"game jargon and acronyms" Topic

Maybe you really were thinking it was the headquarters

No, I was thinking that if I buy light infantry (which is a lot of different things) I get troops and when I buy light infantry command, I get the HQ element.

Command is an ambiguous and overloaded term. As mentioned above by others, "light infantry command" is already jargon.

The problem with jargon is generally not which terms writers choose to represent concepts in their games, it is how they use them.

Ahhh, the difference; you understand "jargon" as being specialised terminology, I understand it to be gibberish and I refer to it in a disapproving, perojative manner.

Those who write instructions sometimes forget those of us who are using the instructions may not have the same knowledge as the writers. Terminology or abbreviations that seem obvious to the writers may not be to the some of the people trying to use the instructions. Even where terms are defined it can be difficult to follow when you have to flip back and forth to the definitions as you are working your way through the instructions. Same with diagrams.

This is at least as true among those who write wargame rules as it is for other instruction writers. While playtesting may be common in working out the mechanics of the rules, I wonder how often the actual writings are tested by those unfamiliar with the game for clarity. Anyone know?

"Jargon" is indeed "specialized terminology" which is hard for those outside the field or endeavor to understand. That's the definition of the word. "Gibberish" has been added as a secondary definition, but in reality that's an incorrect one. Gibberish, by definition, is words appearing to be language but having no actual meaning. Jargon is language that has meaning, but only to those within a narrow area of study or experience, yet is still acknowledged as a subset of an actual language. Hence, jargon can indeed be a part of a language like English, carrying inherent and explicit meaning, yet be incomprehensible to those speakers of English who are not familiar with the area of knowledge the jargon serves. For example, the sentence, "they went for it on fourth and long with a flea flicker and got a touch down" is utterly incomprehensible to English speakers who have no experience with American football. But the sentence has definite and explicit meaning, and literally millions of Americans have no problem at all discerning the information conveyed. It is jargon, yet it is not gibberish.

However, without explanation, jargon is effectively gibberish to those not privy to the meaning. In my above example, the average Brit might well hear the sentence as effectively gibberish, but recognize that meaning is nevertheless intended (and therefore not really gibberish), even if they do not understand it.

On a side note, I understand a "command" as being a very vague military term for any grouping under the control of an officer at any level. For example, a lieutenant might have "a command" which consists of a small body of troops, whereas a colonel might have "a command" which covers a large body of troops— which might happen to include said lieutenant's "command." So I find the term "light infantry command" inherently lacking in specific meaning at least as regards to unit size, purpose, or structure, assuming it is meant as a noun phrase specific to a body of troops, and not the actual body of officers in command of said troops. "Light infantry" has more obvious meaning (but still expects understanding of the classification "light" within the genre or period covered), but simply attaching "command" to it does not add to that meaning in any useful way without further explanation.

Oh, and as for "knowing about the period," I certainly know a lot about a considerable number of wars and battles, and would be interested in playing the same as a game, but that does not mean that I understand or know the detailed elements of the forces involved or the historic terminology from the period. So, yes, a set of rules for playing detailed battles in a given conflict should indeed include clear explanations of any terms used, even historic terms, especially if that understanding is essential to play. The goal of a rules writer should neither be showing off knowledge of jargon without explanation, nor the exclusion of those unfamiliar with such jargon, but rather to clearly convey the information and understanding necessary to play the game.

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

Yes, and it's technically specific to the US military. But it's very useful as a concept, so I think everyone has adopted it.

I get in trouble at work frequently for being to technical when i write my daily reports. I make the point that if you dont understand them you most likely should not be reading them.

Uscha has stated that if you cant understand his writing, dont buy his game. Fair enough. But is that stated anywhere, or do you have to buy the game then find out you should not have?

I dont mind in the least learning the language of a new period( and isnt that jargon in it self) and the technical terms from the period. I do have trouble with things a rules writer just makes up and doesnt explain very well. I limit this by mainly buying from a limited number of game companys. I am to old to need to take a course to learn how to play a game.

That said, I do play TFL games.

"Without some understanding of the real world systems being modeled you could not play our rules and I would recommend you not buy them."

That really seems to limit your market. I was in the Army, should I not buy Naval wargames? I live in the 21st Century, should I not buy wargames about the 3rd Century without having studied the period?

How about science fiction and fantasy, as well as alternate history games? They may be a self contained universe, I would have no way of knowing about them until I purchase and read the rules.

Wargames should be accessible by anyone who buys them and takes them home. They should not require any specialized knowledge beyond what an average person could be expected to know.

