Beware the academic jabberwocky!

[clehrich]

Precise use of language makes it easier for readers to understand what you are talking about, because the same word is always used in the same context, and different words are used in different contexts. It's when you introduce a lot of distinctions that the learning curve becomes steeper -- firstly, there's just more stuff to remember, and secondly, there's more explanatory text, which most readers just skip.

Unless one is discussing issues that are simple to comprehend and easily covered under normal use of ordinary language, precision of word-use will entail distinctions.  This is what a lot of GNS, for example, is really about: distinctions.  And the more useful they are, the more precise they must be, and that entails that the terms will become more specialized.  If there are readers who skip explanatory text, they can hardly complain when they don't understand the discussion.  It's as though someone read a technical treatise on any subject, but refused to look up unusual or unrecognized words in a dictionary, and then said the text wasn't comprehensible.  Or suppose someone decided to skip reading any of the rules of an RPG, then said he couldn't figure out how to play -- that would be dismissed as stupid.  This is part of the learning curve: looking up explanations.  The forthcoming glossary will simplify the process, but really, any sort of serious theorizing requires precision and distinctions, and cannot please those who refuse to read the basic background.

Really, I think much Forge jargon is best understood as simply a social gatekeeping device: members and nonmembers can be distinguished by their command of the particular slang.  But regardless of whether or not one finds this desirable, it's an inevitable social dynamic; one may as well command the tide not to come in, Canute-like.

It is an unfortunate effect, to be sure, that technical terminology limits the audience.  But I flatly deny that anyone here wants to exclude people by such means.  People here are responded to on the basis of what they write, not whether they have mastered any particular terminology.  If you post to the GNS forum and say, "Gee, I'm not getting X about Narrativism, and I don't understand this part of the Story Now essay," that's a perfectly legitimate post.  If you post to RPG Theory and use no GNS terminology whatever, that's perfectly legitimate as well.  What's social gate-keeping about this?

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Seth L. Blumberg wrote on the style of communication at the Forge in the "Railroading"-thread.

For which I am now most heartily sorry.

I remember when I went through my own phase of protesting the terminology. It's something that many people go through at a particular stage of learning the theory and the history of discussions that it summarizes. It's also useless and pointless.

[neelk]

Precise use of language makes it easier for readers to understand what you are talking about, because the same word is always used in the same context, and different words are used in different contexts. It's when you introduce a lot of distinctions that the learning curve becomes steeper -- firstly, there's just more stuff to remember, and secondly, there's more explanatory text, which most readers just skip.

Unless one is discussing issues that are simple to comprehend and easily covered under normal use of ordinary language, precision of word-use will entail distinctions.  This is what a lot of GNS, for example, is really about: distinctions.  And the more useful they are, the more precise they must be, and that entails that the terms will become more specialized.

No, I don't agree with this, either. The utility of jargon doesn't rise monotonically with the number of distinctions it enables you to make: a useful metaphor needs to live at a level of abstraction that the arguments you make flow naturally. However, I don't think that this is the main function of GNS and the like -- see below:

Really, I think much Forge jargon is best understood as simply a social gatekeeping device: members and nonmembers can be distinguished by their command of the particular slang.  But regardless of whether or not one finds this desirable, it's an inevitable social dynamic; one may as well command the tide not to come in, Canute-like.

It is an unfortunate effect, to be sure, that technical terminology limits the audience.  But I flatly deny that anyone here wants to exclude people by such means.  People here are responded to on the basis of what they write, not whether they have mastered any particular terminology.  If you post to the GNS forum and say, "Gee, I'm not getting X about Narrativism, and I don't understand this part of the Story Now essay," that's a perfectly legitimate post.  If you post to RPG Theory and use no GNS terminology whatever, that's perfectly legitimate as well.  What's social gate-keeping about this?

