I have never heard of imba or toon. What are they referring to?Toon (unless referring to the RPG of the same name).
Imba.
"Trap".
IMBAlanced
Toon is a MMORPG term for character, shortened from Cartoon I've been told.
I've seen the term used prior to MMORPGs though it might well come from CRPGs.
I'm curious - what is it about "Enchanted" that bugs people?
My guess there is that it is too close to the "Enchantment" school of magic which is usually not involved with magic item creation anymore.
There aren't any gaming terms that really are bugging me for themselves, although some of the implied context behind min-max, powergamer, and munchkin as examples can get annoying simply because it is assumes that no one who looks at things mechanically in one part of character building could then come up with great backstory, great character in another part of character creation. The converse, of course, is also aggravating.
Also kudos to Set for his excellent post on this topic and gaming shorthand on page 2.
Adam Daigle wrote:
In many cases, people throwing out “gamer speak” either use the terms wrong, only slightly hit on the full meaning, or lump all kinds of slightly related things to the usage.
There is that. I've seen munchkin, twink, power-gamer, min-max and roll-player all used to slam gamers whose only similarity is that the speaker doesn't like the way they play the game.
To an extent, labels like 'gish' are a useful shorthand, rather than say 'someone who uses magical abilities and / or spells to synergize with moderate melee utility to function as an effective frontline combatant,' but at the other end of the spectrum, there are people who see only the label, and stop using language as a tool, and start becoming tools to the language, who end up missing the point.
Min-maxer, or whatever, shouldn't be seen as a perjorative, but as a simple descriptor, like [Fire] or [Mind-Affecting]. It describes someone who has chosen to spends their characters points in such a way as to pump up the attribute(s) they consider most important to their 'build' (more shorthand for a process of planned character development that doesn't have a word of its own, and would take a sentence to describe), while taking points out of their 'dump stats' (and yet more specialized language, for something for which there isn't a specific English term).
It's no more an anathema to role-playing than it was for Andre the Giant to play a character that had pretty clearly put all of his points into Strength and Constitution and 'dumped' Intelligence in The Princess Bride, but some people see the word 'mix-max' and don't see 'someone who maximizes core abilities at the expense of minimizing others' and instead sees a totally different definition that may or may not have anything to do with the min-maxing player, 'anti-roleplayer who has missed the whole point of the game.'
Short version? The words and terms aren't bad, it's the negative baggage we misattribute to them.
"Trap" - a choice that is "worse" than the "best" choice you could make.
I disagree with this definition. A good feat is a good feat. A 'trap' feat is something like Sunder were you realize that much f the time when you would want to use it you can't because you'll destroy your treasure.
Creative Director
|
Could you elaborate on "a modest proposal", James ? And why do you dislike the word "fluff" so much ? :)
Any comment that begins with someone claiming that they're being modest is invariably NOT someone being modest, in my experience. It's like saying "I take pride in not being prideful." Just say "A proposal" and be done with it.
And I don't like the word "fluff" for two reasons:
1) One definition of the word "fluff" is "entertainment or writing deemed trivial or superficial." I don't see the flavor in an RPG product as being trivial at all. I see it as being the IMPORTANT part of the book or product; rules content is secondary in my opinion to the flavor, since rules are dry and mechanical whereas flavor is art. Calling it fluff makes it sound like you're deriding it and considering it to be close to meaningless and pointless, which I find insulting.
2) Anyone who's played Fallout II or has worked in the porn industry knows what a "fluffer" is, and that doesn't help the situation either.
|
Wait, what do you mean except they're real?
Well, I mean, like, people actually die, and the hellmouth is actually a mouth to hell, and isn't just a huge puppet made of pvc and foam manned by roadies wearing loincloths.
As for the terms "Fluff" and "Crunch": I'm not a fan of them either - honestly, despite the fact that I'm guilty of using the word, I dislike "Flavor" as well. They're all sort of intrinsic aspects of one another, and trying to divide something that operates as a whole into divergent pieces is hardly a good thing in my book, especially when it comes to gaming.
A good real world example: "I'm taking the fluff from L5R, use Warhammer Fantasy RP's crunch, and re-flavoring it into a cyberpunk setting."
Its enough to make me cringe.
|
5: "A modest proposal..."
In that vein, I'm bugged whenever somehow is disagreeing with something and starts out with 'I'm sorry, but...'
No, you're bloody well not sorry. Just disagree, darn it! It's not like disagreeing with someone is actually *hurtful.* You don't have to apologize, and, since the writer just about never means it anyway, it comes off as condescending and prickish.
