FUCKING STOP GODDAMN MISUSING THE WORD "SPLAT

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stephenls at 2004-09-29 15:24:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

<i>"For those of you new to the White Wolf publishing model there are generally two kinds of supplements. "Splats" which are topical supplements under 196 pages, and generally softcover, and "fatsplats" which are generally over 200 pages and hardcover. It seems that with the exception of a very few books Exalted is a hardback model. The new World of Darkness looks to be a pure hardback line."</i>

This is an informative paragraph. Unfortunately, every bit of information contained therein, save one, is <i>wrong</i>.

Going backwards...

1) Yes, the new World of Darkness is an all-hardcover line.

2) No, Exalted is not all hardcover "with the exception of a very few books." My Exalted collection, which is complete up to <b>Aspect Book: Fire</b>, is 26 books. Of those, <i>six</i> are hardcovers. Exalted gets eight supplements per year, of which <i>only two</i> are hardcovers. The majority of Exalted supplements are softcover. Do your research.

3) (And this is the big one.) "Splat" doesn't mean what you think it means. A splatbook is a book that deals with an in-setting group. Back when the old World of Darkness was big, there were these books, called Clanbooks and Tribebooks and Tradition Books and Guildbooks and Kithbooks. Eventually, a USENET denizen got tired of calling them that by name, and so started calling them "*books." Note the asterisk. The asterisk, in programming, is a wildcard character -- it means "any character." Thus, *book is a way to shorten clanbook, tribebook, traditionbook, etc..

Then, because people are witty, that got changed to "splatbook," because asterisks are sometimes called splats. "Splat," of course, got adopted to mean clan, or tribe, or tradition, or whatever. A splatbook is specifically a thin book that covers an in-game group.

Which brings us to fatsplats. "Fatsplat" is a term coined by Exalted fandom, to describe books like <b>Exalted: The Dragon-Blooded</b>, <b>Exalted: The Lunars</b>, <b>Exalted: The Abyssals</b>, <b>Exalted: The Sidereals</b>, and <b>Exalted: The Fair Folk</b>. This is because these books are clearly splatbooks (covering in-game character types), but unlike regular splatbooks, they're really big.

A supplement that <i>doesn't</i> cover an in-game character group is not a splatbook.

So...

Splatbooks: Clanbooks, Tribebooks, Traditionbooks, Guildbooks, Kithbooks, Creedbooks, and Castebooks. Also, arguably, Complete X Handbooks, the Hero Builder Book series for D&D3e, and d20 supplements like <b>Plot & Poison</b>.

Fatsplats: Exalted character type books (as above), arguably books like <b>Guide to the Camarilla</b> , <b>Guide to the Technocracy</b>, <b>Mummy: The Resurrection</b>, <b>Break Today</b>, and <b>Lancea Sanctum: The Spear of Destiny</b> (due for V:tR in January), and also arguably books like <b>Complete Warrior</b>, <b>Complete Divine</b>, and <b>Races of Stone</b>.

Books that aren't splatbooks of any sort: <b>Manual of the Planes</b>, <b>The Magic Box</b>, <b>Enter the Zombie</b>, <b>Delta Green</b>, <b>HORIZON: The Stronghold of Hope</b>, <b>New York By Night</b>, <b>Monster Manual II</b>, <b>To Go</b>, <b>Coteries</b> (coming for V:tR in October), and <b>Rites of the Dragon</b> (coming for V:tR in November).

Sorry. This is a pet peeve of mine. We already have a perfectly good work that means "supplements for RPGs" -- <i>supplements</i>. Hell, we've got two -- <i>sourcebooks</i>. There's no need to take a word with a very specific meaning and turn it into yet <i>another</i> word for non-corebook RPG books in general.
--
Stephenls
Geek

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ross Winn at 2004-09-29 19:18:36
Converted from Phorums BB System

I understand your opinion. I understand it is different than mine.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stephenls at 2004-09-29 22:53:58
Converted from Phorums BB System

<i>"I understand your opinion. I understand it is different than mine."</i>

That's a lot like saying "I understand you think 'decimate' means 'kill one in ten.' And I disagree."

