Roll Perception: The Cultish Language of Dungeons and Dragons

***This one is long, so buckle up!

Cultish by Amanda Montel was, in my opinion, one of the most interesting readings we had during this term. She argues that what makes a cultish movement isn't just the likable leader, creepy rituals, or loyal members, but it's also the language that's used within. People don't join cults because they are weak, but because of language tactics that are used to create a sense of community and identity. Things like redefining words, gaslighting, or loaded language, just to name a few, shape how members think and feel. These cultish features aren't just seen in big evil institutions like Scientology or the Jim Jones movement, but are also seen in everyday groups. Montel uses CrossFit as an example, but they can also be seen in things like sports teams, fandoms, clubs, and more. After much observation and analysis, I've noticed that my Dungeons & Dragons (D&D)  group uses many of these same linguistic tactics. Through insider/group language, thought-stopping cliches, loaded language, and more, our group strengthens bonds and reinforces shared values that mirror Montell's ideas of cultish language. 

Before going immediately into analyzing the language used in my D&D group, it's important to understand what the tactics are and how they affect people. While Montel provides us with many different tactics throughout her book, the main ones I will be focusing on are insider/group language, loaded language, and thought-terminating clichés and subcategories within those tactics. Starting with group language, which is described as a special language used within a group that only members can understand. This can be seen with acronyms, abbreviations, redefining existing words, or even making up words altogether. This is a tactic used by many cultish groups because of the sense of community it brings. Having a language that only members of a group can understand brings people closer together and creates a sense of belonging. Montel also states, “Creating special language to influence people’s behavior and beliefs is so effective in part simply because speech is the first thing we’re willing to change about ourselves... and also the last thing we let go. Unlike shaving your head, relocating to a commune, or even changing your clothes, adopting new terminology is instant and (seemingly) commitment-free” (Montel 34). In other words, learning a new language is a very easy and seemingly harmless thing to do, which is why it is so common in cultish groups. Another important tactic is loaded language. Montel states, “Over time, the memorable nicknames and insider-y terminology acquire a strong emotional charge. When a word or phrase takes on such baggage that its mere mention can spark fear, grief, dread, jubilation, reverence (anything), a leader can exploit it to steer followers’ behavior. This lingo is what some psychologists call loaded language” (57). This is an important tactic that cultish groups use to keep people from questioning and keep them in the group. They use loaded language to convey strong positive or negative meanings, making it easier to influence people. This is the standard definition of loaded language, but it can be seen in many different ways. One of these ways is our last tactic, thought-terminating clichés.  According to Montel, “There’s a companion tool to loaded language that can be found in every cultish leader’s repertoire: It’s called the thought-terminating cliché. Coined in 1961 by the psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton, this term refers to catchphrases aimed at halting an argument from moving forward by discouraging critical thought…To put it most simply, when used in conjunction, a follower’s body screams “Do whatever the leader says,” while their brain whispers “Don’t think about what might happen next”—and that’s a deadly coercive combination” (58). Phrases like “It is what it is” or “There's nothing you can do” are examples of thought-terminating cliches that are widely used in day-to-day speech. Understanding how these tactics function in cultish settings makes it easier to recognize how similar patterns appear in everyday groups, like my D&D group.

One of the most obvious examples of cultish language that I gathered from taking notes during my D&D sessions was the amount of insider/group language. The world of D&D is set in a completely fictional universe with fictional towns, people, and things, so naturally there would be a lot of things that only insiders would understand. To start, one of the first things you do when joining a D&D group is creating a character and, in turn, giving yourself a new name. Everyone you play with is given a new name, and it is expected of you to refer to them as their new name when playing, for the sake of staying in character. The use of new names while playing is a good example of what Montel calls “us-versus-them dichotomy,” but instead of outsiders v.s. insiders it's in character v.s. out of character. For example, if someone were to call me by my first name while in a session, I would know they needed something from me or what to talk to me out of character. But if they were to call me by my character name, Zedly, I would know to respond in character. This practice of renaming members is a very common thing in cultish groups because of the sense of community it brings and the way it helps members create a new identity that separates the group’s internal world from everyday life. By having everyone go by a different name, it makes it much easier for people to separate the game from real life, or in other words, separate the cultish group from outsiders. Another prominent example of insider language is the number of made-up words used when playing. Because it's set in a fantastical world, almost every thing and place we talk about while playing isn't real and would require background knowledge. I joined this D&D group after they had already had a few sessions, so I experienced the confusion of the insider jargon in real time. People would throw around words like “Sundrop”, “Voshmere”, “wild magic surge”, and “Pahtheon” without thinking twice, leaving me with a word smoothie swirling around in my head. Though after a session and some reading, I was able to understand most of the group's language. Being able to understand group language is important to all cultish movements, especially D&D, because it makes people feel like they are a true member of the group. The insider language acts as a bonding tool that separates outsiders while pulling our group closer together, which mirrors what Montel argues about how group language is used in cultish movements. She states, “This goal of isolating followers from the outside while intensely bonding them to each other is also part of why almost all cultish groups (as well as most monastic religions) rename their members” (55). While she talks about renaming, which is a specific type of group language, the same idea still applies to broader insider language. Learning and using the new terms from D&D helped me feel more connected to them and more immersed in the world we had created. 