There's one messageboard I used to frequent where starting a sentence with 'Um' was considered rude and against the code of conduct. I found that amusing at first, but then noticed how often on other messageboards it was exactly the case, with 'Um,' preceding a snotty comment, like, "Um, I'm sorry, but you're crazy/wrong/bad."
Yeah, I don't know how I managed to leave fluff and crunch out of my previous posts. When I see the term fluff, I think the person is referring to all the great info as just filler and only there to fatten the page count. Maybe some people were burned by a few too many bad 3rd Ed books.
I also forgot to add the terms meta-gaming and, while not just gaming oriented, meme.
I'm curious - what is it about "Enchanted" that bugs people?
"Enchantment" is a defined rules term:
Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior.
Weapons and other non-creature type things tend not to have minds.
Ultimately, enchantment was a poor choice of a word to utilize, in this respect, because of the general non-game usage of the word.
The "proper" game term to use, in terms of adding magical properties to an object is "enhancement".
English being what it is, a lot of people utilize a general understanding/definition of "enchant" in the offending way, per 3E game terms.
Oooh! Great post! My nominations, counting down to my MOST HATED gamer term...
9: Crunch
1: Fluff
Way to go on hiring the guy who popularized them.
He's infiltrated Paizo now - what are you going to do about it? I hear he's been quite successful in undermining your control of the goblin hordes...
(Edit: Text doesn't convey the joking/sarcasm - hopefully the second paragraph did!)
|
Creative Director
|
Oooh! Great post! My nominations, counting down to my MOST HATED gamer term...
9: Crunch
1: FluffWay to go on hiring the guy who popularized them.
He's infiltrated Paizo now - what are you going to do about it? I hear he's been quite successful in undermining your control of the goblin hordes...
Which guy is that?
As far as I know, Fluff and Crunch have been around for years...
Oooh! Great post! My nominations, counting down to my MOST HATED gamer term...
9: Crunch
1: FluffWay to go on hiring the guy who popularized them.
He's infiltrated Paizo now - what are you going to do about it? I hear he's been quite successful in undermining your control of the goblin hordes...
Which guy is that?
As far as I know, Fluff and Crunch have been around for years...
I quite enjoyed the story he wrote, and it seems to be one of the earlier utilizations of the terms.
I may be in the minority, but when I saw the terms first used years ago, everyone was referencing this story.
|
|
I quite enjoyed the story he wrote, and it seems to be one of the earlier utilizations of the terms.
I may be in the minority, but when I saw the terms first used years ago, everyone was referencing this story.
I have never before in my life read that, but I feel the need to thank you for introducing me to it. My life is now nearly complete.
It's a good thing he and his fellow elves have such good design chops...
I have never before in my life read that, but I feel the need to thank you for introducing me to it. My life is now nearly complete.
My pleasure! Such awesomeness must be spread far and wide!
6: BrokenThis is a handy term but it's annoying that you need to figure out what the speaker means by it.
Do they mean that the topic or subject is merely overpowering, to the point it overshadows other options? (e.g. Persistent Spell is broken. Natural Spell is broken.) This is a common definition, but I don't see what it has to do with breaking things, and often people conflate it directly with overpowered (which just means "too good"). Almost always you're better off with "overpowered" or "overshadows other options" or whatever, because the game doesn't really stop working because of it.
Do they mean the topic or subject causes basic assumptions of the game to break down? (
e.g. Monks are broken because they are too weak. Etherealness is broken because it subverts any sort of sane adventuring.) This can be overpowered, or it can be underpowered, or it can interact with the game in weird and undesirable ways. Again, this gets some conflation with overpowered, but this is at least a somewhat useful definition.Do they mean that the topic or subject just doesn't work at all? (e.g. The epic diplomacy rules are broken. The Eberron artificer is broken.) Near as I can tell, this is the original and plain-English-language meaning of the word broken, but it lacks the connotations of being overpowered, which, while unfortunate, are also unavoidable.
Broken generally means overpowered to the point of it making or breaking the game. It probably originated with CCG's like Magic, where if a single card could win the game for you it was considered broken and it would either be nerfed or banned outright from tournament play.
And speaking of nerf, that is another one I think is goofy and dumb and I should probably replace it in my previous sentence. ;)
I see it as being the IMPORTANT part of the book or product; rules content is secondary in my opinion to the flavor, since rules are dry and mechanical whereas flavor is art.
To offer an alternate point of view, elegant rules are artistic.
