[Heretic] Avoiding the OMGWTFBBQ!!?!?!?!!! disease

[raithe]

"A man may take to drink because he feels himself a failure, then fail all
the more because he has taken to drink. It is rather the same thing that
is happening to the English language. Our thoughts are foolish because of
the slovenliness of our language; but the sloveliness of our language
makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the
process is reversible."
- George Orwell

Hi,
 I have spent the last three years not so much playing/running games but conducting/observing them.
This is all part of an ongoing experiment for my own game to find out what works, what does not, etc.
In the process of converting all the handwritten notes to a nicer database format I have run across a
recurring problem that I have yet to find a solution for. So I have come here to seek some assistance.

The Problem.
 The issue at hand is the overuse of anacronyms in games. This is a problem because I have found that
anacronyms seem to be the quickest way of destroying setting, mood, and tension. What was once a
fearsome nemesis designed to strike fear into the hearts of characters has devolved to a mere grouping
of initials that serve only to reference a set of numbers. For example. White Wolf had created the Worm
and its servants to be a menace and source of fear the werewolves. They came up with the term "Black
Spiral Dancers" to denote the garou who had become tainted by the worm. A good name, evokes a
definite image and then gives the imagination something to run with. At the very least its more awe
inspiring than "BSD's". Roleplaying games (ahem, RPGs) are overrun with such examples.

 The problem extends deeper than merely setting and mood however, This is one of the reasons for the
"geeky" stereotype that pushes so many away from gaming as well. The key word here is geek. Just like
computers, chemistry and all other things technical, the geeky aspect applies to all the parts which seem
utterly incomprehensible to outsiders. Speak in plain terms to someone about a computer and they have
a shot at understanding you. Rattle off an inscenant bunch capital letters at them in quick succession and
They will simply stare blankly at you. There is good reason for this. None of what you just said ACTUALLY
means anything. It REFERS to something else which means something. Hence, the confusion.

 This seems to be a problem with society at large. We have become interested only in the quick fix, instant
gratification way of understanding. We do not want to know or think about the whole aspect of anything.
We do not wish to contemplate the deeper philisophical meanings of everything. Just the simple jist is
enough, thank you. Hopefully the fault in this sort of thinking is obvious. (Hence the quote at the top.)
I could rant about this for days so I am just going to stop here.

What I would like from you is suggestions for making a game which does not easily lend itself to the sort
of babble which appears in the title of this post. Is that even possible? All thoughts are welcome.
Jack

 

 

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Well, this is just my 2 cents, a trick to try is to use short names that don't need to be abbreviated.
  Also, the acronym phenomonon seems to be more preveleant in on-line games/forums and a LOT less so in live games. At least for me and my games. I can't remember the last time someone abbreviated something in my games, but maybe I am just lucky to have a good group.
  Ultimately, you might be making something out of nothing. There are plenty of acronyms that are evocative: Laser, IRS, EU. These are just examples of acronyms the evoke strong feelings or images in people. And the acronym craze has been going on since at least the 1800s, maybe earlier, look up the origien of OK to see my point.
  I admit that it is an honest concern, but in the grand scheme of things, it light be a small one in the overall list of barriers to overcome in RPG design...
  No change please,

[Adam Cerling]

"Omit needless words."
- William Strunk

Acronyms arise because of a need for efficient communication. I disagree that this need corresponds to a societal plague of "instant gratification." It is instead the most natural tendency in the world to strive for the most value from the least work: that's how inventions like cars happen. Saying it's lazy to use acronyms is like saying it's lazy to drive.

Yes, sometimes it is in fact lazy to drive. Sometimes a brisk walk is more commendable than a trip through traffic just to travel two blocks. Similarly, sometimes it is lazy to use acronyms when more evocative language is required. But to say that therefore one must never use acronyms is bad reasoning. Often you just need to get your point across.

And no matter how evocative your terms -- even if you always speak or write them in full -- familiarity breeds contempt. The hundredth time you've read "Black Spiral Dancer," its original connotations are gone: it's just another proper name. "BSD" then serves just as well, only more efficiently.

How do you make a game that doesn't lend itself to acronyms? Like so: ensure all the terms in the game are one- or two-syllable words. Ensure that your terms take no more effort to speak than would an acronym. That means you can't put names like "Black Spiral Dancers" in your game, because "BSD" more efficiently means the same (less evocative though it may be). Notice how nobody abbreviates "Brujah" and "Ventrue," but they regularly foreshorten the ungainly four-syllable "Malkavian" to a more manageable "Malk." (I imagine you consider nicknames a problem too, yes?)

