You hate "munchkin"? Here's the term *I* hate!

[Pielorinho]

First, Katerak, I think labels are useful not so much as a tool for stereotping as they are as a tool for figuring out which folks you want to game with. I know right away that if someone describes their game as hackenslash (or themselves as a dice-jock), I probably will hate playing in their game, and they'd probably hate my being there. The label helps us avoid annoying one another.

With music, I know that I tend to like classical, don't mind jazz, enjoy New Romantic (mostly), and hate almost all heavy metal I've heard. These labels help me choose my music just as game labels help me choose my fellow gamers.

of course, they're not alway accurate, and if a friend of mine tells me there's a heavy metal band I'd like, I'll listen to it. But I'm not gonna give up this useful descriptive tool just because a fellow dork doesn't like me using it.

Daniel

 

[Simon Magalis]

Its worth noting that the term "roll player" has been around ALOT longer than 3E. There weren't nearly as many rules as to how to handle social situations before its release, although there were some. There seems to be the idea here that people who label others "roll players" don't want dice rolled. I doubt this is the case very often at all. Like I said in my original post, everyone I know calls someone a "roll player" when they show up without a character background, name, or any sort of motivation to BE a character except to kill stuff and get powerful weapons, items, etc. The reason they are called ROLL players is not because they roll dice, we all do that, it is because ALL they do is roll dice. I had no idea anyone else thought it meant someone else, and I think my understanding is the one with which most people use the term.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

In my experience 90% of the folks who use the term "roll player" just don't know how to friggin SPELL.

Bunch of loosers.


Wulf

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

As dinkledog alludes to, it is not exactly fair to let a player who is smart and eloquent "bypass" allocating high stats to intelligence and charisma (putting them instead into other statistics) and minimize the effect of this decision by playing the character intelligently and charismatically.

I think I do a fine job (in dinkeldog's campaign) of playing a high INT, avg WIS, low CHA kind of fellow.

Hmm... on the other hand I AM a high INT, avg WIS, low CHA kind of fellow.

Crap. Nevermind.


Wulf

 

[Psychotic Jim]

What is so wrong about roll-playing? I love rolls. They're delicious.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

My opinion is this: whether you classify yourself as "munchkin", "role-player" or "roll-player", it's your business. You've spent the money on the game books, same as I, so you're welcome to run and enjoy your game as you wish. That's your perogative.

However, anyone who joins my game and tries playing like they're in a pen and paper version of Quake will quickly find themselves asked to shape up or leave. That's MY perogative.

 

[Henry]

...However, anyone who joins my game and tries playing like they're in a pen and paper version of Quake will quickly find themselves asked to shape up or leave. That's MY perogative.

And the funny part of it is, I've never MET someone who treats it like that. I've met people who like fighting more than thinking, but then, I've met people like that in real life, too. Those are the kind of people who are nice to have around when the beholder or the Orc Cheiftain won't listen to reason. Their characters still have a name, they still have a background (it doesn't matter whether they bring a character background to the game or not - they WILL have a background when I'm through with them. ) and they still have fun, same as the rest of us.

Have my groups ever had sessions without combat at all? Rarely - but they have happened. Some players like different aspects - but I have NEVER found a player who like only character development, or ONLY puzzling complex plots out, or who likes ONLY combat. There are many sides to playing a hero, and I see more groups who are similar than who are radically different.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

... anyone who joins my game and tries playing like they're in a pen and paper version of Quake will quickly find themselves asked to shape up or leave. That's MY perogative.

These kind of statements amaze me... Consider yourself lucky if you have enthusiastic D&D players to spare enough that you can readily kick them out in favor of the next would-be player in line. I have enough trouble finding people who get excited to play at all!

 

[hong]

First, Katerak, I think labels are useful not so much as a tool for stereotping as they are as a tool for figuring out which folks you want to game with.

... which has nothing to do with posting on teh Intarweb. Labels may be useful in the context of one's own gaming group. They're useless (or close to it) in a public discussion forum, unless one intends to touch off another round in the never-ending flamewars.

This is why I NEVER use terms like "munchkin", "drama queen" or "rollplayer"!!!1!! No, I'm far too polite and self-effacing for that. I think "d*ckhead" is a perfectly workable substitute, and stands less chance of being misunderstood.

 

[Pielorinho]

... which has nothing to do with posting on teh Intarweb. Labels may be useful in the context of one's own gaming group. They're useless (or close to it) in a public discussion forum, unless one intends to touch off another round in the never-ending flamewars.

This is why I NEVER use terms like "munchkin", "drama queen" or "rollplayer"!!!1!! No, I'm far too polite and self-effacing for that. I think "d*ckhead" is a perfectly workable substitute, and stands less chance of being misunderstood.

C'mon, Hong. First, I use "artfag" and "dicejock." I think I have you beat hands-down on the polite and self-effacing front, n'est-ce pas?

But I'll reiterate my point. It's perfectly ridiculous to criticize folks for their playing styles when you're not in their game. I think you and I agree with one another on this, and this is what I started off saying. However, it's useful for me to have terms to describe what sorts of games i like and what sort I don't like, for when I talk to other people.

As for the relevance of my point to the Internet, I've had three different people contact me about playing in my game b/c of the ENBoards; having these terms helped me figure out which ones to go out to coffee with, and which ones to blow off.

My big beef is when someone posts:

In my game last night, the DM sicced a gorgon on us. And then, because it would've killed us 3rd-level characters, he totally nerfed it. Can he do that?

and people respond:

Dude, that totally takes away any accomplishment you would've had by killing the gorgon! If he's gonna cheat like that, why even play with him? Your DM su><ors!

This isn't tournament basketball, folks. DMs don't get disqualified for not following RPGA standards. Similarly, this isn't global politics, where lives depend on discovering the best possible policy to follow.

The only standard for whether you continue playing in a particular game is whether you, and the other people, enjoy your presence there. Arguing otherwise is bizarre and all too often hijacks otherwise interesting threads.

Daniel