D&D 5E Game jargon causing unwanted consequences

[Li Shenron]

I think that 5e has less game jargon than 3e, but IMHO it is creeping up a little bit more and more in every playtest packet.

IMO designers should be double careful when introducing more jargon, labels and technical definition, and exploiting them to create features of the game, one reason is that jargon simply makes the game less appealing to casual gamers and harder for beginners, the other reason is that it's hard to check all the consequences of those labels...

Here's something I caught in the latest packet:

- they changed the mechanics of "Ready an Action" so that instead of changing your initiative, your triggered action uses your reaction

Sounds good, however, you only have one 1 reaction per round, so if you have already used your reaction, you cannot ready an action. It's not a big deal, but is this a wanted feature, or did it just happen?

Similarly, the Barbarian cannot take reactions while raging. Therefore now a raging Barbarian cannot ready actions. Is this really a wanted feature again? I'm not saying it shouldn't be, perhaps it makes a lot of sense that during a rage, you cannot stop and wait for a trigger, I'm just highly doubtful that the designers who changed the mechanics of Ready properly remembered that Rage was linked to the jargon term "reactions".

Another problem is that jargon terms occasionally are also used as non-jargon, i.e. they are just occasionally used as part of the normal language.

The example here is describing Saving Throws (in the DM Guidelines only) as "quick reactions", only that in this sentence "reaction" is not the jargon term but just a casual word, in fact you obviously aren't restricted to only 1 Saving Throw per turn!

I'm hoping overall for 5e to be jargon-lite, or at least lighter than 3e, for these reasons.

 

[MarkB]

Here's something I caught in the latest packet:

- they changed the mechanics of "Ready an Action" so that instead of changing your initiative, your triggered action uses your reaction

That's not too different from 4e - readied actions are an immediate action, and you only get one immediate action per round.

Sounds good, however, you only have one 1 reaction per round, so if you have already used your reaction, you cannot ready an action. It's not a big deal, but is this a wanted feature, or did it just happen?

I don't think I have the latest version of the playtest, but do you not still regain your reaction at the start of your turn? If you do, you still get to choose whether to dedicate your next reaction to a Readied action, or leave it open.

Similarly, the Barbarian cannot take reactions while raging. Therefore now a raging Barbarian cannot ready actions. Is this really a wanted feature again? I'm not saying it shouldn't be, perhaps it makes a lot of sense that during a rage, you cannot stop and wait for a trigger, I'm just highly doubtful that the designers who changed the mechanics of Ready properly remembered that Rage was linked to the jargon term "reactions".

That seems like very much a feature rather than a bug to me. It's exactly the sort of restriction I would expect from being enraged.

Another problem is that jargon terms occasionally are also used as non-jargon, i.e. they are just occasionally used as part of the normal language.

The example here is describing Saving Throws (in the DM Guidelines only) as "quick reactions", only that in this sentence "reaction" is not the jargon term but just a casual word, in fact you obviously aren't restricted to only 1 Saving Throw per turn!

I'm hoping overall for 5e to be jargon-lite, or at least lighter than 5e, for these reasons.

This is a good point, and I do wish they'd distinguish such 'terms of art' from common usage when writing them, even if only by capitalising them. When the recent Legendary Black Dragon example stats were posted and I read the description of it causing creatures below a certain hit dice threshold to "become frightened" I spent a couple of minutes searching the article for more detail on what was meant before realising that Frightened was a defined condition with specific effects.

 

[TarionzCousin]

"Level level level level level...."

Yeah, I think some care should be taken in 5E.

 

[RedFox]

One thing I noticed is that the language for opportunity attacks specifically mentions the trigger being "a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach". That means that a creature can literally dance around opponents at-will without triggering an opportunity attack. Not sure if intended.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think it could use more jargon and less "natural language". Jargon may seem like a barrier at first, but it's clearer when it comes to rules explanations. Especially when it comes to spells.

Similarly, the Barbarian cannot take reactions while raging. Therefore now a raging Barbarian cannot ready actions. Is this really a wanted feature again?

Does it make sense that a raging barbarian can think straight enough to ready an action?

One thing I noticed is that the language for opportunity attacks specifically mentions the trigger being "a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach". That means that a creature can literally dance around opponents at-will without triggering an opportunity attack. Not sure if intended.

I don't think the issue there is using jargon. To be more true to 3.x/4e opportunity attacks, it would have to refer to "moving out of a threatened square" but that doesn't really work in a gridless game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm hoping overall for 5e to be jargon-lite, or at least lighter than 5e, for these reasons.

I think you might want to reconsider that wording, but understanding the sentiment, I'm inclined to agree. Reducing jargon improves accessibility, but it's also a litmus test for your mechanics. If the mechanics make sense and are parsimonious and coherent, you should be able to explain them concisely in English.