Ask the average 20 year old who fought in the American Civil War and who had the best tanks? They are unlikely to have a correct answer, or recognize that it's a trick question.

I think most wargames should start with a few pages of overview explaining the period, the technology, and methods of warfare for the period being gamed as an introduction. I think there should be an index and that it should be easy to find all the infantry firing modifiers in one place.

At least that's my expectation as a consumer. Or that may explain why I write my own rules, for my own use, and don't buy wargame rules anymore.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

In my opinion anything that makes my life easier is better. If a ruleset does force me to learn a specific "language", I will, probably, walk away from it. "Probably" being the operative word; after all I am a hardcore ASL player!

Right so, more of a misunderstanding than a major disagreement…

link

jargon
noun

1[mass noun] Special words or expressions used by a profession or group that are difficult for others to understand:
‘legal jargon'

1.archaic A form of language regarded as barbarous, debased, or hybrid.

Origin

Late Middle English (originally in the sense ‘twittering, chattering', later ‘gibberish'): from Old French jargoun, of unknown origin. The main sense dates from the mid 17th century.

Bunkermeister,
with all due repecT not all of us which to write for the lowest common denominator. Although sales would be higher the game wuld be just that a lowest common denominator game. As undermanding as the audience, that has is has not enough grasp of the situation or even desire to get a grasp to cope with the decision making required. Being even a Company comander in WW2 even comncentrating on the tactical only which ignores the enourmouse logistical issues requires the ability to concentraye in time and space. This canno0t be done with a both move 6" game with lots of random throws which do not reflect fog of war.
Thus some games do need effcfort to play and understand. Whre we have used game specific terms (Jargaon) we have tried to keep it to a minimum and define it.

However like in the past at work we do seem to have too many English teachers obsessed with the english and not neccessarily to any advantage. Unfortunately they also pervade engineeing with similar non added value.

In anny complex modeling subject there will be addition terminology which will not be familiar to with no knoledge of the subject.

The request to fully educate the reader is absurd. To write a treatry on layouts for defence takes a US manual, as does river crossing. If you want to play with more than a very crude game dominaqted by random you are not going to get it spoon fed. Specific teminology is a necCessity. It does need to be rigidly defined agreed, its elimination is impractical.

Take it English isn't your native tongue UshCha.

Brian,

Unfortunatley, I think you still miss the point.

I think that game terms should as much as possible be military ones …and even better still contemporary terms that were used at the time that the war/battle was set.

There`s nothing much wrong with specialised terminology being used if, as you say, it is defined and understood.
I actually want specialised terminology, but at school, etc. "jargon" on the other hand, was always a term used for language that was seen as confusing or mystifying.

I trained to teach Art, not English.

I think that game terms should as much as possible be military ones …and even better still contemporary terms that were used at the time that the war/battle was set.

I like the idea, but mind that many games cover a long time span (L'Art de la Guerre, DBM, ecc). They can't use contemporary terms, as there are nothing "contemporary" to them.

Also, there is another problem: the different meaning of words in different historical periods. For example, "battle" doesn't represent the same meaning in the Middle Ages than at the present. It follows logically that we would need a glossary to explain our readers what we meant with those particular words, which implies that those words are as obscure in meaning as the acronyms whose use we have tried to avoid. It would defeat the purpose of the exercise, wouldn't it?

I strongly sympathize with your ideas, but to be completely honest with you I don't think that implementing them would solve the basic problem.

No need to look at different times. In a language where you have at least 9 different and frankly charming and colourful names to identify a flock of swans (bank, bevy, drift, whiting, squadron, team, herd, lamentation, wedge, whiteness) you really don't need acronyms to befuddle your reader

Then again wouldn't we be all the poorer without a murder of crows or a committee of vultures?

Perhaps An Anorak of Wargamers?

Seriously, acronyms are OK but to many and you lose your LOS.

In my opinion anything that makes my life easier is better. If a ruleset does force me to learn a specific "language", I will, probably, walk away from it. "Probably" being the operative word; after all I am a hardcore ASL player!

Unlike most hobbies, wargaming seems to lack any well-defined levels of engagement. If you look at the instructions for a model kit for basic radio controlled airplanes [free flight] and one for 'true scale', you will see a big difference in the wording, the jargon used. The knowledge, skill and commitment needed to build a true scale model compared to a free flight is huge…and expected. Few if anyone starts by building true scale radio-controlled aircraft.

