D&D 5E D&D Lingua Franca, or 5e really, REALLY needs to create it's own new "space"

[trancejeremy]

I don't think it's just the jargon though. It's what the jargon represents in the first place. The game got a whole lot more complicated.

I don't want to play a tactical wargame.

I don't want to play a MMORPG converted to paper, with the MMORPGs roles converted to classes (Tank, DPS, Controller, Healer) and things like aggro mechanics (taunt and such) and with characters getting a new power/skill button to press every level.

 

[Kynn]

I don't want to play a MMORPG converted to paper, with the MMORPGs roles converted to classes (Tank, DPS, Controller, Healer) and things like aggro mechanics (taunt and such) and with characters getting a new power/skill button to press every level.

Wow, I don't think anyone has ever made that (false) comparison before. Ever!

Extra XP for originality and thoughtfulness!!

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't want to play a MMORPG converted to paper, with the MMORPGs roles converted to classes (Tank, DPS, Controller, Healer) and things like aggro mechanics (taunt and such) and with characters getting a new power/skill button to press every level.

Roles matter as much as you put relevance into them, they exist mainly as guidelines for building a diverse party. It's no different than the "magic user" "fighting man" or "skillmonkey" terms that have exited for ages. Remember that MMORPGs evolved from TTRPGs, they're logical extensions of existing classifications, not disparate entities.

D&D characters have been given new abilities, better versions of existing abilities and new powers basically since the beginning. Even if some editions say you have to visit a trainer, experiment or otherwise figure it out on your own. MMORPGs do not award powers and abilities in a drastically different way than TTRPGs so.

Aggro mechanics exist for a specific purpose in MMORPGs because there is no DM controlling the enemies. Challenges and the like serve a useful purpose, regardless of if the DM follows them, of directing the damage to the members of the party best suited for taking damage. If your DM attacks the party fighter(who has high HP and high armor) most of the time, taunts and challenges aren't as useful as with a more "intelligent AI" DM who will focus on the squishier characters.

----------

Anyway, on the OPs subject, I think there should be a general selection of terms that are obvious, when a player says "ability scores" it shouldn't matter what edition we're playing. When players say "attack bonus" it may look different, be bigger or smaller, but it should universally be the same thing in every edition. However, every edition should have some terms unique to it's own, not a lot, and perhaps so few as to only be counted on one hand. But each edition should strive to make it's own mark, while also working within an easily-recognizable framework.

 

[KidSnide]

As someone who has been mostly playing 4e since it came out, I think there are two problems with 4e jargon.

First, there is just too much of it. Defenses like Fortitude, Reflect and Will (the "Non-AC Defenses" or "NADs") are critical (and mostly self-explanatory) concepts. But once you add in the 471 different entries in the compendium glossary, it is easy to get confused. Blast vs. burst is deadly for new wizards. The different action types are huge in impact, but subtle for new players. (It takes a while to realize how valuable attacks are when they come on non-standard actions.) And there are dozens of other examples:

• conjurations vs. summons
• hit vs. miss vs. effect
• short vs. extended rests
• walk vs. shift vs. slide
• move vs. move action
• healing surge with additional healing vs. expending a healing surge for fixed healing vs. surgeless healing
• hindering vs. difficult terrain
• slowed vs. immobilized vs. dazed vs. stunned vs. dominated vs. any other condition
• save ends vs. until the end of the caster's next turn vs. until the beginning of the caster's next turn vs. until the end of the target's next turn vs. until the beginning of the target's next turn
• defenders vs. leader vs. striker vs. controller
• artillery vs. skirmisher vs. soldier vs. brute vs. controller vs. lurker
• at-will attack powers vs. encounter attack powers vs. daily attack powers vs. utility powers (that themselves may be at-will, encounter or daily)
• power vs. power source
• skills vs. feats vs. skill powers vs. utility powers vs. feats that grant powers vs. feats that grant skills
• powers vs. class abilities vs. optional class abilities
• classes vs. prestige classes vs. epic destinies
• neck slot vs. any other type of body-part slot

None of these are individually inexcusable, but as a set they get very confusing. That's particularly true when it comes to all the second tier effects. If you want to play an effective rogue, you need to learn all the conditions that impart combat advantage, and have a sense of which of your allies' powers produce those conditions.

There's just a lot to learn.

The second problem with 4e jargon is that some of it is out of genre. Feats, spells, "heavy blades", wizards and wisdom are all terms that are consistent with the fantasy genre. Unfortunately, "powers" is not. That sounds like a superhero game, and things like roles and item slots sound a little too much like a MMORPG.

A little of this would be ok, but -- unfortunately -- "powers", in particular, is all over the place. Some players hear jargon and immediate ignore the plain-English meaning in favor of how the term is used in the game. But for other players, genre-breaking terminology is a constant and unwanted reminder that they are playing a game instead of exploring a fantasy world.


