Standard Tabletop Lingo vs. Unique Lingo

[Mr. Mask]

99% of those reading this know the meanings of the acronyms GM, DM, and HP. Game Master, Dungeon Master, and Hit Points. Those of you also know what a GM, a DM, and what HP are. These terms are pretty standard across many Tabletop RPGs.

There are also many RPGs, however, which substitute these and other familiar terms. GMs/DMs are called things such as the Storyteller, the Referee, Seneschal, or other such names--despite having the same function. You are no doubt familiar with other such substitutions (More than 70% of you, at least).


Is it a good idea to substitute these familiar terms?

You have a language Tabletop Gamers, and many people and Gamers in general are familiar with. You don't need to explain to the player what a GM is, most of the time. Even though it only takes a line of text to say, "We call GMs Seneschals," players won't immediately take this to memory, and if they have to stop reading and think when they see seneschal pop up, that'll distract them (in fiction writing, breaking immersion with distractions is risky).

From an alternative view, GM and other such terms have been used a LOT. Seeing something new, like Narrator, or your Strength stat being called Biceps, can be details which endear the RPG. The terms can also be chosen to better reflect and characterize the style of the book. So long as the terms are sensible and clear in what they refer to.


What are your experiences with this matter? Your opinions?

[IronFist]

What you call stuff helps set up setting and tone.

[BWR]

Ignoring the amount of unique lingo that comes from unique mechanical or fluff aspects of various games, most of the games that make changes to accepted lingo do so for flavor. The first one to use "Game Master" instead of "Dungeon Master" did a good job. The rest become mostly pointless, if harmless.

The good: can make the game seem more unique and flavorful. e.g. Nobilis.
The GM is called the "Hollyhock God". In the Nobilis setting, flowers are powerful symobls and have their own meaning, and hollyhock represents vanity and ambition.

The Bad: changing stuff just to sound cool. If there is a perfectly good term that is already in common use, don't change it just to have something different. A change should have a point apart from change. If you make system and decide to call an ability 'Power, and it would in any other similar game be 'Strength', it's pointles. Common terminology helps people learn new games, and simple terminology helps new players learn their first game.

[Themrys]

The terms DM and GM likewise, need substituting. They lead to a false perception of what this person should be doing.

A change from "GM" to "Storyteller" - suddenly, that person is no longer a "master" but someone who neutrally does something, with the implication that others are intended to like it.

I wonder whether it would change something if you changed the term NPC to "narrated characters" or whatever, thereby removing the negative implications attached to despribing them simply as not being PCs.

Of course, culture influences language more than the other way round. "Storyteller" may become a term who someone with absolute power because the power dynamics is kept in place by people who are used to it.

And there certainly are groups who are not in the least impressed by the title "game master".

But a change of the term would take away the implications and expectations for people who are new to that kind of game.

[valadil]

I'm fine with it as long as the change is deliberate and meaningful. I can immediately see the difference between dungeon master and story teller. But if your stats list is might, agility, health, smarts, awareness, and dumpstat I'm just going to assume you were a little too fond of your thesaurus.

[Lorsa]

A change from "GM" to "Storyteller" - suddenly, that person is no longer a "master" but someone who neutrally does something, with the implication that others are intended to like it.

I actually think the word "Storyteller" is even worse than Game Master. Storyteller seems to assume that the person running the game is there to tell "The Story" and the players are there to be the audience. This isn't how I want to run my games nor the kind of game I want to play in. There are many people who have had bad experiences with cWoD games being very railroady in nature and the word "Storyteller" seems to speak in favor of that.

Similarly "Referee" tells me it is a person who is only meant to be a rules arbiter and says nothing about running the world, narrative control etc.

A "Game Master" has many functions, and not all of them have to be given to one person. If you want to deconstruct the name and create a new term the best way to do it is to figure out exactly what functions you want this individual to have. Is it only running the world or does it include being final arbiter over the rules and narrative control etc etc.

[Mr. Mask]

A "Game Master" has many functions, and not all of them have to be given to one person. Such a statement causes me to ponder whether you could split up a GM's duties between several persons.

[Lorsa]

Such a statement causes me to ponder whether you could split up a GM's duties between several persons.

Of course you can.

[TuggyNE]

Such a statement causes me to ponder whether you could split up a GM's duties between several persons.

Some games do.

