There's nothing wrong with the term 'campaign'

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Doug McCrae at 2004-02-27 11:44:29
Converted from Phorums BB System

Words change (and add) meanings over time. To roleplayers, the word 'campaign' has an additional non-military sense which is, of course, something like 'a linked series of adventures featuring a continuation of PCs and background'.

Every RPGer understands this. Thus 'campaign' is a good and useful word. It communicates an idea. It is understood by all. 'Season' is not so useful because it is not in common use. Using 'season' to mean 'campaign' is therefore at best unnecessary and at worst can lead to misunderstandings.

I don't understand why by your lexicon an episode is not analogous to a session. They seem very similar to me in terms of the time gap. Admittedly, a session may contain less or more story than a TV episode's worth.

You're right that there is a pretty good analogy between ongoing TV series and roleplaying campaigns, though. Much closer than the link between movies and rpgs. Another equally good analogy IMO would be the monthly comic book, especially for superhero rpgs. Like roleplaying these can also be 'limited series' or never-ending (in fact comics are longer lasting than TV series - Action Comics has continued in an unbroken run since 1938).

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Shawn McMahon at 2004-02-27 12:51:35
Converted from Phorums BB System

DM gained a different meaning that its original sense, too, but we still managed to get over that.

Let it go, man! :-)

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Karro at 2004-02-27 13:22:12
Converted from Phorums BB System

I've got to agree. To assume that a word is the wrong word to use in a given situation because of its etymological roots would be erroneous in modern english. It brings to mind the word "passion", whose roots originally referred to great physical pain and torture. Now it has a very different meaning. Is it wrong, therefore, for me to see I feel "passionate" about something, or that two individuals having a very intimate moment were "in the throws of passion"? These are perfectly acceptable uses of the word in today's English. As languages evolve, meanings change, and new and acceptable uses are added to old words.

The same is even more true of groups, subcultures, clubs, etc. Groups like these, within a larger culture, always develop their own uses for words. In English, this is called jargon--a word referred to in the opening paragraphs. The unique use of language implied by the use of jargon helps to differentiate subcultures from each other. There is even a branch of communication theory that hypothesizes on the difference in language being intimately linked with culture, thought, and action (I am reminded of the Shapere-Worf Hypothesis, though I'm sure I mis-spelled that).

Whether you like it or not, the subculture that consists of RP Gamers has been around long enough to evolve its own lexicon--its own unique jargon. And "Campaign" is part of that jargon, having the meaning Shawn used above. If you're arguing that the jargon should be changed to make the hobby more open to new players, I daresay it's too late for that. Besides which, having a jargon does not prevent or attract new members to a subculture. Only by making the activity itself more appealing can we do that. But when an individual makes a conscious decision to join a subculture, I think s/he at least subconciously understands that s/he will be expected to learn a new vocabulary to fully integrate with that group.

On the other hand, I think it is perfectly appropriate to alter the jargon in a more limited sense as a way of invoking a certain sense or feeling for a specific game. For instance, if I want my game to have the feeling of an anime series, using terminology derived from anime and television may be particularly appropriate. In the game I run, I want to invoke the feeling of reading an ongoing (albeit interactive) novel series. So I have even divisions every fifteen to twenty sessions I call "books". The end of a "book" typically occurs after a climactic moment, such as the defeat of a key enemy in the story. A session, in turn, is roughly analogous to a "chapter". In this way, I try to invoke the sense that the players are "writing" their characters' stories. I have seen other terminologies used in gaming books that were attempting to invoke other senses.

I might also add that language only develops and grows through use, and that mandating a language change "from on high" sounds frighteningly Orwellian to me. And if you don't know what ~that~ means... there's a little book called "1984" you need to go read.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Karro at 2004-02-27 13:33:58
Converted from Phorums BB System

Ooh... I don't mean to imply that the writer of the column is "mandating from-on-high" or that he has or has not read Orwell. I perhaps sounded a bit too pedantic...

