RPG/D&D terms and phrases that are no longer clever or amusing.

[Orius]

Do 'quotes' count under terms and phrases?

If so, I am really tired of hearing Monty Python's Holy Grail movie quotes at the table. It was funny through out high school, college, and my early twenties. But now I'm sick of them. Or at least, I'm sick of them being used at a D&D game session. I still love the movie. The movie is a classic. I'm just sick of hearing the quotes at a D&D table. Been done to death.

Same here. I never understood just why shrubberies and the Knights Who Say Ni are funny. The only thing I found amusing in that movie was the Black Knight, well and the Frenchman too.

 

[Pseudonym]

Same here. I never understood just why shrubberies and the Knights Who Say Ni are funny. The only thing I found amusing in that movie was the Black Knight, well and the Frenchman too.

My Tuesday night game has an xp fine for making Monty Python quotes or references. It's pretty much nipped that sort of thing in the bud.

 

[Mercule]

And now to keep a "brawl of the brains" from erupting, I also vote that the term "buff spells" be eliminated from our vocabularies. I think "augmenting spells" would be a better alternative, and much more descriptive.

Amen, brother. Sing it.

Everytime I hear someone say "buff" I want to slap them. It really makes me feel like I'm playing a video game.

I could also do w/o Rollplayer. Crazy mispellings like "rouge" annoy me, too.

Otherwise, I'm pretty easy. Terms people have dissed that I like:

Poke-mount. It isn't cute or funny. It makes light of the entire ability. It also nicely, and succinctly indicates the contempt I have for it. The reasons why I dislike it are a topic for another thread, but unless you want to hear my rant everytime the thought is discussed, let me use the shorthand version.

Vancian magic. I don't use it to show how smart I am. I use it because it's the simplest way to refer to the "fire-and-forget" (a term I'm tired of) magic system that D&D uses. Vance is listed as an inspiration for D&D and it's commonly acknowledged that the magic system came from his works. Objecting to "Vancian magic" is as silly as objecting to "Newtonian physics", "Jungian psychology", or "Keynesian economics". Get over it.

 

[Tsyr]

"Worst. X. Evar.", quoting the Simpsons' Comic Book Guy, also needs a bullet. The geeks who say it and write it don't seem to realise that it's actually a mockery or parody of their attitude, and exactly the kind of complaint some of them use it for, resulting in very sad irony when it gets used with unironic intentions by geeks who think it sounds kewl...

Actually, we know what it was intended as. So?

If you havn't noticed, one of the biggest tendancies of geeks is to take something that people mock us with and turn it around as a banner of pride. We've been doing it for years, no reason to stop now.

 

[Corinth]

Could have fooled me. I think the mindset that adventure = dungeon have been very bad for the variety in the game.

You were fooled. Dungeon crawling is the heart of D&D gameplay, and it's been that way since the game's original publication.

So, if the DM thinks this is a problem, the DM couldn't just, well, NOT molest the mount... e.g., assume it is smart enough to avoid trouble?

That's a matter of verisimlitude. Sometimes not messing with the mount is the bad call to make.

If you view the mount as not being much of a paladin's strength as a class, then you should weight it thusly. Personally, I don't see a mount as central to the paladin's concept at all. But changing the concept of the paladin into a second string summoner right out of Final Fantasy CRPGs is not a good reparation to the problem.

The 3.0 version isn't a class ability worth having in your standard D&D game because it's useful less than half of the time, and that's precisely because the standard game focuses on dungeon crawling. At the levels where a paladin would get it, it usually gets used only when travelling to or from the adventure site; at higher levels it's left behind entirely because the party can teleport to wherever it needs to go, and the mount can't go along due to payload limits (and then, once on site, space restrictions). The 3.5 version is a far, far better ability because it gets around the logistical problems; the paladin calls for it when having it is useful, and puts it away when its not so it doesn't get in the way or otherwise cause unnecessary difficulty. This benefits himself as well as the group, which is why it's a good thing.

 

[Psion]

Dungeon crawling is the heart of D&D gameplay, and it's been that way since the game's original publication.

So you mean to say, then, that overland travel and outdoor combat are inconsequential elements in the game?

They have both been important elements in the game since its publication.

Please do me the favor of not acting like you are talking to someone who hasn't played it for just a little while.

That's a matter of verisimlitude. Sometimes not messing with the mount is the bad call to make.

Oh well. If that's the call to make, that's the call to make. Making the mount a magically summoned beast is far more harmful to verisimilitude. Just when did the concept of the paladin become a summoner?

