D&D General Jargon Revisited: Why Jargon is Often Bad for Discussing RPGs

[Umbran]

The agenda is player agency!

I don't find this constructive, especially to this discussion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Depends on the field. It can take years to settle on certain kinds of big-ticket jargon (terrorism, identity, fascism, socialism, etc) because nobody exactly agrees on how to define them.

And there are often strong incentives to not agree with some definitions of same.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That doesn’t remove the problem, only shift it slightly. Look at all the confusion surrounding 5E’s use of “natural language.” That’s plain English and yet people still have trouble parsing it.

It also doesn't help that "plain English" definitions are often, to be blunt, really cumbersome to be constantly repeating, so at some point if talking about the same topic some kind of shorthand is going to drop out anyway. That's usually how jargon starts in the first place.

 

[jasper]

For the love of gawds people. Please explain your jargon the first time you use it. Adventure League (AL)
Gds (Global Distrubtion system)

 

[Umbran]

That doesn’t remove the problem, only shift it slightly. Look at all the confusion surrounding 5E’s use of “natural language.” That’s plain English and yet people still have trouble parsing it.

Yes, well, using jargon doesn't help that.

If you can make it understood in plain language, then jargon is a useful shorthand.
If you can't make the ideas understood in plain language, then jargon is the rug under which you sweep that fact.

 

[Umbran]

The industry isn't a united body, let alone the fan base. Consensus isn't going to happen IMO.

It isn't like the sciences, the legal profession, or any other profession that develops technical jargon is united, either. They settle on language because it is useful, and only over long timespans.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’d suggest the problem with most RPG theory and jargony definitions is that they aren’t actually tested. There’s no, I’d expect X, Y and Z based on these scenarios and when testing them I get X, Y and Z.

Instead it’s more here’s my jargony definition - it defines what happens in these scenarios as X, Y, Z therefore no matter any prior expectations that’s just the way it is.

That first step is where consensus is formed and it’s mostly just bypassed.

 

[Aldarc]

Except it's not a broadly known term. Many people (including myself) also don't see it as particularly useful, especially when you could describe it easily in different ways that would make sense to everyone. Without your definition, I would assume player agency meant the agency of people playing the game, not just a different expression of agency.

Except this is how I am using it. I am not talking about a "different expression of agency." I'm talking about all the ways that a player can exert agency through playing a game. In TTRPGs and video games that can include the character's thinking in the fiction, but it's also not exclusive to that, because we need to account for all the agency that a player has when playing a game: e.g., the player invoking Aspects in Fate.

And it is likewise a broadly known term IME. It's used this way in video games, which is an exceedingly larger hobby in terms of people, to describe the agency of players playing the game. I have also heard it used this way numerous times in TTRPG YouTube videos, including those for 5e D&D, OSR, old school games, narrative games, "Trindie games," etc. Describing player agency in terms of the agency of the actual players makes far more sense to many people IME because it frames agency in terms of the simplest and clearest frame of reference: i.e., them and what they can do!

From what I can tell, I think that the term is far more broadly known and used in this way than you are giving it credit for.

Especially when you can just say what you mean in plain english.

You mean like "player agency"? Because that is precisely what I mean in plain English: i.e., the agency of the game's player.

The problem is, I suspect, that there's an implied value judgment in that term that people react negatively to if it looks like someone can claim the games they're running/playing are lacking in it to one degree or another. In theory it can be a neutral term--as I've noted, some people are perfectly happy to just look for their chalk lines--but that's not how its usually perceived.

I agree, but it's not like I can control whether people feel slighted by the idea of heliocentrism just because they may perceive an insult or judgment to their geocentric models. My own preference has been to move jargon or terms to more "neutral" ground and make them more consistent across broader contexts (e.g., video games, board games, etc.) so they are more accessible to a greater amount of people and with greater clarity: e.g., player agency, metagaming, etc.

I have to agree. Take the Forge for example. It introduced or popularized loads of jargon, and its followers often use said jargon and quotes from Ron Edwards and others in conversations with gamers of all stripes. But not only is not everyone familiar with the Forge, not everyone who is familiar likes it or its bias, so I'm not convinced calling it out is an unequivocal good.

Does that mean that you will stop calling yourself a "simulationist" and tell others that you hate "narrative" games or will you still continue to use that jargon for those purposes? Asking for a friend.

 

[Oofta]

Except this is how I am using it. I am not talking about a "different expression of agency." I'm talking about all the ways that a player can exert agency through playing a game. In TTRPGs and video games that can include the character's thinking in the fiction, but it's also not exclusive to that, because we need to account for all the agency that a player has when playing a game: e.g., the player invoking Aspects in Fate.

And it is likewise a broadly known term IME. It's used this way in video games, which is an exceedingly larger hobby in terms of people, to describe the agency of players playing the game. I have also heard it used this way numerous times in TTRPG YouTube videos, including those for 5e D&D, OSR, old school games, narrative games, "Trindie games," etc. Describing player agency in terms of the agency of the actual players makes far more sense to many people IME because it frames agency in terms of the simplest and clearest frame of reference: i.e., them and what they can do!

From what I can tell, I think that the term is far more broadly known and used in this way than you are giving it credit for.


You mean like "player agency"? Because that is precisely what I mean in plain English: i.e., the agency of the game's player.


I agree, but it's not like I can control whether people feel slighted by the idea of heliocentrism just because they may perceive an insult or judgment to their geocentric models. My own preference has been to move jargon or terms to more "neutral" ground and make them more consistent across broader contexts (e.g., video games, board games, etc.) so they are more accessible to a greater amount of people and with greater clarity: e.g., player agency, metagaming, etc.


Does that mean that you will stop calling yourself a "simulationist" and tell others that you hate "narrative" games or will you still continue to use that jargon for those purposes? Asking for a friend.

I doubt anyone I actually game with would know what you meant by player agency. But sure ... it's widely accepted, well known, not at all controversial except for dozens of pages trying to explain to you why it's not. Just declare that it's clear and it is!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I doubt anyone I actually game with would know what you meant by player agency. But sure ... it's widely accepted, well known, not at all controversial except for dozens of pages trying to explain to you why it's not. Just declare that it's clear and it is!

Yep. If there is anything we can ascertain from the (checks ...) 3,276 comments and counting thread ... everyone completely agrees on exactly what Player Agency is, and no one ever uses it to elevate one style of play or game over another.

We simply have to announce that it isn't controversial and ignore the evidence that we currently see!