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

[niklinna]

So here's a post about how I used Kickers to set up my 4e Dark Sun campaign - Dark Sun, by default, is status quo rather than action and so I felt something more than just the setting was needed to make play go. I've never read or played Sorcerer, and so my implementation of the "kicker" technique was based purely on having read about it on The Forge and similar sources..

Two of three kickers are still unresolved, and eventually there will be two more PCs to integrate (one will be an eladrin artful dodger, who should fit in nicely into the eladrin contingent). But I felt that, for the opening of the campaign, it was suitably Dark Sun-ish: gladiators, slaves, templars, insurrection, and brutal death. The only thing missing was desert.

Thank you for the explanation and detailed example. But, I don't see how the three kickers could be (un)resolved. They seem to just be things that happened. For that matter, I'm not sure which of the three is now resolved—but I think it's the gladiator who was in the arena, 'cause the other guy is a slave who's basically escaped, and the bard has a mystery to figure out. Is that right?

 

[Charlaquin]

Regardless if you think someone's framing is the best framing possible if you fundamentally understand what they are trying to say engaging in pointless nitpicking rather than engaging with the actual meaning behind their words is just argument by exhaustion over actual discussion. I don't care what words people use if I conceptually understand them. I'm not sure why anyone else does. To me that's about as elitist as you can get.

I mean, yeah, if I conceptually understand what someone is talking about, I don’t care what words they use for it. The problem is, I don’t always conceptually understand what people are talking about when using jargon.

Also why is a thread that is relevant to discussion of all games tucked away in D&D General?

Well, because we’re talking about this in the context of D&D discussions.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I started climbing 2.75 years ago because (a) I have to shelf my basketball activities due to needing ankle reconstruction surgery so I'm hoping it will fill that niche I'm losing (its a huge thing for me losing something that has been so important to my life and well-being) and (b) hopes that it will help strengthen both of my shoulders so I can continue BJJ (which, along with a baseball career, ruined both of my rotator cuffs).

I went in knowing absolute_nothing_about climbing. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

There is a gigantically dizzying array of essential jargon for learning climbing, bettering your climbing, and engaging with the climbing community locally and at large.

In two months time of straddling general-to-aggressive exposure (to the climbing itself, to the learning process, and the community), I'd uploaded nearly all of it so now my until-recently-climbing-derp-brain can think and perceive and talk like a functional climber.

Two months time. Within that time I went from looking at a wall as a complete and utter novice to looking at the wall through the lens of someone equipped to critically conceive obstacle dynamics and map a route and use all of that newly-gained jargon as a weapon to shorthand/hack the process of understanding what I'm doing + employing my understanding +getting better at both. And the same goes for having functional conversations with climbers in the community. There was a ton of "I don't understand what that means" and "no clue what you just said" in the beginning...but eventually I got there.

I suffer horrific Insomnia (like Fight Club type "copy of a copy of a copy" insomnia).

I'm in the throes of dealing with CTE because of dozens of major concussions in my life (including 3 blackouts).

And there is other stuff that I won't go into.

I am a seriously_diminished_person cognitively from where I was even 5 years ago (and well more than 10 years ago).

Yet somehow, despite being extremely diminished + not a particularly smart person to begin with (I'm not even close to the outer tail of the intelligence distribution for humanity), I'm able to onboard complex jargon from a novice state within 2 months time and use that jargon/critical lens to serious advantage in both employing it physically and socially (which becomes a positive feedback loop between the two). I'm sorry, I cannot get onboard with this "war against jargon" I keep seeing. No. I will not get on board...because its not true that it is all gatekeeping (or even approaching it) by narcissistic Ivory Tower Cabals hell bent on "keeping the casual done" or elevating themselves. It can be very very useful toward skill-acquisition and x-hacks in whatever endeavor its oriented to.

Sometimes...maybe more than sometimes...it helps humble...rather broken people hack their way to some level of proficiency in a thing (with aspirations toward more than proficiency).

So, on your climbing equivalent of Enworld board, is there some sort of subgroup that takes a word like ascent (that 90% of the board assumes to mean going up) and repurpose it to mean something else?