Don't be silly. The Forge is a community constituted for the express purpose of encouraging new and experimental modes of roleplaying. In order for this community to work, some people have to be excluded. There are, first, people who aren't interested in experimentation. Almost all of these will simply ignore the Forge, and the remainder (the residual collection of disruptive trolls found in any sufficiently-large collection of people) can be moderated away. The second, and more interesting, category of people who need to be excluded are the people who are interested but just plain don't work well with others. This is where jargon comes in as a social tool: mastery of a jargon is a signal that the speaker was willing to commit his or her energies to learning this thing that other people built, and hence is willing to cooperate.  Furthermore, in order for the community to work, the jargon has to be broadly-encompassing, so that participants have a language for justifying and encouraging other people to try out whatever new ideas they come up with. It also has to be simple enough that learning it won't take forever, so that new people can actually join and replace those who leave. (Over time, new jargon is inevitably created, and this is why projects like the glossary become important: they lower the barrier to enculturation back down to a reasonable level).

This is why you see a lot of flamewars erupt in other communities when Forge jargon gets used. It's a status marker in this community, and participants in the other community tend to see it as an assertion of status "over there" -- and the resulting flamewars are as predictable as they are tedious. Over here, though, it's a tool for creating an environment that is welcoming and hospitable to experimentation.

[lumpley]

I double-dog agree with Neel.

Or, well, whether setting a bar is the main function of GNS-talk I don't really know, but it's certainly a crucial function of GNS-talk.

-Vincent

[clehrich]

Don't be silly. The Forge is a community constituted for the express purpose of encouraging new and experimental modes of roleplaying. In order for this community to work, some people have to be excluded. There are, first, people who aren't interested in experimentation. Almost all of these will simply ignore the Forge, and the remainder (the residual collection of disruptive trolls found in any sufficiently-large collection of people) can be moderated away. The second, and more interesting, category of people who need to be excluded are the people who are interested but just plain don't work well with others.

Nonsense.  

1. Nobody gets "moderated away" here.  Nobody gets banned here.  Simply does not happen.

2. People who choose not to read the Forge are not "being excluded."  You might as well say that the African continent has excluded me because I have never happened to choose to visit it.

3. The jargon here excludes precisely one group of people: those who have decided that it is exclusivist and intended to keep them, personally, out.  That is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and has nothing to do with Forge discourse per se.

This is why you see a lot of flamewars erupt in other communities when Forge jargon gets used. It's a status marker in this community, and participants in the other community tend to see it as an assertion of status "over there" -- and the resulting flamewars are as predictable as they are tedious.

If people use Forge terminology on other boards, and the other boards' members find that problematic, this says nothing whatever about the Forge about about Forge terminology.  It simply tells us something about the preferred discourse on those boards.  If you're hot to trot in finding exclusivity and elitism, how about boards that "exclude" Forge terminology?  How very naughty of them, the elitist pigs.

Vincent:

Do you mean that you think the Forge terminology is exclusivist, or that it helps form community?  The latter is of course true, but that has nothing to do with exclusion.  And I do not agree that the point of GNS or any other mode of Forge terminology is to create community; that is an interesting and potentially valuable effect.  The point of such terms is to be able to talk in a precise fashion about RPG's and to analyze them.  I don't spend time on the Forge as a way of hanging out, except for the annual Birthday Forum.  I can hang out elsewhere.  I come here to talk about games and gaming, and the theory thereof, and that requires terms of art that are formulated with some precision.  The fact that there happens to be a vibrant community discussing these things is nice, but frankly it means nothing without the games and the analysis.

Rant on:

I'm sorry, but this comes up periodically, this notion that somehow the Forge is this elitist community that creates special overcomplicated jargon in order exclude the proles, and is policed by the savage thought-policeman Ron Edwards.  What a lot of nonsense!  The best I can say about this sort of argument is that it desperately wants to be proven right, that it wants Ron to exclude and exclude and exclude.  

Pretty soon now, I'm sure, on one of these threads, someone is going to try to bait Ron.  I can hear it now, looking into my crystal ball: "Oh, and I suppose that's not acceptable Forge-PC speech, and Ron's going to ban me, huh?  Bring it on, man!"  And you know what will happen?  Ron will politely request that the person not misbehave, thread-jack, flame, or whatever; nothing will be said about the use or abuse of GNS terminology or anything else of the kind.  Chances are, the person will continue to bait, and Ron will close the thread.