It's just not the most easily understandable artform, that's all. RPG SS 2009 certainly thinks it's up there with flavour as being important to a role-playing game.
YMMV :-)
I agree with Mystic Theurge being somewhat of a trap. I say somewhat because from level 1-7 you are a liability. Once you get to 8+ the choice is more viable
In practice, a (proto-) mystic theurge will only be (slightly) behind the power curve at levels 5-7. The key is to not multiclass until after hitting level 3 in one of the base classes you are using (typically cleric or druid and wizard); that way, levels 1-3 you are a single classed character and level 4 you gain the casting ability in another class instead of a couple extra spell slots. 5th level is where you start to hurt because you don't get 3rd level spells; however, you get 2nd level spells in your other class at 6th. From 8th level on, you are no worse off in two spellcasting disciplines than a sorcerer 6/fighter1/eldritch knight is in one.
Using options like the Magical Knack trait (from the free web enhancement on the Pathfinder RPG Resource Page) can help mitigate the biggest drawback to the mystic theurge: the caster level being 3 less than character level. Granted, you can only improve the caster level in one class by 2 using traits, but you should (IMO) make the choice as to which class you wish to emphasize when developing the character concept in the first place (especially since mystic theurge is a 10 level PrC, which requires character levels 17-20 to be in only one of the typically used base classes if you want 9th level spells).
"Liability" is one of those terms I dislike, since it presumes too much about specific circumstances. Especially since it's usually used in the context of "any character that is not completely optimized for maximum power at all levels is a liability." Any class can be a "liability" under certain circumstances, depending on the choices made for class abilities, skills, feats, spells, weapons, etc. and the conditions encountered during that play session.
One of the problems of the Fickle Die of Diplomacy is that unlike combat, where luck gets munged out over multiple rolls, Diplomacy is a single roll, win or lose on one chuck of the icosohedron.
Which is why the "aid another" action exists. Everyone other than the primary spokesperson can make a DC 10 skill check to add a +2 bonus for each success to the primary character's roll. Granted, you still run into the "natural 1" rule, but there's something to be said for there being no such thing as a sure thing, especially when it comes to social interaction.
CoDzilla. What is this but a way to spend 3-5 rounds buffing yourself and smash the BBEGs head in when he had less than 10hp left? Oh look, a hypothical situation full of special conditions.Maybe you've been talking to Dragonchess Player? The traditional CODzillas put on hour/level buffs along with their socks, then spend one round in combat buffing. Anyone who spends three rounds in combat playing with themself doesn't deserve XP.
Uh-huh.
Just like forcing 1 min/level spells to be cast in combat or ignoring certain 10 min/level buffs aren't "hypothetical situations full of special conditions?" Besides, neither you nor anyone else has shown how the "traditional CoDzilla" (as you define it) is so much more powerful than even a bard (bard/fighter/eldritch knight at higher levels) with a heroism spell cast and a few potions of enlarge person, much less a fighter with level appropriate gear.
Ultimately, enchantment was a poor choice of a word to utilize, in this respect, because of the general non-game usage of the word.
The "proper" game term to use, in terms of adding magical properties to an object is "enhancement".
I always preferred "dweomered." Although "enspelled" or "spell-wrought" could do in a pinch...
Yeah, I don't know how I managed to leave fluff and crunch out of my previous posts. When I see the term fluff, I think the person is referring to all the great info as just filler and only there to fatten the page count. Maybe some people were burned by a few too many bad 3rd Ed books.
I also forgot to add the terms meta-gaming and, while not just gaming oriented, meme.
Yeah, meme is awful. Should really be retired from the language. Trope also. It is a rather technical term from the realms of rhetoric, linguistics, and literature, but it now means nothing because it means everything. How many people who like to show off by tossing it around have any idea what it really means?
|
A good real world example: "I'm taking the fluff from L5R, use Warhammer Fantasy RP's crunch, and re-flavoring it into a cyberpunk setting."Its enough to make me cringe.
See, I understand how James doesn't like "fluff" versus "crunch", because those are clearly loaded terms making value judgments, but I like "flavor" and use it a lot. For instance, I love the flavor of cavalier oaths in the APG preview, but the mechanics aren't working for me. To me, that's a good comment saying this is a concept with some value, but the in-game representation feels clunky.
Then again, I've quite often ripped out rules systems from settings I liked and put another system in there place. For a while, I was using MERPS mechanics in my Greyhawk game, during that time when 2nd Edition seemed to be overly clunky -- so to me the flavor versus rules distinction has always been there.