Another important aspect of cultish language tactics that is quite prominent in my D&D group is loaded language. The dungeon master (DM) is the narrator, storyteller, and referee of the group and, to some extent, controls the world in the game. Because they are narrating the game, they have a lot of control over how things are perceived, which is where most of the loaded language comes from. Our DM often uses phrases like “Deeply disturbing”, “Hella evil”, or “you need to get the hell out of there now” when describing bad things. And use phrases like "Extremely cool” or “Very beautiful” when describing good things. In short, it's very obvious to the group when something is good versus bad. When the DM uses language like this, it strongly influences the group's perception of things, which in turn influences people's decisions. For example, when the DM was describing a statue in the temple we were at, they described it as a “Very demonic statue”. They purposely used this phrasing to let the group know that the statue wasn't a good thing, which caused most people, including me, to steer clear of it (though people touched it anyway). If not for the language used that made the statue seem very obviously bad, the whole group would have gone to this statue, which would have caused a lot of trouble. The DM knew this, so they purposely used loaded language to make sure everyone understood what they were getting into when going up to the statue. This reflects what Montel describes as loaded language and its power. By using commonly charged language that clearly signals good or bad, leaders can subtly nudge members in certain directions and influence behavior without directly telling them what to do.

The last important language tactic that was very prominent in my D&D group was thought-stopping cliches. An important aspect of D&D is the DM and how they move the story along. Their word is considered true in all contexts and has a lot of power over the game.  Because of this authority, they use short phrases that can sometimes end the discussion and move the game along. The most prominent example of this is when the DM says “Roll for…” followed by something like performance, deception, or athletics. When a player wants to do something, there's a high chance they have to roll a die and get a high number to do it. The DM tells people whether or not their action requires them to roll the dice. When the DM tells you to roll for something, it's understood that you just do it without thinking. You don't argue whether or not you think you shouldn't have to roll for it, and you just accept your upcoming fate. This tracks back to what Montell describes as thought-terminating cliches. It's a short phrase that signals to players not to analyze any further and just let the dice do its thing. In the case of D&D, it doesn't end discussions entirely, but it's something that players aren't supposed to think much about or argue against. Instead, it directs players to the game mechanics. However, a thought-stopping cliche that is meant to end the discussion in my D&D group is “DM ruling”. While not used often because our DM tries not to, it's something used to end an argument over a decision the DM makes about the story or someone's character. Because the DM is the leader of the group, their ruling is final, and this phrase signals that the argument is done. Both of these examples show how thought-terminating language helps maintain order in a group.

Looking at my D&D group through Montell's ideas shows how cultish language practices aren't just for dangerous or crazy groups. It can show up in many kinds of communities, small or large. While my group doesn't use these tactics to manipulate people or even use them on purpose, the language still works the same.

Work Cited

Montell, Amanda. Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism. HarperCollins Publishers, 2025, https://files.addictbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Cultish-The-Language-of-Fanaticism.pdf. Accessed 13 March 2026.

Appendix

Session #1

Lots of group language that wouldn't make sense to anyone else. 