So do you read this as evil Gestapo Ron?  The policeman of terminology?  Reread the sorts of threads Ron closes, the ones that go haywire: it's never terminology or its uses that gets threads closed.

The Forge excludes no one but those who exclude themselves.  No one gets banned here.  No terminology is required here.  End rant.

[Kester Pelagius]

1. Nobody gets "moderated away" here.  Nobody gets banned here.  Simply does not happen.

Caveat: In the course of normal events.

I think there have been instances in the past with spammers and a few problem posters that some might classify as "Trolls", were there not?

2. People who choose not to read the Forge are not "being excluded."  You might as well say that the African continent has excluded me because I have never happened to choose to visit it.

By the same leap of logic one could say that animals are elitist because they aren't talking to you in language you can understand, or that aliens are excluding you from their club because they wont land on your front lawn, or that the dead are snubbing you because you are alive.  Isn't that, and these above examples, just a tad specious?

I'm sorry, but this comes up periodically, this notion that somehow the Forge is this elitist community that creates special overcomplicated jargon in order exclude the proles, and is policed by the savage thought-policeman Ron Edwards.  What a lot of nonsense!  The best I can say about this sort of argument is that it desperately wants to be proven right, that it wants Ron to exclude and exclude and exclude.

Granted one could argue for an appeal to ridicule factor being used a tad too often, perhaps combined with a side helping of circumstantial ad hominem, but isn't that par for the course in most forums?

Though, truly, I've not noticed any true disruptive stirrings against GNS for quite a long time now.  Didn't there used to be one or two rather vocal opponents to all things GNS who used to go around bashing Mr/ Edwards and company a few years back?

The Forge excludes no one but those who exclude themselves.  No one gets banned here.  No terminology is required here.  End rant.

Ron's essays are nothing if not full of terminology.  To understand GNS one has to learn a sub-set of terms, with a unique application in context, related to yet another sub-set of unique terms (role-playing consists of nothing less than a set of specifically applied terminologies) yet you proclaim "no terminology" is required?

Well, to participate in the forums, surely.  But to speak to the subject with anything approach comprhension, I'd say terminology is very much required.  I think, and I am sure Ill be corrected if in error, that is all the original poster might have been saying(?).

[clehrich]

By the same leap of logic one could say that animals are elitist because they aren't talking to you in language you can understand, or that aliens are excluding you from their club because they wont land on your front lawn, or that the dead are snubbing you because you are alive.  Isn't that, and these above examples, just a tad specious?

The argument is certainly specious, which is my point.  To say that one is excluded from the Forge because one does not choose to participate in it is ludicrous.

The Forge excludes no one but those who exclude themselves.  No one gets banned here.  No terminology is required here.  End rant.

Ron's essays are nothing if not full of terminology.  To understand GNS one has to learn a sub-set of terms, with a unique application in context, related to yet another sub-set of unique terms (role-playing consists of nothing less than a set of specifically applied terminologies) yet you proclaim "no terminology" is required?

The strongest claim one can make, I think, is that the terminology is required for active participation in the GNS Forum.  But there are lots of other forums, and they do not all require or even use GNS terminology.  Sometimes the line gets thin, which I think is something that could use a little more care on posters' parts -- myself included -- but in principle GNS terminology is only required for the GNS Forum.

For example, periodically someone posts, to the RPG Theory forum, a piece entitled something like, "My Theory of Gaming."  Some of these are terrible, some are brilliant, and the vast majority are somewhere in between.  But all get discussed, and on the whole people try to be constructive and helpful about getting clear what others think and making suggestions.  Not uncommonly, such total theories actually miss out large types of gaming, and sometimes for that reason people get referred to bits and pieces of Ron's essays or other forum threads from the past; for example, somebody takes it as a given that competition is not part of gaming, and is referred to the Step On Up essay.  But the point is emphatically not, "You aren't using the right terminology so your theory is stupid and we refuse to address it."

