Jargon

Role-playing game culture is insidious about muddying the meaning of game play. The past 40+ years have seen a shift in emphasis from purely mechanical gameplay to a more holistic approach that values narrative, engagement and collaborative storytelling, none of which are actually required for the immediate game play that takes place at the table between the dungeon master and the players. There are several so-called "factors" within the games industry that have contributed to this evolution and the increased focus on elements such as engagement, motivation, agency and collaboration; listing them off, these include diversification of player preferences, the influence of narrative-focused games, the rise of indie and story games, the need for accessibility and inclusivity ... and, of course, "market demand."

Yes, that's correct. The success of RPGs depends on their ability to attract and retain players. By focusing on elements that enhance the overall gaming experience, such as engaging narratives, meaningful player choices and collaborative storytelling, game designers and publishers can create games that stand out in a crowded marketplace and appeal to a diverse range of players.

If that sounds like bullshit, you're not wrong. Business-speak, or "corporate jargon," involves crafting persuasive messaging that highlights the product's features, benefits and unique selling points in a way that appeals to the target audience and encourages them to make a purchase. It may also involve employing various marketing strategies, such as creating catchy slogans, leveraging social proof and using persuasive language to influence consumer behavior. If there are no easily sold "features," we'll invent them. Jargon like "player preference", "narrative-focused," "story" and "lore" are all invented nonsense that sounds easier to sell than the distinctive, confusing actual terms used within D&D game play. "Dungeon master," for example, is deliberately vague, conjuring no known image in the mind's eye of the totally ignorant rubes that have never heard of D&D and don't know to buy it for their children. On the other hand, stating that "immersive storytelling and character-driven narratives" are in the offing sounds much friendlier and easy to like. Saying that RPGs of today provide "creative innovations" to game play neatly ignores that nothing has been actually created or innovated. Which works great for the marketing department.

If you ask what "story" does for actual gameplay, you may find yourself in a conversation with someone fervently explaining that story provides "a structured overarching narrative or series of interconnected scenarios and encounters that serves to facilitate gameplay by providing the context and information necessary for players to make informed decisions and take meaningful actions within the game world." Except that it doesn't. The DM, without telling anything like a story, describes a set of circumstances that the players see in the immediate here and now, that they're free to make a decision about. No "overarching narrative" is in anyway necessary to this; in fact, it's detrimental the player's freedom to make immediate choices, as they've been primed in advance to acknowledge and prostrate themselves to a narrative that the DM invented, or the company invented, or some writer invented, but certainly not that the players themselves invented.

Game play works in a specific manner. The DM provides immediate context of what the player characters' senses tell them. The players make a MOVE. This produces a response from the DM, describing what has changed in the immediate context due to the players' move. Then the players move again. This goes on indefinitely.

The reasons why a player moves, or what motivates them, or the fact that the may collaborate first before moving, is irrelevant to the ACTION of the game. The notion that players need a "story" to captivate their interest, or draw them into the game world, because it provides context for their actions, is SALES JARGON. The argument that the story gives the players clear goals, objectives and challenges to pursue, motivating them as a driving force for game play, is SALES JARGON. These phrases sound terrific and encouraging, but since no definition is ever provided that explains how these things motivate or engage the players, it's just so much blubblesput.

Jargon is used to evoke specific emotions and these words do that in spades. They tap into the would-be aspirations and desires of non-serious gamers who fall into a rapture when told that a game promises to provide a sense of excitement and anticipation. As a jargon term, "inclusiveness" is all the rage right now, so you can see it ploughed into just about every paragraph discussing where D&D is going to go in the future.

When we're forced to wade through all this jargon bullshit, there's really no way left to talk in concrete terms about most parts of the game. Attempting to do so, we're sure to stumble straight into some true-believer who cries, "But what about story? Your description of the game and how to make an adventure, doesn't say anything about how to build a great story! How can I possibly help my players shine if I don't have a great story to tell them?

Thus the problem with any book we may want to write about actual game play. A book sounds like a great idea. At present, while the promise of "appealing gameplay" is everywhere, the actual community does nothing except talk about how impossible it is to make this happen. Youtube and Reddit are full of people constantly asking, "How do I make my game better?" only to be told the same content I've just described above. "Have a great story" is repeated endlessly, but whenever anyone proposes an idea on these lines, it sounds like the same old dreck that's been around since the days of the Dragon magazine.

That would seem to suggest that a book is desperately wanted by a large segment of the population. Even ten years after it's publication, my How to Run still sells fairly well. But in general, the soil that's been churned up by company jargon expects the writer to come forward on certain promises that the company has made, not the DM. We are to "foster collaboration," without being told what this actually is, and that we should adapt to player preferences, except that a dangerous, compelling game requires that the player tailor his or herself to the situation, not the reverse. The more you cater to the player, the less reason the player has to "shine." Eventually, it's a bunch of sad, pathetic people with nothing better to do on a Saturday night showing up to go through the motions ... which is what everyone complains about. Those who are not sad and not pathetic have quit the game to go do something else.

I don't have this problem because not only do I not actively adapt my game to what the players would prefer, I actively set out to push the players into situations that are hard to solve and utterly new and unexpected. I make a player's life miserable and hard at every opportunity; and after 40+ years of play, my table is thick with players, whereas I'm always asked to make room for one more, which I can no longer do. In my opinion, players want to be abused; they just don't know they want to be abused, until they've experienced it.

But for the next post, let's set aside all discussion about overarching game principles and theoretical jargon concepts and pretend that none of this shit exists. Let's assume that within the specific definition I've provided for gameplay, which focuses on the immediate circumstances and interactions within the game world, that we're correct that the exact circumstances of what the players see and experience in the present moment are paramount. In this light, the ongoing description provided by the DM serves as the immediate backdrop for gameplay, providing the players with the information they need to make their moves and decisions. This description includes details about the environment, characters and events that are directly relevant to the current situation and the players' interactions.

The essence of gameplay lies in the dynamic exchange between players making moves and the DM responding. Extraneous detail beyond the immediate circumstances is not essential to gameplay itself. That should be the premise that we start from.