• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Without wider context I struggle to see any significance to someone inventing a term as shorthand for the concept of backstory the GM incorporates in the ongoing fiction.
You can't see why it would be valuable to come up with a single-word term that means "a specific kind of player-authored backstory the GM incorporates into the ongoing fiction"? (I am not going to try to paraphrase the details of the "specific kind" since I'm not sure I could do the concept justice.)

It's a single, pithy word, one that is also onomatopoetic and figuratively apropos - quite unlike "inciting incident", which at six syllables and two words is, frankly, less than ideal even before you take into account the fact that it's insufficiently precise (since a kicker is a specific kind of inciting incident.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I think that there's a certain point in any community that certain jargon becomes commonly enough used and accepted that using it within that community becomes normalized. Jargon used in small subcommunities of the larger community will inevitably lack that privilege as their jargon is not currently commonly used and accepted. Such is the nature of communication.

One can imagine a bunch of doctors gathering for a convention. A small subgroup of those Dr's start using a bunch of software development jargon as they also have degrees in Computer Science. The rest of the Dr's tell them to stop with their jargon and they counter with, "but you use medical jargon". The answer is simply, well yes we are all Dr's not Computer Scientists. The same here - we are all here (it's the internet so expect some exception) because we are RPG players and DM's, we as a group aren't RPG theorists or students of RPG theory even though there's a few subgroups of theorirists/students of theory here.
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
Gonna quote this as an example of words that have no meaning to the layman. None of this means anything to me, your audience.
My primary audience was actually @Malmuria, who liked the post which I take to mean they understood it. (Given our mutual posting histories, I don't think it means they agreed with everything I said, but rather that they thought that what I said was a reasonable reply to their earlier post.)

To do as I've been asked....can you please define for me

Purist-for-system
Process/Simulationist Play (Not even sure is this is one or two separate things)
"Process simulation" is a phrase that I picked up on these boards, mostly in the context of people explaining why they didn't like 4e D&D (which does not use process simulation at any point). Ron Edwards, about 10 year earlier, coined the phrase purist-for-system simulation to refer to the same thing (4e D&D is about as far as you can get from purist-for-system simulation while still playing a mainstream RPG).

To explain the phenomenon the two terms refer to, we first need to get something out of the way: all RPG resolution systems have the job of telling us what happens next, in the shared fiction. But they do it in different ways.

The distinctive feature of purist-for-system (= process simulationist) RPGing is that the way the resolution systems tell you what happens next is by modelling the imagined in-fiction causation. They might do this at a fairly fine-grained level (RuneQuest and Rolemaster combat, or 3E D&D grappling, are all good examples) or at a fairly "bird's eye" level (the Pendragon rules for resolving the Winter Phase, or the B/X and AD&D rules for evasion in the wilderness, are examples of this - the former abstracts months, the latter hours, into a small number of dice rolls).

Here's an example of resolution that does not exemplify a purist-for-system approach; it's a play example of a skill challenge, taken from the 4e Rules Compendium, pp 162-3:

This example shows a DM running a skill challenge for five adventurers: Valenae (an eladrin cleric), Dendric (a human fighter), Uldane (a halfling rogue), Kathra (a dwarf wizard), and Shara (a human fighter). After a battle with a demonic creature that attempted to slay their friend, the priest Pendergraf, the adventurers must determine where the monster came from to prevent another attack.

This 1st-level challenge has a complexity of 1 and requires four successes against DC 12, the moderate DC for 1st level. The goal of the challenge is to find the spot where the adventurers’ enemy, a wizard named Garan, summoned the demon. Garan has hired some thugs to beat up anyone they spot snooping around. If the adventurers fail the challenge, the thugs find them and attack.


DM: You’re left with the last misty remnants of the strange creature’s corpse and a handful of frightened witnesses. “What was that thing?” Pendergraf asks. “And where did it come from?”

Kathra: Can I make an Arcana check to see if I know anything about it?

DM: Sure.

Kathra: I got a 14.

DM (marking down a success for the characters): Okay, you know that the creature was some sort of demon, not native to the world.

<The next check is a failed Perception check to find some tracks. The GM narrates that as the PCs taking some time to find the right set of tracks, and then follows with . . .>

DM: . . . Three thuggish-looking men sit on a bench by the front door. They glare at you as you approach. . . .

