An everchanging gaming language?

[Wicht]

This started in the Warlord's thread, but rather than hijack that thread, I'm going to start a new one for this...

I feel kinda bummed that the vocabulary and concerns of 4e players and Pathfinder players have so diverged that we sometimes aren't actually speaking the same RPG language.

How do you think I feel as a BECMI player?!

Okay now my interest is piqued, what examples of vocabulary differences in relation to the game do you see between BECMI and, let's say, 3rd edition?

I've played through the editions excepting 4th and I could always understand or relate the ingredients of one, vocabulary wise, to my gaming roots. There was a commonality of design and theme, especially in the way abilities worked (Vancian Magic, hit points, etc.). While there have always been differences of classes between the editions (Cavalier in AD&D, Alchemist in Pathfinder, etc.) the vocabulary did not seem to me to change much. Admittedly as one going through the editions, I likely picked up things I did not realize I was picking up. The most egregious example though I can think of are feats. But when I listen or read the average 4e thread on game design, I am often lost in trying to follow. It seems to me that 4e added far more new concepts in terms of vocabulary than any other edition, with things like Dailies and Healing Surges.

So is this just me? How do others see it?

And [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION], as the one that piqued my interest, I would be especially interested in examples you could give.

 

[Dioltach]

I remember coming across THAC0, probably between the first few BECMI sets and AD&D, and not knowing what it meant. I think that a lot of terms are game- or edition-specific, for example feats, surges, or schticks to take an example from a non-D&D game, and knowing that you can look them up because they're likely explained somewhere. The problem arises when certain terms evolve organically and people just assume that everyone knows what they mean.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So is this just me? How do others see it?

It's not just you.

 

[Wicht]

I remember coming across THAC0, probably between the first few BECMI sets and AD&D, and not knowing what it meant.

I do remember, vaguely, Thaco making me do a double-take when I first heard/read it; and can see that as an example of vocabulary change, though its also an example of a term that was dropped when the rule was dropped.

 

[billd91]

But when I listen or read the average 4e thread on game design, I am often lost in trying to follow. It seems to me that 4e added far more new concepts in terms of vocabulary than any other edition, with things like Dailies and Healing Surges.

So is this just me? How do others see it?

I'm seeing it with a number of posters, but it has nothing to do with specific mechanical terms. Play enough games and you get used to the idea of each game naming things in ways that make sense to their players. Just read through the Advanced Squad Leader rules and you'll be bombarded with them (fortunately, many are defined in a glossary). What I'm seeing is a different way of approaching the game and game design that suggest to me very different ways of even approaching the hobby, much less any particular game.

In some cases, I see people taking a highly deconstructive and analytical approach that seems to have less to do with the practicalities of playing a role playing game and more with forming a philosophical system of playing a role playing game. In any event, I find that the energy spent to even get into the frame of mind to communicate with such posts tends to be cost prohibitive compared to what I get out of the conversation.

In other cases, I see people talking about RPGs and the elements of RPGs that they value in ways pretty much alien to my own views to such a degree that I honestly think we don't have much in common with our gaming at all. I get the impression that if I perceived something was black, they'd perceive it as white. And this is a pretty recent phenomenon for me. A bit of diversity in what we like, I understand, but there seems to be a lot more, I guess, opposition in viewpoints.

 

[Wicht]

I can see that Bill. After posting this, I noticed the term, "tier" and thought to myself that it was a good example of changing terms; but you are right that it also demonstrates a shift in perception and expectations of the game. I never think in terms of tiers; I think in terms of levels and story. Sometimes, I will differentiate between a high level game and a low-level game, but I never think of it as really being two different "tiers," just a shift in the options available to the players and their characters.

 

[TwoSix]

You got to be a real cutter to get caught up on the cant, berk.

 

[Wicht]

You got to be a real cutter to get caught up on the cant, berk.

I actually understood that. I think.

Never did do Planescape...

 

[Savage Wombat]

As a primary-D&D player, I don't much care for WoWisms like "toon" or "mob", but I really hate it when they show up in RPG discussions. Maybe that's part of it.

 

[Salamandyr]

I don't think it's entirely the mechanical aspect of the terminology. It's looking like "Hit Dice" is going to mean something a little different in 5e than it did in OD&D, and that's not really a problem.

For me it's more that you have different people, ostensibly all talking about the same thing, but with such entirely different expectations of it that it's like they're speaking different languages.

In purely technical terms, I cannot understand what gave people such a hard time with THAC0. Perhaps it's because I predate it. It was just a shorthand way to express attack progression when you didn't have the chart handy. Then somebody figured out that with THAC0, you really didn't need the chart.