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

[iserith]

I generally think about group-specific vocabulary for ease of communications to be "lingo," and the stuff that is purposefully opaque or confusing or meant to show that one belongs to an enlightened in-group to be "jargon." By those definitions, lingo good, jargon bad.

 

[Umbran]

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

And, you know what, non-standardized jargon is also a problem.

I don't want to start a major tangent, so unless someone seriously want to know why I'm using a broader meaning of gatekeeping, I'll leave that be.

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.

That's awesome for you. I'm glad you've found it helpful.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

Borrowing this as a jump off point.

These kinds of arguments seem an especially strong version of special pleading that's seeking to protect some jargon as "okay" and other jargon as "bad" with a semantic swap of acceptable jargon to "vocabulary."

It's been pointed out that these boards are full of jargon. The comment by @Umbran to @Manbearcat about level of interest determining if the jargon was worthwhile is totally ignoring that 1) people have already ingested and learned a huge amount of jargon to just play D&D and 2) this is a board for discussion of games, including how they work and seeking advice for making it better. If this is a bad place to have discussions using additional terms past those already learned to better discuss how games work, then please, @Umbran, point out where a good place is. Because the implication that ENW is just not a place for such discussions is real gatekeeping,.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

What bugs me about Forge jargon it is how terribly it's explained. Ron Edwards is not a clear or concise writer. Which leads to the main problem with GNS jargon, it's almost literally true that no two people use those phrases to mean the same thing. People who claim to be up on Forge jargon and GNS will argue with each other about what those terms mean. By definition that's bad jargon. Jargon is meant to be shorthand technical speak so that insiders can communicate efficiently and effectively with each other. When those "insiders" argue with each other about what the jargon actually means...yeah, that's a huge red flag. Hence my thread on the topic.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And, you know what, non-standardized jargon is also a problem.

I don't want to start a major tangent, so unless someone seriously want to know why I'm using a broader meaning of gatekeeping, I'll leave that be.



That's awesome for you. I'm glad you've found it helpful.

I'd enjoy an expoundment from you on your broader meaning of gatekeeping, and why you seem to think that this statement from the other thread...

Jargon poses a barrier to entry for anyone who isn't already in the jargon in-group. Barriers to entry are counterproductive.

Jargon is great when you have a bunch of people who already know the jargon go off into a jargon place and have jargon talk. EN World, however, is not an RPG theory jargon place. Maybe using a tag on a thread title, like, "[Ivory Tower]" or something, would at least inform people that they should not expect to join in if they aren't part of the jargon cabal.

... is somehow exempt from that definition. Because, to me, this meets a much narrower set of definitions of gatekeeping. It's explicitly insulting, othering, and suggesting the segregation of people with ideas you dislike.

 

[Umbran]

I generally think about group-specific vocabulary for ease of communications to be "lingo," and the stuff that is purposefully opaque or confusing or meant to show that one belongs to an enlightened in-group to be "jargon." By those definitions, lingo good, jargon bad.

So, if we cannot even have a mutually agreeable understanding of the word "jargon", how on this good green Earth are we supposed to have a mutually agreed understanding of jargon words such that they are useful?

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

So my problem with this view is the following:

* It seems to assume I'm special (I'm not) OR it assumes that I cared more about climbing 2.75 years ago than TTRPG players who have invested a comparatively (when compared to that novice who walked into that climbing gym 2.75 years ago) enormous swathe of time, social capital, actual $ capital, mental/emotional energy.

* It seems to assume a humility on my part when entering into a new domain that others either (a) don't/can't possess or (b) shouldn't be held accountable to aspire to. I think your "puts students on the defensive" above, speaks to your orientation to this.

* It also seems to assume that TTRPG players are uniquely not particularly curious or caring about their leisure activity (I do mean "their" here, given how much your average gamer puts into it...ownership...even casuals devote hours of various forms of capital just to play at all) relative to other folks and their leisure activities. I don't think that bears out broadly and I definitely don't think it bears out for a community like ENWorld where people absolutely are invested at least in relative proportion to "ham and egger" climbers like me (I'm not very good and I never will be...I'm dead average and I'm likely never to improve much upon that...despite that, I still aspire to be better).

* It also seems to assume that people can't curate their own behavior and be accountable for it (engage with jargon in an area that seems interesting to them, disengage with jargon when their interest is lost, ignore jargon outright when its not found to be interesting/productive, engage faithfully with curiosity and humility about concepts new to them vs the opposite). Granted, that is a massive problem in the social media world where platforms and algorithms plug into people's "worse nature" by design to create just awful human behavior (personally and collectively). But ENWorld is not Twitter, Facebook, Youtube (etc).



So I don't exactly know which of these above assumptions are in play here (you'd have to settle that...I'm just drawing inferrences based on your recent commentary on this and our prior engagements on the subject).

I also don't the matrix of assumptions (because I don't know the individual ones) that you have in mind.

But regardless, I don't agree with any of them. I don't agree that they're correct and I certainly don't agree that they're something to relent to (rather than aspire to overcome) if they were true. For example, that "student reflexively on the defensive (rather than humble with aspirations toward being better)" who takes on climbing or BJJ? They fail out. Hard. And it costs them a hell of a lot (including the loving embrace of a humble, healthy community of exemplars).

 

[iserith]

So, if we cannot even have a mutually agreeable understanding of the word "jargon", how on this good green Earth are we supposed to have a mutually agreed understanding of jargon words such that they are useful?

Probably we should set a standard. If iserith says it's jargon, then it's jargon. Otherwise it's lingo. That works for me.

I just looked up the definitions for each and it does seem the difference actually is that jargon is specifically called out as difficult where lingo is not.

 

[Umbran]

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)?

When Forge-jargon and its derivatives make up the overwhelming majority of the examples of RPG design theory jargon on the site, it is going to be difficult to tell the difference between a problem with jargon in general, and a problem with Forge-jargon.

As Snarf has pointed out more than once, folks on EN World seem to have largely not engaged with newer design schools, and so have not applied their jargon much.

 

[iserith]

What bugs me about Forge jargon it is how terribly it's explained. Ron Edwards is not a clear or concise writer. Which leads to the main problem with GNS jargon, it's almost literally true that no two people use those phrases to mean the same thing. People who claim to be up on Forge jargon and GNS will argue with each other about what those terms mean. By definition that's bad jargon. Jargon is meant to be shorthand technical speak so that insiders can communicate efficiently and effectively with each other. When those "insiders" argue with each other about what the jargon actually means...yeah, that's a huge red flag. Hence my thread on the topic.

I mostly judge the theory on its impact on discussions and by the behavior of its adherents. By that standard, it's like it was created in a lab by scientists as a weapon to muddle communication and divide people into warring factions. (As if "metagaming" wasn't already enough.) Whatever little utility there is to it is greatly overshadowed by the most common outcomes of its usage in my view. That's why I stopped using it years ago, advise against it now whenever I see it pop up, and ignore those who insist upon going all in with it.