The 3.0 version isn't a class ability worth having in your standard D&D game because it's useful less than half of the time,

I return you to my previous statement: if it's not a significant boon to the paladin, weight it accordingly. Don't warp the concept of the paladin to make the power more pivotal. That's the tail wagging the dog.

 

[BryonD]

By the time I had interjected, I was discussing the reasons behind the disgruntlement, not the term itself.

Byron, this is very much into personal attack territory. I obviously disagree with your assessment of me, but I don't think that debating it will be too productive at this point. All I can do at this point is ask you to stop this attempt to apply unflattering characterizations of me and stick to the topic at hand.

Fair enough,

May I request that in the future you do the same by talking about the value of your preferences perhaps in place of simply tossing derogatory terms at the alternatives you do not prefer?

Which I think is exactly the topic.

To me there are terms that are intended as nothing more than a tool to immediately malign another person's game. Munchkin and pokemount are both good examples of this. When used in their normal context, they serve as nothing more than insults that generate tension. They often do not even accurately characterize the target, but they provide merely an emotional satisfaction to the user.

Those terms can be done without.

Nerf, newbie, broken, rollplayer/roleplayer, crunch/fluff, are all abused on a regular basis. But they also express reasonable ideas. If those terms went away, new reasonable terms would replace them, and those terms would suddenly be considered derogatory with a month or two.

Rollplayer/Roleplayer is probably one on this list that is most frequently used as an insult. But I still like those terms because I have, for some time now, been comfortable seeing the game as degree of blending of the two concepts (as I imagine most people do). I like roleplaying. But, as the game is intended, I like to roleplay heroes. And, as part of that I like being able to quantify their heroism. This leads to rollplaying. If you are comfortable with both pieces, the two terms can actually be quite useful in figuring out how to make a given game fun for the group at hand.

 

[BryonD]

So you mean to say, then, that overland travel and outdoor combat are inconsequential elements in the game?

They have both been important elements in the game since its publication.

FWIW, I am 100% with you here. (And if you have had to respond to this type thing frequently, that does influence my perception. )

Oh well. If that's the call to make, that's the call to make. Making the mount a magically summoned beast is far more harmful to verisimilitude.

I would disagree that this is a truism. If you add the words "to an existing character" or "to an existing campaign" then you are clearly correct. But that goes with any change in the rules. You just have to make a choice between versimiltude and updates. But that does not apply to the game as a whole.

Just when did the concept of the paladin become a summoner?

See, to me the term summoner implies much more than this. He can only call it once per day. So the tactical value is very limited. Calling a celestial mount from its celestial home is simply a convention. Like I said, I wish they did offer an OPTION to do it either way. Technically, I offer it in my game, but the old paladin died with no mount and no one has done a new one post 3.5.

I return you to my previous statement: if it's not a significant boon to the paladin, weight it accordingly. Don't warp the concept of the paladin to make the power more pivotal. That's the tail wagging the dog.

But what if the mount was not supposed to be so weak? It was not that the mount was a minor thing. It was that the mount was a significant thing that was frequently unavailable, thus unfairly punishing the class. This version makes that class feature more consitently available and thus maintains the power level of the class.

 

[Psion]

I would disagree that this is a truism. If you add the words "to an existing character" or "to an existing campaign" then you are clearly correct.

Spot on. But here's the deal: why change it if there is not a compelling reason to? I don't think there is one, and that being the case, I think they should design the revision with backwards compatability of concepts in mind.

But what if the mount was not supposed to be so weak?

Then I question the way they went about it. If they were striving to make a paladin explicitly a mounted class, you would think it would have class abilities such as mounted combat feats. But it doesn't. Most of its abilities are around fighting evil. Which suggests to me that the role of the mount is somewhat anciliary.

AFAIAC, it's okay to have a class ability that is not always that useful. Heck, the ranger is built around such abilities.

 

[rounser]

If you havn't noticed, one of the biggest tendancies of geeks is to take something that people mock us with and turn it around as a banner of pride. We've been doing it for years, no reason to stop now.

This is a legitimate complaint though, pointing out that we make a habit of biting the hand that feeds us. It's like those wonderful complaints about Paizo's free web enhancements not arriving on time, or the quality of WotC's free maps on their website...as Bart says to the Comic Book Guy, "They owe you nothing. They've provided you with hundreds of hours of free entertainment. If anything, you owe them!". There's nothing to rebel against here - it's not namecalling - just an insight that geeks sometimes don't know what's not appropriate to complain about. People in general take things for granted, but we're notorious for it, so we should be aware of it...and not quote Comic Book Guy like a badge of pride, because it aint.