Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[Undrave]

When it comes to game design concept I'm a big fan of the '8 aesthetics of fun' taxonomy presented in this paper
https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf (Though I support the AngryGM's suggestion of swapping 'Submission' by 'Abnegation')

Later expansion have added 'competition' as a 9th.

I think it's a good way to view game design and what can bring people to certain games. It's important to note that they do not have to be absolutes, that people are on a complex spectrum regarding all eight of those, and that their taste can change a lot depending on circumstances and what other aesthetics are in play.

 

[soviet]

Fundamentally there are a couple of core issues that I think feed into this :

• When it comes to other sorts of games players tend to value variety. Different sorts of play experiences. How many people do you know who have only played one sort of video game or one sort of board game?
• There's a sort of idea that acknowledging value of one game or structure of play diminishes or takes away from another.
• Like in MMOs there's this sense that other games or styles of play take away from the player pool for the game you are interested in. See comments on splitting the fanbase.
• One structure of play represents a direct and visceral rejection of another in the RPG space. Sorcerer took a look at Vampire and said definitely not that. It's always going to be contentious because the principles of play are inversions of each other.

This is an interesting point. I think there was definitely a clash of assumptions where GNS-sympathetic people tended to see different games as a smorgasbord of options to be cycled through - this time let's try something chocolate flavoured, so of course it should be very very chocolatey indeed - whereas the mainstream culture was much more about picking one game and sticking with it for ages - what do you mean there's no strawberry in this at all? I like all the flavours!

 

[Aldarc]

A couple theories I have. The first one is that video games enjoy a much much larger user base. With that comes a wide variety of games that go from causal all the way up to hardcore. There is plenty of room for causals and hardcore players to chat about their hobby. The second is that there is no D&D (800# gorilla) equivalent in the video game hobby. Due to D&D's crushing orbit it dominates all discussion fairly or not. TTRPGs attract intellectually and technical minded folks who enjoy comprehensive discussions and arguments. However, due to there can be only one king of TTRPGs, there is often a winner takes all stakes to how the games are described, theorized, and general attitudes towards those of its community. Its a rare combination of low community population, but highly demanding conceptualized theory.

Just my theory.

Thanks for expanding your point. This rings close to my own speculative guesses.

So, you realize this puts jargon as gatekeeping? If you don't know it, you aren't part of the in-group...
Edit to add: Others have already made this observation, apologies for the duplication

You make the development and learning of jargon within communities sound far more malicious and nefarious than it often is.

There is a lot of jargon, for example, that exists for knitting, including styles of weaves, knots, stitching patterns, materials, etc. The fact that I may have to learn this jargon if I participated in this hobby or community doesn't inherently mean that it's a form of gatekeeping. That seems like a bit of a stretch. If someone in a knitting circle belittled me for not knowing the jargon, however, that would be gatekeeping. Me having to apply a modicum of effort to learn a knitting term so I am not ignorant of it when I keep encountering it doesn't really strike me as gatekeeping.

Likewise, my partner is trans. There is jargon used in trans communities that they use that I don't necessarily know or readily recognize, and the jargon tends to diverge between FTM and MTF sub-communities. I don't think that this jargon exists to gatekeep. I think that it would be unfair to construe the idea that I may have to go out of my way to educate myself on this jargon or ask my partner about a term's meaning as the trans community trying to gatekeep.

Jargon can certainly be used as a tool to gatekeep, but that doesn't mean that jargon either develops in communities for the purpose of gatekeeping or that learning community-specific jargon is inherently a gatekeeping practice. I do think that there is a difference between me not knowing a particular piece of jargon a community uses and learning about it as part of participating in the community's discourse and the community using my ignorance of that jargon as a means of excluding me. I certainly grant you that there can be murky areas with this, but I don't think that adopting an approach that sees any learning jargon as gatekeeping. It casts too wide of a net.

