An RPG Forum Lexicon: Clarity of terms

[steeldragons]

I have come to understand, since joining ENworld, that there are many terms we use, as a community amongst ourselves to describe verious people and elements of the game. Sometimes we're all on the same page. Sometimes we're all in the same ballpark or neighborhood of understanding. And sometimes what is understood by one party is taken totally different by another (usually with disagreement ensuing).

Take, for example, the term "grognard" as recently brought up in the Were-Grognard thread.

I have come to consider myself, to my understanding of the term, a grognard. This is because I do enjoy the "older" (pre-3e) versions of the D&D.

One poster in that thread posted this: " grognards refuse to accept the strengths of other games and grudgingly cling to the games they're invested in while coming up with new and bizarre reasons why everything else sucks."

I do not hold these beliefs. I don't think other editions of the game "suck". I simply do not enjoy the complexity/changes to the rules that I view as generally unnecessary to the fun of the game for me and my game. There are also the comments about the "fatbeards" and body smell and other elements that...I sincerely hope!...do not apply to me. Though, truth be told, I could stand to get in some exercise and do generally maintain a layer of "scruff" on my face...

SO, the purpose of this thread...What are your definitions for the following terms, which, to me sometimes seem ambiguous in discussion?

Grognard
Powergamer
Min-maxer (and how it is different than an optimizer or a powergamer?)
Optimizer
Rules-lawyer (How often/much does one have to bring in the rules to be considered annoying or detrimental to the game...which it seems the term, as I understand it, connotes a "lawyer"?)
"Old-skooler" (and is it different than a grognard?)
"New-skooler" (considering that at 3 to 10+ years in, I would hardly consider either 3 or 4e "new" anymore)
Build (The use of the term "build" instead of "creation" when generating characters has always struck me as a fundamental difference of perspective in, not just making one's character, but a presumption on how the game should be/expected to be played. i.e. the desire to "win" a fictional fantasy game of pretend. What makes a "character build" necessary or different from just "character creation"?)
Gamer (does someone like me, who pretty much only plays D&D in the O-1-2e vein qualify as a "gamer" or am I just a "D&D Player" or "D&Der", if you will? Yes, in younger days I experimented and played a few others, but for the passed few decades, it's D&D or nothing for me.)

And feel free to add in any other terms you've seen presented here or other forums that have (or can have) similarly ambiguous meaning.

Have fun and happy gaming.
And an early Happy Turkey day to all of my fellow American ENworlders (here in Andorra we're hosting a traditional American Thanksgiving on Saturday for all of our friends. Mostly ex-pats, I think we're up to seven different countries, but no other americans). But, regardless, happy Gobble Gobble to all.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Desdichado]

Grognard - a person who is stuck in a frame of mind that is past, and is grumpy about it. They tend to prefer older editions, and older playstyles, and have the "get off my lawn" attitude about it. The word comes from an old military term from Napolean's era, and has always had the grumpy, complainy semantic shade. While there've been many attempts by non-grogrnard old school fans to "reclaim" the word, they've mostly been somewhat tongue in cheek. Grognard without the grumpy, complainy side just wouldn't be grognard anymore.

Powergamer - a person who values having the "best" stuff for an optimized character. While I don't see this as a bad thing in and of itself, I don't like playing with them very much.

Min-maxer (and how it is different than an optimizer or a powergamer?) Optimizer - it's not. Min-maxer and powergamer are the same. Maybe you could make the case that to use the term min-maxer is a slightly less "friendly" approach, though--the term carries a subtle aura of oprobium, IMO. I've never really heard anyone use optimizer as a label, but I'd see it in the same light as powergamer.

Rules-lawyer (How often/much does one have to bring in the rules to be considered annoying or detrimental to the game...which it seems the term, as I understand it, connotes a "lawyer"?) - person who tends to argue with or challenge the GM's ruling by appealing to the "rules". How often does someone have to do this to be annoying or detrimental? More than once. Occasionally, once is enough.

"Old-skooler" (and is it different than a grognard?) - yes, very much so. An Old-skooler is a guy who likes games that play to an old school taste. They are frequently retro-clones, but they might be hybrids of more modern rules and more classic styles, like Castles & Crusades or something. There's no negative undertone to being an old-skooler like there is being a grognard.

"New-skooler" (considering that at 3 to 10+ years in, I would hardly consider either 3 or 4e "new" anymore) - I don't think that's really a term that anyone uses.

Build (The use of the term "build" instead of "creation" when generating characters has always struck me as a fundamental difference of perspective in, not just making one's character, but a presumption on how the game should be/expected to be played. i.e. the desire to "win" a fictional fantasy game of pretend. What makes a "character build" necessary or different from just "character creation"?) - good heavens. To build a character is to generate a character, although build seems to imply that there was a specific goal in mind as to what kind of character it is. I donm't think that there is any fundamental perspective difference implied by the use of the word build vs. generate, create, or any other word you could use to describe the act of making a character.

