MMO terms and tabletop, anyone completely ANNOYED by this?

[Corathon]

In 1e there were two ways of gaining XP. Killing things and taking their stuff. And you gained about 90% of your XP from the 1GP = 1XP rule. This meant that the XP from killing things was effectively consolation prize - smart play revolved round taking stuff and fighting the monsters as little as possible. (This counted double for wandering monsters because wandering monsters did not carry treasure).

IME running an AD&D 1E game for quite a few yeers, this isn't the case.

The XP from monetary treasure, monsters, and magic are all of the same order of magnitude. Generally XP from gold, gems, etc is the highest of the three, with monsters next and magic last. This varies from adventure to adventure, of course, but treasure XP being ten times monster XP? I don't think I've eber seen it.

Maybe I'm just stingy with treasure.

 

[nightwind1]

Besides, there's a very similar jargon in D&D to begin with. In what MMORPG can you be a skill monkey, for example? Or a CoDzilla?

See, I've been gaming since 1977, and NONE of my gaming groups have EVER used terms like those. Ever. In 35 years.

Our characters are people, living in a living, breathing world. They don't exist to fill some "slot" in a party. They exist to have adventures with their boon companions.

 

[nightwind1]

Yes.

My crew has never referred to the fighter as a Meat Shield or the wizard as a Squishy.

While I suppose we have some terms that we don't realize are of the same grade, we generally don't speak about our characters or game with double-meta-gaming jargon. We generally stick to the terms in the actual rule book. Like Fighter, Wizard or Cleric.

This is kind of what I was trying to get at.

It's not "Ragdar the tank aggros the orcs".

It's "Ragdar the brave warrior lures the orcs away from his companions"

Does no one here see the difference?

 

[VariSami]

See, I've been gaming since 1977, and NONE of my gaming groups have EVER used terms like those. Ever. In 35 years.

Our characters are people, living in a living, breathing world. They don't exist to fill some "slot" in a party. They exist to have adventures with their boon companions.

Remarkable. I cannot claim such experience - I cannot even claim such age. I do believe this has to do with maturity and possibly the capability to understand the needs of a party without them having been explicitly stated.

However, I've attended games in which "free" parties have caused the characters to wipe each other after two to three sessions. Surprisingly enough, a Holier than thou Paladin and a trigger happy Dread Necromancer had it hard to find a common tune. Even with a neutral Druid to balance them out. Or a recent example in which a player decided to go with a Paladin of Tyranny in a group full of more or less chaotic individuals.

And regarding roles... Well, I've had player run a character who manages nothing other than fleeing. He's playing the character well but D&D is partially a game of challenges and he's utterly useless in resolving any which require any mechanical capabilities. While one could argue that such situations should be avoided in such a case, it would downplay the use of D&D as a system in the first place. And then there're a whole bunch of games in which players had nothing but (melee) damage output to show. To keep the players entertained, this would require a less than breathing world or some guidelines as to what a party needs.

Of course, it might just be that you use notions which don't sound as abominable to accomplish the same tasks. I chose those as exemplars for a reason.

 

[MichaelSomething]

This is kind of what I was trying to get at.

It's not "Ragdar the tank aggros the orcs".

It's "Ragdar the brave warrior lures the orcs away from his companions"

Does no one here see the difference?

Wouldn't a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?

 

[Janx]

Wouldn't a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?

It turns out, once I offer to let you smell my turd, you likely have litttle interest in approaching the red flower I hold in my hand

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is kind of what I was trying to get at.

It's not "Ragdar the tank aggros the orcs".

It's "Ragdar the brave warrior lures the orcs away from his companions"

Does no one here see the difference?

Someone here sees it as an apples/pears comparison. Aggro is one actual MMO specific set of abilities.

Aggro is not a term used as far as I know in any tabletop RPG. Mostly because aggro has one very specific meaning, and that meaning is mind control. 4e marking is not aggro - aggro gives the monsters no choice in what they are going to do, and is needed because monster AI isn't up to the standards of DM AI. Marking on the other hand explicitely gives the monsters a choice - whether to attack the guy in robes who can fireball them, or whether to attack the guy wearing sheet steel. It just makes it a much riskier and less obvious choice to go for the guy who is both much more dangerous and easier to kill.

As for meat shield I've had to in character tell a wizard not to call the fighters meatshields anywhere that they might overhear. And squishies crops up a lot more IMO in 4e when the squishy isn't almost equivalent to the wizard - Invokers and Sorcerors are almost as popular and other lightly armoured ranged only builds qualify.

 

[Mircoles]

Times change and so do the terms. You don't have to think like a gamer from the 70's to play rpgs.

Change is going to happen regardless of how you feel about it.

 

[DM Howard]

I'm 23 and I was first introduced to D&D with 2nd edition. I'll go out and say that I have found myself using these terms before and I've played MMORPGs which is surely where I picked it up from.

BUT I find that when I do use these terms (if at all, as I'm trying to get away from such terminology and video games in general) I use them when talking about a session that has already occurred to someone else.

Like I said it's rare that I've done it, but I have been guilty of doing it. Do I think it's wrong? No, because I think everyone needs to play the way they want to play but do I think that role playing games need to be this fluffy sparkly land of acceptance of everyone's differing styles in your group? Heck no. (Hence why I've gone towards a system better suited to me and my style of playing, Castles and Crusades.)

In short, I think every group is going to be different but I think there should be an understanding as to whether such jargon would be permissible, out of character or not. If there is friction perhaps another group needs to be found for those who are chaffing at the rest of the groups play style because often that's what it comes down to.

 

[Desdichado]

Wouldn't a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?

Depending on the objectives, no--not necessarily.