I think I've pretty much made my points here, and will now bow out.  To recap, in short:

1. Forge-specific terminology is not required for participation at the Forge.
2. No one is excluded from the Forge.  So far as I know, there have been no bans, and I am willing to bet that if there have been they have been for things like true spamming or the like, i.e. abuse of the board as a board rather than as the Forge in particular, and not for misuse or abuse of Forge terminology or even continual rudeness.
3. Terminology, if it is to be precise, necessarily requires a little effort to use precisely.  This has nothing to do with elitism or exclusionary tactics, but with the nature of terminological specificity and distinction.  There is nothing elitist about asking people to make a little effort.
4. A challenge to current usage is entirely legitimate, but must demonstrate (a) that the current term has specific weaknesses, and (b) that the proposed new term(s) solves this.  A general attack on terminology is pointless.
5. While it is currently somewhat difficult to acquire facility with the terminology regularly used at the Forge, in various forums, that problem will be alleviated by the forthcoming Glossary.  Furthermore, a considerable number of threads regularly appear in various forums asking for terminological clarification, or proposing a kind of "test definition" to see whether one has correctly parsed the terms in use; these are responded to supportively and constructively, on the whole, and do seem to make it possible for a great many people to join the discussion.  I am sure that some people have found all this too difficult or painful, or simply not worthwhile, but I do not see that this invalidates the use of technical vocabulary.

[lumpley]

Chris: oh no, I think that the Forge's terminology excludes people.  And very profitably, too.

Now you're absolutely right that nobody's banning or barring people because they haven't learned GNS (I mean, I'm not Ron or Clinton, so I'm just supposing that you're absolutely right, but I'm positive you are).  But when I start a thread, I can exclude people from it in the opening sentence or two if I want to.  That's good!  It's very good.  It lets me have the conversations I need to for the sake of my games.

I'm not excluding people on the basis of me being an elitist excluding bastard.  I'm excluding people on the basis of: can they contribute to my game?

Furthermore, I want people to be able to contribute to my game, the more the merrier.  That's why I'll explain the loodly poodly to anybody who asks and talk rules and answer questions.  The bar isn't capricious, it's not "elite," it's sensible and anybody can meet it who cares to.

...But again, the main use of GNS-talk: is it setting the bar, or is it communicating efficiently?  Whatever.  It accomplishes both and I wouldn't give either up.

(And I wouldn't expect the lexicon to help newcomers too much.  Mostly it'll help us - when a newcomer asks, we'll just refer them to the lexicon, and when they come back to us their questions will be a lot more concrete.)

-Vincent

[Bill_White]

Because my own academic specialty is related to the sociology of knowledge, I see this thread as a hashing-out of a question that's bigger than just the role of the Forge lexicon.  That question has to do with how knowledge-producing communities function -- and I definitely see the Forge as a "knowledge-producing community," albeit not an academic one (or at least, not a purely academic one).

My thinking about knowledge-producing communities has led me to appreciate the importance of the concept of discipline--that is, the organization of people, material, and ideas for the purposes of producing knowledge.  A "discipline" (whether that's high-energy physics, literary criticism, or independent theory-driven role-playing game design) has to do three things, two of them all the time and one of them occasionally:

(1)  Boundary Work.  This is the social dimension of disciplinarity, and it gets done all the time.  Disciplines socialize new members -- frequently by initiating them into what is viewed by outsiders as an "arcane jargon," provide methods for recognizing and rewarding the contributions of members, and provide mechanisms for identifying actions that are "extra-disciplinary"--that are, in other words, not done.  Think of all the "Welcome to the Forge!" posts you've seen; these are boundary work.  

(2)  Paradigm Work.  This is the cognitive dimension of disciplinarity, and it also gets done all the time.  These are attempts to solve problems by means of a generally accepted set of tools in order to develop a more-or-less commonly held theory.  Problems can be theoretical ("What is 'Exploration'?") or practical ("How does GNS tell me I should proceed with this specific design?")  A "paradigm" identifies important problems, and it also indicates what problems aren't worth worrying about.  Most of the posts in RPG Theory are paradigm work--because they grapple with the ideas that are central to the Forge paradigm.  

