"game jargon and acronyms" Topic

Jargon & acronyms in games

Anyone else feel like I do, that it really should stop and that folks should start to write rules in a language people can understand?

Look, I don`t mean they should start writing in Esperanto OK, but in a full, plain language that we can immediately recognise and hopefully using historical terms that will allow the gamer to make a connection between what happens in the rules (however abstract they are designed to be) and the subject of the rules – the historical armies, their organisation and fighting techniques that made the chosen period`s warfare what it was?

Sounds fair enough to me…

If we can't even agree on a common definition of such things as 'command level' or 'light/medium/heavy machinegun' or whether an APC is the same as an IFV then however laudable the intention, I suspect it is doomed to failure.

Our historical counterparts had similar problems of course, e.g. 1 KRRC was a regiment called a corps but was actually a battalion, and part of a parent brigade (which in turn was part of a division which was a formation in an actual Corps).

You get my vote Mike.

All well and good saying there'll be folks at clubs to help explain things but how does that help solo players or those that don't speak English.

There was a very short rulebook that I struggled with,came out in the early 90s. It stayed on the shelf till 98 when I got online,by then even more jargon was being used by players.

It's remained on the shelf ever since.

Simple, it was a corps of troops and from the French for a "body" of troops.

Whereas after a quick internet search you`ll discover what an IFV is (nothing to do with infertility treatments btw); it`s game jargon itself & acronyms that be-fuddle me.

@ MCH,

Have you got some examples of what you have in mind?

and hopefully using historical terms that will allow the gamer to make a connection between what happens in the rules (however abstract they are designed to be) and the subject of the rules

Potentially problematic if the meanings of words have changed over time.

What counts as jargon and what counts as full, plain language?

Having spent a lot of time living and working with people who came to speak English by very different paths (including being raised by a parent for whom English was a fifth or sixth language), there is no such thing as "plain English". That's one of the language's strengths.

Take a look at one of our common bits of jargon, the word roll. Am I supposed to roll dice the way I roll a ball of clay or a bocce ball? How about rolling a cigarette or a pie crust? Maybe it's supposed to be like a caisson … I know from a song that they just go rolling along. And I need to be clear that this verb is not the noun roll like a dinner roll or a roll of coins (how do I roll those up again?).

In a way, when one requests to remove jargon (use of specific phrases and words by writers in a particular situation) from use, they are actually requesting to substitute jargon (use of specific phrases and words by writers in a particular situation) with whey they are familiar.

That doesn't mean you can't strive to be clear, and that writers shouldn't consider what the base of experience and expectations of their audience is. In fact, we should encourage looking at clarity holistically. We should reject the idea that there is some objective standard of what constitutes jargon and what does not.

Ultimately, writing wargame rules is about balancing clarity and efficiency. You don't want your readers confused. But you also don't want "Place one of the six-sided dice you have been using into your palm. Close your fingers around it to contain it but allow it a moderate degree of free motion. Now move the hand with the six-sided die in it by moving rapidly with the wrist or elbow for a few seconds. Then release you grip on the six-sided die so that it is projected onto the appropriate surface for using six-sided dice and it tumbles a few times, ultimately coming to a rest with one visible face parallel to the surface." in every place you could use "roll the die".

Game Designers should never forget that jargon is an exclusionary thing. It shows who is in the group and who is not. If you want to gain new people playing your game--get rid of it! Otherwise you'll only sell to the good old boys.

what do you mean good old boys?, good English isn't a need more a right if your passing on information, over complicating does limit your sales – but good old boys?

OK then, here`s two that I came across recently: "TUG" & "SUG".
Tactical Unit Grouping and Skirmisher Unit Grouping.

Most of the time these would be considered commands – under the direction of a commander; a sub-general.

So, these acronyms describe light and heavy infantry/cavalry commands.

But really, what is wrong with calling something a "Light Infantry Command", do they think we will confuse it with an order given to a bunch of skirmishers?