Any comment that begins with someone claiming that they're being modest is invariably NOT someone being modest, in my experience. It's like saying "I take pride in not being prideful." Just say "A proposal" and be done with it.
Unless you're Jonathan Swift - in which case it's a bona fide classic! Of course, because of Swift, I pretty much always consider any position starting with "A modest proposal..." to be obvious satire and read it accordingly.
See, I understand how James doesn't like "fluff" versus "crunch", because those are clearly loaded terms making value judgments
Says who?
Crunch = mechanics
Fluff = non-mechanics
Where's the value judgement? I'd wager that most people use the terms as such.
I just can't agree with the idea that these words are disparaging to what they refer to. Fluff may have a definition that means this, but it's been hijacked for game terms. Language evolves.
Kinda like "Gish".
Gish rocks.
I wish Gish got used more.
Amen to Brian and Silvercat.
|
|
**raises hand really high** Oh! Oh! oh! I got one...
The vilest term in the gamer lexicon, the term that makes me bare my teeth and froth at the mouth and can drive me into fits of screaming fury ready to throw my monitor out of my 9th floor apartment window... The word that really isn't a word, but an evil, noxious, stinking pox on message boards all over the Internet:
RETCON
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
**raises hand really high** Oh! Oh! oh! I got one...
The vilest term in the gamer lexicon, the term that makes me bare my teeth and froth at the mouth and can drive me into fits of screaming fury ready to throw my monitor out of my 9th floor apartment window... The word that really isn't a word, but an evil, noxious, stinking pox on message boards all over the Internet:
RETCON
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
The actual act of retroactive continuity bothers me far more than the abbreviated form of the term. I can't really get annoyed at that.
Could you elaborate on "a modest proposal", James ? And why do you dislike the word "fluff" so much ? :)Any comment that begins with someone claiming that they're being modest is invariably NOT someone being modest, in my experience. It's like saying "I take pride in not being prideful." Just say "A proposal" and be done with it.
And I don't like the word "fluff" for two reasons:
1) One definition of the word "fluff" is "entertainment or writing deemed trivial or superficial." I don't see the flavor in an RPG product as being trivial at all. I see it as being the IMPORTANT part of the book or product; rules content is secondary in my opinion to the flavor, since rules are dry and mechanical whereas flavor is art. Calling it fluff makes it sound like you're deriding it and considering it to be close to meaningless and pointless, which I find insulting.
2) Anyone who's played Fallout II or has worked in the porn industry knows what a "fluffer" is, and that doesn't help the situation either.
There are many contemporary RPGs where the rules themselves are art - Houses of the Blooded, In a Wicked Age etc etc. They don't have to be dry. There's the problem, if it's approached in that way.
Agree with:
TOON (Character; this one is poplar in 'City of Heroes', I hate it.)
GISH (I'm just really tired of seeing it, play a Bard already.)
BROKEN/OP (overpowered)
CHEESE/OPTIMIZER/MUNCHKIN (despite having used them to get a point across)
Disagree with:
FEAT TAX (Only because they exist... Pointblank & Precise Shot.)
AGGRO (It's simply another term for "having an enemies' attention")
TANK (Everyone knows who it is and what their job entails.)
"RAW"
GISH (I'm just really tired of seeing it, play a Bard already.)PALADIN (Play a fighter/cleric already)
LOL, and I'm currently doing that very suggestion... he's Chaotic Good and worships Gorum. :P
Says who?Crunch = mechanics
Fluff = non-mechanicsWhere's the value judgement? I'd wager that most people use the terms as such.
Crunch inherently has substance (otherwise it wouldn't crunch when you sink your teeth into it).
Fluff does not, heck, it even implies it's superfluous.
I think the only term I really HATE is "nerf" and that moreso usually for the petulant tone it's nearly always expressed in.
Any of the terms can be frustratingly overused in an attempt to sound cool while bragging/complaining. Just kind of depends how much the terminology is used and in what context. "OMG, your gonna nerf ur build if u make a gish, cuz its all level dips and feat taxes," is annoying.
A lot of the terms though are just shorthand terms come up with to shorten typing/reading time. Frex, "Gish," to mean "warrior-mage" doesn't bother me because it's the name of a warrior-mage class and I know what somebody's talking about when they bring it up. But if people don't like it, then they need to come up with another term--warrior mage, etc. typing over and over can get cumbersome, and in Internet tendency to shorten what we type, it's not going to go away otherwise. Also with Internet tendencies, the more it's brought up, even in a complaining tone, the more it will be used.