Because thats what's being talked about by "jargon" inost of these cases...reusing a standard word like narrative and assigning lots of specific baggage to it to make it no longer synonymous with story.

 

[pemerton]

Anyone who is interested in what scene framing is, as a technique, can read this from Paul Czege:

although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. More often than not, the PC's have been geographically separate from each other in the game world. So I go around the room, taking a turn with each player, framing a scene and playing it out. I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out.​

So while it's true that 5e D&D play requires the GM to "set the scene", my impression is that a lot of 5e D&D play doesn't involve scene framing in Czege's more specific sense: of deliberately framing a scene that turns a firehose of adversity and situation onto the character(s) in it.

For instance, in the example of play given in the 5e Basic PDF, we get the following:

Dungeon Master (DM): After passing through the craggy peaks, the road takes a sudden turn to the east and Castle Ravenloft towers before you. Crumbling towers of stone keep a silent watch over the approach. They look like abandoned guardhouses. Beyond these, a wide chasm gapes, disappearing into the deep fog below. A lowered drawbridge spans the chasm, leading to an arched entrance to the castle courtyard. The chains of the drawbridge creak in the wind, their rust-eaten iron straining with the weight. From atop the high strong walls, stone gargoyles stare at you from hollow sockets and grin hideously. A rotting wooden portcullis, green with growth, hangs in the entry tunnel. Beyond this, the main doors of Castle Ravenloft stand open, a rich warm light spilling into the courtyard.​

​

Phillip (playing Gareth): I want to look at the gargoyles. I have a feeling they’re not just statues.​

​

Amy (playing Riva): The drawbridge looks precarious? I want to see how sturdy it is. Do I think we can cross it, or is it going to collapse under our weight?​

​

Dungeon Master (DM): OK, one at a time. Phillip, you’re looking at the gargoyles?​

​

Phillip: Yeah. Is there any hint they might be creatures and not decorations?​

​

DM: Make an Intelligence check.​

​

Phillip: Does my Investigation skill apply?​

​

DM: Sure!​

​

Phillip (rolling a d20): Ugh. Seven.​

​

DM: They look like decorations to you. And Amy, Riva is checking out the drawbridge?​

The GM in this example is setting the scene, but there is no adversity and the situation is not that intense - can we enter Castle Ravenloft despite its precarious drawbridge and intimidating statutes? The emphasis of play - as we see in the example - is on the players exploring the setting that the GM is presenting, by "poking and prodding" and thus triggering more narration from the GM. This fits with Czege's description of "objective outgrowth" and "extrapolation" from prior events and bits of the fiction that (initially) are known only to the GM. There is not the "intentionality" that Czege refers to, of deliberately framing the PCs into a tight spot and forcing them to make irrevocable choices.

A kicker combines Czege's sense of intentional, non-objective, adversity-laden scene-framing with player authorship of the scene.

 

[pemerton]

Thank you for the explanation and detailed example. But, I don't see how the three kickers could be (un)resolved. They seem to just be things that happened. For that matter, I'm not sure which of the three is now resolved—but I think it's the gladiator who was in the arena, 'cause the other guy is a slave who's basically escaped, and the bard has a mystery to figure out. Is that right?

Well, we don't know why 29's master was killed allowing him to escape. And we don't know who killed the bard's contact, or why. (That one came up in the next session- it was another PC, which led into a series of conflicts with the Templars related to their brainwashing of "hounds" - on my side of the authorship I was inspired by Rachel's backstory in late-80s/early-90s X-Men, if you know that at all.)

But we do know that the barbarian is not repudiating the adulation in violence that characterised the pre-revolution regime!

 

[Charlaquin]

No. A kicker is an event. As Edwards puts it here,

Sorcerer presented the Kicker Technique, which is to say, a player-authored Bang included in character creation, giving the GM responsibility to make it central to play. It may be considered the precise opposite of the "character hook" concept presented in many adventure scenarios and role-playing games.​

See above for my use of kickers in a 4e D&D game.

Edwards’ explanation doesn’t tell me anything about what a kicker is, except that it’s player-authored; maybe if I knew what a bang was it would be more meaningful?