In fact, some games of (otherwise unmodified) D&D do: they have one person running let's say the combat encounters and NPCs, and another person managing rules calls, inanimate objects and surroundings, PC character sheets, etc. It's not too common, but it has been done.

[DigoDragon]

I don't think the title lingo mattered much when I ran a game. Call me DM/GM/Storyteller/etc. and the players' perception wasn't going to change. They knew my style of running things didn't change much from system to system. :smallbiggrin:

On the other hand, it did take us a while to grasp the Shadowrun teminology of "hits" when rolling dice pools.

[Scow2]

Ignoring the amount of unique lingo that comes from unique mechanical or fluff aspects of various games, most of the games that make changes to accepted lingo do so for flavor. The first one to use "Game Master" instead of "Dungeon Master" did a good job. The rest become mostly pointless, if harmless.

The good: can make the game seem more unique and flavorful. e.g. Nobilis.
The GM is called the "Hollyhock God". In the Nobilis setting, flowers are powerful symobls and have their own meaning, and hollyhock represents vanity and ambition.

The Bad: changing stuff just to sound cool. If there is a perfectly good term that is already in common use, don't change it just to have something different. A change should have a point apart from change. If you make system and decide to call an ability 'Power, and it would in any other similar game be 'Strength', it's pointles. Common terminology helps people learn new games, and simple terminology helps new players learn their first game.Well, replacing Strength with "Power" is generally for a more abstract system (Like GiantitP's own Final Fantasy d6 system), where it refers to any personal strength, mental or physical.


The terms DM and GM likewise, need substituting. They lead to a false perception of what this person should be doing.

A change from "GM" to "Storyteller" - suddenly, that person is no longer a "master" but someone who neutrally does something, with the implication that others are intended to like it. As lorsa pointed out, "Storyteller" implies even greater (Or at least more condescending) authority than DM, because it treats players like the Audience instead of as, well, players. A story teller is in charge of tone, setting, plot, conflict, AND resolution. By your logic, "Dungeon Master" implies that the person is only in charge of the Setting, which a plot can emerge from, and "Game Master" holds that the person is the one in charge of running the game.


I wonder whether it would change something if you changed the term NPC to "narrated characters" or whatever, thereby removing the negative implications attached to despribing them simply as not being PCs.On top of being laughed off as pretentious, it, like Storyteller, implies that the character is only relevant for the role he plays in the story, and they're probably extremely self-aware and . NPC says "Not player", but still implies that it has a role in the world beyond narrative convention: The purpose of an NPC mayor of the Adventure Town of the Session is to manage Adventure Town of the Session, with informing the players of the Problem the Main Characters Must Face For or Interfering with the PCs, or Recognizing the PC's actions are derived from that place in the world. The role of a "Narrated Character" mayor of the Town of the Session is to alert to or be the problem the party has to face, or ensure the party's actions on behalf of the town are rewarded.

If an NPC screws a player over because of the PC's actions in a manner that is not Dramatically Appropriate or Convenient, players understand that the NPC has his own motivations. If a Narrated Character tries to do the same, and the result isn't the predicted one, you're likely to get cries of "But we're the heroes!" or "But he's a villain!"

[Themrys]

I actually think the word "Storyteller" is even worse than Game Master. Storyteller seems to assume that the person running the game is there to tell "The Story" and the players are there to be the audience. This isn't how I want to run my games nor the kind of game I want to play in. There are many people who have had bad experiences with cWoD games being very railroady in nature and the word "Storyteller" seems to speak in favor of that.

You have a point. Still, I feel "master" is not a good choice of word.
And at least "storyteller" implies that the player-audience can have an opinion on whether it's a good story.

There has to be a better alternative.

I like the idea of splitting things up between people. Most people aren't good at everything typically done by a GM, so it makes sense to have those things be done by the person who does them best.

[BWR]

Well, replacing Strength with "Power" is generally for a more abstract system (Like GiantitP's own Final Fantasy d6 system), where it refers to any personal strength, mental or physical.


But if you use "Power" when you mean Strength as presented in D&D, L5R, WW games and many others, then it's pointless and just gets in the way. If you mean raw physical strength, an abstracted ability to lift things, move things, hurt things ets. then use 'Strength'. It's what most other people do and it's easily understandable.

[Lorsa]

There has to be a better alternative.