Every rule set should provide an easy-reference glossary to identify and explain the acronyms. Rod Langton's "Signal Close Action" would certainly benefit from one.

B

Mike Collins is correct.

Jargon is developed solely to create a class of "insiders" and the rest are outsiders.

I don't think TUG or SUG would be any less confusing to a newcomer than Light Infantry command LIC.

As long as acronyms and other terms are clearly defined I'm OK with them in general. Being an ASL player I am very much aware that things can go overboard however.

OK then, here`s two that I came across recently: "TUG" & "SUG".

This does not sound like a jargon problem. What you describe sounds to me like a preference problem.

You seem to know what a TUG and SUG are, and how they operate in the game, so there doesn't seem to be a problem in clearly communicating meaning.

Now, if a TUG and SUG are exactly the same thing – they play the same, use the same stats and figures, are interacted by the players in the same way, etc. – then using two terms may be confusing. I wouldn't want rules to talk about my left flank and right wing if there were no difference between being a flank and wing (and especially if they use the terms interchangeably).

But if a TUG and SUG are different and you want to call them by one name, Light Infantry Command, because you implicitly know the difference between the two types of unit and can sort out for yourself which one is meant by context, you're actually adding a jargon problem for others.

I have experimented with capitalising words that have a specific meaning within the rules and defining them clearly. The problem is that gamers don't read that part of the rulebook and even if they do, they can't be bothered to use the terminology presented to them.

As stated, English is a language with many nuances and subtle differences such that a word MIGHT mean a range of things. Engineers & scientists tend to be quite careful with such words so that misunderstandings do not happen. Wargamers just blame the rule writer when they can't be bothered to make the effort to understand what the author means.

What the heck is a "warband?"

But why shorten a term unnecessarily?
Are games designers frightened to waste precious ink?
Are they so severely limited to how many pages their rules can run to?

It`s not just about English!
I`m sure this tendency to invention of new terms and the use of acronyms isn`t restricted to English production.
I came across it in L`Art de La Guerre, in which an "UD" is the same as a "BW" in other (English language) designs.

True enough Gildas. Wargamers don't read rules carefully – they often don't even read game briefings at all…in fact I am a major offender myself.
Equally, many rule-writers don't edit very well; modifiers for fire and/or movement and/or morale are often tucked away far from the relevant sections. It all made sense to the writer and play testers, but not necessarily to everyone else….and heaven forbid rule-writers might supply an index at all, let alone a halfway decent one.
It does n't help that there is often a confusion between complexity and historical validity.

Michael, I agree with you. some acronyms get adopted without the original meaning fully known by the adopters eg PIPs Some shortenings such as D6 would seem to be very logical. some phrases such as "quick play" have no relative value but are used in the belief they are a desire of gamers. I expect some gamers use acronyms to make a definition very exact as they fear players that will deliberately mis- interpret? I think there is less of it these days in game rules but loads more on the internet games chat forums (IMHO) YMMV. The funny/abused ones are WOTR, factions and "bath tubbing"

Blame it on the military and the 4,272,992 acronyms we use.

Martin help an old fart out. War of th Roses I am guessing is not correct, so what is?

And I am certain that I dont understand what bath tubbing is, even though i see it a lot.

MAybe making new bits of jargon is a hip thing us old guys just are not going to catch on to.

Is "bath tubbing" to do with babies?

But why shorten a term unnecessarily?

Exactly! Why use "Light Infantry Command" when you can say "hierarchically organized and commanded collection of close or ranged combatants without significant armour protection that travel on foot" every time?

I'm thinking War of the Roses gets confused with Tolkien but I'm stumped on "bath tubbing".

Been sporting an FTW tattoo on my hand since my days of playing biker rallies and punk festivals. I can assure you it don't mean "for the win" !!

No, you misunderstand, that`s definitely not what I mean…

"LIC" shortens light infantry command to an acronym – why do that?