To discourage the use of acronyms in writing, your job is harder. Every game term must be a short, single word. Even a punchy little term like "Hit Points" gets abbreviated "HP" in writing: you're saving eight keystrokes. Once the term is abbreviated in writing, if the abbreviation is no more difficult to say than the original term, it will make the leap to speech.

Your challenge, therefore, is to find and use evocative monosyllabic language in an unrepetetive way. Good luck!

[Bob the Fighter]

I think that Black literature, particularly the work of authors like Alice Walker, Sapphire, and Toni Morrison, can offer some help. One of the most enduring elements of African-American fiction is writing things that not only look good on the page but sound good when read aloud. I think that many, many game designers use words and such that do *not* sound good at all out loud, but might look nice and evocative on paper.

I think it's important to make our terminology multi-sensory in this way for at least two reasons: one, we can get a lot more interested in our games if the language is smoother and more pleasing to the ear. Two, if it sounds more evocative and interesting to folks who don't usually play roleplaying games, it's more likely to get them hooked. I know that when I come across examples of "political play" for Vampire: the Masquerade, what I'm reading is a jumble of capitalized terms that look and sound really awkward. Seriously. I picked up a copy of Dark Ages: Fae recently (good Lord, those people love colons) and was not amused to see an event called The Battle of Silver and Iron. As I write that name on this page, it looks pretty awesome. But let me tell you, saying it aloud to myself just now makes me cringe a bit: it's just so... awkward and hoity-toity (a great-sounding phrase, if you ask me).

What makes matters a bit worse, I think, is that live games rely really heavily on the spoken word to get anything done. A friend of mine, a potential game-master for Fae, simply could not get over the term "Echo" and how much it bothered her. We ended up changing it to something like Allergy, even though that word didn't quite indicate the correct meaning the game was trying to convey.

I don't think that acronyms are the only problem facing diction and roleplaying design; I think that special terms with in-game significance should be chosen with the utmost care to ensure that the game sounds interesting, rather than complicated and self-important. I admit that this sort of feel can change, as my first thought about Polaris was "Good Lord! This guy took this game way too seriously!" Once I'd read the book all the way through, I was tripping on how cool it all sounded. My point is this: while it's fine to take a game seriously and insist that people take a bit of an emotional risk for the sake of getting "into" it, we have to give folks something they actually want to be interested in. High-falutin' Capitalized Words and 300 pages of setting history are *not* the way to do that.

Thanks!

[Danny_K]

A nitpick: a acronym is a word made from the first letters of a phrase.  Like LASER or MAFIA.  If you can't say it like a word, it's just an abbreviation.  In the words of George Carlin, "The KGB, the FBI, and the CIA are not acronyms; they're just assholes."

[Josh Roby]

Raithe, I'm not going to open the Derridean can on you.  Consider yourself lucky.  Instead, a couple examples:

I actually find BSD to be more evocative than Black Spiral Dancers because of the word-association with BDSM.  But that's probably just me. :)  As for Danny's example, the Battle of Silver and Iron sounds fantastic -- as long as you say it slowly and with great portent, which is what I'm assuming is appropriate for the event.  It's just not nice and fast and convenient.

More pragmatically, if you want to avoid abbreviations, as has already been suggested, keep everything to one or two syllables and one word.  There are exceptions, of course (Jury-Rigging, for instance, being a cultural artifact, generally won't be abbreviated to 'JR').  Choose your terms carefully -- but if you haven't been doing this from the start, I really don't know what to tell you.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Here's another little trick no one's mentioned:

Have several different names for everything.

Think of Tolkein:
Aragorn = Strider = Elessar
Numenoreans = Dunedain = Men of the West
Gandalf = Mithrandir = Gray Pilgrim
Sauron = The Enemy = The Dark Lord
Orc = goblin = yrch

(Apologies to true Tolkein-experts for my mangling some of these).

As Adam said, "the hundredth time you've read 'Black Spiral Dancer,' its original connotations are gone: it's just another proper name." But if your setting allows the same thing to have several names in different languages, contexts, degrees of formality, or levels of euphemism, then you can keep referring to the same thing in different ways -- not only does it prevent "familiarity breeds contempt," but if your variant names are well-chosen, each one will tell you something slightly different about the subject.