 

[Campbell]

I also think the actual jargon used to describe games like Sorcerer was not well chosen. Using narrative and story in the descriptors for a sort of play that is fundamentally a rejection of storytelling (whether GM led or collaborative) was a pretty massive blunder.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree that jargon can represent a barrier to entry. However, what sometimes this point sidesteps how much of a barrier jargon actually represents. A lot of jargon is gradually absorbed through participation in a subculture or field over time. But there are often resources out there, especially in this day and age, where people can use their Google-Fu to find out what the jargon means. It's not like you need a law degree to look up and understand what a "hexcrawl game" is.

The problem here is that learning jargon through this cultural osmosis is extremely unreliable. People will often attempt to decipher jargon based on context and come to an incorrect conclusion, then go on using it under that assumed meaning, which makes it more likely that others will pick up on the way they are using it and perpetuate it. Look at the recent(ish) “supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean” thread. None of us could agree on a definition of a word we all use as if we know what it means. I’ve been talking about and hearing people talk about gamism, simulationism, and narrativism for 10 years, and I’m still not confident I understand what the terms mean, because it seems like no two people use them quite the same way.

 

[payn]

I also think the actual jargon used to describe games like Sorcerer was not well chosen. Using narrative and story in the descriptors for a sort of play that is fundamentally a rejection of storytelling (whether GM led or collaborative) was a pretty massive blunder.

I gotta admit, I was very confused by it myself.

 

[niklinna]

The problem here is that learning jargon through this cultural osmosis is extremely unreliable. People will often attempt to decipher jargon based on context and come to an incorrect conclusion, then go on using it under that assumed meaning, which makes it more likely that others will pick up on the way they are using it and perpetuate it. Look at the recent(ish “supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean” thread. None of us could agree on a definition of a word we all use as if we know what it means. I’ve been talking about and hearing people talk about gamism, simulationism, and narrativism for 10 years, and I’m still not confident I understand what the terms mean, because it seems like no two people use them quite the same way.

This is a big problem with living in our modern, Internet-connected, fast-paced times. Communities used to develop over generations in fixed locales, and people had time for the cultural osmosis. Now anybody can just teleport into a whole new community from moment to moment! And while the Threefold Model and Forge/GNS theory have their canonical documents still on the web, the Internet is frighteningly ephemeral (just this morning I had to hit archive.org to find a blog post someone cited but couldn't find), and there's no guarantee anybody will know to go looking for the canonical documents I just linked (or where to start once they find the collections).

With all this churn, it behooves us all to be clear about the model or framework we're using, and provide direct links to primary sources if at all possible. @Snarf Zagyg has another list of links on the other thread, that folks might find useful or informative.

 

[payn]

The problem here is that learning jargon through this cultural osmosis is extremely unreliable. People will often attempt to decipher jargon based on context and come to an incorrect conclusion, then go on using it under that assumed meaning, which makes it more likely that others will pick up on the way they are using it and perpetuate it. Look at the recent(ish “supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean” thread. None of us could agree on a definition of a word we all use as if we know what it means. I’ve been talking about and hearing people talk about gamism, simulationism, and narrativism for 10 years, and I’m still not confident I understand what the terms mean, because it seems like no two people use them quite the same way.

I find the terms to be as accurate as I need them to be. The jargon allows a shorthand for a discussion with other hobbyists. The jargon isn't scientific and wont be found in any graduate course. Most of the time I know what people are going for. If not, I just ask them but most of the time its a shortcut to getting into a discussion without having to explain yourself every single time.

In terms of the categorization of people I think you make a lot of good points. My father was a salesman and used a method that grouped people into different personality types. I grew up with this just part of our breakfast and dinner table discussion so it became natural for me to, the moment I met someone, identify their primary and secondary personality trait in the model he used. Such models can be broadly useful. If you are trying to get sales and you meet 100 people, if the model is even vaguely helpful in pushing up your sales numbers, it has utility. The problem is it is just a model, and it is being used for a particular purpose, and people don't often fall neatly into models. The model can become your way of looking at the world and you can miss a lot of who people really are if you are relying on a model to understand them.

