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

[Goddess FallenAngel]

Might we want to move the Dungeon-crawl vs Overland discussion here? http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=72624

 

[Qlippoth]

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.

Big time.
"Oh, I've wasted my life."

 

[Psion]

By and large, yes. Overland travel isn't where the adventure is; it's the speed-bump that stands in the way of the adventure site and the base of operations.

Outdoors adventuring doesn't have to be overland travel. An adventure can be exploring a new area, survival, or investigating activities. Adventures old (X1) and New (Standing Stones) use this as a major element.

Those rules are used as speed-bumps until such time as the PCs gain the ability to travel without risk (usually by teleporting) and thus put those rules away.

Those rules are used by you as speed bumps. Not everyone shares your approach to their use. If that's how you like to play, more power to you, but I think it is a mistake to force everyone into one playstyle.

As for how they're commonly used, it's in a manner that doesn't drag gameplay to a stop. The DM checks for random encounters quickly.

Your observation about how the game is run is hardly universal. In various published and homebrew adventures, the placement of outdoor encounters is often planned and deliberate, and various monters books have not skimped on monstrous encounters that are only appropraite outdoors. The staple MM included.

But never near the importance that the elements that see use during the crawl in the dungeon do, as the overland travel and combat rules are always of secondary importance. Travel is the time when players take care of PC maintainance metagame needs while DM do their information dumping

Never?

Again, you presume to speak for everyone and pidgeonhole them into your playstyle. Further, you still seem to conflate the outdoor elements with "travel". They need not be the same thing! The whole adventure or significant parts of it can occur outdoors.

As this relates to the paladin's mount: this is an ability that, in its 3.0 version, is more of a liability than an asset because it's built around an aspect of the game that's clearly and consistantly of secondary importance to the primary aspect of dungeon crawling. When an outdoor combat encounter occurs, then the mount is a good thing, unless the encounter involves something that--while right on for the paladin in terms of threat level--is too much for the mount; the majority of the time, it's just a glorified tool of too-limited and dubious use- which makes for a rather lame class ability. The mount in 3.0 is too weak, not useful enough and more of a hassle than a benefit for the paladin; the 3.5 version is an all-around upgrade into a very useful tool in the paladin's arsenal of resources.

The problem here is the presumption that this particular ability needs to be universally useful. It doesn't. Again, it's okay to have abilities that are only useful in certain situations. If it's only that useful, the rest of the paladin's abilities should be strong enough that on average, the paladin is a competant member of the party (and in 3.0, I have never failed to beleive that they are, based on direct observation of a paladin in the game that was progressed into the high teen levels.) Morphing the ability so it belies the basic concept of the paladin in order to make the ability universally meaningfully is a mistake AFAIAC. It's putting the cart before the horse. Concept should drive the rules, not vice versa.

When the majority of D&D players said so; the changes to the mount didn't come from nowhere, but from the accumulative feedback from the millions of players playing the game for millions of hours. Their conclusions are those that I mentioned above; WOTC actually listened to the players of the game and fixed a noted--if subtle--problem with the game.

No such thing happened. Unlike 3.0, 3.5 was not based on massive playtesting.

D&D is first and formost a game. If the change makes the game a better game, then it's a good change.

Fair enough, but my contention it does not make the game better. It limits the scope of the game, which is inherently less variety. Which is generally a bad thing. You are not the only one who plays the game. It's all well and good that you feel you are served well by this change, but there are a significant members of the D&D playing audience for whom the dungeon is not the end-all be-all of adventuring and such a change is not worth conceptually distorting the paladin.

The rules should serve the game, not vice versa.

 

[SylverFlame]

how about a nod to the fine folks at White Wolf, who not only coined the term Storytelling but helped it flourish, as an approach to roleplaying games?

Any huzzahs for White Wolf are always pleasurably given by me.

 

[Protean]

Any huzzahs for White Wolf are always pleasurably given by me.

