Which, I guess, is very far from The Forge "will try and slap a definition on any term regardless of how people use it."

But let us know what definitions they are, possibly in another thread, if you are really interested in discussing it. If it's just Forge aversion, then I suggest to stuff it, or indulge in it at the RPGsite.

Per
http://darkplaces.squarespace.com

Wish I could remember, it's been a while since I visited the Forge definitions. I know there has been contention over some of their definitions of things like narrativism and friends before, but I didn't think those were the ones I was thinking of at the time. Maybe I should refresh my memory.

Ash

There is a rather comprehensive Forge glossary which does seem to have an awful lot of definitions and terms in it?

http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

Yes there is. It hasn't been updated for a while - there's a slightly more up-to-speed wiki version here that incorporates later discussions as well:

http://random.average-bear.com/TheoryTopics/HomePage

But I believe The Forge glossary was put together to help to describe how roleplaying games are played and designed, not to annoy people.

I don't follow - what's wrong with having a glossary?

Per
http://darkplaces.squarespace.com

*I* don't have an issue with a glossary - when I have my long-words head on I find it quite an interesting and thought provoking read. Some people may see a document of that length that is positioned as a primer to participation in conversations on that forum as a barrier to entry of gargantuan proportions but honestly, its not something that I have ever lost sleep about.

(My favourite is 'illusionism' which is something that I loved when I saw it first as it really does cut to the pith of a real issue in GMing)

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

I just lost a huge post to a glitch and I'm not keen on retyping it all.

My main problem with the glossary at the Forge (quite appart from the way it presents itself as if it were universally accepted, which it is not) is that it uses many terms and phrases which have meanings outside of the RPG canon, many of which are equally appropriate to the field of RPG design and far more useful as definitions of the word than the Forge definition. Take for example "Hybrid: Play which combines two or more Creative Agendas. " Now, that is a Hybrid no mistake. However you can hybridise any two normally separate concepts and you'd still have a hybrid. It certain;y doesn't have to be a purely aesthetic concept as stated here, it could be something practical in the rules, or even in how the book is bound or distributed. This definition brings nothing to the word that was not already known from its proper linguistic definition.

Similarly a lot of these terms are reinterpretations of slang, meaning that they will have different meanings in different parts of the world. Slang varies a great deal from place to place due to its nature. Just look at the word 'Fanny' in the UK and America. So do we need definitions like "Dickweed Character", or has someone in a Forge thread merely said at some point "Man, that character was a dickweed!" and someone's asked him what he means, the resulting definition being scribed into the dictionary. Someone could very easily call a character a dickweed for completely different reasons, and these reasons are not accounted for in the Lexicon. This leads to confusion of terminology and misunderstandings.

I have nothing against terms that are uniquely and solidly RPG terms being explained. That is necessary, as it is to any jargon. But too many words in this list have a place in common parlance which could equally well be used in reference to an RPG, and strict definitions over dictionary definitions may serve to confuse what people are trying to say. Let's face it, there are definitions here we just don't need because the words in question portray their meaning far more eloquently from their context than their meaning. Trying to say they have a single tightly-defined definition serves only to create jargon that we do not need, and I find it somewhat exclusionist. "Oh you'd better learn the secret language if you want to develop a good RPG." No. Not necessary. So long as you can put across your ideas and mechanics in a clear, understandable manner, complex terminology is not necessary and may serve to put people off, especially newcomers.

Also let's not forget that a large proportion of RPGs treat terminology as a means to distinguish themselves from other games, and change key terms just for the meagre piece of individuality it represents. How many different names are there for the GM? For rolling the dice? You can't force a universal glossary on that kind of freedom.

"Abashed" - means 'embarrassed', but is defined as 'self-contradictory'

"Balance" - laughably left undefined because "it typically diminishes the value of discussions about role-playing." An example of how I feel the lexicon is trying to get people to conform to how it wants them to discuss role-playing instead of providing a useful definition of how terms are used.

"Breaking the Game" - sorry, but this term can mean any activity that ruins the game for everyone else and doesn't have anything specifically to do with putting the kaibosh on other players although that is one way of breaking the game.

"Color" - no difference in usage from the standard dictionary definition, which is clearer.