This. I find jargon very useful as a model. Models are not perfect, they are generalizations, though often in these hobby discussions horseshoes and hand grenades are good enough. If it is important, or I'm confused, I'll ask for clarification. Which is why im always confused by the folks who think there is no value in jargon because it isn't laser precise. Have they met language? When I consider using jargon or not will depend on the audience. YMMV.

 

[Charlaquin]

When it comes to game design concept I'm a big fan of the '8 aesthetics of fun' taxonomy presented in this paper
https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf (Though I support the AngryGM's suggestion of swapping 'Submission' by 'Abnegation')

Later expansion have added 'competition' as a 9th.

I think it's a good way to view game design and what can bring people to certain games. It's important to note that they do not have to be absolutes, that people are on a complex spectrum regarding all eight of those, and that their taste can change a lot depending on circumstances and what other aesthetics are in play.

The nice thing about this model is that it isn’t a typography. The eight forms of engagement aren’t exclusive categories to sort games or players into. They’re things people tend to find fun, which games can appeal to, or not appeal to, in any combination.

 

[Campbell]

One thing I will say is that I believe we should treat this consistently. If we are going to call for less use of jargon that must apply just as much to things like "the story", adventure hook, world building, sandbox, "living breathing world" as it does to the jargon used to describe other sorts of play. If our lingua franca is built around exploratory play and storytelling than it becomes extremely difficult to discuss play that does not value them highly.

 

[Umbran]

Significant explanation is often given. Extensively so. I know I have spilled a whole lot of virtual ink on this stuff in pretty much every thread I try to talk about this stuff. Others have spilled far more.

Sure. But in this context, knowing your audience includes knowing the medium. If you are sitting in a room with the same group of people for two hours, having a conversation everyone is focused upon, and only one or two people come in or out, you can probably get away with spilling that ink once. In the next discussion, if there are new people, you'll have to spill that ink again.

Now consider the message board medium - we have asynchronous communication among a varying group of dozens over the course of days during which your conversation is only one of dozens of things the person is paying attention to. That is a challenging place for jargon. There's enough distraction and turnover that you'll have to spill a lot of ink. It may well be more efficient to just use natural language, rather than explain jargon repeatedly.

I have to agree with Snarf - jargon is at its best and most useful when it is used among a group of people who all already have the same understanding of that jargon. When in mixed company, use of jargon is best considered not as a tool for the current discussion, but as developing a tool for later discussions.

It does not help that, around here, folks lead with the jargon, and then have to explain it. From an instructional standpoint, that's backwards - you don't want to start by confusing the student, because that makes the student defensive. A better mode of instruction would be to introduce the concept, establish that it is useful, get the student to agree to that utility, and only then apply the name.

Because remember - the jargon isn't actually the important bit. The concepts the jargon stands for are. They should be the focus, and you should be willing to abandon the jargon to get the concepts across, if that's what's needed.

 

[Charlaquin]

I find the terms to be as accurate as I need them to be. The jargon allows a shorthand for a discussion with other hobbyists. The jargon isn't scientific and wont be found in any graduate course. Most of the time I know what people are going for. If not, I just ask them but most of the time its a shortcut to getting into a discussion without having to explain yourself every single time.

But when multiple people in a discussion are all confidently using the same jargon term to mean different things, while assuming everyone else is using it to mean the same thing they are, productive conversation is nearly impossible.

 

[payn]

One thing I will say is that I believe we should treat this consistently. If we are going to call for less use of jargon that must apply just as much to things like "the story", adventure hook, world building, sandbox, "living breathing world" as it does to the jargon used to describe other sorts of play. If our lingua franca is built around exploratory play and storytelling than it becomes extremely difficult to discuss play that does not value them highly.

