Quote Originally Posted by Sith_Happens View Post
I guess I should clarify what I did and didn't mean by "standardized:"

I'm not talking about consistency of language between different games, or about some games coming up with their own "unique" terms for things. Different developers can do things as differently from each other as they want for all I care, and that second bit is actually one of the easier ways to ameliorate the problem that am talking about.

The "problem I am talking about" being the insistence of every RPG writer in the history of the industry on using conversational language to describe rules, mechanics, and effects. At least for rules-heavy games, these things should not be written in conversational style, they should be written in a rigid fashion making as much use as possible of specific words and syntaxes that have been specifically defined in the context of the game. All rules text that can't or is better off not using such terms and syntaxes should be written in a single, consistent style throughout all books that are part of that game system, and that style should be as clear and unambiguous as possible.
I had this great reply before my browser crashed and I lost it, so let me just say, what style do you want? It sounds to me that you want a dry style where everything is made perfectly clear and explained perfectly, but in that case, at least I will never read your rulebook.

Magic: The Gathering is a perfect example of how RPGs should be written:

1. Read the basic rulebook and/or quick-start guide, you know everything you'll need to know in 95% percent of games you'll ever play, with no room for misinterpretation.

2. Open the comprehensive rulebook during one of those other 5% of games, and you'll find it to be a numbered, well-organized document written in such a way as to be completely airtight yet still readable without difficulty (if incredibly dry).

3. Any time you see the word "trample," "flying," "destroy," "sacrifice," or one of countless others, you immediately know what it means and precisely how it does and doesn't work. Any time you see a colon in the text of an ability, you immediately know that it's an activated ability, that everything before the colon is the activation cost (which can't be responded to), and that everything after the colon is the effect of the ability (which goes on the stack and can therefore be responded to). And so on.
So you've never had an in-game argument. I've been caught out by damage not going on the stack many time since I took it up again, and will often respond to abilities at the 'wrong' point. I also never read the rulebook or quick start guide but learned from another person, which means that I can't comment on them. Also, if the activation of an activated ability does not go on the stack, but the effect of the ability does, then what if my activated ability is to deal 2 damage to target creature or player. Damage is not put on the stack, so can I respond to the activation of the ability (apparently, nope), the ability itself (again nope, as damage does not go on the stack), or the targeting of the ability (in which case the 'damage does not go on the stack' rule is pointless, as all damage must target something and I can respond to that). Bare in mind that I've also seen better players than me respond to people paying activation costs (mainly for spells, but occasionally for activated abilities no matter if the cost is 'X mana' or 'tap this card'). The rules just make no sense once you go beyond the basic and set abilities and what is printed on each card. Also can I react to the resolving of an effect, i.e. an effect leaving the stack. I'm sure the rulebook says this, but I'm also sure that my query can be met in a way that'll keep me entertained and will suffice if I don't wish to search the index for 'rules relating to the stack'.