Kathra: I’d like to talk to the men to see if any of them saw the demon come by here. How about a Diplomacy check - an 11.

DM (marking the second failure): The thugs make a show of ignoring you as you approach. Then one of them snarls: “Around here, folks know better than to stick their noses where they’re not wanted.” He puts a hand on the hilt of his dagger.

Shara: I put a hand on my greatsword and growl back at them, “I’ll stick my sword where it’s not wanted if you keep up that attitude.” I got a 21 on my Intimidate check.

DM (marking the second success): The thug turns pale in fear as his friends bolt back into the tavern. He points at the building behind you before darting after them.

Dendric: What’s the place look like? Is it a shop, or a private residence?

DM: Someone make a Streetwise check.

Uldane: Using aid another, I try to assist Dendric, since he has the highest Streetwise. I got a 12, so Dendric gets a +2 bonus.

Dendric: Thanks, Uldane. Here’s my check . . . great, a natural 1. That’s a 10, even with Uldane’s assistance.

DM (marking the third and final failure): It looks like an old shop that’s been closed and boarded up. You heard something about this place before, but you can’t quite remember it. As you look the place over, the tavern door opens up behind you. A hulk of a half-orc lumbers out, followed by the thugs you talked to earlier. “I heard you thought you could push my crew around. Well, let’s see you talk tough through a set of broken teeth.” Roll for initiative!​

There are at least four ways in which this example of play shows resolution - ie working out what happens next - that is not process-simulationist.

First, the skill challenge framing in itself: the GM is obliged to wrap up the search, be it with a win or a loss, after 4 successes or 3 failures. So resolution is being guided by concerns around pacing and finality of resolution, rather than by concerns of in-fiction causation.

Second, the DCs are being set by reference to a fiction-independent formula ("four 1st level moderate difficulty checks") and not by attending to particular details of the fiction and trying to model their difficulty.

Third, the reason the PCs encounter the thugs has nothing to do with their struggle with the tracks. It's a deliberate framing decision made by the GM to maintain pacing, maintain the pressure and help bring the skill challenge towards its culmination.

Fourth, the GM, in response to the failed Streetwise check, narrates that the Half-Orc comes out with their thug. But that isn't caused by the fact that the PCs didn't remember anything about the building. The consequences of resolution are not being generated by having regard to in-fiction causal processes, but rather by reference to the demands generated by the skill challenge framework.

Imagine how a scene a bit like this one might be handled differently - eg when the thugs go back into the tavern, the GM makes a morale or a reaction roll for their Half-Orc boss, and uses the results of that roll to decide whether or not the Half-Orc comes out with the thugs: so the Half-Orc might come out even if the PCs do succeed on their Streetwise check, or might not come out even if the PCs fail it. That would be an example of using a process-simulationist approach.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Jargon also supports analysis. You can't do serious analysis without using technical terms that encode already-established premises, frameworks, results, etc.

Fair. But then, "serious analysis" isn't an activity for scores of people at once in asynchronous, weakly-threaded discussion format, either.

This would implicate jargon like "linear", "sandbox", "railroad", "murder-hoboism", "munchkin", etc, wouldn't it?

Considering how frequently folks wind up arguing over what those terms mean... they probably should be implicated, tried, and convicted.
 

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
You can't see why it would be valuable to come up with a single-word term that means "a specific kind of player-authored backstory the GM incorporates into the ongoing fiction"?

This has already been talked about.

1. I'm in the audience of this thread. I am included in the target audience of any general statement made here.

2. I have never heard the word kicker as defined in this thread until today. To me kicker is something added to sweeten a deal.

3. The definition of kicker is very subtle, nuanced, and difficult to convey.

4. By using the word kicker earlier in the thread we now have added 1000+ words to this thread just trying to nail down a definition.

5. The word kicker has done nothing to save time in THIS PARTICULAR conversation, thus it's an excellent example of "jargon" best used in an audience already on the same page.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Kickers and bangs come from Sorcerer, one of the most influential indie games.
Influential to some, maybe. I had never to my knowledge even heard of this game until reading the post I'm quoting, which means...
They form the basis of its play structures.

Kickers are a precipitating event, like a player designed hook for their character that propels them to do stuff. Resolving a kicker should change how we view the character. When a kicker is resolved a player either creates a new character or comes up with a new kicker.

