Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 5736065" data-attributes="member: 32740">GrognardMeaning 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. PowergamerOften 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. OptimizerAgain. 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". GamerNever 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.</blockquote>

Verification