Gamer (does someone like me, who pretty much only plays D&D in the O-1-2e vein qualify as a "gamer" or am I just a "D&D Player" or "D&Der", if you will? Yes, in younger days I experimented and played a few others, but for the passed few decades, it's D&D or nothing for me.) - a gamer, to me, is a person who has as a hobby the playing of roleplaying games. I don't care which one(s). I've never heard of anyone trying to put a requirement around the label that you have to try a certain number of different games or anything like that. I do recognize, though, that my usage is somewhat narrow; to most of the world, a gamer is someone who plays computer or console games.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I'd say that Powergamer, Optimizer, and Min-Maxer are all the same and are well defined above by Hobo.

"Munchkin", on the other hand, is a powergamer who goes beyond optimization, taking advantage of "cheap" or "unbalanced" rules or loopholes and is generally a pejorative term.

 

[billd91]

Grognard is basically a wargamer or long-time gamer. Since it's typically self-applied, it's negative connotations are mainly self-effacing.

 

[chaochou]

Just on my understanding of the term 'Grognard'.

That originates from wargaming and has been used in wargaming circles for many, many years. The original Grognards (literally 'grumblers') were Napoleon's Old Guard (ie his elite veteran units) and it was used by Napoleon as a term of great affection.

In wargaming, Grognard carries its original meaning of 'old-timer' or 'veteran'. Someone who has seen many campaigns. It's not perjorative, more usually a term of cameraderie.

Afaik it doesn't (in wargaming) imply a resistance to, or resentment of, modern wargame design. Grognards will happily play Napoleon's Triumph or Maria or Lost Battles, even if they do reminisce wistfully about a youth lost to Squad Leader or Terrible Swift Sword.

How the term came to be appropriated by the RPG hobby I don't know. But it still means nothing more than 'veteran', as least in my eyes.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Excellent job Hobo. My only disagreement comes with build vs creation and it comes from a comment I heard at GenCon about 2 years after 3.5 dropped. But definition first.

Build- The process of tailoring a character at creation (and beyond) to eventually achieve a target goal, whether Prestige Class, skill sub-set or any other "framed" set of numerical advantages perceived by the player. The method usually preferred by power gamers (q.v.) but is not limited to their use only.

Prior to 3.X it never occurred to me to stat out my character growth past the level I was currently playing, why would I, I may not even be alive by that level. I was at GenCon and the typical excited player came up to me and started talking about his latest character and pulled out a graph sheet that had every stat, skill and feat for his character charted up to level 20. I stopped him and said, "what happens if your character gets killed at level 3?" By the look in his eye, I either broke him or he was planning my funeral. He walked away very quickly and kept looking over his shoulder. I became very aware of "build" vs. "creation" at that point.

So I think the fundamental difference is that of edition. Pre-3e there was very little in the way of "build" because un-recoverable death was probably going to happen eventually (I would imagine it started in 2e after the addition of some of the splats and became more frequently used in Skills and Powers) and post-3e it seems to be the primary way of creating a character because there is a very good possibility for a long term future. That being said, I don't think that "building" is detrimental just, different than 3d6 in order and hope for the best.

 

[Desdichado]

Grognard is basically a wargamer or long-time gamer. Since it's typically self-applied, it's negative connotations are mainly self-effacing.

Agreed. But without the negative connotations, it couldn't be used as tongue in cheek self-effacement. I think the negative connotations, whether taken seriously or not, are an important semantic component of the word.

 

[Umbran]

Most of what Hobo says I find to be fairly accurate.

Grognard - To me, the term has always applied to folks who came to RPGs out of the wargaming roots, back in the early 1970s. I am not old enough to be a true grognard, and I won't generally apply the term to anyone who came to gaming around the time I did or later. Hobo's bit about grumbling is spot on

Build - I look at my Star Wars group and I can clearly see the difference between "build" and "character generation". "Build" implies a specific mechanical design goal. Character generation typically refers to the initial generation of character. Build, however, extends later into play, often for the entire life of the character. Builds often also include gear required to achieve the desired goals.

Munchkin - where the powergamer/min-maxer wants to get the best the rules can give you, the munchkin wants better than that. Munchkinism isn't about rules-mastery, it is about having gaudy and outlandish power. The player who brags about how his character killed Elric, and is now toting around Stormbringer, is probably a munchkin.

Gamer - is context dependent. I've seen it used to refer to computer gamers, board gamers, and role-playing gamers.

