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

[Charlaquin]

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.

That’s not jargon though, that’s just vocabulary. For a better example of what I’m talking about, consider the term “meta.” In these parts, “meta” might be short for “metagaming,” which most of us would probably take to mean something along the lines of “using player knowledge to gain an advantage.” Of course, this is similar to, but subtly different from the way the 5e DMG defines “metagame thinking,” which is “thinking about the game as a game,” with an example provided of a player assuming a monster is a balanced challenge for the party because the DM wouldn’t have thrown something at them they had no chance of handling. Having two people discussing metagaming, using these two different definitions but each assuming the other us using the same definition they are could already lead to confusion. Add to this conversation a Magic: the Gathering player, to whom “the metagame” refers to the overall competitive gameplay environment; which decks and strategies are most prevalent and what cards and strategies counter them effectively. This person is especially likely to become confused by the conversation if they assume the others are using “meta” the same way they do. Then let’s add in another Magic: the Gathering player, who has heard other players talk about “the meta” when discussing competitive decks, and assumes that the term refers specifically to the dominant deck, rather than the competitive environment as a whole; maybe they’ve even gotten this idea from the erroneous backronym, “Most Effective Tactic Available.” This person would likely run into communication barriers with the other Magic player, let alone the D&D players.

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

You can only clear it up through discussion if you recognize that you are using the same jargon differently, which is less likely when everyone assumes everyone else is using it the same way they are. And, if it does become clear that there’s a miscommunication due to different understandings of the jargon, in my experience this tends to lead to arguments over what definition to use - the very same pedantic halts on productive discussion you mentioned in your previous post.

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

Ok, cool. Thank you for clarifying

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

Not to diminish in any way the utility of jargon/technical language in the right context, but if I understand correctly, the vast majority, if not all, of the terminology used in climbing is referring to physically-observable object and actions, is it not? Rock faces, holds, equipment, postures, parts of the body, etc., no? I do think this aids in making that jargon more universal and less confusing.

With RPG theory jargon, we're using terms to describe things that are much more difficult for two speakers to observe and point at. I can show you a photo of a carabiner and you can tell me what that particular kind of carabiner is called. I can't show you a photo of how my DM handles plot.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There's an element to this that comes down to very basic principles of effective writing: Know your audience.

Who is your intended audience? Are you sure your intended audience knows the jargon? If not, why on Earth would you inject jargon without significant explanation first?

I had a technical writer once 'insult' a writer friend by suggesting that everything should be written with a 12 year old who knows nothing about the topic in mind... a novelist and a technical writer that could not get along after that...

 

[niklinna]

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.

This is true of any specialty, and has little to do with its age. D&D is way over twenty years old and plenty of terms and concepts in that game have changed from edition to edition. GNS's age is similarly not the issue.

Also GNS has primary documents that are still accessible on the web. It's possible to learn the terminology. You don't have to agree with it (I certainly don't), but I am capable of applying it and understanding it in context because I saw the framework being used and went and educated myself.

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!

Yes, this is true, and it's clear from this very statement that you understand that and could engage in discussion within a GNS framework, even if you hate and disagree with the model. Not that you have to!

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.

Particularly when models and frameworks are in competition (and using the same words to mean different things), it's important to be clear about which one(s) you are using. The alternative is to continually explain everything from the ground up—or develop your own, new, jargon.

As an aside, I will point out that the ancestor of this thread, about supposing D&D is gamist, explicitly mentioned GDS, GNS and other models, thereby inviting their use, and still people crapped all over folks for using them, even those who bent over backwards to be explicit about which model/terminology they were using, up to prefixing each individual term with the model. Some folks weren't explicit about which model they were using, and that's their bad, and it's totally fine to call them on it and say "Wait, which model are you using here?" And in threads where models aren't invited, it would similarly be common courtesy, in a mixed forum like this, to preface one's post with something like, "Well in GDS/GNS/GEN theory (or whatever)..."

As a further aside—and it wasn't you doing this but I feel it's worth pointing out, because it's prevalent—it is not cool to argue that the model and its terminology are vague or invalid, especially when it is, as people are fond of pointing out, 20 years old and therefore rather well settled. It is further not cool to argue that the model was misapplied or used for unsavory purpose X and therefore the model in and of itself is bad. As I've repeatedly said, I do not agree 100% with what Edwards wrote in his core essays, let alone some of his spectacularly inflammatory forum posts, but I can have a productive, useful conversation using the basic theory, including reasoned debate about its internal contradictions.

And who is to say the they're even wrong to do so, language evolves and words mean what people understand them to mean.

Language evolves, sure, but we have dictionaries (and grammars) of, say, Old English, so that it's possible to read those documents and have a good idea of what they were saying.

