D&D 5E [+] Explain RPG theory without using jargon

[FrogReaver]

My personal stance is that the jargon of the dominant play culture is widely used and supported because it reinforces the values of the dominant play culture.

One might ask whether it's really jargon if it's widely used and supported?

The purpose is to reinforce norms. The whole "ivory tower" thing seems to be a way to suggest that the play we are trying to describe does not actually exist.

I thought the suggestion was innocuous enough but maybe 'ivory tower' carries alot more baggage that I'm not aware of?

 

[FrogReaver]

Or maybe folks are just so comfortable with the jargon they use frequently that it doesn’t seem as much like jargon?

Like if someone requested a conversation about gaming to not reference the standard jargon of RPGs and D&D in particular, it’d likely be pretty difficult for many of us.

How would a DM describe what he does without referring to the story, or hooks, or fudging dice?

replace story with 'what happened'. Replace hooks with, I presented the players an opportunity to engage with give details about hook here, I disregarded the dice outcome and instead had the monster miss the player.

It's a little more wordy, but not really hard... IMO.

It's only hard when the jargon is full of self referential definitions (and the super technical jargon often is).

 

[hawkeyefan]

replace story with 'what happened'. Replace hooks with, I presented the players an opportunity to engage with give details about hook here, I disregarded the dice outcome and instead had the monster miss the player.

It's a little more wordy, but not really hard... IMO.

It's only hard when the jargon is full of self referential definitions (and the super technical jargon often is).

So there is acceptable jargon and unacceptable jargon?

Got it!

 

[JiffyPopTart]

What does “random passerby” mean? Someone who’s only read some of the posts in a thread?

Honestly, I learned about this stuff by asking the folks who seemed to know about it. When folks were bringing up games I had never played, I didn’t assume I knew more about that game than they did. I looked things up outside of ENWorld. Ii actually bought some of the games and read them to get a better idea about some of these topics.

But mostly, if you ask questions, most folks will explain. Not always, or maybe not completely… such is the nature of communicating on a forum. But most of the time, people are willing to discuss these things.



Right. This sounds pretty close to standard D&D, with less prep and a bit more improv. I’d still classify this as leaning more GM driven than player driven. It’s tough to say for sure given the minimal info, but that’d be my guess.

And just to clarify, there’s nothing wrong with that!

It's not so much about them being impossible to learn, it's about the time investment it takes to learn versus what you get out of knowing. I only first stumbled on this web of "RPG Theory(tm)" jargon in the current discussion going on of "Is DnD Gamist". I had/have no idea exactly what Gamist (tm) means, I just thought the thread was discussing DnD as a game (vs storytelling or a social activity). The thread is NOT about that, and since it's discussing something I'm not familiar with and don't care that much about I moved on.

Then I saw GNS pop up in a separate thread and realized this strange jargon from the Gamist thread carried over and the two were somehow related. I moved on again, mostly because I have many other threads more interesting to me.

Now this thread was right up my alley. It's a big neon sign saying "Come here for a easy to read primer on all that jargon". Then by post two I had already lost interest because it started by speaking Klingon. The only reason I hopped in was a specific post (sorry forgot the username) caught my eye not about the jargon specifics of RPG Theory (tm) but about jargon in general.

Since I posted I figured it would be fair to read the entire thread for context. While there have been enough good posts for me to put things in context, following the link posted to the Forge site and dipping my toe into the waters of the glossary has solidified my initial thoughts that the effort to learn the language isn't with the payoff of learning a classification system I feel overly places things in boxes they dont fit.

As far as the indie games mentioned, I don't see the need to use RPG Theory(tm) jargon to talk about them. It's.probably because I don't gravitate to threads for games I've never experienced.

 

[FrogReaver]

So there is acceptable jargon and unacceptable jargon?

Got it!

Only if you insist on calling everything jargon.

 

[niklinna]

Since I posted I figured it would be fair to read the entire thread for context. While there have been enough good posts for me to put things in context, following the link posted to the Forge site and dipping my toe into the waters of the glossary has solidified my initial thoughts that the effort to learn the language isn't with the payoff of learning a classification system I feel overly places things in boxes they dont fit.

The glossary is not a good place to begin, a bit like trying to learn something by reading the dictionary!

If you need a pointer to start, it would be the general article: The Forge :: GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory

I've updated my prior post to put that link in, should've thought to do that originally.

 

[FrogReaver]

The glossary is not a good place to begin, a bit like trying to learn something by reading the dictionary!

If you need a pointer to start, it would be the general article: The Forge :: GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory

IMO, a good sign you are using jargon is that you need an actual glossary to explain your terms.

 

[Campbell]

The story obviously has more connotations in traditional RPG circles than what happened.

The fundamental issue is that the language we use for discourse on these boards privileges exploration of setting and GM storytelling, thumbs its nose at playing roleplaying games as games and is fundamentally incapable of describing the structure of play used in most indie games. It also treats games that are concerned with genre emulation like Conan 2d20 as if they were the same sort of games as Apocalypse World.

It would also be incredibly opaque to anyone not already involved in the mainstream play culture.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The glossary is not a good place to begin, a bit like trying to learn something by reading the dictionary!

If you need a pointer to start, it would be the general article: The Forge :: GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory

I've updated my prior post to put that link in, should've thought to do that originally.

Heck yes....this was much more relatable. I don't have time to read the whole thing right now but going to hit it up at lunch tomorrow. I got as far as to see my major sticking point with the theory (you can't mix the streams) but I'm interested to see all that the author has to say.

Thank you!

 

[niklinna]

IMO, a good sign you are using jargon is that you need an actual glossary to explain your terms.

You want a theory, you are gonna have jargon. You can learn the jargon—which is documented and well established after 20 years—or you can keep pissing on the very concepts of theory and robust terminology, or on GNS theory in particular, as seems to be some kind of compulsion with certain folks here.

I've got my disagreements with GNS theory, and with some of the specific terms they defined, but I was able to learn it with a bit of reading, learn even more from reading material that references the theory (both in agreement and disagreement), and have productive conversations using it, which have enriched my roleplaying and garnered me new friends to play with.