(3)  Reflexive Work.  This is a weird hybrid of boundary work and paradigm work; it's the self-reflective assessment by members of the community of the extent to which their current methods, mechanisms, problems, tools, and theories advance the purposes of the community.   Reflexive work tends to be occasional rather than on-going, since too much reflexivity is paralyzing, preventing the work of the discipline from proceeding.  This thread is reflexive, to a certain degree:  It discusses whether Forge "jargon" is exclusionary, and if so whether that's a bad thing.  However, such a question means less coming from a peripheral member than if it came from a central member.  If Ron were to say, "We need to think about cleaning up all this jargon," it would be far more consequential than when someone else (as in this case) says it.

The value of reflexivity, however, is in occasionally reminding people to think about the "why" of "how we do things around here," since disciplinary practices often become "sedimented":  we do things this way because we've always done them this way, and we see the world this way because that's how the world is (rather than that's what we've chosen in the world to focus on).  

But those who complain about jargon are indeed missing the point.  The terminology, as the meat of the paradigm, serves important cognitive and social functions (i.e., it gives us tools to think with, and tells us who's worth talking to).  Calls for "reform" ignore the value of the intellectual history that's encapsulated in the evolution of specific terms and concepts.

But the commitment to a discipline invokes its own cognitive costs, which may include isolating oneself from potential useful extradisciplinary sources.  Which is why interdisciplinary boundary-spanners are sometimes useful.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings clehrich,

The argument is certainly specious, which is my point.  To say that one is excluded from the Forge because one does not choose to participate in it is ludicrous.

Color me blue and call me silly smurf for missing on that fine bit of subtle point making.  Sorry about that.  Carry on.

The strongest claim one can make, I think, is that the terminology is required for active participation in the GNS Forum.  But there are lots of other forums, and they do not all require or even use GNS terminology.  Sometimes the line gets thin, which I think is something that could use a little more care on posters' parts -- myself included -- but in principle GNS terminology is only required for the GNS Forum.

Indeed.

Well said.

I think I've pretty much made my points here, and will now bow out.

As, I think, should I.  Lest I foster more misunderstanding.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Peter Hollinghurst]

An interesting debate all round for me since I am still new here. The general language usage seems to me to be fairly clear most of the time to anyone with a university background, but perhaps discussion falls into some areas that anyone who has not experienced academic discourse would find problematic at times. Im not sure if this really should be seen as a problem though, so long as people are happy to clarify any points that they make if asked (and this seems to happen naturally since in general posters here have a strong desire to communicate their concepts). The GNS model does seem to be an exception-but the essays are all there to read and anyone not familiar with them always seems to be pointed to them (Im still reading them). Since most GNS discussion happens in the GNS section of the forum I dont see this as a problem. The only difficulty with communication would come from use of terms that have other meanings elsewhere, or when the users are unwilling to recognise they are using specialised jargon surely?

If posters on the forum used jargon but were unwilling or unable to clarify it for others then any sort of meaningful discourse with newcommers would clearly break down, but instead all the examples I have seen suggest that forge users tend to go a bit overboard in their desire to share with others and generate meaningful discourse. If someone makes a post that shows problems or issues with the use of language or concepts they tend to greeted by the text equivelent of an over affectionate puppy! Please note-this is not a criticism, but a complement. It means that the forge is transparently eager to welcome and include people whenever it can.

Ultimately anyone joining a group will need to learn to recognise and to some degree adopt the particular expressions of that groups identity-its as true of the Forge as it is of any group. This takes time, and can sometimes be frustrating or confusing, but it happens just as much for people starting to role-play for the first time as it does here. The only difference that seems significant here is that newcomers to rpgs in general probably have greater difficulty because most rpgers are unaware when they use jargon because it has become second nature to them and they are not focused on opening a discourse to the same degree. This goes a long way to maintaing the 'nerd' culture tag for rpgs.

Having said all this-I feel that comments about using Forge jargon outside the Forge are very important. Since the structures (previous posts, essays, other community members) present in the Forge are not present outside of it, attempts to use Forge terminology and concepts elsewhere can become a minefield. The same may also apply to many gamers outside the Forge (and that can include playtesters).
Once use of jargon becomes a barrier to communication outside of those clarifying support structures Forge members need to become expert in switching their modes of discourse (and Im sure most are).

