Quote from: Grognard GM on July 28, 2023, 01:10:23 PM

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 05:11:31 PM
and regressive, like actually regressive... Like the guy who was complaining about the Strength Penalty being removed from female characters.

Humans are sexually dimorphic, and men are way stronger than women, at both the average, and the extremes. Olympic champion women lift weights that gym bros do for fun.

Same goes for running speed, endurance, pain tolerance, aggression, on and on it goes.

This is the point where you handwave this away for games because magic and wizards. Except the humans in fantasy CLEARLY have the exact same sexual dimorphism we do, and all quasi-medieval fantasy, up until 5 fucking minutes ago expressed this with female warriors and leaders being rare exceptions.

Regressive? Oh no, women can still be incredibly strong, but ever so slightly less so than men? Oh the huge manatee, this evil cannot stand! I'll go a step further, on the old strength score, female characters should have been capped at a flat 18, not 18(50). 18 would already be fantastical for females. Toss them a Cha mod for men being stupid around women.

If a Halfling could be penalized for strength because they're no as strong as humans, why not women? And for the same reasons.

As a 50 something man I was tossing 60 pound bags of cement around for a home project over the weekend with no problem. I'm not in particularly good shape, I have a desk job after all, and it struck me that I probably have more strength than the average olympic female weightlifter.

But I agree, give female characters +2 Charisma, even at my age a cutie can make me act a little dumb.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 29, 2023, 05:20:30 AM
White Knighting is now pointing out Strength Penalties for female characters is backwards and regressive huh? Pearl Clutching too?

Well, yes. In your case it comes off that way. There are good game design reasons for not using sex or race attribute modifiers, but your own motivation seems to be much more on the white knighting side, as far as I can tell from your interactions here.

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2023, 06:24:04 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 27, 2023, 05:05:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2023, 04:40:14 PM
This sort of example is trivial to generate for any pronoun use. Like,

The mage cast lightning bolt on the peasant and he was happy about that.

Does this prove that "he" doesn't work as a pronoun? No, it just means that pronoun use needs to be done intelligently, regardless of what pattern one uses. Moreover, it's common for a sentence to be ambiguous, with the reader filling in the intended use from surrounding context.

We can create dueling examples for ages. The simple fact is this: a word that can mean two different things can lead to ambiguity. Yes, you can clarify with context, but it seems to me that other choices make more sense, like not overloading a word in the first place.

Singular "they" has been used for a long time, yes, but mostly to refer to an indeterminate person. As I said upthread, I don't have a problem with that.

But singular "they" for an indeterminate person has exactly the same supposed problem that you were complaining about. i.e.

Any mage could cast fireball on the peasants and they would be happy.

So it seems like this is a spurious complaint, since it applies just as much to pronoun use you approve of.

You can still prefer generic "he", but it comes down to "I just like it" rather than "it is objectively better".

I am fine with game companies using whatever pronouns they want. Personally I think it should be up to the writers, using what fits their style best (whether that is singular he, singular the, he and/or she, she, or just mixing it up for variety). Pronoun usage has never been super important to me as a reader. I will say though I think the way they got overly politicized has been a problem because it does have issues that can emerge (I think in most instances it is fine, but there are situations where it is confusing). I know for example I have read a ton of news paper articles where two people were the subjects, and by using they without any reflection on whether it was clear, there are times in those articles where I didn't know if they were referring to one oft he people or both of them. Again, I don't have an issue with They (I am sure I have used it here and there as I am not particularly consistent with pronouns). But this is a genuine problem I have seen so I think with that particular word there are definitely times it doesn't work or isn't the best choice

I'm just laughing at this whole thread now because this whole two-minute hate on DCC that's now spun into equal game stats for the sexes being a sign of wokeness and white knighting started because someone was not using third person masculine.

In other words; you were triggered by them not using your preferred pronouns.

You may not be woke, but I'm starting to believe Ekow is a real thing because it's the same puritanism spiral of the woke, just in reverse.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 09:59:00 AM
I'm just laughing at this whole thread now because this whole two-minute hate on DCC that's now spun into equal game stats for the sexes being a sign of wokeness and white knighting started because someone was not using third person masculine.

In other words; you were triggered by them not using your preferred pronouns.

You may not be woke, but I'm starting to believe Ekow is a real thing because it's the same puritanism spiral of the woke, just in reverse.

