D&D 5E D&D Lingua Franca, or 5e really, REALLY needs to create it's own new "space"

[innerdude]

One thing I'm noticing about this thread, repeatedly, is just how often when the dedicated 4e players are talking about its rules, I feel like we're not even referring to the same game. All of the discussions about A/E/D/U, the endless references to "powers," both by the power's name (Eagle's Clawing Bow Twin-Chain Greasy Strike) and their effects (2W + your enemy has to dance the Macarena until save), "NADs" (non-armor defenses), weapon implement rules, healing surges.....

The similarities are still there; it's not like attack bonus, AC, and hit points are going anywhere, but it is enough to sometimes make discussion about the 4e system . . . foreign to me, somehow.

It may sound trivial on the surface (maybe it is), but I actually hope the 5N/e designers can find ways to make the terminologies used in the system consistent and inclusive, while leaving room for innovation.

Again, kind of a random thought . . . just throwing it out there.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

This is an important, nay, crucial point. The language of Fourth Edition is one of the two most different and divisive elements. The other being power-based class design.

I'm willing to claim that most fans of Fourth Edition can accept alternative class designs, so long as characters have a solid selection of options and can regularly do cool things.

But the language issue is a bigger challenge. For many, the simple act of not using the Fourth Edition terminology feels like a judgement on their preferred edition. Not only that, but they're used to thinking in those terms, and in a very real sense, changing the terminology changes the game.

Personally, I prefer natural language with a minimum of game terms blended in (to an extent). Some find that cumbersome. No matter the final design, people will have to be willing to compromise for it to work.

The best solution I can think up is this: You need consistent terminology, but care must be taken so that it doesn't draw attention to itself. Ground the terms in reality where possible. Avoid contentious terms, such as surge, in favor of more edition neutral terms. In addition, descriptions should be kept concise and consistent, but still have mechanical weight. Refluffing should be aided through advice and examples.

Finally, it's important that we all be willing to compromise a little. What I've seen implies that the language will have elements from each edition bent to new needs. There's likely going to be things that make us all sigh.

 

[Mattachine]

Waitaminute: You find the 4e terminology unusual or foreign, but you would like 5e to come up with yet more terms?

Gah!

 

[Ahnehnois]

I want to be able to explain the rules to people who don't play D&D. Stripping away jargon is a good thing.

Moreover, I want the actual things the rules are describing to make sense to people who don't play D&D.

 

[tlantl]

Well as I see it D&D has always had it's own lingo as they say. Each new addition to the rules needs to have it's own terminology, but it should sound and feel like the terms we already used to talk about things.

Changing up every aspect of the game for any reason is going to remove the comfort and mood that the game once had. The wholesale changing of the way the game works and feels is a good way to alienate players coming from an older system, especially if they have been using those terms and descriptions for decades. ( all you young pups out there will understand this in the fullness of time.)

I expect that there are going to be things we all will need to get used to with D&DN. I'm sure there will be a lot of jargon that is brought back from older systems, as well as newer terms that will be introduced.

The developers have already stated that they are looking to move away from 4e jargon in favor of less gamey sounding terms in an attempt to win back those who have issues with 4e.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Stripping away jargon is a good thing.

Not when 'jargon' is one or two words that mean the same thing every time they are used... rather than trying to describe what it is you're talking about each and every time.

"Healing surge" means 1/4 your hit points plus any modifiers you may have acquired to this number. Simple, easy to remember, and universal. For my money it's a whole hell of a lot better for an ability to say "Target may spend a healing surge" than it is for it to say "Target may regain 1/4 of its hit points plus any bonuses to this number they may have acquired". That's a waste of time, and space in the book. And its not like 4E was the start of "jargon"... its been there since the beginning. "Hit points" is jargon. "Armor Class" is jargon. "Saving throw" is jargon.

Now if you want to argue whether something like "healing surge" is good jargon... that's a different issue altogether and I'm certainly okay with deciding on something else that might be more appropriate. I'm not tied to any particular jargon per se. But I certainly would not want to eliminate one or two word identifiers for game mechanics when the names completely suffice.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not when 'jargon' is one or two words that mean the same thing every time they are used... rather than trying to describe what it is you're talking about each and every time.