Your explanation was much more helpful, but it still sounds to me pretty much like a character motivation. Just one the player chooses, which I kinda figured was a given with character motivations, but I guess the GM could choose that for a player… and that it’s resolved through play, which… Again, seems like a normal thing for character motivations to me?

Right. The real challenge in explaining what a "kicker" is isn't in the concept itself, but rather that it rests on the premise that the players can exercise authority over certain aspects of setting and situation (as seen in my Dark Sun example). Given that many RPGers reject that premise more-or-less unreflectively, they think that the explanation is gobbledygook - because it makes no sense relative to the unexamined premise - when in fact it's perfectly clear, provided that the premise of GM authority over setting and situation is set aside.

I don’t think this is such a novel concept any more. Maybe in 2005 the notion of players having authorship over parts of the setting and scenario was outlandish to D&D players, but I think it’s pretty well known now. Some D&D players still don’t like it, but I think most are pretty familiar with it by now. Heck, the 5e DMG presents options for such mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

Edwards’ explanation doesn’t tell me anything about what a kicker is, except that it’s player-authored; maybe if I knew what a bang was it would be more meaningful?

Your explanation was much more helpful, but it still sounds to me pretty much like a character motivation. Just one the player chooses, which I kinda figured was a given with character motivations, but I guess the GM could choose that for a player… and that it’s resolved through play, which… Again, seems like a normal thing for character motivations to me?

I would reiterate that a kicker is an event, that occurs in the imagined world. It is not just a thing in the character's head (which is what a motivation sounds like to me).

That's why Edwards says it is the opposite of a GM-authored hook. Instead of the GM presenting a hook that the player is expected to latch onto, the player presents an event - the event that propels the PC into the action (both literally, and in terms of emotional/motivational orientation) - which the GM is then obliged to latch onto.

 

[overgeeked]

A kicker has a specific meaning that is referred to in the text multiple times as I often want to do in discussions. It's more than an inciting incident. It's specifically an inciting incident with an attached dramatic need that compels the character to act. Like getting out of jail only to find your wife married to the man who framed you. Play specifically ends for a character when the kicker is resolved unless the player wants to write a new kicker.

That's the troble with using jargon and terms of art what we don't understand. What you're describing is an inciting incident. Without that "attached dramatic need that compels the character to act" it's not an inciting incident...it's just an incident. The inciting incident literally propels the character from their starting status quo all the way through to the end of the story. That's what it means. So Edwards used it wrong and now a bunch of other people are using it wrong, too.

Instead of asking clarifying questions...

Except for the questions, of course.

you assumed the worst of the game designer, the game, the term of art...

I made no assumptions about Edwards, or the game, or the term. I know what inciting incident means. So when you describe to me something that's literally the definition of inciting incident I can point to it and say, "that's an inciting incident". Knowing that I also know that Edwards used it wrong and thus misinformed however many people due to that. Research prose and screen- and play-writing. It's a lot more useful and informative than using Edwards as a touchstone.

and the poster who used it.

Didn't happen.

You treated the post I made and the post @Aldarc made as if you were a prosecutor cross examining a hostile witness.

The tone of your posts generally, not just in this thread, leads me to think you're far from neutral, so...

How is that not supposed to make us feel unwelcome in this community?

How is using obtuse jargon not supposed to make people feel unwelcome?

 

[Charlaquin]

I would reiterate that a kicker is an event, that occurs in the imagined world. It is not just a thing in the character's head (which is what a motivation sounds like to me).

That's why Edwards says it is the opposite of a GM-authored hook. Instead of the GM presenting a hook that the player is expected to latch onto, the player presents an event - the event that propels the PC into the action (both literally, and in terms of emotional/motivational orientation) - which the GM is then obliged to latch onto.

Maybe “inciting incident” would have better conveyed my meaning.

 

[overgeeked]

Maybe “inciting incident” would have better conveyed my meaning.

Since it's literally what inciting incident means, yes...much better to use the proper term for the thing than making up a new word that has to be repeatedly explained.

It's just so weird to me. If you're going to design a game that's supposed to be more about story, literally the first place you'd look is storytelling. But apparently not.