To borrow from a World of Dimness-like setting I once worked up, it tells you a lot if in different contexts the vampires are referred to as "snakes" (because they're cold-blooded creatures with fangs), as "serpents" (as "snake," but with Biblical overtones), "dicks" (because they, uh, penetrate and are none too nice about it), or "Dead White Men." And that variation is all in standard English, without me inventing entire languages the way Tolkein did.

N.B. Obviously this works for setting details and not for rules elements: a rules term needs to be named one thing and called that consistently to avoid confusion!

[neko ewen]

I'll second (third/fourth/fifth?) the suggestion about having simple terms that don't lend themsleves to abbreviation. On the other hand when I think about it I can't think of many RPGs these days that actually use much in the way of acronyms/abbreviations in the rules. There's stuff like Hero System and Palladium (RKA, P.P.E., etc.), but most games seem to avoid this specifically for the above reasons -- RPGs use enough arcane terminology without them.

However, I think it's worth noting that by the time something has fan-acronyms (BSDs, not to mention DITV and TSOY) it's a sign that it's become fairly successful.

As to what Bob said, I've been thinking about this sort of thing lately; one of my other hobbies is writing fiction and poetry, but I have a really hard time putting the same level of craft into my RPG writing (and nonfiction in general, come to think of it).

[Bob the Fighter]

Something to consider is the way that real live human beings come up with names and nicknames for things. It makes a lot more sense for terms to change over time than for there to be this locked-in, forever-and-ever word for something.

Black Spiral Dances might alternately be called dark ones, fallen ones, howlers (cuz of the White Howler business...) or any number of other things. It makes sense that no one except the Dancers themselves would actually know the term, since what Garou would actually know the Dancers' practice of walking the wyrm-maze? I'm sure there are exceptions, but whatever.

I think that an idea my roommate and I devised could be cool: in-game nicknames for people, places, and things could follow the kenning model: the name you devise has some reference to a trait of the thing, and if it's particularly cool-sounding, you record it somewhere and keep it handy for future references. For instance, a very generous king might earn the nickname Old Gold Giver, and future stories with that same group could include references to that king via his little honorific the group devised. The same could work for insults and the like, or however you'd want to use it.

Yay language!

[raithe]

Excellent, thanks for so many constructive replies.

dindenver
 True it is MUCH worse in online games. (hence my topic title) It is somewhat minor, but it began to seriously
bother me when I started running a lot of Cthulhu (old chaosium not d20) games. The first few games I ran
were very tense, people jumped out of their seats when someone knocked on the door. Then we cycled in
some new players. These individuals immediately began using anacronyms and abbreviations for the Mythos
creatures. I noticed the longer they did so, the harder it became to keep the mood going. That was my first
glimpse of the problem, further testing has seemed to yield similar results. I will be the first to admit this is
more of an issue for narrativist games, but that is my cup of tea. In some places the acronyms fit, I merely
wish to avoid,
a) anything that stops the player from being immersed and starts them thinking from a detached perspective.
b) anything which makes my game harder to understand to newcomers than it already would be.

Adam
 The difference between laziness and effenciency is a fine line that's true. However consider this. You cite
the example of the invention of cars. Now it is true that cars have made the world an easier place to live.
However they have also robbed us of the true experience of travel. Drive across a mountain range, then try
hiking back across it; You will quickly see what I mean. I have no desire to set up a vivid world only to have
it quickly reduced to machine code of 1's and 0's. If I wanted that, I would be writing a new evercrack.
Shorter terms are an option, in some places the best option.

Bob
 True I cannot recall ever having seen Brer Rabbit being called anything else. ;) White Wolf does go a bit
beyond into the realm of pretension. (just a wee) I cited them as they were the first example that come to
mind. I would most definately agree that the terms we use and how well they fit the setting, determines their
usefulness and lifespan. (both spoke and read)

Danny_K
 Very true, Websters dictionary in fact raises this as a point in their definition of anacronym.
Yes heed the words of the master, Carlin speaks ultimate truth.

Joshua
 "One may, in Derridean terms, play with these conflicting versions of "Derrida," but sooner or later, if one is writing about him, or teaching him, then one has to choose, since they are competing versions. It may be that to choose is to distort so protean an entity. If so, this is yet one more of the paradoxes attending this remarkable figure, who, disavowing mastery has become a Master, and who undermines his meanings in advancing them."