 

[MarkB]

One thing I noticed is that the language for opportunity attacks specifically mentions the trigger being "a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach". That means that a creature can literally dance around opponents at-will without triggering an opportunity attack. Not sure if intended.

I believe that's intentional, a result of the different way movement is handled in the game.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think it could use more jargon and less "natural language". Jargon may seem like a barrier at first, but it's clearer when it comes to rules explanations. Especially when it comes to spells.

Only to a certain extent. When the number of necessary "keywords" becomes too high, if they are heavily interconnected it becomes a burden to play and run the game.

If you have 100 conditions over 10 pages instead of 10 conditions on the same page, it might be annoying to check everytime.

This is just a remark about sheer quantity, but more important than sheer quantity is IMHO how the interconnections of those "keywords" affect the game. If you too often have cases where you want to use a certain special ability but you have to cross-check being surprised with being bloodied with being fatigued (just to mention 3 conditions that belong to separate areas of the game and thus overlap) to find out if these conditions prevent you to use that special ability by blocking a certain types of actions... personally I think I won't have much fun spending time like that.

And the problem I mention is that IMHO it also becomes difficult for the designers to keep in mind everything. Even tho the result on raging barbarians does make sense, I have doubts that they noticed this consequence.

Overall, I think that the fact of basing the game design too much on the interaction between technical terms (such as using a lot of "IF X AND Y THEN YOU CAN USE SPECIAL ABILITY Z"), it makes the designers (and some players) feels "smart" but increases the chance for loopholes or other design mistakes.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Only to a certain extent.

Obviously. Everything should be in moderation.

If you have 100 conditions over 10 pages instead of 10 conditions on the same page, it might be annoying to check everytime.

Isn't this getting into strawman territory? I'm pretty sure neither 3rd Edition or 4th Edition have anything like this large number, and certainly not D&DN.

Even if 3.x or 4e have that many conditions, I'm not even noticing them now because they're easy to memorize. Most memorization is unconscious; you don't have to sit and pore over glossaries for days to learn these things.

If you too often have cases where you want to use a certain special ability but you have to cross-check being surprised with being bloodied with being fatigued (just to mention 3 conditions that belong to separate areas of the game and thus overlap) to find out if these conditions prevent you to use that special ability by blocking a certain types of actions... personally I think I won't have much fun spending time like that.

That's ... odd. Bloodied is a single word whose meaning is obvious (both in game terms and non-game terms). Surprised is the same. Fatigued was a bit more complicated in 3rd Edition, but that mainly due to the stat penalties.

If you tried to describe a situation involving "being at half hit points or below" and "losing Dex bonus to AC" and "being tired from more than 1 hour of hard work" you would just make things more complicated. (Off-hand, I'm not sure I've ever seen power where all three conditions ever come up, not surprising because bloodied and fatigued never showed up int he same edition.)

And the problem I mention is that IMHO it also becomes difficult for the designers to keep in mind everything. Even tho the result on raging barbarians does make sense, I have doubts that they noticed this consequence.

On the other hand, it's very hard to communicate corner cases to players (and DMs) if you don't use jargon. There's a problem either way. Too much jargon is bad, and IMO not enough jargon is also bad, often ending with the same results.

Overall, I think that the fact of basing the game design too much on the interaction between technical terms (such as using a lot of "IF X AND Y THEN YOU CAN USE SPECIAL ABILITY Z"), it makes the designers (and some players) feels "smart" but increases the chance for loopholes or other design mistakes.

Could you list such an ability? Are you talking about "triggered actions"? Please note that said abilities usually make sense both in game terms and not, which really helps with understanding.

An example might be Ignore Weakness:

Trigger: You start your turn and are slowed, immobilized, or weakened. Effect (No Action): You make a saving throw against the effect with a +5 bonus.

That is easy to understand. I cannot imagine how this kind of jargon is causing confusion. Your PC is weakened, and you can try to ignore that weakness. The name is literally telling you what the power does. But maybe I'm not understanding you, and need some examples from you.

 

[Li Shenron]

One thing I noticed is that the language for opportunity attacks specifically mentions the trigger being "a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach". That means that a creature can literally dance around opponents at-will without triggering an opportunity attack. Not sure if intended.

I would say that it is irrelevant rather than unintended.

The reason for that rule was explicitly said to be to prevent fleeing combat (or at least getting away from one of the enemies) without repercussions.

Fleeing combat is a very relevant possibility for a game which includes combat as a major pillar. Dancing around an opponent or lowering your trousers and take a dump in front of it is not. I think if you want to do such unorthodox things in a RPG, a "good" rules system just tells you to deal directly with your DM, which can rule something on the fly. The game shouldn't waste book space or complicate the game for everybody else because one theoretical (because I don't think someone so stupid exists, that he would do this just to challenge the rules system) player wants to do something completely out of line...