Consistency and comprehensibility aren't the same thing.

And its not like 4E was the start of "jargon"... its been there since the beginning. "Hit points" is jargon. "Armor Class" is jargon. "Saving throw" is jargon.

True, though I don't recall saying anything edition-specific about it. THAC0 was a ridiculous piece of terminology that was replaced by attack bonus. Both terms require explanation, but the second requires less while conveying what it needs to, and is thus better. Hit points and saving throws and levels are jargon, but they're widely enough known that they work.

I'm not saying there can't be any jargon, but that it should be minimized and made easy to understand (i.e. the opposite of the things the OP mentioned). Some basic concepts obviously do require brief identifiers.

 

[Ainamacar]

All jargon starts visible, and by familiarity becomes invisible. Good jargon usually aids that process by being terse (relative to the idea it represents) and feeling natural.

(The exception for this measure of "good" is jargon designed, at least in part, to build up a group identity by being indecipherable to the uninitiated. RPGs tend to do enough of this without trying.)

What counts as natural depends on context. For an RPG that usually means natural either "as game" or "as world(/narrative/genre) immersion." Those two contexts can be in conflict, and I think the best RPG jargon usually aspires to both.

The most successful jargon in RPGs can often be recognized because it inconspicuously produces advanced jargon, or is the jargon everyone uses to explain other jargon by analogy.
"Hit" : This is actually jargon, because it represents both an "in-world" result of an attack as well as a gamist relation to rolling dice.
"Damage" : The same thing, it relates the game to the narrative and works in both.
"Hit point" : Compound jargon that relates hit, damage, and the explicitly gamist "point."

Much of the "hit point" wars rely on the tension between the gamist notion and the (various) world immersion notions. But despite that ambiguity, if someone ever says that some mechanic for X is "like hit points for X" we immediately know how to approach it.

Healing surge could be perfectly fine jargon, but the perceived mismatch between its gamist workings and its world/narrative counterpart poisons the well. If it existed in a game where characters carry around nanomachines in the bloodstream, and these could be sacrificed to repair injury, reduce fatigue, increase alertness, etc. we would probably not find the term so divisive. (One could still hate the mechanic, of course.)

5e shouldn't deliberately eschew new jargon, it should embrace the tension between game and world/narrative/genre with renewed vigor. Perhaps the designers can even spend a vigorous surge on this task -- there must be at least one bard in the WotC office.

 

[Tallifer]

One thing I'm noticing about this thread, repeatedly, is just how often when the dedicated 4e players are talking about its rules, I feel like we're not even referring to the same game. All of the discussions about A/E/D/U, the endless references to "powers," both by the power's name (Eagle's Clawing Bow Twin-Chain Greasy Strike) and their effects (2W + your enemy has to dance the Macarena until save), "NADs" (non-armor defenses), weapon implement rules, healing surges.....

The similarities are still there; it's not like attack bonus, AC, and hit points are going anywhere, but it is enough to sometimes make discussion about the 4e system . . . foreign to me, somehow.

It may sound trivial on the surface (maybe it is), but I actually hope the 5N/e designers can find ways to make the terminologies used in the system consistent and inclusive, while leaving room for innovation.

Again, kind of a random thought . . . just throwing it out there.

It is hard to respond seriously to someone who uses invented mocking terms like Twin Chain Greasy Strike and +2 when Macarena.

However I will say that I sincerely hope that the language of the Fifth Edition will be as clear and straightforward as that of the Fourth.

Move action, shift, minor action, standard action: these rules of action and movement are MUCH clearer than what my Pathfinder group is encountering. For example a five-foot step is not a movement, but you cannot take any movement in the same turn. Some Pathfinder spell descriptions are half a page.

 

[Tallifer]

Waitaminute: You find the 4e terminology unusual or foreign, but you would like 5e to come up with yet more terms?

Gah!

Just like people who dislike the variety of languages in the world, so they want everyone to start learning a new language like Esperanto.