Recontriving The Ring

View attachment 86981​

Honestly, sometimes my game design looks like it's not really design at all. It's more a remix of classic ingredients; an RPG compilation album of greatest hits. On a mechanical level, you can see the lineage though on a surface level, you might need to squint a bit. For me, game mechanics are defined just as much by the terms and phrases you associate with them as the ways they interpret dice. It's similar with setting. Some fantasy worlds haven't even tried to hide the marks from when they filed the serial numbers off. Others are deliberately innovative, occasionally for it's own sake. Reinterpreting, re-codifying and even revivifying are all well used tools in the designer's box of tricks.

What's in a name? Take Dungeon Master. No please, take it, I don't want it anymore! It's been a term that's wyrmed it's way into pop culture, and it's brought some baggage with it. Not all games feature Dungeons, and the word Master comes with unwanted connotations. Early RPGs quickly dumped it as the default term (TSRs approach to litigation helped). Nowadays if there is a household name for the person that runs the game it's Gamemaster, or GM for short.

Other games have spun off into even stranger realms of nomenclature. Call of Cthulhu has the Keeper of Arcane Lore. Nobilis? The Hollyhock God. Others are more prosaic, like Traveller, with its Referee, or World of Darkness with the Storyteller. The term tells us something about the expectations. The MC in Apocalypse World implies a very different style to that of the Game Control from Spycraft. It's a similar tale with almost other every piece of game jargon, whether rules or colour. As a Brit, my Armour Class always came with a U, and my Defence with a C. These things matter, because they're literally the language of the game.

My game changes an awful lot of common terminology. It's far from being the first to do so, won't be the last. My term for GM is the 'King of Dungeons'. It's a mouthful, not particularly intuitive, and it even runs the risk of being divisive. I'm going with it anyway because it puts my stamp on the game. Some changes are minimal, with warriors instead of fighters, and priests over clerics. Nothing world shattering, but why shouldn't I indulge myself? Other changes are just to be efficient. I find the word 'foe' to be easy to type, easy to understand, and more effective in the text than 'target' or 'enemy combatant'. Some words I just like to reconfigure because it helps define my world. I have 'guilds' who undertake 'charters', whereas other games would have 'parties' in 'scenarios'. My spells are arranged by 'circle', and 'race' long ago became 'culture'.

In the film Arrival, we encounter the Sapir-Whorf theory which states that language doesn't just give people a way to express their thoughts; it influences or even determines them. I want to see if that happens in my game.

Check out Baz's previous columns about game design: Everyone Else Is Doing It and Hack or Heartbreaker.

 

[Sunseeker]

Which words are the right ones?

The most commonly used and historically accurate ones. What kind of question is this?

Frankly, I have serious doubts about your example of a group of players refusing to explain things. I have never read an rpg rule set with the attitude you are espousing. Can you give an example of a game that does this?

It was my personal experience with two different DMs. I don't know about a ruleset which is needlessly obscure other than the OP author's own.

 

[Sunseeker]

But you’re using words right now which weren’t used in the past. Why did your first sentence contain the words “elaborate” and “ornate” when simpler alternatives exist?

Because they are the most accurate words.

What you describe sounds stilted and dull. But, hey, you think my preference is pretentious. Not sure which is worse!

Actually, I haven't said anything about your preference.

Luckily, the world accommodates different preferences. I don’t have to live in your clinical world, and you don’t have to live in my pretentious one.

Well actually we both have to live in the same world. Earth 1. Reality. This transient little mudball on which we will all live and die. I do not live in my own little fantasy kingdom where everything exists the way I want it, and you don't live in yours.

There are ways to bring clarity and there are ways to obfuscate. We may at times prefer the sound of clarity or the sound of obfuscation. But that doesn't change what they are.

 

[Morrus]

Because they are the most accurate words.

Actually, I haven't said anything about your preference.

Well actually we both have to live in the same world. Earth 1. Reality. This transient little mudball on which we will all live and die. I do not live in my own little fantasy kingdom where everything exists the way I want it, and you don't live in yours.

There are ways to bring clarity and there are ways to obfuscate. We may at times prefer the sound of clarity or the sound of obfuscation. But that doesn't change what they are.

You're a very literal person.

Anyhow, I don't have anything more to add to this, so I'll leave you to it!

 

[Sunseeker]

You're a very literal person.

If I wasn't I may have to question is this was unnecessary snark.

I am neither a psychic nor a diviner. I assume you mean whatever you write.

 

[Lylandra]

To be honest, I shudder at the word race, especially when used in the German translation "Rasse". Calling it (in the traditional fantasy sense of elves, dwarves, humans etc.) people or culture sounds less offensive, but is in most cases off the road, I agree. For the correct term would be species, unless all of them are kind of the same and evolved from the same ancestors (which they don't, at least in most cases).

Culture is fine for a species' sub-cultures which may offer you cultural traits like skills or professions.

I have to disagree that "objective descriptions" are always more definitive than evocative text. To cite one of my all-time favorite books: "She (the unicorn) had killed dragons with it (the horn), and healed a king whose poisoned wound would not close, and knocked down ripe chestnuts for bear cubs."

There you have 1) defined the capabilities of the unicorn's horn and 2) explained what she uses it for and 3) gave away a prime characteristic of the character on top of that.

 

[Sunseeker]

I have to disagree that "objective descriptions" are always more definitive than evocative text. To cite one of my all-time favorite books: "She (the unicorn) had killed dragons with it (the horn), , and knocked down ripe chestnuts for bear cubs."