I think the key is in participation. If you are making a thread consider your audience. If you are posting in a thread consider its OP. For example, there are threads that talk about sandbox as a concept, and there are threads on doing it. If you dont think sandbox is even a thing, then by all means post away in the concept thread. Though, if folks are having a discussion about it as a given, probably not the right time and place to tell them they are wrong.

 

[Charlaquin]

One thing I will say is that I believe we should treat this consistently. If we are going to call for less use of jargon that must apply just as much to things like "the story", adventure hook, world building, sandbox, "living breathing world" as it does to the jargon used to describe other sorts of play. If our lingua franca is built around exploratory play and storytelling than it becomes extremely difficult to discuss play that does not value them highly.

Ironically, I don’t know what you mean by “exploratory play” or “storytelling” in this context.

 

[payn]

But when multiple people in a discussion are all confidently using the same jargon term to mean different things, while assuming everyone else is using it to mean the same thing they are, productive conversation is nearly impossible.

I find this to be an over exaggeration. I have productive conversations every single day. The only ones that get stuck in myriad of definitions are the ones that want to precisely define the term or argue over it on a conceptual level. Comes with the territory.

As in my posting above, I think the key is participating in good faith. If you can set aside any technical or pedantic arguments for the sake of conversation please do so. If you cant, save it for a conceptual topic thread.

 

[Charlaquin]

I find this to be an over exaggeration. I have productive conversations every single day.

With people who are unknowingly using the same jargon to mean different things? That seems unlikely to me.

The only ones that get stuck in myriad of definitions are the ones that want to precisely define the term or argue over it on a conceptual level. Comes with the territory.

I’m not talking about conversations getting stuck, I’m talking about misunderstanding, which is pretty much inevitable when we think we’re using a shared language but actually aren’t.

As in my posting above, I think the key is participating in good faith. If you can set aside any technical or pedantic arguments for the sake of conversation please do so. If you cant, save it for a conceptual topic thread.

I might not be parsing this correctly. Are you speaking generally, or are you directly telling me to save my concerns about misunderstood jargon causing confusion for another thread?

 

[niklinna]

One thing I will say is that I believe we should treat this consistently. If we are going to call for less use of jargon that must apply just as much to things like "the story", adventure hook, world building, sandbox, "living breathing world" as it does to the jargon used to describe other sorts of play. If our lingua franca is built around exploratory play and storytelling than it becomes extremely difficult to discuss play that does not value them highly.

Ironically, I don’t know what you mean by “exploratory play” or “storytelling” in this context.

Short of an explicit context, I don't know what any of those terms mean.

 

[payn]

With people who are unknowingly using the same jargon to mean different things? That seems unlikely to me.

Correct, well, in degrees. I mean, if you are saying somebody is saying toaster to mean a werewolf, then yeah that super confusing. I find folks might say lycan instead of werewolf and I get were they are going. If I'm not 100% with them, a simple clarifying question straightens it out.

I’m not talking about conversations getting stuck, I’m talking about misunderstanding, which is pretty much inevitable when we think we’re using a shared language but actually aren’t.

Happens all the time, even right now. You clear it up through discussion.

I might not be parsing this correctly, are you speaking generally, or are you directly telling me to save my concerns about misunderstood jargon causing confusion for another thread?

I was speaking generally, not specifically about this thread. This is the right place to discuss this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But when multiple people in a discussion are all confidently using the same jargon term to mean different things, while assuming everyone else is using it to mean the same thing they are, productive conversation is nearly impossible.

Right. And with GNS I feel that the original twenty-year-old meaning of the terms and layman understanding of them has become so far divergent, that the terminology is a hindrance. Like I said in the another thread, according to Forge, if I care about games having a coherent satisfying narrative, that actually is simulationism, not narrativism! But I'd wager that a most people who are merely vaguely familiar with these terms would (sensibly) associate it with narrativism, which they actually understand to be roughly the same thing than dramatism in the (even older) GDS model.
And who is to say the they're even wrong to do so, language evolves and words mean what people understand them to mean.