Looking at the original post. Gender neutral pronouns strike me as pre-woke (in that I don't see that choice as particularly tied to the politics of the past 5-10 years or so). Personally I don't think it is the sort of thing would warrant an announcement but like I said before, fine with whatever people want to use (pretty sure Savage worlds uses they a lot, could be  misremembering and it was never much of an issue-----lots of games have done the "He or she" thing).

Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Personally, I've never argued for any use on the grounds of "more inclusive"; only that second person is more personable and that game book instructions are not of such serious weight as to require formal third-person nor technical writing format in general (thus colloquial "they" isn't a hill worth dying on; particularly since indefinite third person "he" is relatively modern linguistically and the hill has been overrun by everything from "he or she" a reversion to "they" or oddballs like "thon" for the better part of the century).

Indeed, 4E reading like a technical manual was one of many factors attributed to its general failure. Conversely 5e, which uses second person and natural language, has enjoyed broad popular appeal.

I just find it notable because this whole thing boils down to being triggered by people not using the preferred pronouns of the complainers and those complainers pushing for their cohort to cancel the offender. It really is just the Woke position in a funhouse mirror (thus reinforcing my original point as to the Devil sending out sins in pairs).

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

Quote from: Krazz on July 29, 2023, 03:15:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

This discussion is regarding individuals of indeterminate gender (ex. a reader whose identity is unknown) and which pronoun is appropriate to it.

Here's an article I dug up with a quick Internet search;
https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/singular-they-history

It gives examples in the form of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austin and Dickens as to writers using the singular 'they' in their writing.

Some particular examples;
"Every one must judge according to their own feelings." — Lord Byron, Werner (1823)

"Had the Doctor been contented to take my dining tables as any body in their senses would have done ..." — Jane Austen, Mansfield Park (1814)

In terms of the switchover; from Wikipedia entry "singular they"...

The earliest known explicit recommendation by a grammarian to use the generic he rather than they in formal English is Ann Fisher's mid-18th century A New Grammar assertion that "The Masculine Person answers to the general Name, which comprehends both Male and Female; as, any Person who knows what he says."

In terms of the reversion, the most used style guide in the US (The Chicago Manual of Style; foundation of Microsoft Office's grammar correction rules) was has been recommending singular they for 30 years now;

In the 14th edition (1993) of The Chicago Manual of Style, the University of Chicago Press explicitly recommended using singular they and their, noting a "revival" of this usage and citing "its venerable use by such writers as Addison, Austen, Chesterfield, Fielding, Ruskin, Scott, and Shakespeare." - from the Wikipedia entry

Basically, it's not nearly as clear cut as some want to make it... as befits a language that mugs other languages in dark alleys and goes through their pockets for loose vocabulary.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 07:02:00 PM

Quote from: Krazz on July 29, 2023, 03:15:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

This discussion is regarding individuals of indeterminate gender (ex. a reader whose identity is unknown) and which pronoun is appropriate to it.

No.  If the text is addressing the reader, it will use the second person ("you").  If you are addressing the actions of a hypothetical character, then you know what the sex is, because it is your hypothetical.

"The wizard must scribe spells in his spellbook.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that he gets.  The cleric receives her spells from her deity."

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 29, 2023, 09:54:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 07:02:00 PM

Quote from: Krazz on July 29, 2023, 03:15:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

This discussion is regarding individuals of indeterminate gender (ex. a reader whose identity is unknown) and which pronoun is appropriate to it.

No.  If the text is addressing the reader, it will use the second person ("you").  If you are addressing the actions of a hypothetical character, then you know what the sex is, because it is your hypothetical.

"The wizard must scribe spells in his spellbook.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that he gets.  The cleric receives her spells from her deity."

Well, I agree on the second person usage... its what I use for all rules mechanics.

As to your example; unless all wizards must be male and all clerics female in your setting your description would be inaccurate (as would the "The" before their class names.") according to the Chicago Manual of Style for the last three decades (and just about every American English grammar proofing software made in the last thirty years as a result).

The proper way to express it for a class rules section (per the manual) would be...
"A wizard must scribe spells in their spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that they get. A cleric receives their spells from their deity."

The use of the third person masculine was more a fad than the use of the singular they. Singular they has been part of the English language since the 14th Century.

Singular he started to be pushed in the mid-18th century, but it wasn't until the mid-19th that grammarians really started insisting (it wasn't until 1850 that Britain started requiring all official documents use the singular he). Many famous authors continued to use singular they anyway and by 1993 writing style guides were back to recommending the singular they.

