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

[BryonD]

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.

I consider your ad-naseum repitition of one narrow description of the idea to be a "reason".

You also appear to mistake the word "seem" for the word "are". I make no claim whatsoever about what you truly intend. But I know how is "seems."

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

I have. And I am stating that it is difficult to to reconcile your seemingly clear conviction with a casual "IMHO".

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.

Mea Culpa on the word "option". That was clearly a wrong word.
And I would agree that making it an option would be better. Rather than a DMG varient, I would prefer, "The paladin may select when first obtaining a mount..." type language. But, regardless, I clearly used the wrong word.

However, I still stand by my assessment of your view of this CHANGE.
I don't see that you are attacking a weakness in the concept. I see you forcing one limited view on the concept and then attacking that one view. And based on the pattern of your statements on this matter, it seems unlikely that you are willing to consider other views.

I am not claiming to read your mind. I am claiming that this interpretation of your view is reasonable based on the words you have posted.

 

[Psion]

I consider your ad-naseum repitition of one narrow description of the idea to be a "reason".

Having come to an opinion and stating it makes it a "fact" in my mind?

Um, non-sequitir. It just means I have my opinion and will offer whenever the subject comes up.

I recognize that some people are perfectly comfortable with the new rule. I'm not and it's not my place to parrot everyone else's position. It's that simple. This attempt to display me as someone rigid and inconsiderate of other's opinions is ad hominem at best.

 

[SylverFlame]

In Response to some of the detractors of this thread

Hey, this is OT as the tag suggests.

Well, there have been a few people who have said this thread has no purpose as the posters are complaining and that no real change can ever hope to be made (I'll qualify that last statement by saying its not wholly accurate and as such not reflective of the people in this thread).

HOwever, I would like to say this. When a person has a problem with something they talk about it. It is a natural human action to discuss issues that create frustration for us. It could be a new government tax, a new application of foreign policy, heck it could even be that they raised the price of coffe at your favourite retailer by 5 cents for a large cup of coffee (damn you Tim Hortons!!!).

The point is that it makes a person feel better just to say what is annoying. That's what this thread is doing. So please refrain from bursting our bubble. Thank you.

 

[BryonD]

Having come to an opinion and stating it makes it a "fact" in my mind?

Um, non-sequitir. It just means I have my opinion and will offer whenever the subject comes up.

I recognize that some people are perfectly comfortable with the new rule. I'm not and it's not my place to parrot everyone else's position. It's that simple. This attempt to display me as someone rigid and inconsiderate of other's opinions is ad hominem at best.

Well, obviously we can just go round and round here.

I am not complaining about your opinion. I am pointing out the negative and overly narrow characterization you keep forcing on the alternate opinion. "Poke-mount" is not a defense of your opinion, it is an over-simplified attack on an alternate opinion. A belittling of that opinion.

Any reference to expecting you to "parrot" other opinions is not just a red herring but is 180 degrees off. You are consistently condescending on this manner that I find rigid and inconsiderate of other's opinions. There is a vast area of reasonable ground in-between not insulting the other side and parroting it.

 

[Gothmog]

The terms that really annoy me are "nerf", "buff", "broken", "build", and the "leet" speak that seem to be popping up with more regularity. When did it become sacrilege for things to NOT be balanced in gaming? Some classes, spells, or options simply ARE better than others for certain things, and at high levels spellcasters are going to be much more potent than other classes. The constant whining of "this is broken" or "that got nerfed" is extremely annoying.

Now terms like rollplayer, munchkin, and drama queen don't bother me in the least. These terms describe play styles I have seen before, that are relatively common, and therefore are descriptive of a behavior or type of player. I'll define these:

Rollplayer- a player who only uses metagame thinking and goes "by the numbers" for all his in-game actions. He rarely does anything if it doesn't provide a solid mechanical game benefit, and is usually out of his element when not in combat. Most rollplayers freeze up when asked to roleplay, like the Simpsons comic book guy when he tries to talk to a female.

Munchkin- a player who min/maxes his character such that that character is numerically more powerful than any other character in the group, then lords their munchiness over the other PCs. This player will NOT do anything that would make his character less "cool" or "l337", and have planned out their character advancement for 40 levels. This is probably the most destructive player type commonly given the RPing insult, simply because they don't work or play well with others.

Drama Queen- at the opposite end of the spectrum than the rollplayer, the drama queen will launch into 5 minute long soliloquies that he has rehearsed before the game at the slightest opportunity. They tend to be moody, morose, and create extremely traumatic backgrounds for their characters, such that the other PCs wonder why the hell they keep the nutjob around. I have seriously seen one of these types of players say his character was staying at the inn the entire adventure because he was too depressed over the anniversary of his wife's death to do anything else but weep.

So yeah, these terms are often applied negatively to certain types of players, but to be fair, these players are usually problems in the groups they are in BECAUSE of their play style. These terms are just as descriptive of people as "jerk", "moron", or "horse's rear end" (to placate Eric's grandma), which people don't seem to have a problem with, becase some people ARE these things. Political correctness be damned, call it like you see it.

 

[herald]

"Munchkin" literally means "childish" - which, considering we all play a glorified game of "let's pretend", is quite ironic and funny.


For "poke-mounts", I blame Psion, unless he proves me wrong. However, thinking of Mara the Paladin from Piratecat's game yell, "Luminor! I choose YOU!" gives me the grins.


As for terms I'd like to see go away:

3.5e - 3E REVISED, or 3eR, people!

"punk" - a term for which the early fans of William Gibson should be shot.

And I see things exactly the oposite on this. I'm beging to think that I'm glad I don't game with you Henry.

 

[Aaron L]

Wow, talk about out of the blue.

 

[Psion]

"Poke-mount" is not a defense of your opinion, it is an over-simplified attack on an alternate opinion. A belittling of that opinion.

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

You are consistently condescending on this manner that I find rigid and inconsiderate of other's opinions

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.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Gentlemen.

As has been noted, this is a thread about opinions.

Let's keep it on topic, and avoid arguing over the character of the people holding those opinions.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Orius]

I, also, would like to see the term "rollplayer" go the way of the dodo bird. Nearly every time I see that word, it's being used by self-described "real roleplayers" as a condescending way of looking down their noses at people who would rather create an effective character than a weak character with a 10-page backstory.

Yeah, I hate that attitude. Beside, I like a certain amount of action -- that is what some people consider "hack-and-slash" and powergaming, and in a negative fashion too. They'd probably toss munchkin in there as well.

I'm not toally opposed to the term munchkin, to me, munckhin is a character that either has far too much power at his level for the campaign, or gains massive, Monty Haul style rewards from totally gratuitous kills. I don't consider powergaming the same thing, it doesn't matter if the PCs are powered up if everything else in the world is similarly powered up as well.

"Fluff" and "crunch/crunchy (bits)" don't really bother me. I think they're fairly useful. One could always substitute "flavor text" for fluff, since they're both the same thing. And "crunch" is a fairly good term for basic rules mechanics, escpecially if those rules can easily be ported between campaigns.

Of course not all terms that have to go are new terms. I've always disliked the term magic-user, for example. It always seemed to bland and lame for my taste.