What 3e (& 3.5e) terms are you sick of?

[Hardhead]

Welcome to post-EverQuest roleplaying. That's where terms such as "broken" and "game balance" came from. I never heard these things in previous editions of the game.

The poster above is correct. Magic: The Gathering originated the term "broken."

Since Magic cards are practiaclly the "rules" of that game, when a card that was way overpowered came out, it would "break" the game enviornment, thus the term "broken" came about.

The reason it's become so popular is because it's such a useful word. It fills a niche no other word does. Something may be "overpowered" or "unbalanced," but is it actually so bad it causes the game to "break" in terms of game balance? Is it so bad that the game cannot function correctly with it's inclusion? If so, then it's broken.

I really like the word. It serves a real purpose (as most new words do that become popular - that's often how they enter the language). It allows me to quickly let someone else know exactly how overpowered something is without spending a paragraph explaining my pure and undying fear/hatred of a spell/feat/race/whatever, and let me spend my time explaining why I don't like it instead of how much I don't like it.

 

[Terraism]

Re: Re: What 3e (& 3.5e) terms are you sick of?

Well perhaps more generally than 3e/3.5e, I think anyone who uses the term "roll-playing" and still thinks that they are terribly clever for doing so (or worse, thinking it proves anything) is seriously out-of-touch.

I'm one who doesn't have a problem with the term - one of few, it appears - but perhaps that's because I don't look at it in a deragotory way. For me, it's the easiest way to describe a style that is based on combat, and only combat.

 

[Murrdox]

BUFFS

GOD DAMN I HATE THIS TERM.

All you Everquest people who started using this term should be shot in the head. I don't know WHY it annoys me, but it does. It started in Everquest, and now just about EVERY powerup of ANY kind in either computer games and even D&D NOW FOR CRYING OUT LOUD is being called a "Buff".

Anyone who calls "Bull's Strength" and stuff like that "Buffs" should be shot. Keep it on the PC, and more specifically, keep it in FREAKING EVERQUEST.

Thank god my players don't use it, but it seems that everyone else on the forums is using it.

 

[Terraism]

BUFFS
GOD DAMN I HATE THIS TERM.
...
Anyone who calls "Bull's Strength" and stuff like that "Buffs" should be shot. Keep it on the PC, and more specifically, keep it in FREAKING EVERQUEST.
Thank god my players don't use it, but it seems that everyone else on the forums is using it.

Whoa, there, Murrdox - is it really worth getting that upset with? Out of curiosity, by the way, with what do you refer to the collection of spells that fall into what we all call "buffs?"

 

[Sixchan]

Hmm...I'm not bothered by Roll-Playing. I don't particularly think it has any real negative connotations aside from those that some high-and-mighty Role-players attatch to it. I'm a Role-Player, while all but one of the rest of my group are Roll-Players. So what? They just like playing differently.
I similarly have no problem with the term 'Munchkin'. I've built more than a few Munchkin PCs in my time, but I just made sure I had roleplay reasons for their munchiness.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Let's see -- Munchkin is annoying, Twink is still good (hasn't been used enough yet). Rollplayer is obnoxious, yet Diceless Nazi isn't (apparently, making fun of hack-n-slashers is socially acceptable, but nobody has the brass ones to claim that the 733t High Roleplayers have it just as wrong). Cruchy Bits and Fluff are meaningless phrases to describe what rulemongers like to see in a rulebook, but the rest of us still rely on. Broken means "something I as a pansy-arsed DM let get out of hand in my own campaign," while "game balance" is a mythical concept with less physical substance than, say, elves and drows, and SPEAKING OF WHICH, I'm tired of:
-Drizzt clones. Not that I've ever seen any.
-People who knock Drizzt clones. You've never seen any either. And you're not clever.
-People who think rangers fight with two weapons becase of Drizzt and/or drows. It's not true, get over it, the 2e playtest rules predated The Crystal Shard.
-People who use drow as a plural, like deer. This includes most D&D game designers and novel authors. Learn fuggin' english, they're drows.
-People who knock rangers at all, for any reason. Read the signature.
-People who claim that the following spells are broken: haste, polymorph, gate, wish, harm. No they aren't; play by the rules.
-People who don't like bards because they're "weak." No they aren't; see previous answer.
-Those brilliant in-duh-viduals who can't wrap their brains around a fighter that's as useful to a high-level party as a wizard or cleric. See previous two answers.
-People who don't like alignment.
-People who don't understand alignment. Lawful != law-abiding, and chaotic != anarchist.

All this and more.

Great list, Jack. It summed up many of the things that annoy me (the only one I disagreed with was the one about drow being used as a plural), from people who constantly bash Drizzt-clones even though they've probably never actually seen one, to people who think that "Real Roleplayers" are more enlightened and mature than people who enjoy a good Hack 'n Slash.

I'd also like to list some things that annoy me...

-Elf Worshippers. Gods, it bugs me when someone acts like elves are perfect in every way, while humans are unpredictable and destructive, dwarves are greedy recluses, etc. One of the only bad things to come from the LotR movies is that it's spawned a great many elf worshippers.
- People who act like a fighter is a "munchkin" if he uses a creative combination of feats (i.e. great cleave + whirlwind attack), but they don't mind if the wizard casts improved invisibility on himself along with fly, and starts dropping delayed-blast fireballs on everything in sight.
- People who act like WotC are holding a gun to their head and forcing them to buy the 3.5E rules. Just download the SRD, people.

[/ranting]

 

[Kamard]

-People who use drow as a plural, like deer. This includes most D&D game designers and novel authors. Learn fuggin' english, they're drows.

Drow. The plural of which is drow. When I hear the nightly news talk about drow, then its English.

Edit: As for my pet peeves:

"Broken", "got the shaft", "game balance", and "ranger".

 

[Regdar]

Bah enough with the Elf Haters

Bah Iconic is never a bad thing.

 

[Mercule]

-People who think rangers fight with two weapons becase of Drizzt and/or drows. It's not true, get over it, the 2e playtest rules predated The Crystal Shard.
-People who knock rangers at all, for any reason. Read the signature.

Sorry, man, wherever the dual-wield came from, I'm opposed to rangers having it as a core ability. If some decide to take it, that's fine, but not as a core ability of the class.

[B-People who don't like alignment.
-People who don't understand alignment. Lawful != law-abiding, and chaotic != anarchist.[/B]

I'm indifferent to the inclusion of alignments, but the chaotic = nutjob or less good drives me nuts.

BUFFS

Yeah. What he said. Only more emphatically.

Okay, my list:
-Buffs (can't dis it enough)
-Rollplay
-Munchkin
-Iconic


GOOD terms:
-Game balance (this term has been around as long as games for a reason)
-Meta game (you got a better term?)

 

[Zappo]

This has deviated from the "terms" topic, hasn't it? Oh well, it is a good thread for mindless venting.

- People who act like WotC are holding a gun to their head and forcing them to buy the 3.5E rules. Just download the SRD, people.

Me too. Or don't download the SRD at all and stick with 3e.