 

[Umbran]

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

My discussion here is largely focused on jargon's use here, on these message boards. And note that gatekeeping is not necessarily the desired result, but it can be an unintentional effect. If you expect understanding of jargon to enter a conversation, that's keeping some folks outside the gates, whether intentional or not.

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.

Fair point. However, I think there's a fair difference in the application of jargon in these areas.

In the fiber arts, a typical introduction to a jargon name is "Hm, I like this pattern. It has a knot called a <foo>. I need to look up <foo> knots and learn how to do them." It is first and foremost a practical matter, and it is generally associated with something the person has already decided to accomplish.

RPG theory jargon is theory, not practice. It is about game design, not about game play. We all know a ton of jargon about game play.

And, when folks encounter that design theory, it is often being (I feel mis-) applied to play practice, usually in a critical form, like, "You didn't have a good experience with this game because you weren't design jargoning right."

I think reaction to it is then pretty predictable.

 

[soviet]

I do sometimes wonder if physics forums are full of posters saying Einstein was wrong because 'what does all this have to do with my relatives?'.

 

[Charlaquin]

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).

I don’t think anyone has claimed that jargon is “gatekeeping (or even approaching it) by narcissistic Ivory Tower Cabals hell bent on ‘keeping the casual down’ or elevating themselves.” Snarf specifically says jargon is useful among people who are well-versed in a subject. Where it becomes a barrier, and can be (but isn’t necessarily) used for gatekeeping is when in mixed company with people who are not well-versed in the subject. I imagine, when you were learning climbing and had moments of “I have no idea what that meant,” the people you were learning from mostly tried to be helpful and break down what they meant in layman’s terms. But, had you not been trying to learn, and simply heard that jargon in passing, it would have been a barrier to you understanding. And, had the people who taught you wanted to, they could have made it much more difficult for you to learn to climb by refusing to explain their jargon and demanding that you figure it out yourself if you’re really serious about wanting to climb.

 

[Manbearcat]

Not to diminish in any way the utility of jargon/technical language in the right context, but if I understand correctly, the vast majority, if not all, of the terminology used in climbing is referring to physically-observable object and actions, is it not? Rock faces, holds, equipment, postures, parts of the body, etc., no? I do think this aids in making that jargon more universal and less confusing.

With RPG jargon, we're using terms to describe things that are much more difficult for two speakers to observe and point at. I can show you a photo of a carabiner and you can tell me what that particular kind of carabiner is called. I can't show you a photo of how my DM handles plot.

Good post.

However, while objective objects are a part of it for sure (just like objective rules technology and TTRPG engine design and system archetecture are effectively "objects"), they are only a very limited part of the picture.

Where it gets complex is the personal proprioception component + the huge differential in body indices + cognitive disposition and morale (unique ability to process information from the ground and on the wall + courage and will are a HUGE and distinctive components of climbing) + how all of this integrates within the closed and complex system of a person (along with the physical objects...which are a dizzying array of kit and hold variety and technique variety and face/pitch variety) to create a very unique orientation to any given obstacle for an individual climber.

EDIT -

I don’t think anyone has claimed that jargon is “gatekeeping (or even approaching it) by narcissistic Ivory Tower Cabals hell bent on ‘keeping the casual down’ or elevating themselves.”

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh...yeah....yeah they have. Maybe not in this thread exactly but in the ENWorld community at large (including verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry recently...including the thread that spawned this one...of which you were involved in so you either bore witness to it there or you skipped past it) its hugely prolific!

Snarf specifically says jargon is useful among people who are well-versed in a subject.

And my post was a testimonial disputing that this is the exclusive sub-group that it is useful for (or even approaching exclusive).

It is hugely useful for utter novices who have no exposure to the jargon or the craft the jargon/critical lens supports.

Brazillian JijJitsu is even much more of a potent example than climbing is (its just that I started BJJ over 20 years ago so the example is less meaningful to me). The amount of jargon and body language for BJJ that has to be humbly accepted and synthesized makes these TTRPG jargon culture wars (and that is what they are) a joke by comparison.

 

[Umbran]

I had a technical writer once 'insult' a writer friend by suggesting that everything should be written with a 12 year old who knows nothing about the topic in mind... a novelist and a technical writer that could not get along after that...

Yeah. And when frustrated novelists write game rules, you get stuff like 1e AD&D rulebooks.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not to diminish in any way the utility of jargon/technical language in the right context, but if I understand correctly, the vast majority, if not all, of the terminology used in climbing is referring to physically-observable object and actions, is it not? Rock faces, holds, equipment, postures, parts of the body, etc., no? I do think this aids in making that jargon more universal and less confusing.

There’s also some particular phraseology, like for example the call-and-response ritual to signal to one’s climbing partner that they are ready to start climbing and to confirm that the partner is prepared to support them should they fall:

“On belay?”
“Belay is on.”
“Climbing.”
“Climb on.”

As an example of something that could sound like gibberish to a layman.