Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5861582" data-attributes="member: 70709">All jargon starts visible, and by familiarity becomes invisible.&nbsp; Good jargon usually aids that process by being terse (relative to the idea it represents) and feeling natural.(The exception for this measure of &quot;good&quot; is jargon designed, at least in&nbsp; part, to build up a group identity by being indecipherable to the&nbsp; uninitiated.&nbsp; RPGs tend to do enough of this without trying.)What counts as natural depends on context.&nbsp; For an RPG that usually means natural either &quot;as game&quot; or &quot;as world(/narrative/genre) immersion.&quot;&nbsp; Those two contexts can be in conflict, and I think the best RPG jargon usually aspires to both.The most successful jargon in RPGs can often be recognized because it inconspicuously produces advanced jargon, or is the jargon everyone uses to explain other jargon by analogy.&quot;Hit&quot; : This is actually jargon, because it represents both an &quot;in-world&quot; result of an attack as well as a gamist relation to rolling dice.&quot;Damage&quot; : The same thing, it relates the game to the narrative and works in both.&quot;Hit point&quot; : Compound jargon that relates hit, damage, and the explicitly gamist &quot;point.&quot;Much of the &quot;hit point&quot; wars rely on the tension between the gamist notion and the (various) world immersion notions.&nbsp;&nbsp; But despite that ambiguity, if someone ever says that some mechanic for X is &quot;like hit points for X&quot; we immediately know how to approach it.Healing surge could be perfectly fine jargon, but the perceived mismatch between its gamist workings and its world/narrative counterpart poisons the well.&nbsp; If it existed in a game where characters carry around nanomachines in the bloodstream, and these could be sacrificed to repair injury, reduce fatigue, increase alertness, etc. we would probably not find the term so divisive. (One could still hate the mechanic, of course.)5e shouldn't deliberately eschew new jargon, it should embrace the tension between game and world/narrative/genre with renewed vigor.&nbsp; Perhaps the designers can even spend a vigorous surge on this task -- there must be at least one bard in the WotC office.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 5861582, member: 70709"] All jargon starts visible, and by familiarity becomes invisible. Good jargon usually aids that process by being terse (relative to the idea it represents) and feeling natural. (The exception for this measure of "good" is jargon designed, at least in part, to build up a group identity by being indecipherable to the uninitiated. RPGs tend to do enough of this without trying.) What counts as natural depends on context. For an RPG that usually means natural either "as game" or "as world(/narrative/genre) immersion." Those two contexts can be in conflict, and I think the best RPG jargon usually aspires to both. The most successful jargon in RPGs can often be recognized because it inconspicuously produces advanced jargon, or is the jargon everyone uses to explain other jargon by analogy. "Hit" : This is actually jargon, because it represents both an "in-world" result of an attack as well as a gamist relation to rolling dice. "Damage" : The same thing, it relates the game to the narrative and works in both. "Hit point" : Compound jargon that relates hit, damage, and the explicitly gamist "point." Much of the "hit point" wars rely on the tension between the gamist notion and the (various) world immersion notions. But despite that ambiguity, if someone ever says that some mechanic for X is "like hit points for X" we immediately know how to approach it. Healing surge could be perfectly fine jargon, but the perceived mismatch between its gamist workings and its world/narrative counterpart poisons the well. If it existed in a game where characters carry around nanomachines in the bloodstream, and these could be sacrificed to repair injury, reduce fatigue, increase alertness, etc. we would probably not find the term so divisive. (One could still hate the mechanic, of course.) 5e shouldn't deliberately eschew new jargon, it should embrace the tension between game and world/narrative/genre with renewed vigor. Perhaps the designers can even spend a [I]vigorous surge[/I] on this task -- there must be at least one bard in the WotC office. [/QUOTE]

Verification