MMO terms and tabletop, anyone completely ANNOYED by this?

[Wednesday Boy]

Do people really ban words from their tables?

I don't allow "moist", "lobsters" (although "lobster" is okay), or "chotchke". If you don't like it, play somewhere else.

 

[Janx]

Be careful they may start commenting about the clothes you wear being old fashioned & outdated, or that your taste in cars is still popular, at your local senior citizen center. They may ask if you ever met Henry ford himself.

Calling someone gamers stupid might not be the best way to get new younger players in to our hobby, or even play a second time at your table.

I like to think I covered your points when I said "Now this is terrible advice,"

my post was meant to be a funny example of what not to do.

 

[Desdichado]

Honestly, this sort of thinking bothers me far far more than even the people who talk about 'rolling toons'. And I really dislike calling characters toons - makes me want to declare duck season. (I dislike calling them toons in MMOs as well).

It bothers me for two reasons; firstly a lack of desire to expand the hobby and secondly rejecting MMOs indicates to me a complete lack of respect of D&D and its influence.

I couldn't possibly care less that you are bothered by the fact that I don't like concepts like aggro and dps in my RPG game at the table. I don't care to expand the hobby, especially if that means taking it in directions that I'm not interested in. Why would that bother you? Do you presume that everyone has to play one big-tent uni-game, and therefore people should compromise their own tastes and accept elements that they dislike just so that someone somewhere else will be happy? And as for being bothered at my "lack of respect for the influence of D&D"--that might almost be insulting if it weren't so assinine.

 

[wedgeski]

Considering that we're all one big happy community of big damn orc-slaying heroes, I *like* the fact that new players can bring their vernacular to the table and we can all still basically understand each-other. Turning your back on the expanding vocabulary of the hobby seems unnecessarily exclusionary to me.

 

[Evenglare]

Honestly the game sounds like a computer game to me - and not on the players' side. The part you've described is an arbitrary puzzle with an oh-so-convenient solution located in the next room. And you're putting special elements into the encounter quite intentionally - it's all sounding extremely artificial to me. And as if you are setting it up to be approached as a game. All the PCs are doing is approaching it as a slightly different one to the one you want. Combat is more interesting than a fetch quest or a "click the random object" quest. And the party doesn't even get the mental reward of having been creative, merely having solved the arbitrary puzzle you set them. A creative group given license to be creative will come up with solutions and ideas you never expected - and you don't get that from a series of well defined Sierra-style quests.

I'm glad my one scenario allow you to demean my entire gaming career of 15 years. It is certainly impressive you have deconstructed my entire GMing style from one example. I tried to give an example that involve different ways of dealing with a solution, and suddenly its a LOL CLICK AND FETCH COMPUTER QUEST. I feel awesome right now. Thanks.

 

[Ranes]

The "pass the pizza" references are funny but disingenuous. When you ask someone to pass the pizza, you are talking about something outside the game. I was referring to language that describes the game and its constituent agents.

Tabletop RPGs come with their own terminology, which in most cases is equally simplistic and no less impenetrable to newcomers. I can't help feeling that this thread is the pot calling the kettle black.

It's true that tabletop games come with their own terminology. I never said anything about impenetrability but I accept that they are difficult for newcomers to understand. This, however, has nothing to do with the point I made. Terms like 'XP' and 'SR' are part of the game's vocabulary. We use them to refer to specific aspects of the rules. They are required.

Puerile anachronisms are not required. If you don't mind them, good for you. If they don't bug you, fine. But please don't use your misunderstanding of my point to suggest that I am being hypocritical. Thanks.

 

[Desdichado]

While I completely agree with you, Ranes, I have to be a bit pedantic and point out that there's really no such thing as an anachronism in a fantasy game. By definition, it can't really exist.

 

[Ranes]

Ah. Good point, well argued.

 

[Desdichado]

But I knew what you meant. Let's say that a certain tone is desired by an element of the player base, and the reference to tanks, dps, aggro (or for that matter, some more D&D specific terminology like skill monkey or something) is in direct contradiction to that tone.

 

[Janx]

But I knew what you meant. Let's say that a certain tone is desired by an element of the player base, and the reference to tanks, dps, aggro (or for that matter, some more D&D specific terminology like skill monkey or something) is in direct contradiction to that tone.

I think that's another point in the distaste for MMO-speak.

when somebody said they wanted to "ban those terms and thinking", it was really disingenuous to quote him to paraphrase it as "ban thinking".


the original poster meant, "I don't want you approaching my D&D game in the same fashion you approach MMO's. because that mode of play is very limited."

Focusing on terms like DPS puts an emphasis on combat, that one poster indicated was not only lopsided, but demonstrable of pretty dumb tactics because they fought like an MMO, not like a D&D character.

While I suppose we can be happy that MMO's, like the LotR movied, attract new players because of its common elements, we can also be annoyed that some MMO aspects bring baggage that aren't great for a D&D game.