How about "World Player" or "World Master" if you want to avoid the term "player"?


I like the idea of splitting things up between people. Most people aren't good at everything typically done by a GM, so it makes sense to have those things be done by the person who does them best.

Both yes and no. Yes, it makes sense to have them done by the person who does them best if all you're there for is to have the best run game ever. Sometimes though, people want or need to learn new things and those times it makes sense to have them done by the person who isn't the best.

I know you don't disagree with this though and I know you didn't mean to imply there never was any scenarios when a lesser skilled person should do something. I just wanted to be clear.

[Dimers]

I'm creating a game system and gameworld, and I've put a lot of thought into this. Not that I think the system will ever actually be used -- I mean, I've been at it for over ten years and I'm barely even started -- but it's fun for me to think about.

I believe I have a good 'feel' for what words will and will not be adopted by people trying a new system. I don't bother changing "hit points", for example, because nearly everyone is going to call it "hit points" no matter what. But I have changed -- or created! -- a lot. My main goal is lingo that's very closely tied to tight definitions, unlike (e.g.) Intelligence and Wisdom and Charisma. Three secondary goals that are about equal in importance to each other are (1) being easy to remember, (2) being different from what other game systems use, and (3) being evocative for the right setting, like not using falsus latinus or Old West or sci-fi words in my gritty fantasy system. Then, all else being equal among multiple possibilities, I use the shortest/simplest word.

Instead of "DC" or "target number", I use "Bar". Sometimes people already use this word for this meaning -- the bar is set pretty low :smallwink:

I'm foolish enough to believe I can get away with calling "max hit points" "Trim", like in the phrase "in good fighting trim". It goes with "Vim", which is max fatigue points.

I don't have "wild empathy" but I do have "Murmurs". Neither wild nor empathy is a key component of what D&D calls wild empathy, and I don't want to use two words when one will do.

The chance that your armor or other passive protection will reduce damage is Thwart, and the amount of damage reduced is Allay. If you're doing something active to protect yourself, that's a Fend. All three words might see use in fantasy novels, and their denotations and connotations stay pretty close to the mechanical meaning I have in mind.

The thing I spent the most time on is Advantages/Disadvantages, Merits/Flaws, feats/flaws ... there's so much that's accidentally implied by the words. I settled on Edge and Hindrance -- one gives you an edge over someone who doesn't have it, the other hinders you. I realized months later that those were the two words Deadlands uses, but dammit, they're the right ones for my game! I can't let Deadlands stop me!

[JusticeZero]

DM is not a generic term; it is actually one of those "Unique" terms you mention, specific to D&D.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Totally fine, as long as it all makes sense. (And when you think about it, some of our D&Disms are a bit clunky and unapproachable to anyone who hasn't been around them.) A lot of them feel weird at first, but I get used to them eventually. And they help me think of a particular system bit in terms of that system alone, which helps me keep it in place, mentally.

Case in point: Burning Wheel doesn't use the abbreviation "DC" or the term "Difficulty Class", it uses the abbreviation "Ob" for "Obstacle". This is weird at first, but it does a few things. First off, it's one syllable to say the abbreviation. :smallbiggrin: Second, the name itself paints a different mental picture; you roll against obstacles that stand in your way. Third, I just think it looks nicer. :smallwink:

Giving abilities different names should definitely be done meaningfully. (On the other hand, I see no logical reason to be beholden to D&D tradition for stat names. Just because D&D did it first doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit, after all. :smallsmile: )

[Jay R]

There's nothing wrong with using specific language for a specific game. After all, I say "phaser" in Star Trek, "revolver" in wild west games, and longbow in D&D, all to mean the generic long-distance weapon.

But don't let language slow you down. In Toon, the person running the game is the Animator. OK, that adds flavor. It causes no problems to use it. There are no problems from forgetting and saying "GM" or "DM".

The only problem is stopping the game to correct people. "Don't say 'DM'. Say 'Animator'." That's interrupting the game to argue over terms.

[Remmirath]

I don't believe that substituting terms alone has any effect on gameplay. What the term refers to may very well be different, and if it's quite different I do think it makes more sense to have a different term for it, but if it isn't any different than it doesn't really matter so much what you call it. Generally speaking the GM, the DM, the Storyteller, and any other such are all filling the same role. It's not a big deal which one you use, and I do find it annoying if people insist on interrupting the game to correct people about the different terms, however. If somebody refers to the Storyteller as the GM or vice versa it doesn't change anything in the game, but stopping and correcting them does.