I will make my implicit question explicit: What purpose is served by taking a highly specific word and twisting it to make it reduntantly general?
--
Stephenls
Geek

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ross Winn at 2004-09-30 05:16:22
Converted from Phorums BB System

As words come into general usage the meaning sometimes changes.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by squideye at 2004-09-30 06:04:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

I can understand where the reviewer's confusion came in, though I think that he's off base.

Basically, the *books were also representative of the "splats" or full-page character descriptions -- 'course that usage may have followed the coinage of the term for the books themselves.

However, the chief distinctiong between a "splatbook" and a book like Vampire: the Requiem, or Werewolf: the Forsaken is that each *t* book (X: the Y) is, in fact, considered a "co-core book" for a given "game" within the World of Darkness; containing the essential play information for a given sub-game branching off the core system book.

They're setting books, rulebooks, and of course contain a set of character-type write-ups as a splatbook would.

The reason it looks like this could conceivably be called a FatSplat is that the line between splatbook and co-core was so magnificently blurred with the Exalted and Dark Ages "fatsplats". None of those books contained the core system, and each of those books contained, if not the *core setting*, then at least a dramatically different view or sector of that setting (be it the Realm, the Wyld, the Underworld, or Creation-as-Loom-of-Fate for the Exalted fatsplats, for instance).

So one could conceivably see VtR, WtF, *t* as doing the same thing as EtDB, EtS, EtA... etcetera.

To be perfectly candid, where *does* the distinction lie? The "co-cores" of the nWoD certainly *look* like the Exalted fatsplats, and *act* like the Exalted fatsplats...

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stephenls at 2004-09-30 08:40:46
Converted from Phorums BB System

<i>"As words come into general usage the meaning sometimes changes."</i>

And I will repeat my question:

How is this change in usage beneficial? You certainly know the original, more specific meaning -- <i>why</i> are you consciously trying to change the usage so that it's less specific and more redundant?
--
Stephenls
Geek

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stephenls at 2004-09-30 08:49:13
Converted from Phorums BB System

That's not what Ross is arguing, though. He's calling <i>all</i> sourcebooks "splatbooks." Including stuff like Coteries. Read the relevant paragraph again.

Yes, <b>Vampire: The Requiem</b> is arguably a fatsplat. <b>Coteries</b> isn't.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Valmont at 2004-09-30 10:50:34
Converted from Phorums BB System

While true (see also: gay), this specific usage can hardly be considered a useful change. So while I do not share StephenLS' passion in this instance, I do share his general opinion that you are badly misusing a term.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Pteryx at 2004-09-30 13:54:27
Converted from Phorums BB System

I have to chime in here and ask why *you* are going to the trouble of facilitating this particular change. And it *is* a change, and one which completely misses the point of the creation of the word "splatbook" in the first place. You haven't justified your misuse of the word in any way, shape, or form that I can see -- you've just been brushing off all dissent. Use "sourcebook" or "supplement" next time. -- Pteryx

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stephenls at 2004-09-30 14:39:40
Converted from Phorums BB System

<i>"I have to chime in here and ask why *you* are going to the trouble of facilitating this particular change. And it *is* a change, and one which completely misses the point of the creation of the word "splatbook" in the first place. You haven't justified your misuse of the word in any way, shape, or form that I can see -- you've just been brushing off all dissent. Use "sourcebook" or "supplement" next time."</i>

The only thing I can think of is that maybe he just really hates the word and wants to see it fall out of use. That happens sometimes -- I remember a rec.games.frp.dnd thread that consisted mostly of Brandon Blackmoor hurtling invectives at anyone who thought "splatbook" was necessary or useful as a term.
--
Stephenls
Geek

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ross Winn at 2004-10-01 18:47:51
Converted from Phorums BB System

No, actually I am calling all White Wolf books splatbooks.

<i>For those of you new to the White Wolf publishing model there are generally two kinds of supplements. "Splats" which are topical supplements under 196 pages, and generally softcover, and "fatsplats" which are generally over 200 pages and hardcover. </i>

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stephenls at 2004-10-01 20:32:42
Converted from Phorums BB System

<i>"No, actually I am calling all White Wolf books splatbooks."</i>

Okay.