Bangs are events that force players to make a dramatic decision for their character. They are moments of crisis where players have to choose who their characters really are as people through the choices they make.
... it's hardly surprising to me that the terms it uses were highly unfamiliar. Thanks for the definitions. :)
In Sorcerer players are responsible for trying to resolve their kickers. GMs are responsible for creating bangs that make that difficult.

Of course we should explain terminology that people are unfamiliar with and respond to clarifying questions, but the idea that we should have to explain it through the prism of a structure of play that presumes a fundamentally different play structure is baffling. It actively causes confusion when in the middle of explaining things we have to contend with all sorts of assumptions about play structure. Explaining this stuff to my next door neighbor would be way easier.
Without knowing the specific play structure of any given game it seems safe enough to assume the root play cycle/structure for any RPG as being:

a) you-as-player somehow tell the table what your character is trying to do in the moment,
b) that attempt is resolved somehow, be it by mechanics or roleplay or declaration or agreement or whatever,
c) return to a).

It seems kickers and bangs are at a more macro level than this.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
One can imagine a bunch of doctors gathering for a convention. A small subgroup of those Dr's start using a bunch of software development jargon as they also have degrees in Computer Science. The rest of the Dr's tell them to stop with their jargon and they counter with, "but you use medical jargon". The answer is simply, well yes we are all Dr's not Computer Scientists. The same here - we are all here (it's the internet so expect some exception) because we are RPG players and DM's, we as a group aren't RPG theorists or students of RPG theory even though there's a few subgroups of theorirists/students of theory here.

And, if the CompSciDocs had a discussion off in the hotel bar, or had a separate session that was specifically labelled as being about medical informatics and portable electronic medical records, in which the computer science would be particularly relevant, there'd be no call to tell them to stop. If, instead, they kept bringing up computer science in the general sessions of the convention, that'd be an issue.

The point is to choose the language for the audience, not let the language use choose the audience.
 

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
My primary audience was actually @Malmuria, who liked the post which I take to mean they understood it. (Given our mutual posting histories, I don't think it means they agreed with everything I said, but rather that they thought that what I said was a reasonable reply to their earlier post.)


"Process simulation" is a phrase that I picked up on these boards, mostly in the context of people explaining why they didn't like 4e D&D (which does not use process simulation at any point). Ron Edwards, about 10 year earlier, coined the phrase purist-for-system simulation to refer to the same thing (4e D&D is about as far as you can get from purist-for-system simulation while still playing a mainstream RPG).

To explain the phenomenon the two terms refer to, we first need to get something out of the way: all RPG resolution systems have the job of telling us what happens next, in the shared fiction. But they do it in different ways.

The distinctive feature of purist-for-system (= process simulationist) RPGing is that the way the resolution systems tell you what happens next is by modelling the imagined in-fiction causation. They might do this at a fairly fine-grained level (RuneQuest and Rolemaster combat, or 3E D&D grappling, are all good examples) or at a fairly "bird's eye" level (the Pendragon rules for resolving the Winter Phase, or the B/X and AD&D rules for evasion in the wilderness, are examples of this - the former abstracts months, the latter hours, into a small number of dice rolls).

Here's an example of resolution that does not exemplify a purist-for-system approach; it's a play example of a skill challenge, taken from the 4e Rules Compendium, pp 162-3:

