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

[payn]

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.

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.

Ok, cool. Thank you for clarifying

Sorry, I did realize my example for examples sake probably wasn't jargony enough. I do think folks should use their jargon mindfully. Saying, "oh it's so meta" doesnt really tell us how you are using the term. Saying, "oh thats so meta because you used fire on a troll you never encountered before" tells me a lot more about how you define the term and want to use it. Going forward I can challenge that definition to make sure the person really means it. If they do, then I have to decide if I am going to suspend my definition for conversation sake, or politely exit the exchange.

What is common is that two folks disagree and can not suspend or reach the disengage mode. This is usually after about 8 pages and the conversation has run its course. It's also common for these folks to reignite that song and dance repeatedly. Likely, why so many folks are down on jargon entirely. I also recognize this happening and use the disengage method to side step this repetitious and exhausting process.

 

[Composer99]

I'm tempted to say, somewhat cheekily, that jargon becomes jargon when it is used to obfuscate meaning or gatekeep. Otherwise, it's a term of art.

 

[Charlaquin]

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!

I haven’t seen it. I’ve seen people who are generally critical of jargon in certain contexts, for pretty much the reasons Snarf gets into in the opening post of this thread, and I have seen people who are highly critical of Forge jargon in particular, often as one component of their critique of GNS theory as a whole. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone assert that all jargon is only a gatekeeping tool.

 

[niklinna]

That’s not jargon though, that’s just vocabulary.

Technically, all vocabulary is jargon, in the way that everybody has an accent. Language communities (and sub-communities, such as those you detail in your nice elaboration on "meta") share a jargon/vocabulary, but "jargon" is the term we reserve specifically for when things don't overlap/match.

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.

This is a universal problem in language, and RPG talk has no particular privilege or exemption.

 

[soviet]

I'm tempted to say, somewhat cheekily, that jargon becomes jargon when it is used to obfuscate meaning or gatekeep. Otherwise, it's a term of art.

I use terms of art/natural language. They use elitist jargon.

 

[niklinna]

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.

That's interesting, because my understanding of the term "gatekeeping", intentionality is very much part of the definition. More jargon!

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.

I use RPG theory terminology to think and talk about practice and play quite a bit. It helps me understand how to get more out of a given game, or group of players, or context (one-shot vs. campaign). It's immensely practical for me.

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.

Yeah that's a poor use of design theory.

 

[Manbearcat]

I haven’t seen it. I’ve seen people who are generally critical of jargon in certain contexts, for pretty much the reasons Snarf gets into in the opening post of this thread, and I have seen people who are highly critical of Forge jargon in particular, often as one component of their critique of GNS theory as a whole. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone assert that all jargon is only a gatekeeping tool.

Haven't seen it.

Alright. Fair enough.

At least then, given your post above, can we now admit that this isn't JARGON BAD but rather a stealth culture war and dogwhistle for <FORGE> JARGON BAD <TRADITIONAL JARGON GOOD!> while not saying the quiet part out loud (or keeping it somewhat muffled when its expeditious to do so)?

 

[Umbran]

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.

So, you relate this to overall span of time. But, let us consider the focus and effort you were putting into this activity. That jargon was of practical use to you in achieving goals that sound like they were highly meaningful to you, and you were being introduced to the jargon as you attempted the relevant tasks, which I do not doubt were mentally, physically, and emotionally strenuous. That context certainly helped drive understanding of the jargon.

Those things generally don't apply to RPG design theory jargon. Maybe in the context of a deep, intensive RPG design workshop you might get the same kind of use out of the jargon in question here. But, in casual conversation on EN World? I don't see that happening.

 

[Charlaquin]

Technically, all vocabulary is jargon, in the way that everybody has an accent. Language communities (and sub-communities, such as those you detail in your nice elaboration on "meta") share a jargon/vocabulary, but "jargon" is the term we reserve specifically for when things don't overlap/match.

Only if you generalize the term jargon to mean any word or phrase used to convey a specific concept, at which point the term no longer has any real utility. Generally jargon is used specifically for technical language; a word or phrase used to convey meaning specific to a specialized field.

This is a universal problem in language, and RPG talk has no particular privilege or exemption.

It is indeed.

 

[Charlaquin]

Haven't seen it.

Alright. Fair enough.

At least then, given your post above, can we now admit that this isn't JARGON BAD but rather a stealth culture war and dogwhistle for <FORGE> JARGON BAD <TRADITIONAL JARGON GOOD!> while not saying the quiet part out loud (or keeping it somewhat muffled when its expeditious to do so)?

There are definitely a lot of folks here who are strongly opposed to Forge jargon in particular (again, usually as one part of a broader opposition to GNS theory as a whole). I don’t think those people are shy about that fact, so I wouldn’t call it “saying the quiet part out loud.” There are also people who have legitimate concerns about the way jargon (Forge-related or otherwise) is often used in RPG discussions. Neither of these positions hold that all jargon is only used for gatekeeping.