hawkeyefan
Legend
Holy conflation Batman! We aren't talking about numbers vs. descriptions dude. We're talking about using natural language to describe the rules. Those aren't even close to being the same.
So what? You said that you couldn’t think of an example where natural language cause an issue. I provided an example.
5e is actually a pretty poor example. It was deliberately written vaguely and with holes in the rules in order to push rulings over rules.
I mean… that’s what makes it a great example. It uses natural language… and the result is vague and leaves holes in the rules.
In any case, your argument holds no water, because "Hard Move" is meaningless without the natural language you say people interpret differently, so your jargon filled games are just as likely to be interpreted differently by different people.
This makes no sense. You’re basically condemning use of any and all jargon, any and all descriptors that can be used to convey a complex idea more quickly.
I never saw them do it, but I may have missed it. They can speak for themselves. As for me, not once did I do so. And in fact said the opposite at least once.
You can disagree that the sun is a star, too. You just can't be right about this. Disagreeing with the principal in general isn't the same as telling you that you are doing it wrong or being upset, or hell even caring, that you do it that way.
I’m talking about you saying you’d do it differently than me and why. How it shouldn’t be common knowledge and so on.
This is a Strawman of what I said. I didn't argue that other games shouldn't be expected. I said that if you're talking about a minor RPG, a lot of people aren't going to remember.
And you cut out the opening of this section.
When do folks not explain the term when asked?
And at what point does it become the responsibility of individuals to learn this stuff instead of the responsibility of others to explain it to them?
Right. That piece of jargon doesn't appear in the 5e rules.
So what? It’s still jargon. And it’s not like there’s no shortage of jargon in the 5e rules.
Probably because in the example that @hawkeyefan gave, the DM didn't. In his example he said he would just give that knowledge to the players and come up with the justification later. That's not the DM giving thought to who would or would not know it and then deciding.
My example was based on @pemerton’s (and I’m sure at this point he’s glad I did that…) where the purpose of the circle seemed obvious.
When challenged on this, I said I often default to that kind of GMing because I’m generally uninterested in keeping a situation like that mysterious. I’m more interested in what the PCs will try and do about it rather than them trying to even figure out what’s going on. Depending on the situation and the details, I might address all the players, or I might select the player of the character most familiar with such things and tell them.
Regardless of exactly how I handled it, I can assure you that plenty of consideration would go into it.