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

Henry

Autoexreginated
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. :)

Other than that, I've heard people use slang and jargon to describe their D&D characters for years now: CoDzilla, Blaster (mage), Pun Pun, etc. And before that, "tanks" as early as 2nd edition to refer to fighters, "Killer DM" to refer to a very unfair DM, and "Monty Haul" to refer to GMs too soft on the challenge and too heavy on the treasure.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nifft

Penguin Herder
The only slang (not used ny WotC) that really bugs me at present are "toon" and "gish".
You mean "jargon". ;)

Toon: REALLY? You're playing Bugs Bunny the RPG, now?
This one bugs me, too. It's not like PC is hard to spell.

Gish: Unless talking about Silent FIlm stars, it usually isn't correct.
This one actually has a purpose, because Gish is a very specific play-style as well as build-type. There's no better way to describe the concept. But if you come up with a better way to say "self-buffing durable Arcane/Martial character who is comfortable in melee, while retaining the ability to throw direct-damage and use some utility spells", pitch it, maybe it'll catch on.

Cheers, -- N
 

Shroomy

Adventurer
This one actually has a purpose, because Gish is a very specific play-style as well as build-type. There's no better way to describe the concept. But if you come up with a better way to say "self-buffing durable Arcane/Martial character who is comfortable in melee, while retaining the ability to throw direct-damage and use some utility spells", pitch it, maybe it'll catch on.

Cheers, -- N

Hopefully swordmage will replace gish for all but githyanki characters.
 

FireLance

Legend
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?

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.

Anyone else feeling this or have you found it pretty easy to get into the spirit of the game with brutes, lurkers, leaders, etc.?
Well, as pointed out previously, the OP was referring to the monsters, not the PCs.

In addition, I find the classes to be distinctive enough that I would use the specific class names if I was talking about a particular character (e.g. my paladin, Roy's fighter) and would only use the class roles if I was talking about those roles (e.g. we're playing with two defenders and a leader, but no strikers or controllers). To be frank, it doesn't seem very different to me from how 2e classified fighters, paladins and ranger as "warriors", clerics and druids as "priests" and bards and thieves as "rogues".

To me, it's simply a matter of using the terms in the right context.
 

Zil

Explorer
Yes, I also find the use of "leader", "controller", "striker", "brute", and so on very off-putting. I've been playing the game for just shy of 30 years now and no one in my groups has ever used any slang even remotely similar to that around a gaming table. We always talked in terms of class (D&D has always been a character class based game). Now I have to cringe whenever I hear talk of "strikers" and such. I don't know if I'll ever get used to the new terminology.
 


Mr. Wilson

Explorer
That's a class, not a play-style. Worse, it's a Defender, which the Gish often isn't.

I agree; I always envisioned the Gish more along the realms of a striker with a dash of controller. The Swordmage works really well as a defender, but it's not a Gish, IMO.
 

Ranes

Adventurer
I don't like the jargon either; it's anachronistic, given the context. I don't even like hearing words like 'tank' and 'buff' when I'm playing or talking about fantasy MMORPGs, where they've been around a long time.

It's as if WotC wants to cut up my food for me, which I neither need nor want.
 

Delta

First Post
Agree with the OP. It's interesting to observe that seemingly lots of successful games start out with very tight knitting between mood & mechanics, and then over time seem to evolve in a way that disconnects them, until the mechanics become ends-unto-themselves.

I was in a hobby store a few years back and heard Warhammer players referring to "pallies" and "skellies" and I almost had a siezure it bugged me so much. It pains me even to write about mood-breaking jargon like that.
 

Cadfan

First Post
Doesn't bother me any. These terms provide useful information. D&D has always had these roles, so spelling them out so that people can know exactly what it is they're character class does is a useful thing.

I'm willing to bet that those who believe their gaming group lacked jargon like this are actually wrong. They've just internalized the jargon. Healer, primary spellcaster, arcane spellcaster, front-line fighter, etc. Those are all jargon.

For me, the bottom line is that the jargon is useful. The 4e jargon seems to be useful, particularly the monster jargon. And the PCs never even need know about that.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top