I ~was~ trying to convey the sense that language is something that grows and develops naturally by the way we use it, and forcing a change can be simultaneously difficult, and perhaps unwarranted.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Edward Webb at 2004-02-28 08:52:42
Converted from Phorums BB System

I discuss some similar topics in an article I did for <i>Daedalus</i> called "A roleplaying game by any other name..." It's not my best work (I'll admit that there are flaws in the article), but I'm essentially agreeing that our lexicon has evolved away from its original meanings:

http://www.chimera.info/daedalus/articles/fall2003/any_other_name.html

However, I do agree that "series" is a fine representation of an RPG structure - it actually works quite well for <i>Cartoon Action Hour</i>.

Regardless, fine article Ross.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Doug McCrae at 2004-02-28 11:59:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

Good article.

The one time I played Nobilis the GM didn't make us call him 'The Hollyhock God'. Needless to say, I was very disappointed.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Grop at 2004-02-28 19:16:43
Converted from Phorums BB System

To illustrate your point, I dare say campaign comes from the French "campagne",which means the open country, the agricultural land as opposed to cities. Champagne probably comes from the same word.
The military signification still exists in French, though. As a secondary meaning. I guess officers merely considered war time as passed far from the court.

You may see how languages evolve and how words may be far from their first meaning.

GPB

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by SteelCaress at 2004-02-29 15:02:45
Converted from Phorums BB System

Ultimately, I think what Ross is getting at is that words have different emotions and images that they invoke.

When someone says a "building is burning," I think of maybe a hint of flame and lots of smoke. When someone says "a building is ablaze," I think of huge gouts of flame, smoke, firemen, and everything done Hollywood style.

So when he examines these terms which have become pretty sterile over the years, that's what I imagine Ross is trying to say. I believe that the reason terms like "campaign" and "encounter" and such are in widespread use over 30 years is one of familiarity. Everyone uses 'em. I generally use "game," myself, instead of "campaign." My Star Wars game, my GURPS game, etc.

I tried myself awhile ago to come up with different terms for game elements. One of the terms I found was "lay," which is a narrative poem, such as one sung by bards. That one would no doubt draw juvenile titters if used. :)

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Remi C. at 2004-03-02 05:49:15
Converted from Phorums BB System

<I ~was~ trying to convey the sense that language is something that grows and develops naturally by the way we use it, and forcing a change can be simultaneously difficult, and perhaps unwarranted.>

I took this article less as force and more as a suggestion, and suggested changes in language sometimes catch on quite naturally (like the relatively new word 'Ms.' as a default way to address a woman) while others don't (inventing the word 'tey' to replace 'he or she' or 'they' when used to represent a singular neutral word like 'everyone'. This idea was almost universally panned).

Personally, I like the series idea. It may not change my lexicon overnight, but it's a worthwhile idea all the same.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Adrienne at 2004-03-22 07:29:43
Converted from Phorums BB System



Karro wrote:
-------------------------------
Ooh... I don't mean to imply that the writer of the column is "mandating from-on-high" or that he has or has not read Orwell. I perhaps sounded a bit too pedantic...



a bit too pendantic isn't exactly what I'd say.

A bit condescending. A bit insulting "if you don't know what -that- means, you might want to try.." A bit reading into the words things that weren't actually being said.

Look, I've read several versions of this particular column. Ross isn't trying to force a change on the entirity of the gaming subculture (and he's been around it for over 20 years, so I think he's familiar with the fact that it's been around long enough to develop its own terminology - he also read 1984 *before* 1984.. I know I didn't.. did you?)

He's making a suggestion. He's throwing something out into the world. He's saying "hey, think about this, it's worked for me". And your response was "oh my god, you're trying to take over the world and make it bow to this newspeak you've created and that's wrong and it won't work".

Relax. Take it for what it is.. a thought piece, not a mandate.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by hero-fan at 2004-04-24 11:23:03
Converted from Phorums BB System

I would suggest that it's not Ross's desire to change the gaming lexicon which irks but the mildly smug tone with which he urges the change.

Language changes. True. But effective communication requires that we recognize what the CURRENT vocabulary is when attempting to communicate. We can then argue for change, but we have to recognize that our desired change has not yet occurred. To do otherwise is to choose our agenda over actually reaching another human being.