So basically you had 500 years of singular they as perfectly acceptable, followed by a 150 years or so of grammarians (i.e. tenured university professors) trying to force singular he onto the English language (pretty much the way they've tried to force their idiot notions onto society ever since they discovered the Marxism grift), and then society went back to the singular 'they' which it had been using colloquially that entire 150 years and the 500 years before that.

I get it; perceptions of normalcy begin the day you're born and you weren't around for the shift away from singular they so for you the singular he feels correct. But that actually runs against six centuries of traditional usage to the contrary.

This whole thread is a tempest in a teapot compared to things that actually matter; like the insertion of rainbowsparklebronies and campaigns centered around proms and fantasy Starbucks into everything good and sacred.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2023, 12:26:43 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 29, 2023, 09:54:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 07:02:00 PM

Quote from: Krazz on July 29, 2023, 03:15:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

This discussion is regarding individuals of indeterminate gender (ex. a reader whose identity is unknown) and which pronoun is appropriate to it.

No.  If the text is addressing the reader, it will use the second person ("you").  If you are addressing the actions of a hypothetical character, then you know what the sex is, because it is your hypothetical.

"The wizard must scribe spells in his spellbook.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that he gets.  The cleric receives her spells from her deity."

Well, I agree on the second person usage... its what I use for all rules mechanics.

As to your example; unless all wizards must be male and all clerics female in your setting your description would be inaccurate (as would the "The" before their class names.") according to the Chicago Manual of Style for the last three decades (and just about every American English grammar proofing software made in the last thirty years as a result).

The proper way to express it for a class rules section (per the manual) would be...
"A wizard must scribe spells in their spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that they get. A cleric receives their spells from their deity."

The use of the third person masculine was more a fad than the use of the singular they. Singular they has been part of the English language since the 14th Century.

Singular he started to be pushed in the mid-18th century, but it wasn't until the mid-19th that grammarians really started insisting (it wasn't until 1850 that Britain started requiring all official documents use the singular he). Many famous authors continued to use singular they anyway and by 1993 writing style guides were back to recommending the singular they.

So basically you had 500 years of singular they as perfectly acceptable, followed by a 150 years or so of grammarians (i.e. tenured university professors) trying to force singular he onto the English language (pretty much the way they've tried to force their idiot notions onto society ever since they discovered the Marxism grift), and then society went back to the singular 'they' which it had been using colloquially that entire 150 years and the 500 years before that.

I get it; perceptions of normalcy begin the day you're born and you weren't around for the shift away from singular they so for you the singular he feels correct. But that actually runs against six centuries of traditional usage to the contrary.

This whole thread is a tempest in a teapot compared to things that actually matter; like the insertion of rainbowsparklebronies and campaigns centered around proms and fantasy Starbucks into everything good and sacred.

Is your contention that Goodperson Games changed to singular they because they are following writting guides and not because they were pandering to the selfsame "Rainbowsparklebronies"?

IMNSHO all this talk about writting guides is just distracting from the issue, AFAIK: Goodperson Games changed to they AND virtue signaled about it to appease the SparkleTroll brigade. Ergo the change was made for ideological reasons and nothing else.

As for your "proper" example:

"As a wizard you must scribe spells in your spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that you get. As a cleric you receive your spells from your deity."

I haven't used a single they, it's perfectly clear and if i need to use they to refer to multiple individuals I have no risk of my text being harder to comprehend.

You decry the grammarians but will happily do appeals to authority from other academics that want to return to something that hasn't been in use in 150 years because tradition. I suspect this is because you agrtee with one side and not the other. As such it's nothing but an appeal to authority, ergo a logical fallacy.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 30, 2023, 01:17:42 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2023, 12:26:43 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 29, 2023, 09:54:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 07:02:00 PM

Quote from: Krazz on July 29, 2023, 03:15:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

This discussion is regarding individuals of indeterminate gender (ex. a reader whose identity is unknown) and which pronoun is appropriate to it.

No.  If the text is addressing the reader, it will use the second person ("you").  If you are addressing the actions of a hypothetical character, then you know what the sex is, because it is your hypothetical.

"The wizard must scribe spells in his spellbook.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that he gets.  The cleric receives her spells from her deity."

Well, I agree on the second person usage... its what I use for all rules mechanics.

