Quote from: jhkim;695422So 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...







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?

In general, I prefer OOC terminology to be technical rather than flowery, since the latter is usually both ambiguous and clunky. I like Jorune, but that's an awful lot of vocab that mostly just substitutes for real words.

"Fiction", however, is a different beasty, since it explicitly calls attention to the fact that game events and situations are unreal, and I can see how that could interfere with immersion. It also primes the idea "fiction", as in story or narrative, subtly implying that creating fiction is the purpose of the game, rather than exploration, or competition, or characterization, or any other reason one might have to play. You can even see this reflected in the "fail forward" rule, which tells GMs to use failures to ratchet up the tension; that may be good advice if you're writing a story, but it's potentially problematic if you aren't interested in producing a story.

Quote from: One Horse Town;695425. . . Hockey-stick God . . .

Bow down before your Lord!

Quote from: apparition13;695636In general, I prefer OOC terminology to be technical rather than flowery, since the latter is usually both ambiguous and clunky. I like Jorune, but that's an awful lot of vocab that mostly just substitutes for real words.

Ah yes. Jorune, the RPG posterchild of experimental approaches. Really neet concept too. Just a bit too Petal Throne-ish in theme either by choice or by coincidence.

Quote from: apparition13;695636In general, I prefer OOC terminology to be technical rather than flowery, since the latter is usually both ambiguous and clunky. I like Jorune, but that's an awful lot of vocab that mostly just substitutes for real words.

"Fiction", however, is a different beasty, since it explicitly calls attention to the fact that game events and situations are unreal, and I can see how that could interfere with immersion.

I agree that "fiction" does this, but I think using the term "game" for game events calls attention to that just as much, in my opinion. I've played a fair amount of Apocalypse-World based games, and I use the term "game" much more often than the term "fiction".

Quote from: apparition13;695636It also primes the idea "fiction", as in story or narrative, subtly implying that creating fiction is the purpose of the game, rather than exploration, or competition, or characterization, or any other reason one might have to play.

There are subtle implications of all terms. The term "campaign" implies to me a military action - it being a holdover from wargaming - while "game" implies competition and/or tests of skill as the point.

I don't think that word choice is all that big a deal in terms of play. I prefer to use terms that are simple and clear, but I don't think that word replacement would make any significant difference in play.

(I don't want this to become another general thread about Dungeon World, but want it to be more general about in-character vs. out-of-character language.)

It takes a lot of effort for me to not close a book immediately if they call the GM something other than GM or DM.

Quote from: Shauncat;695741It takes a lot of effort for me to not close a book immediately if they call the GM something other than GM or DM.

That doesn't usually bother me so much 'cause I kinda see it as flavor text while I'm reading the rules... I just took CoC's 'Keeper' as a grim joke, but I have no intent of sticking to it during actual play.

Quote from: Shauncat;695741It takes a lot of effort for me to not close a book immediately if they call the GM something other than GM or DM.

Top Secret's "The Administrator" is one of the very few examples of matching form and function, in my experience.

It always jars me when folks use non standard jargon for things that are common. I like GM/Gamemaster. I like Attributes or Stats. I like Skills. These things are immediately understandable. If you are doing something different, well, be creative, but be understandable.

Non-standard terminology is a barrier, and barriers go two ways. They keep things out and they keep things in. For example, White Wolf's bizarre and idiosyncratic terminology is a barrier to my comprehension, yet for people who came into the hobby this way, it's natural and fluent, and the standard terminology probably seems clumsy and stark, if not baffling.

The effort to master this non-standard terminology keeps the believers where they belong and the riff-raff out.

BTW - Hockeystick God is freaking brilliant!

For me, it depends on whether you're being pretentious with strange terminology. "Hollyhock God" for GM is as pretentious as it gets. Such a game is obviously meant for pretentious people, who want to do pretentious things. If anyone else enjoyed it, it was an unintended consequence.  

If you want to do something like clarify that your mechanic is broader or narrower than the term "Hit Points" would allow, or even that it doesn't handle problems like survivability in the ways other games do, then go for it, but be as direct as you can. Call them Health, Structure, Damage Saves, or even Plot Immunity (though I wouldn't play that last game) if you want.

Just don't call them "pulchritude" (Apologies to MS Paint Adventures).

In other news, I'm trying to work out ways to clarify the weirdest aspects of my own game's terminology, in no small part because of this thread. For example, I use the word "Void" when I might be able to get away with using "Damage". I have reasons for using Void so far, but they might not be as compelling as I once thought.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;695794For me, it depends on whether you're being pretentious with strange terminology. "Hollyhock God" for GM is as pretentious as it gets. Such a game is obviously meant for pretentious people, who want to do pretentious things. If anyone else enjoyed it, it was an unintended consequence.  

Whereas Hockeystick God has a COMPLETELY different flavor!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;695795Whereas Hockeystick God has a COMPLETELY different flavor!

-clash

That indeed was awesome.

Quote from: flyingmice;695792For example, White Wolf's bizarre and idiosyncratic terminology is a barrier to my comprehension, yet for people who came into the hobby this way, it's natural and fluent, and the standard terminology probably seems clumsy and stark, if not baffling.

White Wolf likes to cram a ton of baroque setting terminology into their books, but their system terms are really no different from the usual "attributes" and "skills". The only exception would be when some mechanical detail, like for instance a specific splat's power stat in an nWoD game, is also named after one of those setting terms.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;695788Top Secret's "The Administrator" is one of the very few examples of matching form and function, in my experience.

Top Secret also came out before the nomenclature became quite set in stone.  I can think of a number of games that used "referee," "judge" or various permutations thereof, in the early days.

Quote from: flyingmice;695792It always jars me when folks use non standard jargon for things that are common. I like GM/Gamemaster. I like Attributes or Stats. I like Skills. These things are immediately understandable. If you are doing something different, well, be creative, but be understandable.

Non-standard terminology is a barrier, and barriers go two ways. They keep things out and they keep things in. For example, White Wolf's bizarre and idiosyncratic terminology is a barrier to my comprehension, yet for people who came into the hobby this way, it's natural and fluent, and the standard terminology probably seems clumsy and stark, if not baffling.

Quote from: Ravenswing;695831Top Secret also came out before the nomenclature became quite set in stone.  I can think of a number of games that used "referee," "judge" or various permutations thereof, in the early days.

Yup. It's interesting to note that all of flyingmice's terms aren't the originals. Of course, D&D used DM instead of GM, "abilities" instead of "attributes", and "proficiencies" instead of "skills".

I don't mind if a game uses a different term for the GM, but when I talk about it I'll still call the person the GM.

I did like the MHRP term for the GM, the Watcher, since it was very thematic... but he was still the GM when we talked about it.