one can also find that there was some concern over the kind of language used to detail the rules. Of particular interest is this article (found by illustro) which includes:
The choice between "fun to read" and "precise" needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Certain rules can be simple and straightforward, while other matters can be handled more conversationally or filled with inspirational descriptions of people, places, or events.
While certainly not as explicit as the tweet by Jeremy Crawford, one can read from that article that the designers wanted to use plain language to describe at least part of the rules where more specific technical jargon was not necessary.
answered Nov 6 at 15:24
Sdjz
10.1k34891
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
47
down vote
Jeremy Crawford (who makes "official" rulings, see this related question) has affirmed that this is indeed the way the rules are supposed to be read in this tweet:
Unless the rules explicitly expand, narrow, or completely redefine a word, that word retains the meaning it has in idiomatic English. #DnD
Going back to the original articles detailing the design goals for the 5th edition (see this related answer for more details) one can also find that there was some concern over the kind of language used to detail the rules. Of particular interest is this article (found by illustro) which includes:
The choice between "fun to read" and "precise" needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Certain rules can be simple and straightforward, while other matters can be handled more conversationally or filled with inspirational descriptions of people, places, or events.
While certainly not as explicit as the tweet by Jeremy Crawford, one can read from that article that the designers wanted to use plain language to describe at least part of the rules where more specific technical jargon was not necessary.
answered Nov 6 at 15:24
Sdjz
10.1k34891
add a comment |
up vote
47
down vote
Jeremy Crawford (who makes "official" rulings, see this related question) has affirmed that this is indeed the way the rules are supposed to be read in this tweet:
Unless the rules explicitly expand, narrow, or completely redefine a word, that word retains the meaning it has in idiomatic English. #DnD
Going back to the original articles detailing the design goals for the 5th edition (see this related answer for more details) one can also find that there was some concern over the kind of language used to detail the rules. Of particular interest is this article (found by illustro) which includes:
The choice between "fun to read" and "precise" needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Certain rules can be simple and straightforward, while other matters can be handled more conversationally or filled with inspirational descriptions of people, places, or events.
While certainly not as explicit as the tweet by Jeremy Crawford, one can read from that article that the designers wanted to use plain language to describe at least part of the rules where more specific technical jargon was not necessary.
answered Nov 6 at 15:24
Sdjz
10.1k34891
add a comment |
up vote
47
down vote
up vote
47
down vote
Jeremy Crawford (who makes "official" rulings, see this related question) has affirmed that this is indeed the way the rules are supposed to be read in this tweet:
Unless the rules explicitly expand, narrow, or completely redefine a word, that word retains the meaning it has in idiomatic English. #DnD
Going back to the original articles detailing the design goals for the 5th edition (see this related answer for more details) one can also find that there was some concern over the kind of language used to detail the rules. Of particular interest is this article (found by illustro) which includes:
The choice between "fun to read" and "precise" needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Certain rules can be simple and straightforward, while other matters can be handled more conversationally or filled with inspirational descriptions of people, places, or events.
While certainly not as explicit as the tweet by Jeremy Crawford, one can read from that article that the designers wanted to use plain language to describe at least part of the rules where more specific technical jargon was not necessary.
answered Nov 6 at 15:24
Sdjz
10.1k34891
Jeremy Crawford (who makes "official" rulings, see this related question) has affirmed that this is indeed the way the rules are supposed to be read in this tweet:
Unless the rules explicitly expand, narrow, or completely redefine a word, that word retains the meaning it has in idiomatic English. #DnD
Going back to the original articles detailing the design goals for the 5th edition (see this related answer for more details) one can also find that there was some concern over the kind of language used to detail the rules. Of particular interest is this article (found by illustro) which includes:
The choice between "fun to read" and "precise" needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Certain rules can be simple and straightforward, while other matters can be handled more conversationally or filled with inspirational descriptions of people, places, or events.
While certainly not as explicit as the tweet by Jeremy Crawford, one can read from that article that the designers wanted to use plain language to describe at least part of the rules where more specific technical jargon was not necessary.
answered Nov 6 at 15:24
Sdjz
10.1k34891
edited Nov 7 at 11:18
answered Nov 6 at 15:24
Sdjz
10.1k34891
answered Nov 6 at 15:24
Sdjz
10.1k34891
answered Nov 6 at 15:24
Sdjz
10.1k34891
10.1k34891
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135039%2fwhat-is-the-source-for-5e-defaulting-to-plain-english-readings-of-non-game-terms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
27
I am very confused by this, simply because I cannot imagine what else you would use instead. What other option is there? Clarifying that would improve the question to me.
– KRyan
Nov 6 at 18:08
7
@KRyan: It isn't incredibly often but occasionally people will try to use definitions from previous editions (where the word may have had a defined mechanical meaning). Obviously problematic on a lot of levels, but that is one (wrong) way I've seen done.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 6 at 18:10
2
I kind of agree with KRyan on this, but at the same time I think this question is valuable because it gives us something to point to. It seems like it would be obvious, but it's good to have anyway.
– Jason_c_o
Nov 6 at 20:17