Ease the vernacular.

[n00bdragon]

(example: 4e by design measures everything in squares, thus "radius" areas of effect were shoehorned into squares to fit this design, leading to silliness like cubic balls of fire)

You know, every edition of D&D has used five foot squares. Areas of effect have ALWAYS had to deal with filling square areas. Don't pretend like grids were some heinous new thing that 4e invented. It simply took what it had and made it easy to use and there's never a fault in that.

Unless you like making things hard simply for verisimilitude.

 

[Rhenny]

Jargon is ok to use if the jargon refers to a an aspect of the game that is not an action. For example, "hit points" or "ac" seem fine because you never will have to "hit point" or "ac" a foe. The problem that I see, which many people are examining on other threats about language use and roleplaying, is when Jargon is used as shorthand for more complex actions.

In another thread, I compared power names to "macros" in a computer game. If many or all of a PCs powers are named "macros" then players (either through laziness or through the desire to speed up combat) will resort to calling out the name of the macro to represent a more interesting and complex move, reducing the narrative feel of the game. To save time (or as a lazy player) I might tell the DM, "I attack with Tide of Iron," rather than saying "I push forward with my shield to bash him and attempt to push him back."

The way 4e made it very easy for anyone to play and pick actions for turns was great, but the "macro" functions in my opinion also made the combats seem more mechanical, less story driven. It also added to unnecessary repetition (and power bloat).

This is the type of vernacular that I'd like D&DNext to avoid. "Tide of Iron" is really a shield bash attack. "Cracking the Shell" is really a damaging attack that attempts to sunder an opponent's armor. An extra feature like applying 5 ongoing damage seems like it should be called a "painful wound" that needs attention, rather than "5 ongoing damage."

 

[SLOTHmaster]

People have said that jargon is unavoidable and that if the books don't have it then the community will make it up, but that doesn't mean that the designers should actively try to create it. I think they should write rules in a way that's easy to understand, without having to cross-reference every other word when first reading through the rules. If we need jargon we can create it on our own.

 

[Doug McCrae]

On the negative side it is a way of making the us and them divide stronger.

For a lot of D&D players, that's a positive, I think. Also the divide between the players that grasp the rules and those that don't. The more recondite the rules, the greater and more impressive is the achievement of the rules guru.

 

[kevtar]

I get particularly bothered by player attempts to ADD jargon to the game.

Like when players talk about "Tier 1" classes or use the verboten term "gish". Or answer a perfectly legitimate question with "Appendix N".

You can expect D&D players to know the rules - but this isn't in the rules.

Gish?! Gish has been around since Fiend Folio (at least) and referred to a specific type of Githyanki. The term was so successful in capturing (and relating) a concept, that it spread out through the gaming community. I was rolling up "Gishes" (hoping for the perfect combination) in my AD&D days 20 years ago (BTW, drow MU/Ftrs are awesome).

However, I can see your point in people treating these terms as "official," but I would also hate for the vocabulary of D&D to become sancrosanct. Many of the "unofficial" terms have been given near legitimate status because of what they've contributed to the game and how it organizes how we understand about the elements of the game and how we play it. Things like "nerfed, munchkin, CoDzilla, tank..." they all communicate something and have been elevated above just random bits of speech into specific signifiers without being understood as part of the original vernacular of D&D.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Overuse of lingo (as opposed to actual terms used in the rules) has always irritated me when it comes to message boards.

I don't mind any use of terms or concepts that derive from actual game rules (saves, AC, CON) but when the lingo being overused is NOT taken from the game itself (NADs, CoDzilla, Pokemount) it comes across to me as someone trying too hard to fit in.

When having a discussion I think you should include as large an audience as possible, so its much much more inclusive to have a discussion about "Paladins summoning mounts" than it is to title your thread "Pokemounts are affecting my NADs".

DS

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't think Eric's Grandmother approves of that last line.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Kzatch I thought the other thread was about prose wich IMO is a style of writing not necesarily use of specific words that are nonsense elsewhere. I do not mind succinctness but made up words rub me the wrong way. I don't think me using the phrase made up words is helpful here. Perhaps it is classifications that bother me.


I was looking through my 4e PHB the other day to find out what an extended rest gets you. Only I didn't know it was called an extended rest. So I looked in the index. That was a useless endeavor. It is not under rest or recovery or healing. The jargon actually made it more difficult to find the information I was looking for. This is something that I would guess is not exclusive to 4e but it is something that would be nice to avoid

You cannot locate a word in the dictionary, If you have no clue of the first few letters.

I don't think you looked very hard, since If you look in the table of contentets (page 4) under ADVENTURING / Rest and Recovery . . . . . . . page 263, which took me all of Five seconds to locate.

 

[Wiseblood]

You cannot locate a word in the dictionary, If you have no clue of the first few letters.

I don't think you looked very hard, since If you look in the table of contentets (page 4) under ADVENTURING / Rest and Recovery . . . . . . . page 263, which took me all of Five seconds to locate.

You got me there. I didn't bother with the table of contents just the index.

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

If jargon is used, it should be used properly.

And be military jargon.

From Poland.

From WW I.

Otherwise, keep it to a minimum.