I expect some gamers use acronyms to make a definition very exact as they fear players that will deliberately mis- interpret? I think there is less of it these days in game rules but loads more on the internet games chat forums (IMHO) YMMV. The funny/abused ones are WOTR, factions and "bath tubbing"

Jargon is a language tool, which can be used well or badly. It is used to:

1. Shorten thoughts [and the number of words] IMHO, WOTR, YMMV, PIPs.

2. Short hand to describe complex or interrelated ideas:
Black Box design, friction, asymmetrical combat.

3. To provide shorthand for very specific and technical communication. ANY technical activity will naturally generate the jargon necessary to communicate efficiently. Rick Priestly gave a whole chapter on the terms his group have developed just to communicate technical ideas about game design.

Like any communication, what words mean have to be clear or there isn't any effective communication.

Jargon is developed solely to create a class of "insiders" and the rest are outsiders.

It certainly can be used that way--and can create that result without any idea of exclusion. My inlaws are contractors. They have a whole set of technical language that puts me on the outside without any intention on their part.

However, to say that jargon is developed solely to create insiders and outsiders is BS.

Player Initiative Point…

"…( PIP ) is replacing Disability Living Allowance ( DLA ) for people with a long-term health condition or disability aged 16 to 64. Use this tool to check: if PIP affects you or someone you care for."
gov.uk/pip-checker

Hey, these are just points on a dice btw +/- modifiers!

I don't think jargon is much of a problem in wargaming rules. Most I have read/pclayed define their terms, so we know what flank, initiative, cover, cohesion, morale, suppression, etc. all mean in the context of the game.

Many games also include introductions to explain in basic terms what a wargame is.

Is it arrogance or ignorance that makes me say as a rule writer I don't understand. We use some words that have a definitive definition in the game. Action for example means an element (lowest component in the game) does something. Element does not seem to be an abuse of language. The acronym's are mainly those used commonly (AP for example). There are a few that makes be less well used but hopefully are not too obtuse.

perhaps you could give examples of the sort of thing that you feel is unnecessary? To me as a games designer would be of interest.

FWIW WOTR can mean: Wars of the Roses, War of the Ring, Watch on the Rhine, and don't get me started on BA, COC, IABSM, DBA, DBX DBaaaarrrrghh!

AP= Associated Press, Armor Piercing, Armored Patrol, Automatic Pistol, Army Platoon, Anti-Personnel, Angry Poodles…

Really, if you're going to use an acronym, context and definition are important. So too for unusual terms or combinations or reuse of words that in common parlance mean something else, but in game terms have more specific implications. For example "roll for initiative" is instantly recognizable to gamers as a comparison of die rolls, with the high roller typically gaining the advantage of acting first in the game turn. However, in common English it is an utterly incomprehensible phrase bordering on the nonsensical. A well-written rules set will explain such terms clearly when introduced in the game, so that non-gamers have a point of entry to gain what they need to know to play. Experienced gamers can easily skip over such explanatory sections, and indeed many excellent game rules often state just that, directing those familiar with common gaming terms to a later starting point in the rulebook.

OK, other than the examples I`ve already give above, let`s open up my copy of Empire (1990) and look at the terms and the acronym used just to describe somthing about army structure.

Chapter II, ME
…an acronym for Maneuver Element which means it`s: "the basic formation which is given operational orders, performs grand-tactical movement, and conducts tactical combat"

So two words stand in the place of one; it`s a "command".

ACE, another acronym; used so much (18 times in the general terminology page) that they decided to trademark it!

More jargon: half-regiments, and divisions of cavalry regiments are termed "battle groups".

There are also "task forces" – ad-hoc battlefield commands – I`m not too sure about them.

Well Brian, there`s just one or two for a starter – I`m pretty sure that there are many more out there.

No, you misunderstand, that`s definitely not what I mean…

No, I completely understand your point. I was using a reductio ad absurdum argument to illustrate what I think is wrong with your point.