-- Bernard Bergonzi, Exploding English: Criticism, Theory, Culture
 Hmm, Yes, venturing that direction would be... an long trip.
Choosing terms carefully is important I agree. The trick there would seem to be to leave the long pretensious
names for things that do not bear frequent repeating. (and yes there IS the whole BSDM side to the wyrm
but we should just leave that to the minds of us twisted folk. No need to scare the straights.)

Sydney
 Now that is a fabulous suggestion. The use of multiple terms, each befitting to the mood and setting would
be a wonderful way to keep variety, and immersion. I will definately use that. Thanks.

Neko
 True it is a sign of success, but also in some ways of a failing of design.

Bob
 What you say goes well with Sydney's suggestion. I have no desire to "lock" a term per se. Merely keep
immersion as high as possible.

[Sydney Freedberg]

These individuals immediately began using anacronyms and abbreviations for the Mythos creatures. I noticed the longer they did so, the harder it became to keep the mood going...

Heh. If the names in question are those of hideous extradimensional mindsucking nasties, one way to avoid overly casual use is to make sure that saying the name, even in abbreviated form, risks summoning the creature.

Conversely: Why should the players know the thing's name? Even the D&D manuals usually instruct you "don't say 'it's a bugbear,' describe it instead." And that's in a setting where lots of people have studied the monster books (in fact, I begged my parents for, and got, all the Monster Manuals years before I ever played a game of D&D). Even if you're using an established setting, you can invent new nasties to surprise your players, and part of that can be not giving them a name. Then watch the players try to refer to the Thing; they'll do the work of inventing alternative titles for you.

I will be the first to admit this is more of an issue for narrativist games, but that is my cup of tea...I merely wish to avoid, a) anything that stops the player from being immersed and starts them thinking from a detached perspective.

Note that "playing narrativist," in Forge terminology, doesn't necessarily equate to "being immersed." A lot of hardcore Nar games, in fact, encourage you to step outside your character and think about them in"from a detached perspective," as if you were the author of their story -- which of course you are, with your fellow-players and the GM as your co-authors.

[Sydney Freedberg]

P.S. And I've just found a lovely Actual Play example of what stepping outside the character can get you, here.

[raithe]

Sorry I should have clarified "detatched". I meant thinking of the game in terms numbers and stats. (Of course the
easiest way to do that is to not have them. ) That sort of play does not lend itself to good storytelling, because the
players are too concerned with effect than style. I like my games to have a cyberpunk flair if you will. Whether you
succeed is not important, just if you look good doing it.

[Sydney Freedberg]

I meant thinking of the game in terms numbers and stats.....That sort of play does not lend itself to good storytelling...

Again, not necessarily. Dogs in the Vineyard is very good at giving you a moment where you look at your dice, look at your opponent's dice, and realize, "I can't possibly win the way this is going -- but I could get more dice by escalating to physical violence. Is this issue worth possibly killing someone over?" Likewise, Capes is very good at giving you a moment where you look at your dice and Debt invested, you look at your opponents' dice and Debt, and you think, "Maybe I could win this -- barely -- but if I lose, I'd get so many Story Tokens to use on other conflicts later. Is this issue so important I'm willing to weaken myself in future fights to win this one?" What the mechanics give you, in both of those cases, is to make the hard decision obvious and unavoidable in a way that narration alone usually can't.

[Callan S.]

This seems to be a problem with society at large. We have become interested only in the quick fix, instant
gratification way of understanding. We do not want to know or think about the whole aspect of anything.
We do not wish to contemplate the deeper philisophical meanings of everything. Just the simple jist is
enough, thank you. Hopefully the fault in this sort of thinking is obvious. (Hence the quote at the top.)
I could rant about this for days so I am just going to stop here.

I'm not diplomatic, so I'll say I find this dishonest.

I think that if I were to review a few actual plays from you I could identify what you choose to think about in it's entire aspect, and what you abbreviate down to the nearly nonsensical. The reason I say dishonest, is because I think you don't honestly want to explore every little thing to it's up most limits - you want to explore certain particular elements, but other people have boiled these elements down to mere acronym or less. Your treasure is their throw away acronym.

In terms of design, I think you need some mechanic that says "No, your boiling that idea down too much, when I want it to be kept at large in play (and here's a mechanical consequence of what I'm saying)"