As someone with a computer science background, I really liked the jargon when I first saw it. I appreciated how compactly you could communicate new effects and how much easier it was to interpret the rules consistently. But, having played with other people for a while, I've changed my mind. It confuses the people I want to play with and, when a piece of jargon pulls others out of the game experience, they pull me with them. So now I'd like less of it, and I'd like WotC to choose its terms more carefully.

-KS

 

[Grydan]

I must say that, as a 4E player, I often find discussions of 3.X to be filled with jargon I don't understand.

I know that some of it stretches back to the earliest versions of the game. However, other things are quite specific to the 3.X system.

CR. ECL. LA. BAB. Prestige Class. Favored Class. Feat chains. Full Casters. Skill points. All of those and more are 3.X era jargon that I see people toss around as if everyone understands them, despite the fact that many of them don't exist in earlier or later versions of the game.

All versions of the game have had jargon. Some of it works, and is easily understood. Other parts of it are obscure and require understanding of the game before they make any sense at all.

AC, THAC0, saving throws, x HD monster, name level, Kit, martial exploit, Epic Destiny... it's all jargon.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

The more complex a system becomes, the more difficult it becomes to design a robust glossary of terms.

The worst of 3.X for me was the spell-like ability vs. the supernatural ability vs. the extraordinary ability. Different terms for different effects, but given an effect you would be mostly guessing which category it fit into.

The worst of 4 for me was either blast vs. burst or the many conditions. It was hard to work backwards from the name to figure out what it meant.

In contrast the best terms from the editions were plain english - attack bonus, armor class, at-will, encounter, daily powers and so forth.

I'd like them to avoid words that sound the same but come up in similar contexts (blast vs. burst), synonyms with distinct effects (stunned vs. dazed) and acronyms. Of course, you're limited by the english language, but if you ever find yourself unable to explain something with the language you know then you need a diagram or new words.

 

[Janaxstrus]

The more complex a system becomes, the more difficult it becomes to design a robust glossary of terms.

The worst of 3.X for me was the spell-like ability vs. the supernatural ability vs. the extraordinary ability. Different terms for different effects, but given an effect you would be mostly guessing which category it fit into.

The worst of 4 for me was either blast vs. burst or the many conditions. It was hard to work backwards from the name to figure out what it meant.

In contrast the best terms from the editions were plain english - attack bonus, armor class, at-will, encounter, daily powers and so forth.

I'd like them to avoid words that sound the same but come up in similar contexts (blast vs. burst), synonyms with distinct effects (stunned vs. dazed) and acronyms. Of course, you're limited by the english language, but if you ever find yourself unable to explain something with the language you know then you need a diagram or new words.

The worst for me are the ones that are overly game-y, such as Daily Powers, Healing Surge, THAC0, Encounter Powers, Striker, Defender, Controller.

Those are the ones I wish to see done away with

 

[DEFCON 1]

The worst for me are the ones that are overly game-y, such as Daily Powers, Healing Surge, THAC0, Encounter Powers, Striker, Defender, Controller.

But what does that mean... "game-y"? What is "game-y"? Practically every bit of jargon in the game is "game-y" because they're being used to explain the rules of the game.

"Armor Class" is game-y. It's the game telling us that you are wearing a certain class of armor with a numerical designation. "Level" is game-y, because it's the game telling us your numerical level of competency. "Damage" is game-y. "Skill check" is game-y. "Confirming a Critical hit" is game-y.

The reason why these exist is because we are playing a GAME. And games have rules. And the faster and easier it is to parse and remember these rules, the quicker we can actually start *playing* the game.

 

[Janaxstrus]

But what does that mean... "game-y"? What is "game-y"? Practically every bit of jargon in the game is "game-y" because they're being used to explain the rules of the game.

"Armor Class" is game-y. It's the game telling us that you are wearing a certain class of armor with a numerical designation. "Level" is game-y, because it's the game telling us your numerical level of competency. "Damage" is game-y. "Skill check" is game-y. "Confirming a Critical hit" is game-y.

The reason why these exist is because we are playing a GAME. And games have rules. And the faster and easier it is to parse and remember these rules, the quicker we can actually start *playing* the game.

Some have been around since the beginning, and don't take me out of my immersion. Many, like the ones mentioned by me, do take ME out of immersion.

It's a personal preference (albeit one that seems shared by a number of people)

 

[GreyICE]

This is starting to look like "oh no they changed the edition" rant that I'm so used to.

How is "8th level spell" less gamey than "daily power?"

It's not.

I agree names need a good level of clarity. And Healing Surge was a terrible name. But this is a game, and will have jargon. One of the scariest things I can imagine for D&D is them deciding to write the entire PHB in cleartext. White Wolf does this, and their basic explanation for how all their (very limited number of) powers work is 'ask the DM.' Because their plaintext explanation breaks apart in so many circumstances.