So this is a split off from the Dungeon World thread about the question of immersive terms in games. Specifically, I was thinking of this exchange...

Quote from: sage_againWe had a problem with ballooning text. I mean, the game as written (now that I have about a year of perspective from the finished text) is just too long. We aimed for brevity. Maybe we aimed too far? I mean, obviously our tradeoffs aren't the ones you would have made. They may be wrong.

I personally don't have a strong association of "fiction" and "narrative." If we wanted to talk about "telling a story" we'd have used "narrative." We didn't. We wanted to talk about a fictional place, but that fictional place is made up by you, so we use "fiction." It just "fiction" as opposed to "reality." "Fictional world" as opposed to "real world."

Quote from: RPGPundit;694883And you didn't see how using a term to CONSTANTLY REMIND everyone involved that this is not the 'real world' would end up being ANTI-IMMERSIVE?

Quote from: sage_again;695394Nope, I didn't worry about it much. I wanted to be clear: worry about the stuff in the world the characters inhabit, not the people sitting around the table. Since I don't think anyone sitting around the table is going to be reading the rules, seeing, hearing, or using the word "fiction" for anything I doubt it even has that effect.

Typically, games have out-of-character terminology for out-of-character stuff - like "game-master", "game-world", "player character", "roll 1d20", etc. - along with Dungeon World's "fiction" for the background. However, some games try to make things more immersive by introducing flavorful terms - like Keeper and Investigator instead of GM and PC, or "consult the fates" rather than "roll the dice", and many others.  So,

Do you prefer more immersive, in-character terms for game references?

If so, how important do you think that such terms are for your immersion?

Terms mean nothing when you're playing a game. The only use they have is in relaying a style to the reader. Once you're playing, the terms in the book mean less than gobbledygook.

I mean, the one time i saw Nobilis used, the GM was referred to as Hockey-stick God -- once, before everyone called him Jim.

From a game design perspective both approaches are perfectly valid. But from experience as a game designer from feedback I've learned that more "immersive" wordplay in the rules can be detrimental to the player or GM grasping the rules.

So for my own books I go with a very straightforward rules set interspersed with prose as example. Playtesters reacted a-lot better and grasped the rules more rapidly.

I then had one playtester freak out about how it was breaking their immersion. My response was. "These are the rules you need to learn. This is not a novel. Go back and read only the prose sections for the feel of the setting. Immersion should be the actual game sessions."

Every designer has their own ideas of how to approach it.

I forget the name of the game. But there was one where the rules and the prose were all intermingled. It did not do very well. But was a neet idea. I am sure others have or will eventually try that approach again.

Honestly i don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about this stuff. Games have terminology and my biggest concern is their terms be clearly explained so i know what they are. Nothing worse than struggling to understand an important concept in an rpg that is vaguely described.

Quote from: Omega;695429From a game design perspective both approaches are perfectly valid. But from experience as a game designer from feedback I've learned that more "immersive" wordplay in the rules can be detrimental to the player or GM grasping the rules.

So for my own books I go with a very straightforward rules set interspersed with prose as example. Playtesters reacted a-lot better and grasped the rules more rapidly.

This fits with my experience. I prefer that meta-game ideas (like PC vs. NPC, etc.) should have clear, well-defined meta-game names.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;695433Honestly i don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about this stuff. Games have terminology and my biggest concern is their terms be clearly explained so i know what they are. Nothing worse than struggling to understand an important concept in an rpg that is vaguely described.

^This. Clarity beats obfuscation, and I think it can build a wall against new players who aren't "in the know" while common jargon is acceptable.

Frankly I prefer in a game if mechanical bits just are.  Trying to wrap them up in flowery language calls more attention to them, IMO, than just getting past them as quickly as humanly possible.

Quote from: robiswrong;695476Frankly I prefer in a game if mechanical bits just are.  Trying to wrap them up in flowery language calls more attention to them, IMO, than just getting past them as quickly as humanly possible.

In some cases it can also be one of those things where it is a waste of time to think too hard on it, because people will use the terms they've been using for years, no matter what you choose to call them (there are endless variations on GM, DM, Storyteller, Referee, etc, but people seem to stick with the one they like and are familiar with...same seems to happen with many other labels used to describe concepts or mechanics in a game).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;695505In some cases it can also be one of those things where it is a waste of time to think too hard on it, because people will use the terms they've been using for years, no matter what you choose to call them (there are endless variations on GM, DM, Storyteller, Referee, etc, but people seem to stick with the one they like and are familiar with...same seems to happen with many other labels used to describe concepts or mechanics in a game).

Yes, exactly.  No need to reinvent the wheel.  Everyone knows what hit points are, it only hinders understanding to call then body points or something.

Usually that stuff annoys me but Earthdawn's rules are such that a number of terms are meant to evoke elements of the setting... to equate with actual in-game things.
Once I got them in my head, I do find that they reinforce the immersion to some degree.
I still find the rules somewhat kludgy, but even when the Elementalist is asking the GM how to caste a spell (the magic rules are a bit dense so that happens fairly often) it sounds like they are discussing the metaphysics of the world, not so much the rules of the game.

Quote from: Old One Eye;695525Yes, exactly.  No need to reinvent the wheel.  Everyone knows what hit points are, it only hinders understanding to call then body points or something.

The only reason to call them something else is to emphasize that they're *not* hit points.

Which puts the onus on the game developer to ensure that they're not *actually* hit points.  Sadly, most of the time, they really are for all practical purposes (or, at the least, have the exact same traits in play as hit points).

In the flavor text for some of the Warhammer 40k RPGs, you learn that fate points are actually the will of the God-Emperor himself, that though he lies in suspended animation, he exercises his will through a few chosen hands, namely the players. I think it's a cool concept that they should have just called "Favor", instead of fate points, which sounds storygamey.

Quote from: jhkim;695422Do you prefer more immersive, in-character terms for game references?

If so, how important do you think that such terms are for your immersion?

In our games, PCs and NPCs talk to each other.  Players and GMs do not talk to each other.  Our players and GMs know the game rules, so there is no out-of-character talking (wasting time).

My take on it is that there have been a bunch of people in this industry who thirst to be New and Kewl.

There's a hitch: a lot of the core mechanics of RPGs are pretty much the same.  Whether by virtue of It's Always Been Done That Way, force of habit or irreducible necessity, it's tough to ditch them.  Most RPGs have gradations of physical and mental attributes.  Most use dice to randomize results.  Most have a numerical expression of how much damage a character can take before incapacity/death.  Most have some manner of resistance check to verify whether something bad's happened to characters.  Most require/permit players to choose skills (whether retail or wholesale) which govern what the characters can do.

So, bless their scared little hearts, a bunch of designers who desperately don't want to look exactly like D&D try cosmetic stunts.  Change the shape of dice.  Change the number of dice.  Have people roll -- and reroll -- in various odd combinations.  Come up with baroque names to stick on your skills, your character classes, your game concepts.  

It can go either way, depending on implementation. Unless you have a very strong theme, instead of just trying to be different, it's best to not try.