As to your example; unless all wizards must be male and all clerics female in your setting your description would be inaccurate (as would the "The" before their class names.") according to the Chicago Manual of Style for the last three decades (and just about every American English grammar proofing software made in the last thirty years as a result).

The proper way to express it for a class rules section (per the manual) would be...
"A wizard must scribe spells in their spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that they get. A cleric receives their spells from their deity."

The use of the third person masculine was more a fad than the use of the singular they. Singular they has been part of the English language since the 14th Century.

Singular he started to be pushed in the mid-18th century, but it wasn't until the mid-19th that grammarians really started insisting (it wasn't until 1850 that Britain started requiring all official documents use the singular he). Many famous authors continued to use singular they anyway and by 1993 writing style guides were back to recommending the singular they.

So basically you had 500 years of singular they as perfectly acceptable, followed by a 150 years or so of grammarians (i.e. tenured university professors) trying to force singular he onto the English language (pretty much the way they've tried to force their idiot notions onto society ever since they discovered the Marxism grift), and then society went back to the singular 'they' which it had been using colloquially that entire 150 years and the 500 years before that.

I get it; perceptions of normalcy begin the day you're born and you weren't around for the shift away from singular they so for you the singular he feels correct. But that actually runs against six centuries of traditional usage to the contrary.

This whole thread is a tempest in a teapot compared to things that actually matter; like the insertion of rainbowsparklebronies and campaigns centered around proms and fantasy Starbucks into everything good and sacred.

Is your contention that Goodperson Games changed to singular they because they are following writting guides and not because they were pandering to the selfsame "Rainbowsparklebronies"?

IMNSHO all this talk about writting guides is just distracting from the issue, AFAIK: Goodperson Games changed to they AND virtue signaled about it to appease the SparkleTroll brigade. Ergo the change was made for ideological reasons and nothing else.

As for your "proper" example:

"As a wizard you must scribe spells in your spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that you get. As a cleric you receive your spells from your deity."

I haven't used a single they, it's perfectly clear and if i need to use they to refer to multiple individuals I have no risk of my text being harder to comprehend.

You decry the grammarians but will happily do appeals to authority from other academics that want to return to something that hasn't been in use in 150 years because tradition. I suspect this is because you agrtee with one side and not the other. As such it's nothing but an appeal to authority, ergo a logical fallacy.

My contention is that compared to so much else, this issue is akin to complaining about a hangnail after being diagnosed with metastatic cancer. You're trying to fight to reclaim a hill that your side only briefly occupied and was then reclaimed while your whole flank is being bombarded.

As to second person useage I have two points.

First, no one said you can't use second person. I use second person. But if you're going to use third person, then nearly 700 years of traditional use (minus the 150 years the language equivalent of prohibitionists tried to force their way onto society) say singular they is correct.

I mean, we were still using plate armor and pikes when the use of singular they can first be found in English writing and we had steam engines by the time people who wanted singular he got enough power to pass laws about it... and even then countless authors continued to use it because, just like prohibition, the laws ran against ages of traditional use.

Second, while clear enough (because English is a cobbled together mess of a language and so it's speakers are pretty good at parsing clumsy construction) it is not actually grammatically correct unless your game magically transforms players into wizards and clerics it is grammatically incorrect.

You (the player) doesn't scribe spells or perform worship to an imaginary pagan deity; your character does.

"Your wizard must scribe spells into a spell book.  You roll 1d6 for the number of spells gained at each level. Your cleric receives spells from a deity."

It's still just moving around the goalposts because you were triggered by them not using your preferred pronouns and starting a two-minute hate rant over it. Which is why I've paraphrased this, but now will just outright quote it;

"He (the devil) always sends errors into the world in pairs--pairs of opposites...He relies on your extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them." - C.S. Lewis

As to my arguing for and against experts; that's not what I was doing.

My contention was that it was experts who set the standard of singular he 150 years ago despite centuries of traditional use otherwise. You use this standard set by experts as your argument for singular he. But the same category of experts 30 years ago changed it to match the traditional useage.

To argue for singular he requires you to use the rulings of experts so if the experts change their ruling and you don't go along then you're just arguing from personal preference.

Because of how English is put together both the indefinite third person singular options either disagree on potential gender or number and their is no one absolute overlord of the English language (and if there were it'd be government appointed).

The experts tried to make singular he the universal standard, but it went over about as well as the US adopting the metric system.