<b>Why?</b> Why are you calling all White Wolf books splatbooks, when that's not what the word means?

Is this going to boil down to "I chose to spell Micro$oft with a dollar sign because I want to"?
--
Stephenls
Geek

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ross Winn at 2004-10-01 23:26:27
Converted from Phorums BB System

my question to you is, who died and made you the arbiter of all things White Wolf?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Dan Hemmens at 2004-10-02 03:00:25
Converted from Phorums BB System

Nobody died, and nobody had to. Stephenls is basing his assertion (that the term "splatbook" has a specific meaning, which is not the meaning you claim it has) on evidence, precedent and argument.

*You* are the one trying to argue from authority. You're the one who says "White Wolf sourcebooks come in two sorts". You, furthermore, are the one who is singularly failing to back up their statements with anything but the most immature of appeals to common usage ("I can say it if I wanna!").

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. It not only means that you have the inalienable right to talk rubbish in public, it also means that I have the inalienable right to call you on it.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ross Winn at 2004-10-02 05:35:52
Converted from Phorums BB System

I understand his assertion has some evidence, precedent, and argument. However so does the assertion that the holocaust never happened. That very clearly is not the point. What is the point is that the term is not defined anywhere; and though it has one common meaning within his peer group, it could just as easily be defined differently by another peer group. I have another definition, it isn't his, nor does it have to be.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Valmont at 2004-10-02 07:29:33
Converted from Phorums BB System

You have another definition, this is true. Unfortunately your definition, such as it is, is far less useful than the definition you are hoping to supplant. A definition that has seen at least a decade of use.

Why, indeed, is it better to call all non-core books "splatbooks" than it is to differentiate a game-line's books into "splatbook" "sourcebook" and "module"?

And real nice cheap shot, what with the Godwin.

Ross Winn wrote:
-------------------------------
I understand his assertion has some evidence, precedent, and argument. However so does the assertion that the holocaust never happened. That very clearly is not the point. What is the point is that the term is not defined anywhere; and though it has one common meaning within his peer group, it could just as easily be defined differently by another peer group. I have another definition, it isn't his, nor does it have to be.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by xero at 2004-10-02 07:53:03
Converted from Phorums BB System

In the words of J. Storm "Flame on"

Herr Winn is acting like an idiot. What he's doing is the equivalant of taking the word "horse" and saying "from now on, when I say horse, I mean cadillac." Stop acting like a little girl, admit that you were trying to be cool and using words you had misunderstood, and move on.

Oh, and the column (why was this a column instead of a review? besides the justification for using a pun name title?) was full of factual errors. You seem to have confused covenants and clans. I could go on, but given your demonstrated hatred of rational thought, why continue?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by xero at 2004-10-02 07:54:40
Converted from Phorums BB System

nt

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Blaque at 2004-10-02 11:23:52
Converted from Phorums BB System

Nor is it WW's publishing model as they have described it. Nor is Exalted all hardback line. Nor are the covenants called "five famlies" or whatever.

Just soem thoughts. But I'm with Stephenls. You go on and assert something to a community that has actually agreed on what the term means. You come in claiming that your way is more accurate because you say so and have a nifty article to say so with. And frankly, all it does is make you look arrogant, and in my eye, try to mislead folks who have a set view on what splat means into thinking that all WW does is publish splats for their gamelines.