 

[Manbearcat]

I agree that jargon can represent a barrier to entry. However, what sometimes this point sidesteps how much of a barrier jargon actually represents. A lot of jargon is gradually absorbed through participation in a subculture or field over time. But there are often resources out there, especially in this day and age, where people can use their Google-Fu to find out what the jargon means. It's not like you need a law degree to look up and understand what a "hexcrawl game" is.

Outside of this small bubble of a hobby, there is a tremendous amount of jargon floating around in the field of video games, jargon used to describe different genres of games, jargon used within game-specific communities (e.g., Call of Duty, etc.), jargon used with types of games (e.g., MOBA: Jungler, Bruiser, Carry, etc.), broader gaming communities (e.g., Speed Runners, eSports, etc.), or within game design communities (e.g., clipping, FPS, bots, Easter Egg, Whales, etc.), or the entire market (e.g., DLC, Pay-to-Win, microtransactions, etc.).

As you say, a lot of this was born within the hobby rather than on an academic level. But that is often the way of things: Hobbyists -> Hobby Companies -> Hobby Academics. Hobbyists are processing and discussing trends in the hobby with far greater alacrity and dispersion than academics. So over against what some have said about jargon, I don't think that jargon represents Ivory Tower thinking. IME, it's often hobbyists grappling with discussions in the hobby and its various subcultures.

Jargon is a part of education and community-engagement. It can be off-putting if you have little interest in it at a certain level, but as you learn and engage these communities more and more, you learn the jargon, whether conscientiously or not.

I started climbing 2.75 years ago because (a) I have to shelf my basketball activities due to needing ankle reconstruction surgery so I'm hoping it will fill that niche I'm losing (its a huge thing for me losing something that has been so important to my life and well-being) and (b) hopes that it will help strengthen both of my shoulders so I can continue BJJ (which, along with a baseball career, ruined both of my rotator cuffs).

I went in knowing absolute_nothing_about climbing. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

There is a gigantically dizzying array of essential jargon for learning climbing, bettering your climbing, and engaging with the climbing community locally and at large.

In two months time of straddling general-to-aggressive exposure (to the climbing itself, to the learning process, and the community), I'd uploaded nearly all of it so now my until-recently-climbing-derp-brain can think and perceive and talk like a functional climber.

Two months time. Within that time I went from looking at a wall as a complete and utter novice to looking at the wall through the lens of someone equipped to critically conceive obstacle dynamics and map a route and use all of that newly-gained jargon as a weapon to shorthand/hack the process of understanding what I'm doing + employing my understanding +getting better at both. And the same goes for having functional conversations with climbers in the community. There was a ton of "I don't understand what that means" and "no clue what you just said" in the beginning...but eventually I got there.

I suffer horrific Insomnia (like Fight Club type "copy of a copy of a copy" insomnia).

I'm in the throes of dealing with CTE because of dozens of major concussions in my life (including 3 blackouts).

And there is other stuff that I won't go into.

I am a seriously_diminished_person cognitively from where I was even 5 years ago (and well more than 10 years ago).

Yet somehow, despite being extremely diminished + not a particularly smart person to begin with (I'm not even close to the outer tail of the intelligence distribution for humanity), I'm able to onboard complex jargon from a novice state within 2 months time and use that jargon/critical lens to serious advantage in both employing it physically and socially (which becomes a positive feedback loop between the two). I'm sorry, I cannot get onboard with this "war against jargon" I keep seeing. No. I will not get on board...because its not true that it is all gatekeeping (or even approaching it) by narcissistic Ivory Tower Cabals hell bent on "keeping the casual done" or elevating themselves. It can be very very useful toward skill-acquisition and x-hacks in whatever endeavor its oriented to.

Sometimes...maybe more than sometimes...it helps humble...rather broken people hack their way to some level of proficiency in a thing (with aspirations toward more than proficiency).