Overall the 'academic' approach of the Forge seems to be a valuable one to me, and perhaps more important than the issue of jargon (though it can become a part of it). I would compare it to the activity of Philosophers-obscure and confusing to 'outsiders' because it makes reference to terms and concepts they have not yet assimilated, but the discourses they produce have a profound 'knock-on' effect over time as the conceptual issues eventually trickle down and filter into surrounding cultural expressions. It serves as a sort of 'feedback loop' between high concept and culture-both expressing existing movements in cultures and in turn influencing them. I feel it is a very useful and constructive process that can greatly enhance the ability of emerging forms of gaming to spread and gain wider acceptance and understanding. The games themselves are quite rightly the point at which this happens-not the forum.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that the Forge's terminology excludes people.  And very profitably, too.

I'd agree, Vincent. The point, however, is that this is a side effect. It's not why we have the terminology, it's a happy side-effect.

I agree with MJ. The Forge is for discussing theory on this level. If you want to make it consumable for the masses you can do that in individual articles or in other fora, doing the "translation" yourself. The best translation, however, is in game texts. Nowhere in MLWM is the term Narrativism used. Nor should it be. Instead what you get are instructions that tell you how to have fun. The theory helped Paul create the game, but it doesn't need to be part of the delivery.

Mike

[Valamir]

Because my own academic specialty is related to the sociology of knowledge, I see this thread as a hashing-out of a question that's bigger than just the role of the Forge lexicon.  That question has to do with how knowledge-producing communities function -- and I definitely see the Forge as a "knowledge-producing community," albeit not an academic one (or at least, not a purely academic one).

My thinking about knowledge-producing communities has led me to appreciate the importance of the concept of discipline--that is, the organization of people, material, and ideas for the purposes of producing knowledge.  A "discipline" (whether that's high-energy physics, literary criticism, or independent theory-driven role-playing game design) has to do three things, two of them all the time and one of them occasionally:

Bill, that's a powerfully useful post, and quite an effective way of parsing what we do here.

I'd be thrilled if you could expand these notions into a full article and submit it to the Forge's article section.  

I think it really expands on the process we engage in here and is a great way to draw attention to the idea that what we do at the Forge may seem unusual compared to the typical internet RPG discussion site, that its hardly unique in the wider universe of "knowledge producing communities" (great phrase that).

Don't know how time consuming it would be to produce.  You perhaps might already have a primer on the subject at your disposal to adapt...

[Varis_Rising]

Speaking from a newbie perspective,

While it is true that creating a developers lexicon might be useful for conveying concepts more "efficiently," as I heard it termed, specialization hurts newbies increasingly as time goes on and posts collect. For instance, if someone made a theory one year and lots of people started using it then early on each person might define it or hyperlink it when they put it in a post. As time progresses though the definition will appear in posts less and less as it is excepted. Eventually you have a system with confusing backlogged roots that have to be sorted through by each newbie in order to be able to understand something that probably isn't all that hard a concept.

Perhaps the best suggestion then is that if you want the broadest range of experience, knowledge, and talent to look at your post you should use use simple terms or include footers that have handy links to where any theory or specialized word definition is held, this is common courtesy and in Scientific Papers that is how it is done, especially if what is mentioned is only a hypothesis and not a proven theory, as many established ideas on this board aren't in the stricter sense.

[matthijs]

Eventually you have a system with confusing backlogged roots that have to be sorted through by each newbie in order to be able to understand something that probably isn't all that hard a concept.

...which is how I perceive the Forge, speaking as a newbie.

It would be wonderful to have some kind of "auto-help" function on the forum, so that if you pointed at for instance the word "simulationism" in a post, you'd get a little pop-up with a brief explanation of the word, and a hyperlink to a longer explanation.

As it is now, beginners like myself have to wade through literally hundreds of pages to gain a proper understanding of the Forge jargon, and those pages aren't structured in an easily-accessible way.

While I see why it's gotten to be this way, I think the amount of information here has reached the point where it has to be restructured if the Forge community doesn't want to passively prohibit newcomers from joining in debate.