How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Micah Sweet]

Whereas the following is just dispassionate commentary? -
I mean, seriously, why do you expect people to read you posts that express your opinion, but you expect others to withhold their opinions for fear of falling foul of your preferences?

I mean, the play you refer to taking a "prominent place" in the last decade is something I've been doing (with greater or lesser success, depending on a host of variables that I've posted about many times on these boards) since the second half of the 1980s. So that's close to 40 years. I played in convention scenarios that were based around player-centred play in the mid-90s. The systems were generally BRP variants, although one was RM; the designers probably had something in mind that was between trad and neo-trad; my group tackled them in a more story now vein, and from time to time won group or individual (character-based) prizes; and so the thing we were doing was hardly aberrant or not understood by at least some parts of the hobby at that time.

I mean, your experiences are what they are, but likewise mine are what they are. And the sort of play I like is not some weird thing that flew in on a UFO just because Vincent Baker published Apocalypse World.

(Prince Valiant is 1989. Maelstrom Storytelling is 1998, from memory. HeroWars is 2000. Burning Wheel revised I think is 2004. And these games didn't come from nowhere - except perhaps the first, because Greg Stafford was undoubtedly a genius.)

I specifically used the phrase "come to prominence from my perception" because that's what I meant. I know you and others have been playing this way for a long time, and allowed for that in my rhetoric. You're defending a position here I didn't attack.

And I am sensitive to opinions being presented on this forum without being clear they are opinions. Just because you know @Campbell was talking about process of play in their comments means nothing to the situation, because it's not about you.

Besides, at the end of the day, you and others attack my subjective positions just as hard as I attack yours, and because nothing here is about more than personal preference, none of us are right and all of us are right. That's why I object so strongly to appeals to popularity, because they are irrelevant.

I suppose we all just need to be thicker-skinned.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Yes, just as “advantage” and “short rest” and all manner of other terms are necessary to understanding how to play 5e. And just as many other terms are needed for other games.

Yeah anyone saying there's no lingo in D&D is deluding themselves.

Class, Hit Points, Saves, Checks, Ability Scores, Alignment, Divine, Arcane, Evocation, Conjuration, Initiative, Death Saves, Advantage, Disadvantage, Hit Dice, Inspiration, Bard, Monk and Armour Class.

I can imagine people will disagree with some of the above, arguing that this or that term are commonplace, but man was I surprised, I tell you, when I learned about the Bard. I thought that was going to be a guy who waltzed around and played music, like they do in Drakar & Demoner. No they're some kind of spellcaster?! What? And the Monk is one huge misnomer. You'd expect the monk to be a robed guy highly schooled in religion. What's this martial arts stuff about?

Of course, you don't need to know what a monk or bard is to play D&D, but to claim it doesn't have specific lingo is just wrong.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You two have done that to me repeatedly. You do it every time you assume something about my game based on my playstyle, even to the point of sometimes being dubious about my response saying that it's not that way in my game.

You're right, it's not complicated. You simply do not need the sort of precision numbers give. Natural language is more than precise enough for players to be able to make informed decisions. That means that natural language isn't the issue you make it out to be.

There's a very big difference between not agreeing with you about your reasoning and telling you that you are doing it wrong in your game. We can have differences of opinion about things. That doesn't mean that I think you are bad for doing it in your game or that you shouldn't be doing it in your game.

I'll say this for the umpteenth time on these boards. As long as your players are enjoying the game, you are doing it right.

No. There ARE going to be folks that don't understand the jargon. Full stop. No need to worry about who knows what. You don't need to figure out what I know, or Pemerton, or Azzy or anyone else. It's just considerate to avoid the jargon for the folks who read the posts.

I agree. I'm responsible for being considerate to others with my posts. That includes not using terms and definitions that I know will cause confusion.

Should =/= can. You can engage any way you like. I'm not at all telling you that you can't be inconsiderate of others or use terms and definitions that you know will cause confusion.

Edit: I don't even think you shouldn't do those things. It's your game. I just wouldn't do it like that.