Someone who is a hardcore/committed ASL player is playing 'advanced' Squad Leader. They will know all the jargon by heart as well as the advanced and optional rules. addendum and errata. The occasional player will not and struggle to understand the rules and play the game, particularly against the hardcore player.

There seems to be no recognition of this in the hobby apart from a few designers like Sam Mustafa.

I like designing games, but am not aiming at the initiate. That's just me. I can use *some* jargon because of my intended audience. And that audience will naturally be smaller, just as there are fewer True Scale modelers than the occasional Sunday Free Flight modeler.

No wargame, jargon, instructions etc. are going to meet everyone's needs, be the 'universal game' and that is as it should be. And if the whole point is to sell lots of games, it will naturally be at the initiate, know little of military history level. That is where the most people are.

Dear Michael Collins

You said "I think that game terms should as much as possible be military ones …and even better still contemporary terms that were used at the time that the war/battle was set."

I agree! Especially if you are going to write them in the original language and they have to be spoken in that language, like Medieval Norse, or Church Latin, or better yet-- Linear B.

The first time an acronym or technical jargon is used it should be defined in a parenthetical remark. After that jargon away.

But as I age my tolerance for "simulations" lowers. Currently, if I cannot get the overall gist of your rules on my fourth trip to the bathroom, it is unlikely to get played.

Dear Otto Schmidt,

I deserved that – it was a friggin` stupid thing to say wasn`t it !

Every game requires some commitment from the players. It's not too much to expect the players to learn the terms used in the rules. The game designer has a concomitant obligation not to burden the players unduly with terms of art and TLAs.*

*Three-Letter Abbreviation.

I deserved that – it was a friggin` stupid thing to say wasn`t it !

No, I agree with your previous statement. It adds charm to a miniatures game to evoke the period it represents by using period-appropriate language, or even pictures, fonts or flourishes. There is of course a balancing act between "evocative" and "inscrutible", but that doesn't invalidate the use of jargon to get the player's mindset into the right context. Writing and entire Dark Ages rulebook in Icelandic with Norse runes would probably be overdoing it, but using Norse runes on the dice or chapter headings or something might be a lovely enhancement of atmosphere.

- Ix

When designing a tank/infantry game for the period from 1930 to present I started with the real manuals and had to write up definitions for the nomenclature and terminology and how it is used in the game. It was a pain but is worthwhile doing so I agree with Waco Joe.

The other choice is to make up artificial terminology that may only have a meaning for one design or could be confused with other game rules since there is no standardization for definitions and terminology.

I consider the result a success if a tank crewman or squad leader can recognize the rules and play the game with a minimum of instruction. ASL is a good simulation but an infantry platoon commander would have to work to come up to speed because it uses a lot of terminology and rules specific to only ASL.

I'm making "just in time" short videos on the important parts of the game to help new players come up to speed. New players or ones with a minimum of military experience or historical period knowledge will have to come up to speed.

It's been called a "simulation" so I am sure that limits the interest for many out there. That's fine by me as I can't improve on many of the easier and more popular games out there.

The tank gunnery manual mentions ranging, bracketing and ranged in fire control. It could be translated to "first shot", "shots that miss" and "shots that hit". I like using the real terminology as I think it can translate into a better player experience with a little understanding.

Wolfhag

Dear Michael

No,

You didn't deserve it and I apologize to you personally for the snark.

I understand what you meant and really it was meant in the best possible sense. Language has no other purpose than to be understood. It is to tell you what I mean so you can understand my experience without you having to have had the same experience. English is especially utilitarian with regard to that and within any language there are abbreviations and metaphors that aid in communication. I understood what you meant, but I plead your indulgence and forgiveness for being too weak to resist.

I understand fully what you are talking about with regard to jargon. There is Jargon to explain and "pack" into a few letters a whole essay of meaning (etc. in English usw. in German for " Und so weiter" and "La La" or "Zouf" in French or whatever, and then there is jargon that is NOT meant to express but to conceal, that is make an argot known only to the "elect" or the initiate. You were arguing for the former and against the latter.

In war game rules which are simply "instructions" on how to play the game the difference can become particularly pointed and particularly important. We read rules so we can know how to operate the game, and ought not be doing so for the purpose of being "one of the initiated" into some sort of gnostic mysteries of the rules. The rules are a means to an end not an end in itself. Rules should be written like operating instructions to a washing machine or a toaster oven. One you know enough to plug it in and select the basic speeds you should be able to stuff it into the junk drawer of the kitchen cabinet and forget about it.