"the Crunch" - common colloquialism meaning 'the important stuff', as in 'when it comes to the crunch." Also it significantly misses the common interpretation of 'crunch' meaning 'game mechanics' as opposed to 'fluff' meaning setting.

"Currency" - A currency is not the same thing as an exchange rate. An exchange rate switches between different currencies, a currency pays for things. Another example of a simple term made complex for no reason.

"Design" - Again, they've missed key definitions, i.e. 'the act of creating' (not too accurate, but I think you see my point.)

"Ephemera" - again, not significantly different nor more useful than its dictionary equivalent.

"Force" - no significant advantage over dictionary definition. No definition of the far more commonly-used term 'GM Veto'

"Genre" - again this is left undefined. The dictionary definition is more than adequate.

"Pervy" - inappropriate use of a slang term, this being a truncation of 'perverted' and usually sexually so.

"Prima Donna" - more accurately defined by its more common slang equivalent, meaning highly-strung.

"Realism" - AGAIN undefined, for no good reason! Why is it in the lexicon if they don't intend to define it?

"Synechdoche" - this is a figure of speech where a small part is used to represent the whole, NOT the act of mistaking a small part for the whole.

"Wimpiness" - another common colloquialism that is better defined in its original form.

...before this all degenerates into a typical internet maelstrom of he-said, she-said and opinion flying back and forth from all sides. Can we have some reflection?

Why are we talking about all this on this site?

Y'know, if we have issue with the Forge glossary I think that's something that could be taken to the Forge. And if we want to debate the RPGsite, then that's something for the RPGsite. Same for RPGnet, StoryGames, Flames Rising, Ogre Cave, EnWorld or Knife Fight.

Are we wanting to spend our time on here poking holes in or poking fingers at other sites, or posturing about them?

Or are we about our games and our stuff?

Anyway, once you have a little bit of reflection you can consider whether you want to keep marching down this road.

(Said with love and charitable reading.)

Because I made a comment suggesting that I wasn't happy with some of the Forge definitions, and was asked to substantiate it with examples mostly. Basically, somebody asked me a question and I answered. I'm quite happy to let it rest myself. Some people are OK with Forge definitions (and even I don't mind a good 50% of the definitions they give) some people aren't. It's no biggie. Just so long as people understand that not everyone conforms to forgite definitions and may mean something else by the terms they use, we should all avoid misunderstandings.

Ash

Fanny-bashing: the act of debating on an online forum about how bad/damaging/evil another online forum is, especially in cases where the other forum has strict guidelines for participation and/or requires users to understand certain agreed practices and cumulated experience. Term coined by Per Fischer in 2008.

Per
http://darkplaces.squarespace.com

Someone asked me a question, I answered. Don't put words into my mouth.

Ash

Paddington gave the forum a hard stare.

And, you two, I'm staring at you right now.

No harm, no foul, but quit the bickering.

Apologies, I cross-posted my definition with your Q&A post, Ash, and it looked as if it was a direct answer to that, which it wasn't.

Let's not take a debate about the Forge any further, and sorry if I briefly looked like a zealot Forge defender. The articles, people and posts there once saved my gaming life, literally.

Standing down.

Per
http://darkplaces.squarespace.com

Fair do's, these things happen. Maybe deleting the entire thread would be the best course of action all round, if only to save embarrassment on all parts? There doesn't seem to be anything further to be gained from it.

Ash

I've unpublished the thread here, so please no following up on it.

Maybe we can have a think over the next while over some site policy on unpublishing, deletion, etc. of threads.

I left my post in above as a general point about debating other fora on here though. Up until now we're made reference to, and linked to, other fora where relevant to our discussions on here. But let's not have our discussions on here be about anything other than our own focus.

Anyway, we're all good I think.

...I wish you hadn't deleted those. I'm not a fan of deleting posts. It's very confusing when you read it back.

Graham

I'd particularly like to point out to everyone that this had nothing to do with Graham at all. Graham's question was a fair point, but responses to it were crossed-wires and ended in apologies all round.

Now, I've not deleted anything, only unpublished it, and if we feel that we ought to have these things out in the open then we can publish them again.

I'll start a thread on what our policy should be in the Admin section.

So, apologies Graham.