• “Sundrop”- a drug in the universe we are in 

• “Wild magic surge”- a “sorcerous origin” that triggers random magical effects when casting 

• “Mythwind” - the city of the universe we are in. Where everything takes place

• Patheon: 8 sisters goddesses, each presiding over a different school of magic

• Voshmere: the poor side of town

• Solara: rich side of town

• Atlas: book of all knowledge 

Calling people by their character names and not their real names. Encouraged to be in character the whole time and to be fully immersed 

Though stopping language: 

• “Womp womp DM ruling”

• “Roll for…” - When they say to roll for something, people don't view it as a choice; it's just something you do

Loaded language:

• “Very demonic statue” -describing the statue in the temple, which was very obviously not supposed to be touched (people touched it anyway)

• “Extremely beautiful temple” (describing the looks of the temple, making it seem very peaceful and nice, it wasn't)

• “Psychic nightmare” -describing what an enemy put one of the characters through

Others: 

Quote from recap of last session with lots of insider jargon: “Cardinal spoke to you about a deal with getting The Atlas for him instead of Strix. He revealed he wants it to take over Solara, but was vague about how. Zedly also revealed she needed the book to find a spell that could get her back home to the Underdark, with Cardinal shocked to hear someone was able to shift planes.”

​Before this session, everyone had a conversation about when they are available and what time we would be able to play. This may or may not count as loss aversion; we have all devoted so much time to sessions, learning about spells, creating character backstores, etc., that it seems irrational in anyone's head to quit or even miss a session. I say it may not count because nobody actually wants to quit or miss a session.​

Lots of general things were said about the world that would need lots of background explanation, like the names of people and towns.

​When using modern references to people or things that wouldn't exist in the year we are in, people often say, “What is that?”

Session #2:

Loaded Language:

“Deeply disturbing"

“Hella evil”

“You need to get the hell out of there now.”

“Truly terrible lies”

“Demonic finger”

“Extremly cool…” or “horrible…”

Group language/ Slogans:

• “It will be funny in a couple of centuries” —> In response to someone making a joke that only a modern-day person would understand

• “Roll for…” —> when wanting to do (almost) anything, you must roll, and depending on the number, it will go good or bad. The number for good things vs bad things is decided by the DM

customizing speech: When the DM is talking to me, they use simpler speech because I'm completely new to DND and this is my first time playing with someone. When talking to others who have played dnd and know things already, the DM doesn't try to explain things simply, but instead just says things as they are. Similar to Jim Jones, but in a less evil way.

agreed that the DM is not a real person. If you talk to the DM in character (without specifying that you are talking to Sam specifically), they will comment "Zedly says to nobody” or “why are you talking to the air?”. You're obviously allowed to acknowledge Sam's existence, especially since they move the game along, but when doing things in character its encouraged to act like they aren't 

Session #3:

Loaded Language: 

• “Very depressed man”

• “Vividly repulsed”

• “Very demonic”

Thought-stopping language 

• “Roll athletics”

• ” Roll a charisma save.”

• ”Roll religion with no advantage”.   

• “As the DM…”                                                                                                        

Insider/Group language:

• Lots of spells

  • ”Chill touch”

  • ”acid splash”

  • “Firebolt”

• ”Dirty 20” - When someone rolls the dice and gets below a 20, but their bonuses get them to 20

• “Greyroot” - ingredient in magical drugs

• Campaign: a long-term story being told with a group of people in the game of D&D

Others:

Serious role-play moments: You should take moments like this seriously (depending on the situation) and respond in character 

In-game vs. out-of-game: it's important to distinguish between when you are speaking to the group within the game or out of the game, so you don't confuse others 

***This is a paper I wrote for my anthropology class called language and culture answering this prompt:

In Cultish, Montell examines the linguistic devices that draw people into “cultish” groups, cause them to bond with the group and its values and prevent them from questioning the group. Choose a group that you belong to that has some cultish features. This could be a sports team, a theme house, a Greek organization, or some other group that has a strong sense of identity and shared values. Observe group interactions over a period of time and make notes on typical language used that operate to strengthen identification within the group and cause people to bond with shared values. Your paper should present a summary of Montell’s argument, including quotes from the book and should use Montell’s concepts to analyze the material you have collected. You should attach as appendix notes on at least three occasions where you have observed your group for 20-30 minutes. Your notes should specify the instances of cultish language you observed and should describe the context in which these occurred (e.g “we were planning a campus event and one house member suggested that we needed to consider finances more carefully. The house president responded, “the money is what it is,” a discussion/thought stopping cliché.”

The book is really good, and I encourage you guys to read it here! It's a very interesting read and very informative!

EXPAND YOUR MIND!!

Thanks for reading!