Whether a writer uses an acronym, a three word phrase, a two word phrase (why not just "light infantry" instead of "light infantry company), longer, shorter is a matter of preference and style, not one of clarity. Using the phrase "light infantry company" or "LIC" is machs nicht. The real concern is did you define your term and do you use it consistently.

Ultimately, any synecdoche used in writing is arbitrary.

A game from 1990 is your reference for problems currently plaguing wargames?

So two words stand in the place of one; it`s a "command".

Replacing ME with command would make things worse. Is a light infantry command a type of command then? Does it do all the things and nothing other than the things of an ME? Are the ad-hoc battlefield commands the same?

The way you describe the game, it does not appear so. It appears that the rules are using different names for different things to avoid overloading one word.

I agree with Parzival. Virtually every industry has acronyms, it is a simple way to explain something. Rules writers should explain an acronym in full, then in further reading and gaming the player has understanding.
The first time I read IGOUGO it was W the bleep.

I think a lot o games could benefit from having a glossary.

I know why people don't, it's a **** ton of work to do, but it can be very helpful.

I still don't know what TO&E means

"a light infantry command" is a light infantry command.

So the answer is very close to my own post. What do you expect from your players. TO&E as an example is a standard Acronym you can find it immediately on Google and in context. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself on the period then you automaticaly exclude yourself from some works of art.

Is that acceptable to me, yes as I assume the player has some knowledge of the weapons and tactics of the period.

I also expect players to have to "work" at playing and understanding the model. You cannot expect to run a Computational Fluid Dynamics Model of any susbstance without reading the manual at least twice.

I'm not that sure any of the examples are good ones. I understand what a Battle Group is, so too a task force. We use the terms as it is in NATO, a recognised term. As is a unit being Task Organised. Without some understanding of the real world systems being modeled you could not play our rules and I would recommend you not buy them.

I'm not sure here whether you are really not being a bit idle in not wanting to "Get to Grips" with a game.

Unfortunately "No pain, no gain" applies at least with simulations. You only get out what you put in.

"a light infantry command" is a light infantry command.

That's the type of definition that really clears things up for gamers.

Actually, I`m a tad surprised by your last post.
Assuming a prior knowledge of a period tactics and weapons will make it harder for people to appreciate your work.

Maybe I`m lazy? Yes, I would prefer that someone would make the learning easy for me. But here I`m questioning the need to invent terms for army structures instead of using real, historical ones.

"a light infantry command" is a light infantry command.

That's the type of definition that really clears things up for gamers.

Yeah well, I`m guessing, but might that be an infantry command composed of light troops?

> I still don't know what TO&E means

Every frontline soldier I've asked have said it doesn't mean a darn thing…

What do you expect from your players.

I agree that you can levy some expectations on the players with respect to the milieu. However, I also believe that the writer has the obligation to be specific about what the term means in the specific game.

F'r'ex, if you are reading a game about the Dahomey Amazons, you should have some idea about Oyo, Porto-Novo, and Abeokuta. But how those empires are represented in the game should still be explained.

Yeah well, I`m guessing, but might that be an infantry command composed of light troops?

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it might be the headquarters of such a unit. But I guess it applies to everything from one guy by himself to 2.5M light infantry.

"a light infantry command" is a light infantry command.

And already jargon as far as most speakers of English are concerned.

Maybe you really were thinking it was the headquarters, but then the context may help you out some and provide you with an odd clue as to the meaning?

Or simply adding: "headquarters" to the same?

What the heck is a "warband?"

In Infinity, it's a specific type of troop that pretty much ignores terrain penalties. While most Warbands (abbreviated WB in the army builder) are lightly equipped, there are a few well-armored and decently armed WBs out there that will ruin your day.

But yeah, most games need both an index and a glossary. Plus defining the terms/keywords and abbreviations when they're first used in the rules text.

TO&E = Table of Organization and Equipment; do I have that right?