TheRPGSite

So this is a split off from the Dungeon World thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27817) 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.

Quote from: jhkim;695422So this is a split off from the Dungeon World thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27817) 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 . . .

(http://www.librarising.com/astrology/celebs/images2/T-Z/waynegretzky.jpg)

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! :D

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! :D

-clash

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

-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.

Quote from: jhkim;695857Yup. 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".

Betamax, CPM, Laser Disks... original doesn't always become standard. :D

-clash

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.

Fate Master
Storyteller
Master Director (This one is a funny transposition of the anagram)
Editor
Overlord
etc ad weirdium.

I prefer Game Master/GM, but most of the early alternatives - referee, judge, etc. - don't bother me at all, because there was no standard back then, and they mean pretty much the same thing. I confess I never liked Dungeon Master, as I felt I should be wearing leathers and carrying a riding crop. Storyteller bothers me because I'm not telling a story - my dad was a real storyteller from Maine, and I know what that entails. Hollyhock God and other pretentious neologisms bug me something fierce because, Christ on a crutch! Isn't it obvious?

-clash

It gets kinda funny to see sometimes people bitching on forums for more new new new in their RPGs and then freaking out when someone uses new names.

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

Yes. That worked.

Traveler used referee, IIRC, which fit perfectly with its spare, technical elegance.

Keeper in Call of Cthulhu was a miss -- but not a dreadful one.

-E.

Quote from: Omega;696168It gets kinda funny to see sometimes people bitching on forums for more new new new in their RPGs and then freaking out when someone uses new names.

"new names" is not a meaningful kind of new.  Though in some cases its a radical kind of new, when the choice of names is meant to push a particular ideology.

I only play games that refer to the 'game master' as the proper term "Audio-Visual Server Daemon".  The AVSD Instantiates Simulations for the Client-User through the medium of their Avatar.

Any other game term is too vague and fraught with cultural assumptions.

The best term would probably be "God", but "Game Master" is essentially synonymous.  

RPGPundit

I make my players call me ThunderCock.

Supreme Being? Since the GM oft gets to boss around the gods too?

I should use that in my next book...

Quote from: RPGPundit;696775The best term would probably be "God", but "Game Master" is essentially synonymous.  

RPGPundit