"Jargon" therefore can have it's good points and bad points. I refer to the use of the term "Barkereese" which some gamers claimed they needed a grad course in before they could read the rules to the WRG or later DBA stuff.

And YES, if the jargon is legit military jargon then there is nothing wrong with using it in a game, and it should be used. The bad part comes when the jargon is used not to explain or facilitate the game, but used for its own sake.

One thing I know, being a frequent rules writer and game designer. I rarely explain things well enough for the person who is not living in my head. It's a fault you have to guard against.

There is a converse of all this too: using the wrong jargon can jar the reader out of the appropriate mindset, like Schwarzeneggar playing an undercover American superspy. There are some times when standard gamer lingo is just the only choice, but excessive reliance on modern terminology can actually hamper suspension of disbelief. A Roman army defined as a collection of "regiments" and "companies" commanded by "colonels" and "captains" would sour the experience, no matter how well the rules worked.

- Ix

Dear Yellow Admiral

But Robert Graves in his novel "I Claudius" does just that. Refer to a Roman Legion as a "Regiment" and it's centuries as battalions. He does not do the same with the officer ranks, and it does not detract from the novel at all.

But Robert Graves in his novel "I Claudius" does just that. Refer to a Roman Legion as a "Regiment" and it's centuries as battalions. He does not do the same with the officer ranks, and it does not detract from the novel at all.

It didn't for me, but I have friends that found that and other 'modernisms' annoying and popped them out of the story every time, short-stopping the entertainment, sort of like some game mechanic procedures and results do for gamers. Certainly, it was an issue with a number of reviewers.

Design the game, the jargon etc. the way you want and then play test it. You'll find out soon enough which terms, 'modernisms' and jargon stop players in their tracks and which don't. Those are fixable.

@ Bill N

This is at least as true among those who write wargame rules as it is for other instruction writers. While playtesting may be common in working out the mechanics of the rules, I wonder how often the actual writings are tested by those unfamiliar with the game for clarity. Anyone know?

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am currently in the process of getting my starship rules ready for publishing and that is the process that is being undergone at the moment. I have passed the rules over to someone who has neither played them nor is especially familiar with the genre (UshCha, as it happens).

It has (so far) taken a large number of hours, both by him reading and me re-writing the explanations, but it had been invaluable.

As you might have gathered, then, this is not a set of rules that you can simply pick-up and play without reading properly first. (In the same manner as you cannot simply pick up D&D or Rolemaster or GURPS and attempt to run a game (as opposed to just being a player) without first reading everything.)

Games are not made to equal levels of expected player input effort, be they wargames, or computer games or others. Snakes & Ladders is not the same as Monoply. Pokémon (a game ostensibly for children*)is not the same as a Paradox Grand Strategy like Crusader Kings 2, the latter is the sort of game that requires either dozens of hours of experimentation or more likely, reading of the near-entire wiki and frequent questions on the forums. (After 206 hours of play, I am *still* finding things I never knoew or noticed before.)

(Pokémon is actually an interesing example, since it, while being, as mentioned ostensibly children's game, ALSO has its own jargon. EV, IVs, Natures for a start, but for those of you (like UshCha, for example…!) discussion of a Normal/Flying type or a Poison/Fire type will be equally meaningless.)

As folk as mentioned above, ANY system of moderate complexity by necessity, requires technical language of some sort, which will only make sense in context.

The best you can aim for is to decide what level of demands you are going to make of your audience and to provide a clear explanation of what terms and abbreviations you have (in my rules, I put that right at the very start) and try and make most of the fairly self explanatory.

(Out of curiosity, I had a look – in my rules, there are 10 abbrevations (one of which is the nearly-unilaterally sci-fi used "FTL") and the other game terms are capitalised words.)

There simply comes a point where you can't market every game to every player. Some people don't want to play complex (mechnically or tactically) games and some people don't want to play games that *don't* have mechanical or tactical complexity.

Some games, then, will demand some level of effort on the part of the player (or at least from one player/gamesmaster et al), which not all folk are willing or able to meet. But that doesn't mean that such games are any less valid. You literally can't please everyone. Gaming is a wildly diverse hobby; "gaming" in reality is more of a catch-all phrase like "sport" or movies/TV or something, rather than a single aspect.

(It's worth noting that, in the computer games industry, the most frequent accusation levelled (rightly or wrongly) at major franchises these days is of "dumbing down" for wider audiences.)

*Speaking as a person who owns pretty every main game since Generation III save three of the latest.

Dear Otto,
Apology accepted.