Okay, Max. We’re reached the point where it’s not even clear what we’re discussing anymore. I’ll just say two things to address your post.

First, forget the earlier discussion about stats vs. description for a moment. Natural language can fail, potentially significantly, when precision is needed.

Second, it’s not inconsiderate of anyone to discuss RPGs and use phrases and terms that relate to RPGs. That’s a really bad take, and one no one on this site could actually achieve.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah anyone saying there's no lingo in D&D is deluding themselves.

Class, Hit Points, Saves, Checks, Ability Scores, Alignment, Divine, Arcane, Evocation, Conjuration, Initiative, Death Saves, Advantage, Disadvantage, Hit Dice, Inspiration, Bard, Monk and Armour Class.

I can imagine people will disagree with some of the above, arguing that this or that term are commonplace, but man was I surprised, I tell you, when I learned about the Bard. I thought that was going to be a guy who waltzed around and played music, like they do in Drakar & Demoner. No they're some kind of spellcaster?! What? And the Monk is one huge misnomer. You'd expect the monk to be a robed guy highly schooled in religion. What's this martial arts stuff about?

Of course, you don't need to know what a monk or bard is to play D&D, but to claim it doesn't have specific lingo is just wrong.

Has anyone said that there's no lingo in D&D?

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Has anyone said that there's no lingo in D&D?

That is my interpretation of this post, yes:

You don't have to understand what bounded accuracy means to play 5e and understand it. The terms in many narrative games are front and center in the rules. Understanding them and how they apply to play is necessary to play the game properly.

This was said by @Micah Sweet and since the point of reference here is Bounded Accuracy, which is a term heavily associated with D&D 5e, I made the reasonable, in my opinion, assumption that it is actually D&D we are talking about as a comparison to systems supposedly bogged down by lingo.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Has anyone said that there's no lingo in D&D?

Why use the word “lingo” here instead of “jargon”?

 

[Maxperson]

That is my interpretation of this post, yes:



This was said by @Micah Sweet and since the point of reference here is Bounded Accuracy, which is a term heavily associated with D&D 5e, I made the reasonable, in my opinion, assumption that it is actually D&D we are talking about as a comparison to systems supposedly bogged down by lingo.

I think you are grossly misinterpreting that post. Bounded accuracy isn't mentioned in 5e anywhere. It doesn't exist. Bounded accuracy was a design philosophy for 5e that the designers used and told us about. It isn't necessary to even have heard of that piece of lingo to fully understand and play 5e. That's what he was saying with that portion.

@Micah Sweet then went on to note that many minor RPGs are heavy with lingo. Many of it's systems are attached front and center to jargon like Hard Moves and such. D&D does have a lot of jargon, but that jargon is not front and center.

 

[Maxperson]

Why use the word “lingo” here instead of “jargon”?

Because he did. You'll note I converted it back over in the post above this.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I think you are grossly misinterpreting that post. Bounded accuracy isn't mentioned in 5e anywhere. It doesn't exist. Bounded accuracy was a design philosophy for 5e that the designers used and told us about. It isn't necessary to even have heard of that piece of lingo to fully understand and play 5e. That's what he was saying with that portion.

@Micah Sweet then went on to note that many minor RPGs are heavy with lingo. Many of it's systems are attached front and center to jargon like Hard Moves and such. D&D does have a lot of jargon, but that jargon is not front and center.

I never said the rules mention Bounded Accuracy. I did not actually list BA under my list of 5E jargon.

My point is that D&D makes use of some highly specific terminology and then it turns out that when everyone is used to this language they don't even notice that it is unusual.

 

[Maxperson]

I never said the rules mention Bounded Accuracy. I did not actually list BA under my list of 5E jargon.

My point is that D&D makes use of some highly specific terminology and then it turns out that when everyone is used to this language they don't even notice that it is unusual.

I think it's more than D&D is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, so it's jargon is usual. It's the jargon of the minor RPGs that is unusual, because it's different. That jargon stands out because of that difference. It also seems to me that it's not unusual for minor games to use different jargon to say the same thing or a very similar thing.