As to whether the term used for the GM has any effect on how they act, I suppose that depends on the individual. However, I would think that in any given system there will be some description of the role they play in the game, and they're more likely to go with that than base their behaviour on the title.

I don't mind it at all when stats and things like that have different names, but when the names appear to have been chosen simply to be different it's a bit annoying (if the new name doesn't match as closely what it's trying to describe as the more common name does). If I like the system mechanics I still don't really care all that about the names, though.

[Lorsa]

The only problem is stopping the game to correct people. "Don't say 'DM'. Say 'Animator'." That's interrupting the game to argue over terms.

Yes, it is much better to punish players after the game by XP reduction for every time they said it wrong.


(and before someone asks, no I don't use blue text for sarcasm)

[AMFV]

Yes, it is much better to punish players after the game by XP reduction for every time they said it wrong.


(and before someone asks, no I don't use blue text for sarcasm)

I have been beating my players with a switch instead... is that better or worse than XP penalties?

To answer the OP, I don't think it matters that much which terminology you use as long as your players can follow what you're trying to communicate.

[veti]

Well, replacing Strength with "Power" is generally for a more abstract system (Like GiantitP's own Final Fantasy d6 system), where it refers to any personal strength, mental or physical.

This. It's quite rare, in my experience, for a stat that looks superficially the same (STR, or ST, or Strength) to mean precisely the same thing in different systems. In D&D, for instance, it gives you a bonus to hit. In Hero system, the same stat (ST) affects your physical defence.

Calling things by the same names just because "it's standard" is - a silly idea, because they're not the same things.

Having said that: I detest the term "storyteller", for the reasons already amply gone into by others. "Narrator" is marginally better, because a narrator generally doesn't tell a whole story, they just fill in the gaps between the action we see. GM, DM, Referee, or The One With The Rulebooks are all perfectly acceptable designations.

[Lorsa]

I have been beating my players with a switch instead... is that better or worse than XP penalties?

That depends entirely on your players. Mine have a tendency to really care about XP.

[AMFV]

That depends entirely on your players. Mine have a tendency to really care about XP.

There is wisdom in this, I think I'll do both, since I enjoy the hitting people with a switch part, and the important part in being a DM is that I enjoy myself. Also the XP penalties since the players already have it pretty good with me as the DM.

[erikun]

On the one hand, I like it when I see terms that seem to fit a particular thing better, or work better with a particular setting. "Dungeon Master" has always felt rather vague and antagonistic to me, and "Narrator" is one I've found I liked better. The Narrator is a person who gives an overview of what's happening, but doesn't dictate what the individual characters do. The Dungeon Master is a person who creates and operates a dungeon, and it seems like they implicitly 'lose' when the dungeon is overcome. It just doesn't sit well with me.

I don't put much value in the "established lingo" for RPGs. An especially negative problem is when people begin thinking with an established lingo as if that was the only choice for a game. I can't even begin to count the number of people who insist a RPG must have "six attributes, skills, and feats", or somehow attempt to convert another system into the D&D3e lingo. Most people don't even seem to recognizing that there isn't any meaningful distinction between skill tricks, feat, and class abilities, or between how something like skills, saves, or something like Endurance checks are made.


On the other hand, I greatly dislike it when terms are changed simply to have them different. Especially annoying is when they give them odd abbreviations, such as STG for Strength, or COO for Coordination. This just makes the system all the more difficult to deal with, because not only do I need to remember a new alphabet soup, but I must remember what all these new similar-but-different terms refer to.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Actually, one strong instance of a time when new terminology would've been helpful: the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying game and its use of "XP". It threw a lot of traditional players for a loop, I think, because they had preconceived notions of what "XP" was, and what it should be used for, and how it was earned, and Marvel XP worked totally differently (used to unlock things in an Event, and increasing stats was a secondary benefit--in either case, everything reset after the Event).

