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

[niklinna]

What bugs me about Forge jargon it is how terribly it's explained. Ron Edwards is not a clear or concise writer.

I will agree with you here. I was a technical writer for half my career; he definitely needed an editor! He was also inconsistent or contradictory in some things—he was developing his theory between essays, after all. Having read papers in my college studies where scholars changed their positions over time, though, I generally roll with that, or work out a usable understanding of my own (which, in anticipation of the next point, I make a point of clarifying in GNS-based discussion).

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.

I have rarely had this problem—with people versed in the terminology (by which I mean, those who have read the primary sources and not learned it second-, third- or more-hand)—and when I have disagreed with someone on a particular term, we've been able to settle on which interpretation to use in continuing our discussion.

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.

This gets into the history of GNS and concurrent RPG theory, which was being fervently, fervidly, and passionately argued as it was developed, often quite acrimoniously and with dubious motivation on the parts of prominent figures in that community. I accepted that as part of the hazard of using it. What I didn't anticipate when I learned and used it, was people crapping on it strictly because of that history. A lof of people carry a ton of baggage that keeps them from gleaning any value from the model. Or anything that vaguely resembles the model!

 

[Xetheral]

Counter-proposal: TTRPG discussion is disproportionately concerned with design and theory. You get this kind of jargon and hair-splitting in discussions of video game design, but such discussions are pretty niche, because most people who play video games aren’t hugely interested in game design theory. They’re happy to just play the games and move on. In the TTRPG space though, design theory is a much more prominent topic, because every GM must by necessity engage in game design to some extent or another. And, the people who engage in TTRPG discussion are disproportionately GMs. I think maybe one of my players would have any idea what I was taking about if I started tossing around terms like “simulationism” and “story now.” And she’s the one of my players who also DMs on occasion.

I entirely agree. And to be clear I think @payn's explanation also explains some of the difference. I was just pointing out that a large chunk of the difference can be explained simply by differences in how readily available each hobby is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don’t think that’s fair at all. I said that werewolf is vocabulary, not jargon, and I’ll stand by that, because it isn’t shorthand for a complex or technical concept related to a specialized field. Other than this specific instance, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone here try to argue that a word or phrase is vocabulary rather than jargon.

Oh? Werewolves aren't shorthand for a complex concept related to a specialized field? So werewolf means something general, and is used in many fields, and doesn't refer to a specific set of interrelated tropes that are only seen in fantasy?

 

[Composer99]

Oh? Werewolves aren't shorthand for a complex concept related to a specialized field? So werewolf means something general, and is used in many fields, and doesn't refer to a specific set of interrelated tropes that are only seen in fantasy?

This is an absurd line of enquiry. Since when are the names of creatures from mythology or folklore jargon?

 

[Aldarc]

When talking about GNS, I think we have to be careful about calling it "game design theory." IMHO, it represents less a theory about design and more a theory about people who roleplay and the different things they want out of roleplay. This can have implications about game design and it can inform game design tangentially, but its chief concern is not about how games are designed on either a descriptive or normative basis.

The more practical game design theory stuff from the Forge that has implications on play tend to be terms more like the poorly named "Story Now," "Authority," "Stances (e.g., Actor, Director, etc.), "The Czege Principle," and others. These are ideas that have more practical implications about play when it comes to game prep, a character's adversity, player/character decision-making, and how different games distribute the power to establish things in the game fiction between players.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is an absurd line of enquiry. Since when are the names of creatures from mythology or folklore jargon?

If you're not familiar with those folklores, and someone just starts spinning a story, it's serving the same purpose that people are attributing to jargon. Jargon is jargon for "new vocabulary." Sometimes they catch on and enter wide usage and stop being jargon. But, for the purposes here, the argument that one thing that is liked is vocabulary and this other things than should be shunned is jargon is just special pleading.

 

[soviet]

When talking about GNS, I think we have to be careful about calling it "game design theory." IMHO, it represents less a theory about design and more a theory about people who roleplay and the different things they want out of roleplay. This can have implications about game design and it can inform game design tangentially, but its chief concern is not about how games are designed on either a descriptive or normative basis.

No, this is exactly wrong. It's an examination of ways to play an RPG. I am not a 'narrativist', I am a person currently playing a narrativism-supporting game. Tomorrow I may seek to play a simulationism-supporting game instead. How can those two games be better designed to support their intended flavours of play?

 

[Ovinomancer]

When talking about GNS, I think we have to be careful about calling it "game design theory." IMHO, it represents less a theory about design and more a theory about people who roleplay and the different things they want out of roleplay. This can have implications about game design and it can inform game design tangentially, but its chief concern is not about how games are designed on either a descriptive or normative basis.

The more practical game design theory stuff from the Forge that has implications on play tend to be terms more like the poorly named "Story Now," "Authority," "Stances (e.g., Actor, Director, etc.), "The Czege Principle," and others. These are ideas that have more practical implications about play when it comes to game prep, a character's adversity, player/character decision-making, and how different games distribute the power to establish things in the game fiction between players.

100%. GNS is useful as an analytical lens, a way of looking at play and players and discerning something. One thing I note is how well GNS predicts and explains many of the recurring topics here at ENW -- things like rest/recovery cycles, what hitpoints are, and how you balance daily encounter budgets against making a believable world.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, this is exactly wrong. It's an examination of ways to play an RPG. I am not a 'narrativist', I am a person currently playing a narrativism-supporting game. Tomorrow I may seek to play a simulationism-supporting game instead. How can those two games be better designed to support their intended flavours of play?

Um, no, I'm going to disagree. What GNS is saying is that if you want this thing, say a clear cause-effect pattern enforced in play, that you should look for games that do this. GNS doesn't provide any tools to label games -- that's up to you -- it provide tools to understand agendas.

 

[payn]

I think there's an even simpler explanation that accounts for much of the difference. Unlike video games, TTRPGs have complicated logistics, meaning that TTRPG fans can't play on demand. Video games, by contrast are far more readily accessible. Accordingly, of the time fans spend on each hobby, I suspect TTRPG fans spend a far higher proportion of that time talking about their hobby than fans of video games do.

Counter-proposal: TTRPG discussion is disproportionately concerned with design and theory. You get this kind of jargon and hair-splitting in discussions of video game design, but such discussions are pretty niche, because most people who play video games aren’t hugely interested in game design theory. They’re happy to just play the games and move on. In the TTRPG space though, design theory is a much more prominent topic, because every GM must by necessity engage in game design to some extent or another. And, the people who engage in TTRPG discussion are disproportionately GMs. I think maybe one of my players would have any idea what I was taking about if I started tossing around terms like “simulationism” and “story now.” And she’s the one of my players who also DMs on occasion.

Some good discussion here. I think the idea that some TTRPGs require a game master, who must not only know the rules, but make rulings in how to apply them is forced into the drivers seat of design. All that is done for you in video games usually. TTRPG put you closer to under the hood, so naturally folks are more inclined to want to know how they work and discuss such.