And stuff.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ross Winn at 2004-10-02 17:41:16
Converted from Phorums BB System

A community has asserted what it thinks. Well I am not part of that community, I am part of a community that feels that pretty much every book WW has published is a splatbook. I understand your opinion is different, fine, however that doesn't make you more or less right than anyone else. These are opinions. They are not facts.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ross Winn at 2004-10-02 17:49:49
Converted from Phorums BB System

come back often, read all of the columns, stay a while.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ross Winn at 2004-10-02 17:51:57
Converted from Phorums BB System

<i>And real nice cheap shot, what with the Godwin.</i>

You know in my parlance the invoking of Godwin means that someone has used the word Nazi. I didn't, so I guess your usage is different. See, that was easy.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stephenls at 2004-10-03 14:32:51
Converted from Phorums BB System

<i>"A community has asserted what it thinks. Well I am not part of that community, I am part of a community that feels that pretty much every book WW has published is a splatbook. I understand your opinion is different, fine, however that doesn't make you more or less right than anyone else. These are opinions. They are not facts."</i>

Except the community I'm asserting from is the community that invented the term, and that has been using it as such for <i>a decade</i>.

I still don't quite get what you mean when you say splatbook. Where you're from, is splatbook just shorthand for "A book published by White Wolf?"
--
Stephenls
Geek

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ross Winn at 2004-10-04 07:03:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

yes, and no. there are reasons for both. I will elucidate them more further in a column dedicated to you and the evolution of the game supplement.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stephenls at 2004-10-04 07:38:14
Converted from Phorums BB System

"<i>yes, and no. there are reasons for both. I will elucidate them more further in a column dedicated to you and the evolution of the game supplement.</i>"

Okay.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Allan Sugarbaker at 2004-10-11 00:36:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

Calm it down please, folks.

-----
Allan Sugarbaker
Administrator,
RPG.net

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jethrow at 2004-10-12 03:07:15
Converted from Phorums BB System

Gentlemen, ladies, others. I thank you all. This is some of the funniest stuff I have read on RPG.net for ages. Ross Winn, please keep writing columns (or reviews, or whatever anyone wants to call them (I don't have an opinion either way on whether what you wrote was one or the other or both or something else)), because this one generated some great responses. Stephenls, please keep responsing to columns (or reviews or whatever) on RPG.net, because you are a very funny (and possibly extremely highly-strung) angry person. Its great to see that so many people care so passionately about such important subject matter. Kudos. Bravo.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by NotMousse at 2004-10-12 09:10:36
Converted from Phorums BB System

This has been very entertaining. Bravo RW for pissing off the WoD fans by stating that it's entire line is just a series of splatbooks. Indeed it is refreshing to see someone get so pissy about the misuse of a single word. Again, thank you, this has been fun to read.

As a side note *my* community calls anything that's not a core book, setting, or 'compendium/companion' a splatbook. This oddly enough encompasses well over 95% of WoD (page count, books, cash flow, take your pick).

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Aka-Chan at 2004-10-12 10:43:07
Converted from Phorums BB System

You assert that a word can change meaning through general usage. Well, it hasn't. By general usage(in this forum and countless others, almost without exception), it has a specific, useful meaning. Stephen has defined the meaning accepted by the vast, overwhelming majority.

Yes, the term *could* potentially change to mean what you assert that it means if people go along with it. However, this will never happen. Why? Because the word loses everything that made it a useful term in the first place if they do. Most people just aren't that stupid.

Let's compare a couple words -- I'll use Valmont's word, gay. Gay used to have a specific, useful meaning. Now gay has another specific, and ALSO USEFUL, meaning. Splatbook has had a single, useful meaning for over a decade. Your "new" definition has a nonspecific, useless meaning. There is no logical reason, nor any incentive, for people to switch to your definition. "I can keep the old definition which is actually useful, or I could switch to this new definition that I've only seen one person mention...but then the term's no longer useful." Yeah, no contest.

Words can change definition through general usage. This one hasn't. Just admit your mistake and get over it.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jamie Herbert at 2004-10-12 11:40:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

Well This is a part and partial to the whole community, RPG has been used to describe minis games (Games Workshop' s Dark Future and Epic 40K were both referred to as 3d Hobby Role Play) not to mention everyone who thinks video games are roleplaying games (sorry Diablo and Balder's gate do not have characterization or interactive drama and are thus not RPGS!) The same is true with Cinematic Roleplaying (a current buzzword) The term cinematic means like film, (referring specifically the advantages of cinema over tv such as wide screens allowing to show more panoramic vistas, surround sound and stories that could not be told on TV (more sex and violence)) by our current corruption of this word, it means rules light, action heavy. The biggest way to make an RPG more cinematic is to have it come with greasy popcorn and sit in sticky seats in the dark. nut as with any buzzword it gets corrupted and beings to take on a bunch of new meanings. splatbook should mean a sorucebook about a specific group but as long as the language keeps evolving it could end up referring to any cheap supplement or who knows.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Greg Volz at 2004-10-18 09:42:22
Converted from Phorums BB System

I thought the review was great. I don't buy White Wolf stuff so I am not as non-plussed as Stephenls.

