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

[Raging Barbarian]

I knew someone would say that, but I disagree. There is a difference between basic terms needed to play the game and ancillary terms coined by gamers.

And my counter arguement to that is: Only a true geek could create a game in which we are now debating what we as a collective should and should not be incuding in our lexicon. And since a geek created the game, and coined all of the terms in said game, those terms must be geek speak.

 

[Raging Barbarian]

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.

 

[Psion]

ROLL-PLAYING

Could there be another answer? No, I don't think so.

 

[Vaxalon]

Oh, give it up.

It's never going to happen. These things we call roll-playing and munchkin and all, they exist in some sense or they wouldn't have had words invented for them.

The only way the words are going to go away is if the concept goes away, (and it won't) or if it's replaced by another (equally annoying) word.

 

[jmucchiello]

I knew someone would say that, but I disagree. There is a difference between basic terms needed to play the game and ancillary terms coined by gamers.

The proper term is Jargon. Jargon is found in all endeavors. It is short-hand terminology used by people "in the know" to deliver complex concepts in a short span of words. Scientists have jargon. Computer geeks have jargon. I'm sure there is sewing-circle jargon. Married folk even invent jargon that only the two of them understand. It is part of being human to create short hand terms for complex concepts based on shared experience. Global concepts have global terms (found in dictionaries); local concepts have local terms (found in FAQs ). To complain about this is to complain about the evolution of the human brain (or the will of your god, you choose).

Why are you complaining about terms that make discourse easier? Munchkin, newbie (i prefer newb, personally), rollplayer, fluff, crunch, nerf, broken, got the shaft, etc are all conversation enablers. Without them you have to describe what you are talking about with more length (and someone just chimes in the term anyway).

Cloy catch-phrases will die on their own without someone saying they must die. People stopped saying Groovey long before movies and TV poked fun at it. I mean, like, gag me with a spoon.

I say this thread is neither clever nor amusing.

A special note on rollplaying:
Using roll in place of role: condescending
Finding out with the change of a single letter the author has a condescending attitude (and can be ignored): priceless

 

[Pseudonym]

Some of us enjoy using Acroynyms. You try typing out the Divine and the Defeated along with Relics and Rituals PLUS Scarred Lands Campaign Setting: Ghelspad/Termana EACH time you talk. It hurts!

I find that setting up keyboard macros can be useful in that regard, though your point is well taken.

Acronyms are fine with me, though I can understand their frustration for those new to the game. I think they provide a sense of group definition, Us vs. Them if you will; those who grok if a PC's Su provokes an AoO and those who stuff them in their lockers.

Still, D&D has nothing on other systems for acronymical gibberish; the various Traveller incarnations for example.

As to my personal list of terms that are too played out, among those mentioned already would be describing the D&D magic system as "Vancian". Well la de da, arn't you so damn erudite.

To the creep of CRPG terms, like broken, nerf etc. another term I find annoying is referring to plotting out character advancement as "builds". It makes me think I'm playing Asheron's Call again, though template has roughly the same meaning.

Lastly, 3.11ed for Workgroups. It's not that funny.

 

[Psion]

Why are you complaining about terms that make discourse easier? Munchkin, newbie (i prefer newb, personally), rollplayer, fluff, crunch, nerf, broken, got the shaft, etc are all conversation enablers

In the case of rollplayer, I disagree. It gets used in two contexts: when you are putting down someone else's (peceived) playstyle, or you are patting each other on the back for not being one of them. IOW, no productive conversation comes from it.

 

[Psion]

No, it's not. It's a damned good way to turn what was a serious liability--most adventures don't allow for much riding of mounts,

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

especially underground or indoors, so the mount often got left behind where bad things would befall upon it--into a useful class ability for paladins..

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?

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.

IMHO, natch.

 

[BryonD]

IMHO, natch.

Hey Psion, do you realize that you seem to be just causually tossing that on at the end without remotely meaning it?

Really. I'm not trying to be in your face about it, but you present a very unwavering, absolutist position on this whole thing.

I can totally understand why some people can prefer a full time mount.

But I also totally see how calling a celestial mount can be cool as well.

When you go on about poke-mount or say things like "second string summoner right out of Final Fantasy CRPGs", I think you are showing that you don't really look at what people do find appealing about the option.

Is it really just an opinion to you when an alternate view is intolerable?

 

[Psion]

Hey Psion, do you realize that you seem to be just causually tossing that on at the end without remotely meaning it?

You do realize that you are making an assertion about what I "mean" with no reason to think that is really the case at all.

When I make a statement as to my motivations, please do take me at face value.

When you go on about poke-mount or say things like "second string summoner right out of Final Fantasy CRPGs", I think you are showing that you don't really look at what people do find appealing about the option.

Gee, here I thought I was just stating why I find it unappealing.

Other people's opinions of the "option" are entirely up to themselves to defend.

That said, as it is spelled out in the rules, I hardly call it an "option". If it was a variant in the DMG, then I would call it an "option." Which is why I find it so aggravating and feel compelled to highlight what I think the weaknesses are in the concept.