How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't really mind learning new terminology. Granted, sometimes there is an issue with the terminology being dumb.

 

[Umbran]

When discussing it here, natural language kinda has to be used or you lose a lot of people in the conversation like you all do when you post and just use the jargon.

You are correct.

Unfortunately, not everyone is all that worried about whether they include others in the conversation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, that part above is the problem. I don't want to assume that my PC is at the top of their field.

Well it depends on the game, no? Different games handle the starting situation differently. Different games handle advancement differently.

I mean, it’s cool if you want every game you play or run to unfold in the same way and at the same pace with the same progression and so on… cool, nothing’s stopping you from doing that.

But the idea that every game should work that way is just odd.

And we were talking about agendas. If a term is habitually used by proponents of a given style, when they apply it to all styles it is reasonable to suspect an agenda might be at play.

What’s the agenda you’re so worried about here? What are you afraid the term “scene framing” is going to do?

I'm sure they'd rather that the GM simply didn't tell them information their PC wouldn't necessarily know.

Sure, preferences will vary and if the GM is doing something that they don’t like, they should discuss it. But I think in the example provided, the response taken only exacerbated the situation. Better to roll with it and then discuss it after the game.

I'd be cool with that, especially as "bounded accuracy" doesn't actually appear as a term in the actual 5e books.

Who cares if it appears in the books? It’s clearly a technical term used to describe a design ethos. It’s jargon. But it’s not typically complained about.

Sometimes someone will ask what it means. Then it’s explained and… this is the key… the person actually onboards that information.

No, of course not. But I'd certainly enjoy talking about them more if said discussions weren't rife with exclusive jargon.

Please. You don’t seem to hesitate at all in being involved in such discussions. You jump right in telling people they have an agenda and complaining that what you like is different.

You talk about the conversation more than about the actual topic of conversation.

There does seem to come a time for many folks when they just lose interest in starting over with new terminology and a whole new way of looking at games. For some the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

That’s perfectly fine. But don't expect others to share that stance. Why should we?

 

[hawkeyefan]

And absolutely, different magical traditions would be fantastic, but it adds a level of complexity that apparently only a third-party developer could add to the game. We can't confuse all those people that the Champion Fighter was written for, now can we? /sarcasm

Some games handle it by not defining all such traditions ahead of play. They involve the players in defining them through play. It works really well without adding a lot of complex rules and subsystems to the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No you!

I was much younger when I learned D&D. I know D&D. I don't have the desire to learn jargon for game X, different jargon for game y, and yet more jargon for game z. Not going to do it when natural language fixes everything.

Natural language can be just as problematic as jargon. Also, once a book explains to a reader what a term means, then after that, there should be no issue with the term.

Sure. I tried to learn that Dragonlance RPG that used cards instead of dice to make characters and play the game. It was structured very differently than D&D. I just couldn't find anyone to play it with.

Learning jargon is a lot like work, and I play RPGs to relax. I just don't want to do it.

So learning new rules would be fine, it’s just the jargon that’s an issue?

Practically speaking, using jargon here on a forum is just asking for trouble. Sure the folks who have played that game will understand you, but the rest of us aren't unless you explain it in natural language anyway, so you might as well just post it originally in natural language.

Once explained, people should then be able to use the phrase going forward.

Like scene-framing… is there really any confusion about what it means by anyone who’s been involved in this discussion? It’s been explained, examples have been provided.

If someone chooses not to use the phrase, that’s fine, but to expect others not to use it? That’s crap.

What's silly is calling someone's preferred way to play it silly.

Anytime someone opts into a situation that they’ll then complain about, I’m gonna call it silly.

And no one hesitated to criticize my decision to share information with players. Which is fine… I expect that my opinions I share on these boards will be subject to criticism. I think others should expect the same.

Here's the thing, while you can't get rid of the influence 100%, you can do a lot to minimize it. That sort of influence is also not a dichotomy but falls on a scale. Just because I can't get rid of every smidge of influence doesn't make it okay for me to embrace it heart and soul.

Yes, in this case, by simply accepting the GM’s narration, it could have been avoided altogether.

Now, this is something about which opinions will vary, so it’s probably best to discuss it and find some consensus going forward. Expecting the GM to cater to everyone and any compromise being 100% on them isn’t really a reasonable expectation.

I would read them. All the jargon in these games has to be explained somewhere in natural language. I'd just read that and learn it.

