Forked Thread: Its the terminology that kills me...

racoffin said:

like a disease? Instead of small pox we got toon?

Click to expand...

That's pretty apt actually. I just hope it doesn't infect the whole hobby.

racoffin said:

like a disease? Instead of small pox we got toon?

Click to expand...

I'd ALMOST prefer the smallpox -- almost.

I used to hear it last year when I was playing World of Warcraft for a while -- "My main toon is a 70 lock," or "wtb 55plate for my other toon send /tell" or some such. I liked WoW for what it does, but that (and the unemployment) are things I definitely won't miss about World of Warcraft.

The Green Adam said:

One of the elements of 4E that puts me off the most is the act of identifying the classes as controller, striker, leader, etc. For example, in the above paragraph, the player characters are a wizard (I assume), a few...um, guys with arrow or guns and a couple of fighters. Or were they warlords? Are those the leaders?

Click to expand...

As pointed out, the original post was referring to monsters by their role. Not PCs.

I'm not a big fan of 'class/level' systems but it seems liked if your going to have them one benefit is an easy means of designation. With previous editions, players might say, "That's when my Wizard cast lightning bolt at the orc guard". Now its 'my controller'. Totally ruins the mood and atmosphere for me.

Click to expand...

Nobody says stuff like that. Classes are still more important than roles, since they are a demonstration of how a role is implemented within certain guidelines. Never once have I seen or heard a player say "My <role name> is doing <action>," except on internet threads in which people create situations that don't actually occur in real life.

The Green Adam said:

Anyone else feeling this or have you found it pretty easy to get into the spirit of the game with brutes, lurkers, leaders, etc.?

Click to expand...

They're game terms for monsters, not a big deal. I don't use the terms in game. They are useful for setting up encounters, though.

I don't mind any of it, for the same reason that the words "hit points" and "reflex defense" aren't jarring for roleplaying.

And also, what hong said.

Intense_Interest said:

"Skill Monkey"

Click to expand...

"Skill monkey" makes me want to kick puppies.

RSKennan said:

Edit: I would play a cartoon-based rpg (like Who Framed Roger Rabbit), though.

Click to expand...

Then do.



Just try not to get erased.

Nifft said:

The first place I heard it was over on the WotC boards.

If it does come from video games, perhaps it's a good sign (despite my personal distaste) -- if it's an indication that 4e is bringing video game people into RPGs, the hobby is getting healthier.

Cheers, -- N

Click to expand...

To me it would mean it was getting bigger, not necesarily healthier. Obesity is about getting bigger. Sometimes bigger isnt allways better. Personally i dont want people who think of thier character as a "toon" at my table and i don't think that when WoTC starts making books for those people its gonna improve the quality of the game one bit. So healthier IMHO is a real stretch to describe what those people are doing to the hobby.

On the point of the thread, I cant stand those terms, seeing that WoTC decided to turn it into a subpar version of Warhammer (ie tactical wargame) just turned me off from buying anything from them. If i want a squad based wargame i can very easily do it with 3e or a slightly houseruled warhammer game rather then buying all new stuff.

So the basic rationalization for the appearance of these terms is that "I've never heard anyone use them." I don't see how this little fact matters at all. These terms are right there in the books. Every class is given a role as is every monster. The terms Leader, Controller, etc. are completely different from things like tank, blaster, toon, etc. The first are words that are a part of the game and have an impact on the rules and, more importantly, the aesthetics of 4E. The second are words that people use as shorthand and have never been built into the system. If you don't like someone calling their character a toon, ask them to say PC or whatever. If you don't like the role names you can stop reading the books because that's where they are found. It really doesn't matter whether or not people say them because the terms were put there by the designers to be a part of the game. The only things that can remove them are a lot of black magic marker or a major revision.

This whole conversation points to one of the biggest issues people have with 4E: the aesthetics. It just feels different, in a bad way. The designers have gone so far out of their way to make the system balanced and "systematic" that they have forced out a lot of the nuance. The great thing about 1E is that it feels organic--every class is very different and the monsters are really unique. These differences cannot be reduced to a mathematical value or to a list of powers.

Let me just say that I'm sure 4E is a lot of fun and that there are people who really enjoy the changes. That is fine and is your prerogative. I just don't like the feel and look of it.

/rant

Henry said:

The only slang (not used ny WotC) that really bugs me at present are "toon" and "gish".

Toon: REALLY? You're playing Bugs Bunny the RPG, now?

Gish: Unless talking about Silent FIlm stars, it usually isn't correct.

Click to expand...

Gish is cool in my book, because it came from D&D. Shifted context, but still.

Toon? Yeah. Just don't. Arcady and Jack99, I'm looking at you.