There you have 1) defined the capabilities of the unicorn's horn and 2) explained what she uses it for and 3) gave away a prime characteristic of the character on top of that.

Wouldn't the context of the line be made clear by the previous or following lines? Or by the fact that the title is The Last Unicorn?
(I actually own the book...somewhere).

 

[Arilyn]

The most commonly used and historically accurate ones. What kind of question is this?


It was my personal experience with two different DMs. I don't know about a ruleset which is needlessly obscure other than the OP author's own.

Sorry if you got stuck in a game with snobs, but I don't see why that is a reason to stick to historical game terms. Wouldn't it be confusing for a new player to come across the term, Dungeon Master, in a cyber punk game? The One Ring is beautifully written, matching the theme of the game. Just laying out the rules like a text book, in this case, would have been a poor design choice, for sure.

Yes, writing needs to be clear. The point, after all, is communication. I don't think changing up some terms is going to destroy clarity, however. After all, we no longer have fighting men, magic users and thieves, in recent additions of DnD.

There are many games out there now. The vast majority are perfectly legible, despite their Hollyhock gods, stamina points, posses or trait tests. Game books need to draw you in, and the best way to do that is with colourful writing which matches the mood of the genre.

Final point. How do you choose between historical and accuracy? DM is historical, but totally inaccurate for games with no dungeons.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sorry if you got stuck in a game with snobs, but I don't see why that is a reason to stick to historical game terms. Wouldn't it be confusing for a new player to come across the term, Dungeon Master, in a cyber punk game? The One Ring is beautifully written, matching the theme of the game. Just laying out the rules like a text book, in this case, would have been a poor design choice, for sure.

There are simple solutions to these problems. "Game Master" is a perfectly well accepted alternative to "Dungeon" Master in games where dungeons and classic fantasy aren't the thing. A cyberpunk game might call them the Game Overlord, or more simply the "Master" or the "Controller" as some reference to cyberpunk that still carries the same evocative tone of "This is the guy who's running the game." without bringing in any unnecessary confusion by say if we were to call the cyberpunk DM the "Umbrella".

Yes, writing needs to be clear. The point, after all, is communication. I don't think changing up some terms is going to destroy clarity, however. After all, we no longer have fighting men, magic users and thieves, in recent additions of DnD.

Sure, and the move away from those terms has in the first, brought clarity and inclusivity, in the second brought specialization and in the latter removed an inherently negative connotation from the class. As long as that is the direction the language continues to move, I have no problem with it. Many of the OP Author's examples however, reduced clarity and increased confusion, for no other reason than "I feel like it." Which is always a terrible argument, especially coming from the DM.

There are many games out there now. The vast majority are perfectly legible, despite their Hollyhock gods, stamina points, posses or trait tests. Game books need to draw you in, and the best way to do that is with colourful writing which matches the mood of the genre.

Sure, I agree there are plenty of ways to be creative and clear.

Final point. How do you choose between historical and accuracy? DM is historical, but totally inaccurate for games with no dungeons.

When the "historic" jargon begins to create confusion, instead of clear it up. "Dungeon" Master creates confusion in games that are not dungeon, or even fantasy themed. Game Master is better, but more generic. So long as the term conveys the appropriate level of stewardship the person has over the game, terms like "Storyteller" are also perfectly suitable. If the "GM" of a game is not a leadership position but instead more of a "keeping the game going but not inherently directing it" terms like "Referee" are also perfectly fine, as it conveys a common understanding about what this guy's job is.

Terms that are obscure, arcane, require heavy explanation or are intrinsically personal are not terms that should be favored.

 

[Lylandra]

in my own language, we got the fabulous, but a bit generic term "Spielleiter" which roughly translates to "game leader" or "game director".

Storyteller is fine as well, but implicates a more passive reception of the non-storytellers, as usually one is telling a story while the other people listen. I agree that dungeon master is problematic from a non-gamer point of view as it evokes the pitcure of a person being in charge of a dungeon and maybe its final boss (some sort of fantasy prison overs?).

Wouldn't the context of the line be made clear by the previous or following lines? Or by the fact that the title is The Last Unicorn?
(I actually own the book...somewhere).

Actually, no. This is from the very first page where the titular character is introduced and the only sentence that deals with her horn.

 

[Sunseeker]

Actually, no. This is from the very first page where the titular character is introduced and the only sentence that deals with her horn.

Have you read the paragraph you quoted from?

The unicorn lived in a lilac wood, and she lived all alone. She was very old, though she did not knew it, and she was no longer the careless color of sea foam, but rather the color of snow falling on a moonlit night. But her eyes were still clear and underwearied, and she still moved like a shadow on the sea.

She did not look anything like a horned horse, as unicorns are often pictured, being smaller and cloven-hoofed, and posessing that oldest, wildest grace that horses have never had, that deer have only in a shy, thin imitation and goats in dancing mockery. Her neck was long and slender, making her head seem smaller than it was, and the mane that fell almost to the middle of her back was as soft as dandelion fluff and as fine as cirrus. She had pointed ears and thin legs, with feathers of white hair at the ankles; and the long horn above her eyes shone and shivered with its own seashell light even in the deepest midnight. She had killed dragons with it, and healed a king whose poisoned wound would not close, and knocked down ripe chestnuts for bear cubs.

It may be the only line explicitly talking about the horn, but the fact that we're talking about a unicorn and specifically her horn is not at all made unclear by literally the line right before it.