This example shows a DM running a skill challenge for five adventurers: Valenae (an eladrin cleric), Dendric (a human fighter), Uldane (a halfling rogue), Kathra (a dwarf wizard), and Shara (a human fighter). After a battle with a demonic creature that attempted to slay their friend, the priest Pendergraf, the adventurers must determine where the monster came from to prevent another attack.
This 1st-level challenge has a complexity of 1 and requires four successes against DC 12, the moderate DC for 1st level. The goal of the challenge is to find the spot where the adventurers’ enemy, a wizard named Garan, summoned the demon. Garan has hired some thugs to beat up anyone they spot snooping around. If the adventurers fail the challenge, the thugs find them and attack.
DM: You’re left with the last misty remnants of the strange creature’s corpse and a handful of frightened witnesses. “What was that thing?” Pendergraf asks. “And where did it come from?”​
Kathra: Can I make an Arcana check to see if I know anything about it?​
DM: Sure.​
Kathra: I got a 14.​
DM (marking down a success for the characters): Okay, you know that the creature was some sort of demon, not native to the world.​
<The next check is a failed Perception check to find some tracks. The GM narrates that as the PCs taking some time to find the right set of tracks, and then follows with . . .>​
DM: . . . Three thuggish-looking men sit on a bench by the front door. They glare at you as you approach. . . .​
Kathra: I’d like to talk to the men to see if any of them saw the demon come by here. How about a Diplomacy check - an 11.​
DM (marking the second failure): The thugs make a show of ignoring you as you approach. Then one of them snarls: “Around here, folks know better than to stick their noses where they’re not wanted.” He puts a hand on the hilt of his dagger.​
Shara: I put a hand on my greatsword and growl back at them, “I’ll stick my sword where it’s not wanted if you keep up that attitude.” I got a 21 on my Intimidate check.​
DM (marking the second success): The thug turns pale in fear as his friends bolt back into the tavern. He points at the building behind you before darting after them.​
Dendric: What’s the place look like? Is it a shop, or a private residence?​
DM: Someone make a Streetwise check.​
Uldane: Using aid another, I try to assist Dendric, since he has the highest Streetwise. I got a 12, so Dendric gets a +2 bonus.​
Dendric: Thanks, Uldane. Here’s my check . . . great, a natural 1. That’s a 10, even with Uldane’s assistance.​
DM (marking the third and final failure): It looks like an old shop that’s been closed and boarded up. You heard something about this place before, but you can’t quite remember it. As you look the place over, the tavern door opens up behind you. A hulk of a half-orc lumbers out, followed by the thugs you talked to earlier. “I heard you thought you could push my crew around. Well, let’s see you talk tough through a set of broken teeth.” Roll for initiative!​

There are at least four ways in which this example of play shows resolution - ie working out what happens next - that is not process-simulationist.

First, the skill challenge framing in itself: the GM is obliged to wrap up the search, be it with a win or a loss, after 4 successes or 3 failures. So resolution is being guided by concerns around pacing and finality of resolution, rather than by concerns of in-fiction causation.

Second, the DCs are being set by reference to a fiction-independent formula ("four 1st level moderate difficulty checks") and not by attending to particular details of the fiction and trying to model their difficulty.

Third, the reason the PCs encounter the thugs has nothing to do with their struggle with the tracks. It's a deliberate framing decision made by the GM to maintain pacing, maintain the pressure and help bring the skill challenge towards its culmination.

Fourth, the GM, in response to the failed Streetwise check, narrates that the Half-Orc comes out with their thug. But that isn't caused by the fact that the PCs didn't remember anything about the building. The consequences of resolution are not being generated by having regard to in-fiction causal processes, but rather by reference to the demands generated by the skill challenge framework.

Imagine how a scene a bit like this one might be handled differently - eg when the thugs go back into the tavern, the GM makes a morale or a reaction roll for their Half-Orc boss, and uses the results of that roll to decide whether or not the Half-Orc comes out with the thugs: so the Half-Orc might come out even if the PCs do succeed on their Streetwise check, or might not come out even if the PCs fail it. That would be an example of using a process-simulationist approach.
I appreciate the very long example. I'm really not being arumentative about anything, just trying to understand.

If I had, at my table, a 4e game with a skill check that happened exactly as you described....but the only difference was I played around in the medium range of DCs (say the 10-14 range) then would that then be a hybrid of the two systems in action?
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
I think there's a difference between jargon that is built into the game rules and clearly explained and defined (armor class, hit points, hit dice, saving throw, etc.), and jargon brought from outside sources and used to discuss the game (The Forge, etc.).

Sure. One is useful for playing a specific game, and so it must be learned by anyone who wants to take part.

The other is useful for talking about how games work and how participants engage with them, and if one wants to take part in that.... well one can just ignore it all and complain that people are using words they don't understand!

Huge difference!

I think that there's a certain point in any community that certain jargon becomes commonly enough used and accepted that using it within that community becomes normalized. Jargon used in small subcommunities of the larger community will inevitably lack that privilege as their jargon is not currently commonly used and accepted. Such is the nature of communication.

Such is the nature of gatekeeping.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top