 

[Umbran]

So I think the fundamental difference is that of edition. Pre-3e there was very little in the way of "build" because un-recoverable death was probably going to happen eventually

I don't think it is about death. It is about choices. OD&D, 1e, and 2e don't present the player with many mechanical development choices after character creation. There is, honestly, nothing to build with. Your classes and statistics were largely set at creation, and your didn't have choices in what powers you picked up as you advanced - no feats to choose from.

The first I saw of character builds planned out long before the advancement occurred was not in D&D at all, but with Vampire: The Masquerade, released well before 3e.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Grognard
Meaning is somewhat fluctuating. As noted above by Hobo it carries a connotation of being an "old timer" who is also a complainer about how things have changed. When people use it to refer to themselves they tend it to mean that although they may be old-timers and complainers they feel they have good reason to complain. Some intend to use it with a neutral connotation as just a member of "the old guard" but it generally isn't used or interpreted that way.

Powergamer
Often used with an intended negative connotation. Except for the earliest, simplest versions of D&D it has definitely had an aspect of reveling in the manipulation of numbers; playing to "game the system" itself. A certain amount of that is epxtected - even necessary. The term "powergamer" came into usage as something of an attack against those who seem to put too much emphasis on that by those who see such behavior as contrary to how the game is intended to be played or how THEY prefer to play it (that is, less emphasis on manipulating the system as BEING the game). As has been generally proven, however, powergaming and roleplaying, though often portrayed as mutually exclusive, are not necessarily so.

Min-maxer (and how it is different than an optimizer or a powergamer?)
Just a different name for the same phenomenon. A certain amount of min/maxing is expected and sometimes even necessary. Though typically used with a negative connotation and implied as leaning into "badwrongfun" it is not necessarily so.

Optimizer
Again. Same thing.

Rules-lawyer (How often/much does one have to bring in the rules to be considered annoying or detrimental to the game...which it seems the term, as I understand it, connotes a "lawyer"?)
This is a player type that has nearly always been with the game. Again, as already noted, it is someone who attempts to use the rules to overrule the DM. This, in a game where the original approach was to solidly position the DM in authority OVER the rules in order to facilitate a better game. Now, sometimes the DM IS wrong and players have a certain right and expectation to be able to appeal to the established "rules". The Rules Lawyer is the one who makes himself a pest by repeated and frequently unnecessary insistence upon adherence to the rules when the DM's adjudication is quite sufficient.

"Old-skooler" (and is it different than a grognard?)
It can be. There is room for legitimate disagreement with how and why certain things have changed from one edition to the next. Preference for how things USED to be handled (but with a certain lesser amount of grumbling about newfangled rules) has led to a genuine movement of those who embrace the older systems and approaches to the game. People still try to use the term negatively but I think it's generally come to be used as neutral term, effectively describing a definitive approach to the game and its rules.

"New-skooler" (considering that at 3 to 10+ years in, I would hardly consider either 3 or 4e "new" anymore)
Again, as already noted: not a term I've seen in use either. Its meaning would have to be derived more from specific context.

Build (The use of the term "build" instead of "creation" when generating characters has always struck me as a fundamental difference of perspective in, not just making one's character, but a presumption on how the game should be/expected to be played. i.e. the desire to "win" a fictional fantasy game of pretend. What makes a "character build" necessary or different from just "character creation"?)
I believe it is a term that has arisen mostly out of 3rd Edition, though it may have seen some use prior to that. 3E in particular, however, was designed rather specifically to embrace the notion that a large part of the fun of the game was SUPPOSED to be found in manipulation of the rules - the concept of "Rules Mastery". In promulgating that concept the natural implication is that it would be contrarian to let characters evolve naturally. A player is intended to devote notable amounts of time and effort to gaming the system because that's where the fun is. Problem is that just isn't universally true but those rules were designed to focus on it anyway.

A character "build" then, is seen as a product of rulesets where players do not "get" how the game was originally played and intended to be played. Again, a certain amount of pre-planning of the career of a PC is to be expected but D&D is not supposed to be a competitive excercise. Too much emphasis on character "builds", upon gaming the system rather than playing the game with less... obsession?... with the rules rubs a lot of people the wrong way. That would include myself.

In older versions there was little or no room for character customization except through roleplaying. All the abilities a character would ever have was clearly and perhaps narrowly defined at the time of character creation. There had long been a call for greater room to customize characters abilities without them being graven in stone by the simple choices of race and class. 3E is seen by some as having swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, giving players too much freedom and too much ability to "dictate" to the DM what they are allowed to do within the game through the exercise of "Rules Mastery".

Gamer
Never seen it in use as anything but a strictly neutral term. It's used to identify oneself as a willing member of the hobby community whose interests and pastimes include, but are generally not limited to, D&D.