Right. And then you’ll know it going forward! It really is that simple.

When discussing it here, natural language kinda has to be used or you lose a lot of people in the conversation like you all do when you post and just use the jargon.

How many times must a term of jargon be explained before folks should expect it to be used?

I mean, this is an RPG site. There are tons of jargon terms, and the folks complaining about jargon heaps of jargon themselves.

It’s a really inconsistent complaint.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You are correct.

Unfortunately, not everyone is all that worried about whether they include others in the conversation.

Who do you have in mind?

From what I’ve seen in this thread, many attempts have been made to explain and clarify some terms/ideas that have been called into question.

Also, below is from the site rules:

Keep it civil: Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or blanket generalizations in your discussions. Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think.

You’re ascribing motives to the actions of others here. Please don’t do that.

 

[Maxperson]

Natural language can be just as problematic as jargon. Also, once a book explains to a reader what a term means, then after that, there should be no issue with the term.

Not that I've experienced.

So learning new rules would be fine, it’s just the jargon that’s an issue?

Once explained, people should then be able to use the phrase going forward.

Like scene-framing… is there really any confusion about what it means by anyone who’s been involved in this discussion? It’s been explained, examples have been provided.

That's an unrealistic expectation. You use the phrase on a regular basis, so you know it well. Expecting someone to remember it from months before in some other thread when they haven't used it since is.........................................optimistic.

And no one hesitated to criticize my decision to share information with players. Which is fine… I expect that my opinions I share on these boards will be subject to criticism. I think others should expect the same.

I don't recall anyone criticizing your decision to share information with your players. You can do what you want in your game. That's between you and your players.

Yes, in this case, by simply accepting the GM’s narration, it could have been avoided altogether.

Now, this is something about which opinions will vary, so it’s probably best to discuss it and find some consensus going forward. Expecting the GM to cater to everyone and any compromise being 100% on them isn’t really a reasonable expectation.

It's a playstyle/preference thing. It's not simply a case of accepting or rejecting narration.

I mean, this is an RPG site. There are tons of jargon terms, and the folks complaining about jargon heaps of jargon themselves.

When discussing jargon from minor RPGs? Fairly often. It's not as if most of us will remember it when we don't use it on a regular basis. Bringing it back up weeks or months later isn't going to go over well if you don't re-explain.

 

[James Gasik]

I have to assume you mean 2d8 hit points here; as 2d8 hit dice would put those guards far beyond humble.

Oof, yeah, hit points are bloated in 5e, but not that bad!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not that I've experienced.

Sure it does. We discussed it earlier in this thread. “Pretty difficult” can be interpreted many ways, for example.

Look at some of the rules in 5e that are persistently interpreted differently by many people… things like stealth and background features are interpreted different ways by different people.

But if you learned the game, the jargon would be understood. I’m confused.

That's an unrealistic expectation. You use the phrase on a regular basis, so you know it well. Expecting someone to remember it from months before in some other thread when they haven't used it since is.........................................optimistic.

Actually, I don’t use the term on a regular basis. It just is used often enough in discussions where I engage with people who use it that I’ve learned what it means.

Also… it’s not exactly impenetrable phrasing. Neither scene nor framing are used in an obscure way.

I don't recall anyone criticizing your decision to share information with your players. You can do what you want in your game. That's between you and your players.

Sure there was. @Corinnguard and @Micah Sweet certainly did so. You did as well. It’s not a problem… we just disagree.

It's a playstyle/preference thing. It's not simply a case of accepting or rejecting narration.

Actually, in the moment of play, yes it is. The player can either accept it or not in that moment. Then, they can address it with the GM and the other players.

When discussing jargon from minor RPGs? Fairly often. It's not as if most of us will remember it when we don't use it on a regular basis. Bringing it back up weeks or months later isn't going to go over well if you don't re-explain.

When do folks not explain if asked?

Also, if we’re in a general TTRPG thread, perhaps a wider experience than solely D&D and its derivatives can be expected. Perhaps even should be expected?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've seen some attempts at level-0 play. Generally you have no class abilities to speak of, can't wear armor, and can only use "peasant weapons".

Jeez, even those RuneQuest juveniles I mentioned could wear armor; they probably wouldn't have anything very impressive, but it wasn't off the table. And they could use whatever weapons that were common to their tribe (which was often spears, but it wasn't like a spear was a terrible weapon in RQ).