[erikun]

Actually, one strong instance of a time when new terminology would've been helpful: the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying game and its use of "XP". It threw a lot of traditional players for a loop, I think, because they had preconceived notions of what "XP" was, and what it should be used for, and how it was earned, and Marvel XP worked totally differently (used to unlock things in an Event, and increasing stats was a secondary benefit--in either case, everything reset after the Event).
Yeah, when it's functionally different, it shouldn't be named the same. HeroQuest RPG has what is called "Hero Points", which behave like XP (you can spend Hero Points to gain/improve skills) and also acts like the Fate/Luck/Edge Points of other systems (you can use them to bump up a die roll). If they'd called Hero Points by XP or anything else, it would've just proven more confusing.

[Slipperychicken]

On the other hand, it did take us a while to grasp the Shadowrun teminology of "hits" when rolling dice pools.

I prefer the word "hits" to WoD's "successes". The latter is unintuitive especially when you "get a success", but you don't get enough successes to succeed.


The word I really don't like from Shadowrun is metahuman. Who the heck would actually call himself a metahuman? Who in the nine hells would refer to metahumanity? Or "metahuman rights"? Or say "that's what makes us all metahuman". It's inconvenient to say, has way more syllables than necessary, and it's dehumanizing, which makes one wonder how that would come into common pariance at all.

Not to mention that Shadowrun trolls/orks/elves/dwarves were people who were transformed; so this process clearly involved millions of people looking at their longtime relatives, lovers, sisters, children, coworkers, and friends, then saying "welp, even though you always were a cherished relation of mine, you grew horns and pointy ears, so you aren't human anymore and I will forever regard you as an inferior being".

[Morithias]

DM is not a generic term; it is actually one of those "Unique" terms you mention, specific to D&D.

I think the term "DM" has long since passed into "stuck on band-aid" territory at least for my group.

Even when we're playing Maid RPG, Mutants and Masterminds, or even our own homebrew games, we still call it DM.

Hell we call it DM, when playing our Evil Genius game system, and in that game the Player is the one running the base!

[Jay R]

DM is not a generic term; it is actually one of those "Unique" terms you mention, specific to D&D.

When I started playing RPGs, "DM" was the universal term, used in all role-playing games everywhere. It stayed that way until somebody published a second RPG.

When I hear another term, I still often have to translate it: "Oh, yeah, she means the DM for a game that's not D&D".

[EccentricCircle]

I spent ages trying to think of an alternative to Game Master when I first started tinkering with RPG building. I really didn't like the implication that the GM was somehow ruling over the players.

But thinking about it thats just one meaning of the term Master. You can be a master of your art, hold a master's degree, be a martial arts master, or a chess grandmaster, create a masterpiece. I'm sure someone once said that being a Jedi Master wasn't about having mastery over others, but over oneself.

Put in those terms its a much more friendly term. the Games Master is the one who has mastered the game. Simple as that.

[Segev]

That is astute. "Captain N: the Game Master" was not about ruling; it was commenting on his prowess as a gamer.

[Slipperychicken]

I spent ages trying to think of an alternative to Game Master when I first started tinkering with RPG building. I really didn't like the implication that the GM was somehow ruling over the players.


It's more that he is master of the game-world, rather than the players, since he controls almost everything which goes on therein, functions as the players eyes and ears in the world, adjudicates game rules when necessary, and tends to have the final say in game-related disputes. His power, however, is by no means absolute -his players can always boycott his game or substitute a new GM as they wish. And a GM without players is merely a lone nerd playing pretend with himself.


I've seen some games (the one I remember is ACKS) use the term "Judge", presumably to emphasize that idea that he should act fairly and needs to make rulings from time to time.

WoD refers to the GM as a "Storyteller", which probably has worse implications than GM, implying that a heavy degree of railroading is acceptable since he's "telling a story" rather than running a game.

[Knaight]

It depends on the terms in question, to me. To use two examples:

Qin uses the Chinese elements as attributes. For instance, Metal is the attribute that governs martial skill, Fire is the attribute that governs social interactions, etc. This is evocative, enhances the setting, and is generally excellent.

Burning Wheel uses Obstacle, Ob, to measure how hard it is to do something. Usually, either DC (Difficult Class) or TN (Target Number) are used, and mostly this just makes the game a little harder to learn. This is only a problem because just about every term is treated this way - though, once you learn it, it isn't bad.

It is worth noting that attributes, even in games that have them (by no means all of them) are generally much more varied anyways, which gives Qin a bit of leeway. There really isn't a standard, unless one is sticking close to something else - such as publishing a d20 game, with 6 attributes that are all thesaurus entries for the D&D 6.