Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[Undrave]

When it comes to game design concept I'm a big fan of the '8 aesthetics of fun' taxonomy presented in this paper
https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf (Though I support the AngryGM's suggestion of swapping 'Submission' by 'Abnegation')

Later expansion have added 'competition' as a 9th.

I think it's a good way to view game design and what can bring people to certain games. It's important to note that they do not have to be absolutes, that people are on a complex spectrum regarding all eight of those, and that their taste can change a lot depending on circumstances and what other aesthetics are in play.

 

[soviet]

Fundamentally there are a couple of core issues that I think feed into this :

• When it comes to other sorts of games players tend to value variety. Different sorts of play experiences. How many people do you know who have only played one sort of video game or one sort of board game?
• There's a sort of idea that acknowledging value of one game or structure of play diminishes or takes away from another.
• Like in MMOs there's this sense that other games or styles of play take away from the player pool for the game you are interested in. See comments on splitting the fanbase.
• One structure of play represents a direct and visceral rejection of another in the RPG space. Sorcerer took a look at Vampire and said definitely not that. It's always going to be contentious because the principles of play are inversions of each other.

This is an interesting point. I think there was definitely a clash of assumptions where GNS-sympathetic people tended to see different games as a smorgasbord of options to be cycled through - this time let's try something chocolate flavoured, so of course it should be very very chocolatey indeed - whereas the mainstream culture was much more about picking one game and sticking with it for ages - what do you mean there's no strawberry in this at all? I like all the flavours!

 

[Aldarc]

A couple theories I have. The first one is that video games enjoy a much much larger user base. With that comes a wide variety of games that go from causal all the way up to hardcore. There is plenty of room for causals and hardcore players to chat about their hobby. The second is that there is no D&D (800# gorilla) equivalent in the video game hobby. Due to D&D's crushing orbit it dominates all discussion fairly or not. TTRPGs attract intellectually and technical minded folks who enjoy comprehensive discussions and arguments. However, due to there can be only one king of TTRPGs, there is often a winner takes all stakes to how the games are described, theorized, and general attitudes towards those of its community. Its a rare combination of low community population, but highly demanding conceptualized theory.

Just my theory.

Thanks for expanding your point. This rings close to my own speculative guesses.

So, you realize this puts jargon as gatekeeping? If you don't know it, you aren't part of the in-group...
Edit to add: Others have already made this observation, apologies for the duplication

You make the development and learning of jargon within communities sound far more malicious and nefarious than it often is.

There is a lot of jargon, for example, that exists for knitting, including styles of weaves, knots, stitching patterns, materials, etc. The fact that I may have to learn this jargon if I participated in this hobby or community doesn't inherently mean that it's a form of gatekeeping. That seems like a bit of a stretch. If someone in a knitting circle belittled me for not knowing the jargon, however, that would be gatekeeping. Me having to apply a modicum of effort to learn a knitting term so I am not ignorant of it when I keep encountering it doesn't really strike me as gatekeeping.

Likewise, my partner is trans. There is jargon used in trans communities that they use that I don't necessarily know or readily recognize, and the jargon tends to diverge between FTM and MTF sub-communities. I don't think that this jargon exists to gatekeep. I think that it would be unfair to construe the idea that I may have to go out of my way to educate myself on this jargon or ask my partner about a term's meaning as the trans community trying to gatekeep.

Jargon can certainly be used as a tool to gatekeep, but that doesn't mean that jargon either develops in communities for the purpose of gatekeeping or that learning community-specific jargon is inherently a gatekeeping practice. I do think that there is a difference between me not knowing a particular piece of jargon a community uses and learning about it as part of participating in the community's discourse and the community using my ignorance of that jargon as a means of excluding me. I certainly grant you that there can be murky areas with this, but I don't think that adopting an approach that sees any learning jargon as gatekeeping. It casts too wide of a net.

 

[Campbell]

I also think the actual jargon used to describe games like Sorcerer was not well chosen. Using narrative and story in the descriptors for a sort of play that is fundamentally a rejection of storytelling (whether GM led or collaborative) was a pretty massive blunder.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree that jargon can represent a barrier to entry. However, what sometimes this point sidesteps how much of a barrier jargon actually represents. A lot of jargon is gradually absorbed through participation in a subculture or field over time. But there are often resources out there, especially in this day and age, where people can use their Google-Fu to find out what the jargon means. It's not like you need a law degree to look up and understand what a "hexcrawl game" is.

