MMO terms and tabletop, anyone completely ANNOYED by this?

[Zhaleskra]

This has nothing to do with MMO to tabletop, and is another example of a term I dislike the use of in a particular situation which does not raise my hate flag.

In a game about anthropomorphic animals that does not involve humans at all (not now, not before, and not in the future), calling your characters "furs" or "furries". Why don't I like it? Because if anthropomorphic animals are the normal sentients of the world, they'd have no reason to use those terms. So less hate and more, "please don't".

 

[Desdichado]

In my pathfinder game, we just picked up a new player. she had never played D&D before but was curious. as a recovering wow-aholic of several years, she chose to play a druid (her class in wow). in three sessions she's rocketed from the noob of the group to the star of the show. I hope just to keep her around, because she derailed a boring module into a great session last time.

Maybe you've somehow missed the point of the thread? Nobody's talking about MMO players and calling them irredeemable and hopeless. The complaint that (a lot of) people dislike casually tossing around terms like "meat shield" or "tank" or "squishies" or "party wipe" or whatever.

insularity and quibbling about word choice, when meaning is preserved and communicated, is going to hurt the hobby and it makes you look like a dick.

I don't care about the hobby, I care about having a good game at my table. I presume that other folks here are doing the same. Therefore, telling them to "suck it up" and accept something that they don't like "for the good of the hobby" is a losing proposition. Every single time.

And telling people that if they have different priorities at the gaming table than you, and care about things that you don't makes them look like a dick makes you look like a dick.

Yeah, I know, pot/kettle and all that. I never claimed not to be a dick.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Maybe you've somehow missed the point of the thread? Nobody's talking about MMO players and calling them irredeemable and hopeless. The complaint that (a lot of) people dislike casually tossing around terms like "meat shield" or "tank" or "squishies" or "party wipe" or whatever.

There is precisely one term you mention there that I have not heard used in relation to D&D in the mid 90s. That term is "party wipe". The wizard was described as squishy because he literally was. He went squish when a monster hit him.

So you object to people using terms derived from the way D&D was actually played and that predate MMOs in a game of D&D?

 

[Janx]

So you object to people using terms derived from the way D&D was actually played and that predate MMOs in a game of D&D?

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.

 

[Desdichado]

There is precisely one term you mention there that I have not heard used in relation to D&D in the mid 90s. That term is "party wipe". The wizard was described as squishy because he literally was. He went squish when a monster hit him.

So you object to people using terms derived from the way D&D was actually played and that predate MMOs in a game of D&D?

There are precisely zero that I heard until the prevalence of MMO's made them "mass market" so to speak. So yeah.

 

[psiphre]

you mean different people with different groups who have different playstyles and different expectations of the game have different experiences at the table?

i am shocked. shocked, i tell you.

 

[Desdichado]

you mean different people with different groups who have different playstyles and different expectations of the game have different experiences at the table?

i am shocked. shocked, i tell you.

Well, you seem to be, since you claim just a few posts ago was that people who had different expectations of the game than you were coming across as dicks.

:shrug:

 

[psiphre]

Well, you seem to be, since you claim just a few posts ago was that people who had different expectations of the game than you were coming across as dicks.

:shrug:

you misunderstood what i said.

what i was getting at was that rather than bitching about people who call "the character who stands in front wearing heavy armor and takes hits for the characters with lower AC and hit points" "tanks", just accept that some people play different from you and either suck it up or find different people to play with. they aren't wrong. you aren't wrong. you each have different ideas of what's "fun".

 

[Desdichado]

Ah, well then yes, I agree. In general, making a big deal out of this kind of stuff is acting like a jerk. But even if you don't make a big deal out of it, doesn't mean you don't have a preference. We have one player who uses this kind of terminology all the time. He also plays a lot of WoW and other MMOs. He also approaches D&D with an MMO like mindset in many ways. He's also a major power gamer who occasionally gets in our grill when he thinks our character advancement choices are suboptimal.

And yet, we continue on happily anyway... mostly because we are mature enough not to act like a bunch of jerks over the differences between us. Plus, with his work schedule, he only seems to make about 50% of the sessions anyway, so we're mostly just happy to have him join us when he can and leave it at that.

 

[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 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.

Matbe I'm just stingy with treasure.