D&D General Jaquaying the dungeon - a term to avoid

[Snarf Zagyg]

Is it possible it is intentionally vague because being specific is a long story the author doesn't want to get into? Definitely!

In the end, so long as Alexander makes it clear that it is aligned with her wishes, the exact reasons(s) are unimportant. The pieces in question are his work, he in in full rights to change them. The name is hers, and she should have veto on its use. They agreed on a path forward.

From there, I am not certain why anyone has issue with it.

That's the problem, isn't it?

I read the blog post several times. There is, in fact, no indication that they agreed on a path forward. Other than changing it to accurately reflect her name. That's the problem with the post being (either intentionally, or unintentionally) vague.

Because imagine the following two very different scenarios-

1. They talked, and finally agreed to change the name to correctly and accurately reflect her name. After that conversation, Alexander said, "Screw it. This is a lot of work. If ima do this much work, might as well name it after myself."

2. They talked, and Jaquays agreed that it was totally cool for Alexander to re-name it after himself. Anything was better than misspelling her name.

Based on the blog post alone, I cannot tell you which of those two happened. But I will certainly have a very different impression of what happened depending on which occurred. Given the prior history involved* as well ... yeah.

So, again, withholding judgment until there is clarification. But if the conversation was to correct it to the accurate spelling, and then after that conversation Alexander renamed it to himself, I am going to feel exceptionally differently about this, and would further question why he invoked that history in this post.

This should be a simple matter to clarify, and I assume it will happen.

*Again, there was the prior history with deadnaming. While I truly credit people with changing their minds ... it did take a while.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

That's the problem, isn't it?

I read the blog post several times. There is, in fact, no indication that they agreed on a path forward. Other than changing it to accurately reflect her name. That's the problem with the post being (either intentionally, or unintentionally) vague.

Because imagine the following two very different scenarios-

1. They talked, and finally agreed to change the name to correctly and accurately reflect her name. After that conversation, Alexander said, "Screw it. This is a lot of work. If ima do this much work, might as well name it after myself."

2. They talked, and Jaquays agreed that it was totally cool for Alexander to re-name it after himself. Anything was better than misspelling her name.

Based on the blog alone, I cannot tell you which of those two happened. But I will certainly have a very different impression of what happened depending on which occurred. Given the prior history involved* as well ... yeah.

So, again, withholding judgment until there is clarification. But if the conversation was to correct it to the accurate spelling, and then after that conversation Alexander renamed it to himself, I am going to feel exceptionally differently about this, and would further question why he invoked that history in this post.

This should be a simple matter to clarify, and I assume it will happen.

*Again, there was the prior history with deadnaming. While I truly credit people with changing their minds ... it did take a while.

In regards to “no indication they agreed on a path forward”, I personally read this snippet from the article as just that

“I spoke with Jennell earlier this year. We both agreed that the name should be changed, and I said it would be a large project to do it, but I’d make sure it happened by the end of the year.”

Granted it COULD also mean he was specifically talking about adding the “s” but a lot got talked about between that portion of the article and the snippet above. So I am just offering my interpretation. And I’m not saying she agreed to Xandering, just that an overall change was needed

 

[Umbran]

Based on the blog post alone, I cannot tell you which of those two happened.

Why do we care?

That's the point here - He has a right to rename it. She has a right to ask to remove her name. Any scenario within those rights should be acceptable to us.

Unless the change is because he was a transphobic jerkwad (or some other form of jerkwad) to her, what do we care?

He puts up a vague, awkward post about it, because if he were silent, many in the community would decide that he was being that transphobic jerkwad, or something. He has a vested interest in avoiding that perception. But beyond that, what do we care?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why do we care?

That's the point here - He has a right to rename it. She has a right to ask to remove her name. Any scenario within those rights should be acceptable to us.

Unless the change is because he was a transphobic jerkwad (or some other form of jerkwad) to her, what do we care?

He puts up a vague, awkward post about it, because if he were silent, many in the community would decide that he was being that transphobic jerkwad, or something. He has a vested interest in avoiding that perception. But beyond that, what do we care?

1. Why do we care? Not to put too fine a point on it, but why do we care about anything? I can't make you care about something, and if you choose not to care about something, that is your prerogative. But clearly, others ("we") do care. So I'm not entirely sure why you don't. But if you don't, I'm not sure why your lack of caring means that we don't have to care. For that matter, I am not sure why you need to tell me to not care.

2. Now, if you were actually asking why I care, I'd be happy to tell you- after all, I just did. First, because as I explained, I would feel very differently about what actually happened depending upon the reasons for the name change. Second, he doesn't have a "right" to rename it. He can choose to call it whatever he wants, and we can choose to accept it, or not. He didn't invent the concept. He didn't create those adventures. And he doesn't own the English language.

So he doesn't have any particular right, other than hoping that this catches on - yeah, he's trying to make fetch happen. So why do I care? Because if Jennell Jaquays, someone who I have a lot of respect for as both a contributor to this hobby and as a person, simply wanted her name to be spelled correctly (after already dealing with all of the issues related to deadnaming her) ... then you know what? I am going to use her name, spelled correctly, as opposed to using this made-up terms of self-aggrandizement. And if she's on-board with ... ugh ... "xandering," then that's cool, and I won't oppose it (although I doubt I would ever use it, because it's a terrible term).

That's why I care. Because it matters. To me. It doesn't have to. To you.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Btw if anyone really wants to honor her contributions, the GoFundMe to help with her current on-going medical issues is over here.

This.

I'm certainly not going to use "xandering" as a term, but I don't think I ever used the term "Jaquay(s)ing" for that matter, either.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you’re not certain whether you have consent then you don’t have consent.

Exactly.

Just call it non-linear.

Non-linear is not a verb and does not communicate the nuance of the design principles at work in dungeons that have been Thraciafied.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Exactly.

Non-linear is not a verb and does not communicate the nuance of the design principles at work in dungeons that have been Thraciafied.

I have a sneaky suspicion that people would understand what you meant if you said "nonlinearize".

 

[Charlaquin]

I have a sneaky suspicion that people would understand what you meant if you said "nonlinearize".

That would be a verb, I guess. Still doesn’t really express the nuance of the design it’s referring to though.

 

[Composer99]

Upon reflection, I'm wondering if a specific term is really needed.

If, say, a list of some or all "Jacquays" items appeared in the DMG, would there be a specific term of art? I wouldn't think so.

In fact, the DMG has a list of ways to complexify a dungeon on page 102 that includes at least some of those items. No term of art is included.

 

[opacitizen]

I have a sneaky suspicion that people would understand what you meant if you said "nonlinearize".

As an aside, just thinking out aloud, really:

How does "derailroad(ing)" sound to you?

(Yes, I know guess the polar opposite of a railroad is a sandbox in rpg context. "Derailroading" could be the verb for moving a railroaded, tunnel-like construct towards a sandbox without getting it completely, well, sandboxed. )