The problem here is that learning jargon through this cultural osmosis is extremely unreliable. People will often attempt to decipher jargon based on context and come to an incorrect conclusion, then go on using it under that assumed meaning, which makes it more likely that others will pick up on the way they are using it and perpetuate it. Look at the recent(ish) “supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean” thread. None of us could agree on a definition of a word we all use as if we know what it means. I’ve been talking about and hearing people talk about gamism, simulationism, and narrativism for 10 years, and I’m still not confident I understand what the terms mean, because it seems like no two people use them quite the same way.

 

[payn]

I also think the actual jargon used to describe games like Sorcerer was not well chosen. Using narrative and story in the descriptors for a sort of play that is fundamentally a rejection of storytelling (whether GM led or collaborative) was a pretty massive blunder.

I gotta admit, I was very confused by it myself.

 

[niklinna]

The problem here is that learning jargon through this cultural osmosis is extremely unreliable. People will often attempt to decipher jargon based on context and come to an incorrect conclusion, then go on using it under that assumed meaning, which makes it more likely that others will pick up on the way they are using it and perpetuate it. Look at the recent(ish “supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean” thread. None of us could agree on a definition of a word we all use as if we know what it means. I’ve been talking about and hearing people talk about gamism, simulationism, and narrativism for 10 years, and I’m still not confident I understand what the terms mean, because it seems like no two people use them quite the same way.

This is a big problem with living in our modern, Internet-connected, fast-paced times. Communities used to develop over generations in fixed locales, and people had time for the cultural osmosis. Now anybody can just teleport into a whole new community from moment to moment! And while the Threefold Model and Forge/GNS theory have their canonical documents still on the web, the Internet is frighteningly ephemeral (just this morning I had to hit archive.org to find a blog post someone cited but couldn't find), and there's no guarantee anybody will know to go looking for the canonical documents I just linked (or where to start once they find the collections).

With all this churn, it behooves us all to be clear about the model or framework we're using, and provide direct links to primary sources if at all possible. @Snarf Zagyg has another list of links on the other thread, that folks might find useful or informative.

 

[payn]

The problem here is that learning jargon through this cultural osmosis is extremely unreliable. People will often attempt to decipher jargon based on context and come to an incorrect conclusion, then go on using it under that assumed meaning, which makes it more likely that others will pick up on the way they are using it and perpetuate it. Look at the recent(ish “supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean” thread. None of us could agree on a definition of a word we all use as if we know what it means. I’ve been talking about and hearing people talk about gamism, simulationism, and narrativism for 10 years, and I’m still not confident I understand what the terms mean, because it seems like no two people use them quite the same way.

I find the terms to be as accurate as I need them to be. The jargon allows a shorthand for a discussion with other hobbyists. The jargon isn't scientific and wont be found in any graduate course. Most of the time I know what people are going for. If not, I just ask them but most of the time its a shortcut to getting into a discussion without having to explain yourself every single time.

In terms of the categorization of people I think you make a lot of good points. My father was a salesman and used a method that grouped people into different personality types. I grew up with this just part of our breakfast and dinner table discussion so it became natural for me to, the moment I met someone, identify their primary and secondary personality trait in the model he used. Such models can be broadly useful. If you are trying to get sales and you meet 100 people, if the model is even vaguely helpful in pushing up your sales numbers, it has utility. The problem is it is just a model, and it is being used for a particular purpose, and people don't often fall neatly into models. The model can become your way of looking at the world and you can miss a lot of who people really are if you are relying on a model to understand them.

This. I find jargon very useful as a model. Models are not perfect, they are generalizations, though often in these hobby discussions horseshoes and hand grenades are good enough. If it is important, or I'm confused, I'll ask for clarification. Which is why im always confused by the folks who think there is no value in jargon because it isn't laser precise. Have they met language? When I consider using jargon or not will depend on the audience. YMMV.

 

[Charlaquin]

When it comes to game design concept I'm a big fan of the '8 aesthetics of fun' taxonomy presented in this paper
https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf (Though I support the AngryGM's suggestion of swapping 'Submission' by 'Abnegation')

Later expansion have added 'competition' as a 9th.

I think it's a good way to view game design and what can bring people to certain games. It's important to note that they do not have to be absolutes, that people are on a complex spectrum regarding all eight of those, and that their taste can change a lot depending on circumstances and what other aesthetics are in play.

The nice thing about this model is that it isn’t a typography. The eight forms of engagement aren’t exclusive categories to sort games or players into. They’re things people tend to find fun, which games can appeal to, or not appeal to, in any combination.

 

[Campbell]

One thing I will say is that I believe we should treat this consistently. If we are going to call for less use of jargon that must apply just as much to things like "the story", adventure hook, world building, sandbox, "living breathing world" as it does to the jargon used to describe other sorts of play. If our lingua franca is built around exploratory play and storytelling than it becomes extremely difficult to discuss play that does not value them highly.