D&D General Jargon Revisited: Why Jargon is Often Bad for Discussing RPGs

[Umbran]

Player agency isn't being used as a term to demean any playstyle or to promote a particular game type or anything like that. It's being used to promote clarity and accuracy regarding whose agency is actually involved when playing a game: i.e., the player. It's an attempt to de-jargon the discussion.

Eh. It is my observation (for whatever that is worth) that the term is generally being put forward by people who are particularly interested in games that are asserted to focus on, or enhance, player agency, and is often brought forth to criticize games that have agency elsewhere. So, there does seem to be an agenda back there.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I find the biggest issue with discussion these days is position over interests. Everything is a line in the sand, a fight to be absolutely right, while at least one person is absolutely wrong. Folks have lost the ability to set aside their need to be absolutely correct for the sake of a discussion. Jargon is just a victim of this.

When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by television pundits and internet commenters and fools. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. She may as well concern himself with her shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today.

 

[MGibster]

I am sure that someone is getting ready to start typing, Shakra, when the walls fell.

I hate that episode so much. Seriously, I'd rather watch "Code of Honor" again.

I'm largely in agreement about the jargon. It's more useful to use precise terms when pretty much everyone is within agreement on what that word means in this context. But if you're in a mixed crowd, you're going to spend a lot of time explaining those terms and then getting a bunch of different opinions as to the validity of your definition. I've said it before, but I'll admit it again, my eyes glaze over with theory talk about RPGs. Hi trust? Low trust? Now I don't trust you. And regardless of whether I'm running D&D, Aliens, Deadlands, or GURPs, if you tell me I'm running a low trust game I'm going to be miffed.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I'm not sure that genre (acid jazz, anime) is a great example of of jargon given the slightly different issues involved in that.

I literally did not say it was. I said it was an example of a thing where the definition and outer bounds can be in contention, but where there are still aspects or facets within them concrete enough to have jargon-level terms.

 

[kenada]

I find the biggest issue with discussion these days is position over interests. Everything is a line in the sand, a fight to be absolutely right, while at least one person is absolutely wrong. Folks have lost the ability to set aside their need to be absolutely correct for the sake of a discussion. Jargon is just a victim of this.

There’s something about Internet discussion that makes it difficult to admit to being wrong or changing your mind. I can’t be the only one who’s had the other participants in the discussion take that as a signal to step up the attack. (See also: not every discussion is a damn debate.)

 

[Aldarc]

Eh. It is my observation (for whatever that is worth) that the term is generally being put forward by people who are particularly interested in games that are asserted to focus on, or enhance, player agency, and is often brought forth to criticize games that have agency elsewhere. So, there does seem to be an agenda back there.

FWIW, it's my observation that "player agency" is being put forth as a way to include all tabletop games rather than preclude, marginalize, or gatekeep games that may have forms of player agency outside of particular, personal play preferences.

 

[FrogReaver]

I find the biggest issue with discussion these days is position over interests. Everything is a line in the sand, a fight to be absolutely right, while at least one person is absolutely wrong. Folks have lost the ability to set aside their need to be absolutely correct for the sake of a discussion. Jargon is just a victim of this.

Control the jargon, win the discussion

 

[payn]

There’s something about Internet discussion that makes it difficult to admit to being wrong or changing your mind. I can’t be the only one who’s had the other participants in the discussion take that as a signal to step up the attack. (See also: not every discussion is a damn debate.)

Control the jargon, win the discussion

Sometimes its not even a matter of being right or wrong, but merely of different opinion. Am I the only one interested in diversity of thought?

 

[MGibster]

There’s something about Internet discussion that makes it difficult to admit to being wrong or changing your mind. I can’t be the only one who’s had the other participants in the discussion take that as a signal to step up the attack. (See also: not every discussion is a damn debate.)

I diagree, and I'd like to give you a three point rebuttal....

Edit: In all seriousness, I agree with you. I tend to look at prefences as just that, preferences. I might like my steak medium, you might like it medium rare, and that other guy might like it medium well and that's fine. We all agree the guy who likes it well done isn't right in the head though.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Linear problem, quadratic explanation.