Ease the vernacular.

[Wiseblood]

It is my sincere hope that 5e has less game jargon. I want things to be less impenetrable to an outsider. Hearing a description of a battle in our language sounds decidedly un-exciting. Defining things is ok. Creating things to define things that are already defined seems, to me, silly. An example is squares they are 5 feet. That is redefining squares to represent something that is self explanatory. Do we need that? What is a swift action? Does it need to be defined?

The sequence of events during a turn in 3e have Swift, Free, Move, Standard, and Full as descriptors and you have to know how many you can have, in multiple combinations, and what they actually represent.
In 2e there were segments. Segments were all the same you just had to know how many you used or had. Both games have other timekeeping jargon 3e narrowed it to rounds and real time hours and minutes. 2e was more learning rounds and turns and if I recall correctly they were longer or shother based on what you were doing.

Attacking was resolved using THAC0 or Attack Bonus neither of which are very clear without some kind of background. Attack Bonus is grasped quickly becuse it has been adopted by other systems broadening the base of people that have already had some exposure.

I do not think we can escape entirely from jagon but I hope we can cut back on it.

 

[Zireael]

We could get rid of action types by using Action Points (like those in Fallout computer game or its' p'n'p variant).

 

[am181d]

To the extent that there is jargon, I'd like to see it better reinforce the genre. One of the problems with "THAC0" is that it sounds like a Star Wars robot. Even some of the old school terms like "Hit Points" and "Saving Throws" are more gamey than atmospheric.

I suspect we're well past the year that we could ever change Hit Points to (say) Wounds, but I'd love it if the designers removed gamey sounding words where feasible and replaced them with more immersive terms.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yeah, I think I'm there. Some game jargon is necessary for clarity, but too much overwhelms the game and makes reading rulebooks like reading textbooks.

I used to buy D&D products just for the fun of reading them, and 4E pretty much killed that.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I get particularly bothered by player attempts to ADD jargon to the game.

Like when players talk about "Tier 1" classes or use the verboten term "gish". Or answer a perfectly legitimate question with "Appendix N".

You can expect D&D players to know the rules - but this isn't in the rules.

 

[Kzach]

Didn't we just have the opposite of this conversation in like three or more threads?

Jargon is part and parcel of what makes any social group special and inclusive. There's even a term for it but I forget what it is; it's the same phenomena as how science has scientific terms for things whilst everyone else calls it something else. It's all about the hard-wired nature of socialisation and recognising and accepting those who share common interests.

Because of this, even if WotC cut back on the jargon in the books, PEOPLE would create more simply to mark that initial barrier to entry and make their social groups a special entity that only those who care enough to learn the rules, can enter. I personally wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[rjfTrebor]

jargon is so ingrained in the minds of gamers that they'd never be able to make a casual listener feel fully at home.

people will still refer to their hell'locks and chaladins and they'll still say things like BAB and DPR.

deliberately trying to simplify the language of the game seems like wasted effort to me. it's a non-issue.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Some jargon is a necessary evil, but the less the better.

And I don't think for a second that terms like "gish" or "tank" or their ilk are part of becoming an advanced gamer or being part of some special group. If anything, more advanced players become better at describing game actions in common language terms and generally getting the rules out of the way of having a good time. Mine certainly have.

 

[Sunseeker]

I can't really agree that 4 types of actions is really asking a person to remember much. standard, move, minor/swift and full are well, pretty simple.

If people can't manage 4 types of actions, how can expect them to master 6 ability scores?

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't like playing 4e and I think standard/move/minor is a great, simple system. I don't get what the problem with it, or its jargon, is.