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

[hanez]

Its more then just how the jargon is named and whether its comprehensible. Its how standardized it has to be.

I am not a fan of short concise rules devoid of flavour. I would rather a spell tell me in a paragraph what it does then have a short sentence with the mechanics (1d6 + daze) or push or slide or whatever.

Theres a reason why people complain that all the powers feel similar, and its partly because the jargon enabled designers to make powers that WERE similar and the jargon gave players little reason to differentiate one power from another.

Fluff back IN please.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

Not all the jargon is game-y. Strength, Intelligence, Ranger, Wizard, Splint Armor, Glaive, Chain Lightning, Raise Dead, Pick Pockets, Initiative and Flanking are all jargon. It's just that they are jargon for things that exist in the gameworld, so they don't break immersion.

Skill Check and Confirming a Critical Hit are game-y examples, but folks who have played a lot of 3.x are used to them. Armor Class and Level get a break because they have been with the hobby for decades. They still represent some cognitive load for new players, but the folks who might complain about them aren't invested enough in the hobby to complain.

Lastly, Skill Check and Confirming a Critical Hit are at least genre neutral. Jargon like "power" and "striker" can seem like they are actively out-of-genre.

-KS

 

[DEFCON 1]

Skill Check and Confirming a Critical Hit are game-y examples, but folks who have played a lot of 3.x are used to them. Armor Class and Level get a break because they have been with the hobby for decades.

But this is exactly why I don't take stock in the idea that 4E jargon is therefore inherently BAD. Jargon is either gamey or it isn't. It's either bad or it isn't.

If the reason why some gamey term is okay for you is because you're "used to it"... then your entire argument breaks down. By that reasoning... we should just KEEP using 4E jargon, and then in 5 years time we'll be all so used to it, it won't be "bad jargon" anymore.

 

[Janaxstrus]

But this is exactly why I don't take stock in the idea that 4E jargon is therefore inherently BAD. Jargon is either gamey or it isn't. It's either bad or it isn't.

If the reason why some gamey term is okay for you is because you're "used to it"... then your entire argument breaks down. By that reasoning... we should just KEEP using 4E jargon, and then in 5 years time we'll be all so used to it, it won't be "bad jargon" anymore.

Incorrect. The people who hated it and won't play 4e will still not, and 5e will fail just like it's predecessor. If you can't see the difference between things from Basic almost 40 years ago like Level and AC and things like "striker" and "defender" which sound more like soccer positions than anything related to D&D and have only been around less than 1/10th the history of D&D...I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Incorrect. The people who hated it and won't play 4e will still not, and 5e will fail just like it's predecessor. If you can't see the difference between things from Basic almost 40 years ago like Level and AC and things like "striker" and "defender" which sound more like soccer positions than anything related to D&D and have only been around less than 1/10th the history of D&D...I don't know what to tell you.

You know, a nasty part of me hopes that people who confuse "jargon that I'm used to" with "jargon that will make any kind of sense to new gamers" get what they want--so that D&D can go ahead and die and get it over with. Unfortunately, that would be prolonged, lingering death--so everyone wanting that will be quite happy in their cocoons while the rest of us sadly move onto something else.

I'm still waiting for someone to write an explanation for "immersion" that isn't self-referential. Until I see such an explanation, I'm going to continue to treat appeals to "my immersion" as "I have no argument for why my preferences should be catered to, and thus will try to obscure the issues with a lot of gum flapping."

 

[DEFCON 1]

Incorrect. The people who hated it and won't play 4e will still not, and 5e will fail just like it's predecessor. If you can't see the difference between things from Basic almost 40 years ago like Level and AC and things like "striker" and "defender" which sound more like soccer positions than anything related to D&D and have only been around less than 1/10th the history of D&D...I don't know what to tell you.

And "Level" and "Armor Class" sound like weird school terms. The only difference is that they came from a game edition you LIKED, rather than one you didn't.

That doesn't mean the term therefore is actually BAD. Or more to the point "game-y". You basically are trying to claim that game-y terms from an edition you liked are okay, game-y terms from an edition you didn't like should therefore be removed. I'm sorry... but I think there probably should be a little more thought put into the D&D terminology than that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

On to the main topic, a certain amount of jargon is inevitable. If it doesn't exist in the game rules, gamers will make it up out of necessity--not least because of gaming forums like this one.

Of course, there is something to be said for letting the jargon evolve instead of forcing it. It reminds me of the university architect that deliberately left all off the sidewalks out of his design. Everyone screeched. He said that he'd wait until a year had passed with people using the grounds, then he'd put the sidewalks where people walked. He was tired of the landscape getting trampled instead of using his walks.

As a bonus, if a given mechanic is well done and initutive, chances are the evolved jargon will be quite acceptable to a lot of people, too.

 

[KidSnide]

But this is exactly why I don't take stock in the idea that 4E jargon is therefore inherently BAD. Jargon is either gamey or it isn't. It's either bad or it isn't.

If the reason why some gamey term is okay for you is because you're "used to it"... then your entire argument breaks down. By that reasoning... we should just KEEP using 4E jargon, and then in 5 years time we'll be all so used to it, it won't be "bad jargon" anymore.

I think the problem with 4E jargon is that (1) some of it is out-of-genre, and (2) there is so damn much of it that matters.

I don't think it's "game-y-ness" is a major issue on its own. It's hardly a positive, but it's not that different than other systems. 3.x also has an awful lot of game-y jargon, although the mostly-plain-English spell descriptions makes it a little easier for the players. (It's probably just as bad for DMs.)

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Another reason to use somewhat clunky jargon is when the concept being covered is supposed to invoke a range of things that aren't exactly a match for the plain English. "Class" is not "Archetype". "Class" may include "archetype," depending upon what slant you want to argue, but it was always more than that.

As goofy as "Fighter" (or "fighting man") and "magic user" sound, one of their virtues is to leave "warrior" and "wizard" and other such terms for purely in-game uses, without confusion. Even "cleric" has some of this flavor, leaving "priest" free. Whether this was directly intentional, or a happy accident of a plan to reserve the more flavorful words for level "titles", I don't know. In any case, the effect was there.

 

[Janaxstrus]

And "Level" and "Armor Class" sound like weird school terms. The only difference is that they came from a game edition you LIKED, rather than one you didn't.

I would not consider this accurate.

They have been in EVERY iteration. Not just the ones I liked.