Good work Ross,

Greg Volz
Natural Twenty

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Blaque at 2004-10-18 14:02:17
Converted from Phorums BB System

And you are then misinformed about what WW publishes lately. Take Exalted this year.

It has publised:
Two splats (Aspect Books Fire and Earth)
One phatsplat (Exalted: the Fair Folk)
THREE location books (Blood & Salt, Houses of the Bull God, and Outcastes).
And two mostly-crunch books (Exalted Player's Guide and Savant & Sorcerer.)

So far, down the line for Requiem, this is what we know is in the works or has been made for it:

World of Darkenss (A corebook)
Vampire: the Requiem (A phatsplat)
Lancea Sanctum (a splat)
Coteries (A sourcebook about a social unit, not a splat)
Nomads (A book on vampires who move around. Once again, not a splat by the tradtional sense.)
Rites of the Dragon (A prop piece mostly)
City of the Damned: New Orleans (Setting about New Orleans.)

That's what I know is coming. Of those, one is a real splatbook. The rest fit in your definition of comepndium/companion thing (Savant & Sorcerer, Nomads, Coteries, ect.)

Just a nitpick.

Stuff.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by NotMousse at 2004-11-11 10:32:17
Converted from Phorums BB System

I wrote

'As a side note *my* community calls anything that's not a core book, setting, or 'compendium/companion' a splatbook. This oddly enough encompasses well over 95% of WoD (page count, books, cash flow, take your pick).'

By setting, I meant campaign setting, the core of that setting at the very least (the book with the title of the campaign setting and not the campaign setting's name as a supertitle for the book's name).

Blaque wrote:
---
'And you are then misinformed about what WW publishes lately. Take Exalted this year.'

Perhaps what they're going to publish, but if you look over their WoD line you'll see it's almost exclusively what I consider splats.

'It has publised:
One phatsplat (Exalted: the Fair Folk)'

Splat.

'THREE location books (Blood & Salt, Houses of the Bull God, and Outcastes).'

Splat.

'And two mostly-crunch books (Exalted Player's Guide and Savant & Sorcerer.)'

And a couple core/compandiums.

'So far, down the line for Requiem, this is what we know is in the works or has been made for it:

Vampire: the Requiem (A phatsplat)'

Campaign setting.

'Coteries (A sourcebook about a social unit, not a splat)'

Splat. And a splat in traditional sense no less (splats cover social groups, including but not limited to: clans, tribes, houses, guilds, and families).

'Nomads (A book on vampires who move around. Once again, not a splat by the tradtional sense.)'

But one by my community's sense.

'Rites of the Dragon (A prop piece mostly)'

Aka: splat.

'City of the Damned: New Orleans (Setting about New Orleans.)'

This could be considered a splat or campaign setting depending on who you ask and what they plan to use it for. If you base your campaign in Mountain View and decide to make a trip to New Orleans you're using it as window dressing for an adventure (splat territory), but if based in New Orleans it's quite obviously your campaign setting.

'That's what I know is coming. Of those, one is a real splatbook. The rest fit in your definition of comepndium/companion thing (Savant & Sorcerer, Nomads, Coteries, ect.)'

I see many splats.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ringwraith at 2004-11-13 05:33:31
Converted from Phorums BB System

NotMousse wrote:
-------------------------------
This has been very entertaining. Bravo RW for pissing off the WoD fans by stating that it's entire line is just a series of splatbooks.