Bottom line is that I don't care why they changed from singular he to singular they (a battle decided decades ago)... maybe they just got tired of all the blue squiggly lines under sections of their documents because Microsoft Word has always used the Chicago Manual of Style for its grammar checker.

And it's not like if they reversed course and went back to singular he in accord with your desires that it'd matter to you; they're already ritually tainted and there isn't any more forgiveness from this end for transgression than there is from the woke.

So, since I don't particularly care about singular he vs. they (nor do many other famous authors) I'll judge on the content of their books.

If they start putting ranbowsparklefurries and values into their material is what I care about. Until then I'm sick of seeking out things to get outraged by for the dopamine hit and of alienating people who might agree on 90% because they aren't agreeing on the remaining 10%.

Personally, I think this culture is at a stage where we need even the 60% allies in the push back against the 100% enemies of civilization. Any common ground we can reach is someplace we can push back from.

The Left's whole game is conquest by division while their opponents seem more than willing to do their own purity spiral so long as they lose with their 100% purity score intact.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 07:02:00 PM
This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on July 19, 2023, 02:36:12 PM
DCC RPG is dedicated to
Jim Roslof
1945-2011
TSR class of 1979
One of the great fantasy illustrators,
who is already missed. their work
for DCC RPG includes their last
four illustrations, which appear on
pages 76, 88, 110, and 205, as well
as prior illustrations appearing on
pages 13 and 375.

My hardcopy says "his"

Are you going to change your claim to "they did it once, and it was probably an accident"?

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 19, 2023, 02:33:38 PM
The Three Stages of Woke Infiltration:

1- They aren't going to do that. You are just being paranoid.
2- They did it one time. You can easily just ignore it.
3- This has been happening for years now, why are you complaining?

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2023, 10:26:35 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 30, 2023, 01:17:42 AM

Quote
"As a wizard you must scribe spells in your spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that you get. As a cleric you receive your spells from your deity."

Quote
Well, I agree on the second person usage... its what I use for all rules mechanics.

As to your example; unless all wizards must be male and all clerics female in your setting your description would be inaccurate (as would the "The" before their class names.") according to the Chicago Manual of Style for the last three decades (and just about every American English grammar proofing software made in the last thirty years as a result).

The proper way to express it for a class rules section (per the manual) would be...
"A wizard must scribe spells in their spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that they get. A cleric receives their spells from their deity."

The use of the third person masculine was more a fad than the use of the singular they. Singular they has been part of the English language since the 14th Century.

Singular he started to be pushed in the mid-18th century, but it wasn't until the mid-19th that grammarians really started insisting (it wasn't until 1850 that Britain started requiring all official documents use the singular he). Many famous authors continued to use singular they anyway and by 1993 writing style guides were back to recommending the singular they.

So basically you had 500 years of singular they as perfectly acceptable, followed by a 150 years or so of grammarians (i.e. tenured university professors) trying to force singular he onto the English language (pretty much the way they've tried to force their idiot notions onto society ever since they discovered the Marxism grift), and then society went back to the singular 'they' which it had been using colloquially that entire 150 years and the 500 years before that.

I get it; perceptions of normalcy begin the day you're born and you weren't around for the shift away from singular they so for you the singular he feels correct. But that actually runs against six centuries of traditional usage to the contrary.

This whole thread is a tempest in a teapot compared to things that actually matter; like the insertion of rainbowsparklebronies and campaigns centered around proms and fantasy Starbucks into everything good and sacred.

Quote
Is your contention that Goodperson Games changed to singular they because they are following writting guides and not because they were pandering to the selfsame "Rainbowsparklebronies"?

IMNSHO all this talk about writting guides is just distracting from the issue, AFAIK: Goodperson Games changed to they AND virtue signaled about it to appease the SparkleTroll brigade. Ergo the change was made for ideological reasons and nothing else.

As for your "proper" example:

"As a wizard you must scribe spells in your spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that you get. As a cleric you receive your spells from your deity."

I haven't used a single they, it's perfectly clear and if i need to use they to refer to multiple individuals I have no risk of my text being harder to comprehend.

You decry the grammarians but will happily do appeals to authority from other academics that want to return to something that hasn't been in use in 150 years because tradition. I suspect this is because you agrtee with one side and not the other. As such it's nothing but an appeal to authority, ergo a logical fallacy.

Quote
My contention is that compared to so much else, this issue is akin to complaining about a hangnail after being diagnosed with metastatic cancer. You're trying to fight to reclaim a hill that your side only briefly occupied and was then reclaimed while your whole flank is being bombarded.