It would be a mistake to condemn the fine folks of Whitewolf, rather than rabid fanboys of Vampire, that took the 'Storytelling' emphasis, for gospel. Rather I would praise Whitewolf for creating setting appropiate crunch, and for walking towards a more balanced approach between 'Storytelling' and 'Dungeoncrawls' as time went on. Let's leave discussions on systems wars to that, and realize that divergent systems suit divergent playstyles.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

The Paladin mount appearing is consistent with the Galahad story. His horse always just sort of showed up.

According to which source?

 

[Glyfair]

A few words brought up here I wouldn't have a problem with initially, but overuse would make me want to see them gone. "Pokemount" is an example. It's very good at getting across the person's objection to the concept. However, after the 3rd for 4th use, it becomes overused and the regulars know they are going to hear the same old tired rant (whether we agree or not, hearing the same rant over and over is tiresome).

Jargon I would like to see eliminated:

Rollplayer - I agree that it is never used in anything other than a derogatory sense. I may not want such a player in my game, that doesn't mean I want to demean his chosen play style.

Munchkin - Because no one really can agree on exactly what it means. I've heard comments that it's someone who has a play style we disagree with, but I think that's oversimplifying. However, almost everyone who has their own definition of what it is does disagree with that playstyle (probably 99.9% of the people using it). Some people use it for powergamers, some for annoying players, some for players who are just out to "win." However, there is never any complete agreement on what it actually means.

"Broken" - Another word that means slightly different things to different people. Also, because whenever you see that word, you know you are going to see a rant. Sometimes something is "broken" because the person disagrees with it in their own particular game (see "Pokemount"), sometimes it's because it ruins the feel of the game, sometimes because it's something that min-max players would always take because it gives them more bang for the buck than anything else.

It could have a solid definition (I think the last suggestion comes closest), but in use it really doesn't.

 

[maddman75]

Not sure why they don't treat animal companions for Druids, Paladins etc. with the "Creating a Magic Item" rules, so that those players who want a druid minus the menagerie are on par with those who do, and the assumption isn't built into the class and affecting relative power level. If the designers want to maintain archetype, they could discount the cost of acquiring a mount to make it a deal hard to refuse.

That is just frikken brilliant. Off to come up with some mechanics!

 

[Darkness]

Terms that must die

Munchkin, "roll"playing vs. "role"playing (and the idiots who think they are being insightful and witty in pointing it out ), "splat"books, fluff, crunch, "leet" speak of any kind.

The first 3 really irriatate me to no end mainly because those using them usually try to affect an air of superiority that is wholly undeserved.

And if you have used these terms and think I am attacking you - well, I probably am

Well... I didn't. But if it'll make you attack me, I'll be glad to comply.

So have at thee, you role- and/or roll-playing munchkin! For glory!

Also, don't you forget to ph34r my l33t sk3311z.

 

[maddman75]

Broken to me has a very specific definition. It came from Magic: The Gathering. A 'broken' card was one that interacted in a way that the designers did not anticipate, or greatly unappreciated how powerful it would be. In fact it was so powerful that you'd be foolish not to include four of them in every deck of the appropriate color. This was a bad thing because it leads to everyone using the same three decks - the deck with the broken card, and the deck specifically meant to deal with the broken card, and the deck meant to slaughter the anti-broken deck. A beats B, B beats C, C beats A. Might as well play rock-scissors-paper and not spend all that money on cards.

So a feat that was so good you'd be cracked not to take it would be broken. Say, one that gives you +2 to hit with all melee weapon would be taken by all warrior types, and most clerics and rogues. The only truly broken rule I can think of is 3.0 Haste.

As for pokemount, it should be included in gamer jargon to point out how ridiculous the ability is. Paladins in my world are part of the ruling nobility and fierce mounted warriors. They don't summon squat, they have loyal, powerful, and intelligent mounts. The new paladin is unusable in my world.

One of many reasons I don't use Andy Collins' house rules, aka 3.5.