Hey, RW's *my* abbreviation! :)

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sandjack at 2004-11-16 23:51:59
Converted from Phorums BB System

<i>
You know in my parlance the invoking of Godwin means that someone has used the word Nazi. I didn't, so I guess your usage is different. See, that was easy.</i>

Oh good, does this mean we get to read a new full column on your definition of Godwin's law?

On a more serious note, nice and thoughtful definition of what you consider to be a splatbook. As you say, the type of book you describe now seems to be the norm rather than an exception. I disagree fairly strongly with you on the point of whether the term Splatbook covers any book that mixes the elements of rules, fluff, and bling (and, for that matter considering the modularizing of WW's product lines as well as others, the line between bling and rules) but a good read nonetheless.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sandjack at 2004-11-17 00:44:54
Converted from Phorums BB System

<i>Your "new" definition has a nonspecific, useless meaning. There is no logical reason, nor any incentive, for people to switch to your definition.</i>

I have to disagree on this point. His word is useful as is the concept he outlined in this column. Looking at the category of books that contains a solid mixture of setting material, additional rules, and modular player rule/powers is illuminating. The fact that this has become the industry standard because of its wide range of appeal, and thus addresses Winn's concern that all WW books are splats, is not Ross' fault, nor does it mean that Ross' word is not a useful and specific concept anymore than calling a human being an animal is a meaningless statement. His word highlights specific qualities of these ubiquitous books when addressing them.

The problem comes in when Ross tries to use the word Human to refer to animals. Yes, the qualities that define Ross' word are common to all White-Wolf splatbooks as the vocal majority defines the term. Ross, however, is arguing that what is in truth accidental (in the platonic definition of the term) is, in fact, the essence of the word "splatbook". Yes, all humans have the characteristics common to all animals. However, the qualities of being animals are not the qualities that are essential to being human, not what distinguishes a human from being a not human as you can see but putting a human up against a dog. Just so, you can distinguish a splatbook from a winn-splatbook by putting 'Castebook: Mid-Afternoon' up next to 'Hacking Cough, a rules supplement about dying very slowly'.

Looking at the evolution of the word splatbook, Ross has the beginnings right: originally *book was used to refer to a collection of white-wolf books that were similar in nature and name, but not quite close enough so that they could easily be referred to. This is because White-Wolf put out a large number of similar books for their different WoD product lines that, because of the differences in the product lines, had very slightly different naming conventions. White Wolf did not want to produce a mess of "Faction Books", they wanted to add flavor. And so they used the specific word for the in game faction divisions in each case, just as they decided to give the factions different names in each of their WoD product lines. In the case of mage, there were two different matches for * just within the game (Convention, Tradition).

Now, yes, these books all held in common the elements that ross described and the reasons for this commonality are, just as Ross suggests, that these books were aimed at players to increase profit. And, indeed, as the selling potential of books that contained all elements of rules, setting, and bling was realized, many products shifted to this as a model for their books. However, the word splatbook was coined because people needed a way to refer to these books that were functionally similar but, because of design considerations, had slightly different names. In other words, the importance of this word was in setting up a division precisely between Aspect/Caste/Kith/Tribebooks and all other books. In the beginning that was all the word was: a way to distinguish whether something was or was not titled *book: *.

As time and usage progressed, however, the word gained actual meaning aside from this simple definition, as all words will. It did not, however, gain meaning in the way Ross suggests. The importance of the distinction that initially spawned the word drove its course of development. The word began to pick up other characteristics, but understand that these characteristics almost universally fell on one or the other side of the formal dividing line of the definition. For example, all of the *books (hereinafter used to denote the word in its formal definition of matching the seach string "Xbook: Y" where X denotes the name of a general faction type and Y denotes the name of a specific faction) specifically detailed one faction within the world that players could draw characters from, a concept that is still very close to the formal definition as there were at that time no books that detailed specific factions to the exclusion of others outside of the formal definition.