As to second person useage I have two points.

First, no one said you can't use second person. I use second person. But if you're going to use third person, then nearly 700 years of traditional use (minus the 150 years the language equivalent of prohibitionists tried to force their way onto society) say singular they is correct.

I mean, we were still using plate armor and pikes when the use of singular they can first be found in English writing and we had steam engines by the time people who wanted singular he got enough power to pass laws about it... and even then countless authors continued to use it because, just like prohibition, the laws ran against ages of traditional use.

Second, while clear enough (because English is a cobbled together mess of a language and so it's speakers are pretty good at parsing clumsy construction) it is not actually grammatically correct unless your game magically transforms players into wizards and clerics it is grammatically incorrect.

You (the player) doesn't scribe spells or perform worship to an imaginary pagan deity; your character does.

Quote
"Your wizard must scribe spells into a spell book.  You roll 1d6 for the number of spells gained at each level. Your cleric receives spells from a deity."

Quote
It's still just moving around the goalposts because you were triggered by them not using your preferred pronouns and starting a two-minute hate rant over it. Which is why I've paraphrased this, but now will just outright quote it;

"He (the devil) always sends errors into the world in pairs--pairs of opposites...He relies on your extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them." - C.S. Lewis

As to my arguing for and against experts; that's not what I was doing.

My contention was that it was experts who set the standard of singular he 150 years ago despite centuries of traditional use otherwise. You use this standard set by experts as your argument for singular he. But the same category of experts 30 years ago changed it to match the traditional useage.

To argue for singular he requires you to use the rulings of experts so if the experts change their ruling and you don't go along then you're just arguing from personal preference.

Because of how English is put together both the indefinite third person singular options either disagree on potential gender or number and their is no one absolute overlord of the English language (and if there were it'd be government appointed).

The experts tried to make singular he the universal standard, but it went over about as well as the US adopting the metric system.

Bottom line is that I don't care why they changed from singular he to singular they (a battle decided decades ago)... maybe they just got tired of all the blue squiggly lines under sections of their documents because Microsoft Word has always used the Chicago Manual of Style for its grammar checker.

And it's not like if they reversed course and went back to singular he in accord with your desires that it'd matter to you; they're already ritually tainted and there isn't any more forgiveness from this end for transgression than there is from the woke.

So, since I don't particularly care about singular he vs. they (nor do many other famous authors) I'll judge on the content of their books.

If they start putting ranbowsparklefurries and values into their material is what I care about. Until then I'm sick of seeking out things to get outraged by for the dopamine hit and of alienating people who might agree on 90% because they aren't agreeing on the remaining 10%.

Personally, I think this culture is at a stage where we need even the 60% allies in the push back against the 100% enemies of civilization. Any common ground we can reach is someplace we can push back from.

The Left's whole game is conquest by division while their opponents seem more than willing to do their own purity spiral so long as they lose with their 100% purity score intact.

It's worst than metastatic cancer, it's viral metastatic cancer.

Again, the whole argument over experts is concealing the crux of the matter: Goodperson Games did it to appeal/appease the SparkleTroll brigade. I point this out and you write me a thesis about experts.

So I'll ask again, do you honestly believe that my assertion about their motives is wrong? If so then please explain the virtue signal, the BLM support and other sings we have seen from them.

Goodman Games has been infected by the viral metastatic cancer, they will drive away any openly not woke from their company and will soon decry their own customers as problematic & toxic istophobes.

You're here saying this isn't a problem because experts, when we've seen the progression of the dissease time and time again.

Now as for your "experts" you mean to tell me that the academics that have been at the forefront and cutting edge of woke wankery for the last 30+ years (in the sixties there was an internal war among feminazis, the side that won stayed in the public, the loosing side took refuge in the academy, and from there they have pushed all the lunacy we now have to fight everywhere) are the people I should listen too else I'm just like the SJWs and engaging in purity spirals?

I haven't seen a single individual here demanding you or any of the other individuals screaming that "1- They aren't going to do that. You are just being paranoid." be banned from the site, much less tried to have your lifes ruined. so you'll excuseme if I don't take the accusation seriously.

Your way is to let them infect a healthy body and only when that body is in the terminal stages then we can complain. AGAIN, we've seen the stages of the dissease, we KNOW where this is going and how it will end.

Now, please feel free to ignore every single point I'm making and come back with more "but muh experts!" wankery.