As time went on, however, especially after the introduction of the Exalted line and now into the new WoD, the line became blurred. Specifically, Exalted consolidated rough analogues of the different WoD game lines into a single game, publishing hardback books outlining one type of Exalted. These books did, in fact, denote factions a player could take on in the game world. However, the evolution of the word Fatsplats to describe these books is telling. It derives both from the fact that these Fatsplats are similar to splatbooks, and that there needs to be a word to set them apart from splatbooks. Words are coined because there is a void in an individual's vocabulary for a concept. Coined words become commonly used when there is a void in a community for a common concept.

If the word Splatbook means what Ross suggests, the word Fatsplat would never have come into existence. The books would have been called 'Hardbacks' (for they are the only hardbacks in the exalted line). However, the existence of the world splatbook called out to the fatsplats, indicating that they were more than just ordinary hardbacks, they had a more specific tie to each other, but a tie that nevertheless separated them from splatbooks -- for after all, each book contained within it five splats (a faction that could be outlined in a splatbook) under the more traditional definition.

Ross suffers from the very real existential pain of having a concept and having no word to describe it and so, in a very natural way, Ross uses a word that matches a concept that does have all these features that he wishes to describe and may, indeed, even have been the starting point for the concept he describes. It is a legitimate coining of a term by very legitimate method of synecdoche, the process of using a part of something as metaphor for the whole as when you call a car a 'set of wheels', but it is just that: a coining. Perhaps Ross did not coin the term himself, someone else may have done so in need or ignorance and it has spread in usage in the circles Ross runs in. However, that coining does not match the progression of the very legitimate definition of splatbook as it is commonly understood and there is very little more to say on the subject.

Language is the medium of communication. Without words we cannot communicate with each other, and the best use of language is not through the definitions to which you hold fast but rather through the definitions held by the person to whom you are speaking because to use language otherwise is quite literally a meaningless endeavor. You do not speak Chinese to a Norwegian who doesn't know a word of it, or for that matter you don't speak Finnish to a Norwegian or Cantonese to a Mandarin speaker. Similarly, when speaking with Ross keep in mind his understanding of the word splatbook and hopefully when speaking to you Ross will take the same consideration.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Paul at 2004-12-09 05:46:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

Can I just throw this in...

"Splat" is also the term used for a fetish involving the crushing of food and food fights. This seems to be predominantly based in the UK Fetish scene.

A "Splatbook" could also be used as the term for a magazine or book dealing with material from this fetish scene.

Makes you think... :)

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by ParanoidObsessive at 2004-12-20 22:16:34
Converted from Phorums BB System

Late Reply:

Considering that the term "twink" was originally used to describe young gay men/boys, it makes you wonder just who the hell is coming up with terms for our hobby.

Next up - scatbooks?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jethrow at 2004-12-21 00:04:26
Converted from Phorums BB System

No, scatbooks would be full of shit.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by ParanoidObsessive at 2004-12-21 02:09:04
Converted from Phorums BB System

There are some who might suggest that that is an accurate description of most of the books in White Wolf's line...

~chuckle~

-spoken by someone whose gaming habits are like 90% WW-

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Lee at 2005-01-10 09:51:58
Converted from Phorums BB System

I don't know about White wolf.. but we've been calling the softback supplements 'splats' since the eighties.. simply for the sound they make when they hit the table.. a splat instead of a thunk for a hardback.. I don't think that usenet is the origin for that word.. since I remember using is back in the eighties to describe Battletech supplements, and such.

Common to D&D, later, 'splats' (softback supplements) where the optional rules, and that became a common handle any optional ruleset published, especially in softback.

Anyone in the convention scene got a wider take on this?


-Lee

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Lee at 2005-01-10 10:05:04
Converted from Phorums BB System



Stephenls wrote:
-------------------------------

Except the community I'm asserting from is the community that invented the term, and that has been using it as such for <i>a decade</i>.


--

Actually.. I think it leaked in from other sources, but there is no sure way of tracing it. As I remarked elsewhere.. we called paperback volumes splats since the eighties.. for the sound they made when they hit the tables. Books like The Mercenaries Handbook, and so on.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Lee at 2005-01-10 10:38:02
Converted from Phorums BB System


Sometimes these things have multiple parents...

but, last I checked.. mid to late eighties puts the usage as I know it to around 15 or so years...