"Fluff" and "Crunch" never bothered me as terms for "mechanics" and "plot/setting/story/description" because it evoked in my mind a Fluff'n'Crunch Sandwich, a concoction of crunchy peanut butter and marshmallow fluff, two great, if very different, tastes that go great together. Oddly, I never thought of "Fluff" as being dismissive of the descriptive text in an RPG book, though I can understand why someone might. I'm just more heavily swayed by food metaphors.
But if we must need a new term for plot/setting/story/description/all the yummy fun text that takes less time to type than "plot/setting/story/description/all the yummy fun text," then I propose "Chocolate." With mechanics perhaps being "peanut butter"?
Mmmm..... going to go bake cookies now.
CoDzilla. What is this but a way to spend 3-5 rounds buffing yourself and smash the BBEGs head in when he had less than 10hp left? Oh look, a hypothical situation full of special conditions.Maybe you've been talking to Dragonchess Player? The traditional CODzillas put on hour/level buffs along with their socks, then spend one round in combat buffing. Anyone who spends three rounds in combat playing with themself doesn't deserve XP.Uh-huh.
Just like forcing 1 min/level spells to be cast in combat or ignoring certain 10 min/level buffs aren't "hypothetical situations full of special conditions?" Besides, neither you nor anyone else has shown how the "traditional CoDzilla" (as you define it) is so much more powerful than even a bard (bard/fighter/eldritch knight at higher levels) with a heroism spell cast and a few potions of enlarge person, much less a fighter with level appropriate gear.
Even casting a min/level spell means you have an idea the BBEG is nearby. With the persistent or hour/level spells you cast the spells when you wake up, and you are always ready, no buffing needed unless you just want to. That is a lot different than entering combat and wasting time buffing up. If you can't see the difference run a mock fight with a 3.5 buffed up cleric doing fighter-level damage to you bad guy, and have another guy sitting in the corner doing nothing. The guy doing the damage is the all day buffer, and the guy in the corner has not buffed. All the fighter with appropriate level gear can do is fight. A cleric buffed up could fight as well or better, and still had the option of casting spells.
As for the druid I suddenly contracted laziness but you can read this guide. I am the druid guide, 3.5 that is.
PS: Not wanting to derail the thread, that is my last statement on the topic, unless a new thread appears or you can argue the point on BG, where the handbook is located at.
|
|
Frex,
Thank you for using 'frex!' I get a nickel every time someone does that.
"Fluff" and "Crunch" never bothered me as terms for "mechanics" and "plot/setting/story/description" because it evoked in my mind a Fluff'n'Crunch Sandwich, a concoction of crunchy peanut butter and marshmallow fluff, two great, if very different, tastes that go great together.
Similarly, being the happy owner of pretty much every book White Wolf every produced for Mage: the Ascension, Werewolf: the Apocalyse, Vampire: the Requiem and Wraith: the Oblivion (as well as the various Kindred of the East books and at least three different versions of the Mummy book, as well as all of the Trinity, Aberrant and Adventure! books), I'm a huge fan of 'fluff.' WW books have the best fluff ever (and were sometimes lambasted for having some pretty messed-up crunch...), and they built a pretty huge fanbase off of that, for quite some time.
Some people bring baggage to 'fluff' to interpret it as padded page count, other people react equally badly to 'crunch,' as they find the boring dry mechanical stuff to be the least interesting parts of a game book (which makes Bestiaries, almost always 90% crunch to 10% fluff, quite dull for that crowd, compared to a book like Classic Monsters Revisited, which adds in many pages of 'fluff' for each stat-block).
Vividly realized game settings, from Greyhawk to Golarion, are pretty much 'fluff' in action.
Without 'crunchy' rules, we'd just be telling stories to each other and not playing a game. Without 'fluffy' descriptive text, we might as well be playing chess, just focusing on tactics and maneuvers and placement.
I imagine the 'fluff' vs. 'crunch' divide is the same as the 'rollplayer' vs. 'role-player' one, an exagerrated and artificial strawman construct of the nature of internet discourse, since I haven't encountered it at the game table or at conventions.
|
|
2) Anyone who's played Fallout II or has worked in the porn industry knows what a "fluffer" is, and that doesn't help the situation either.
I must ask. Are you in the former or later category?
Also, hating Errata that must an Editor thing. I guess it shows either (a) your game designer(s) need talking too, or (b) you may be human after all... ;)
S.
James just doesn't want the word fluff associated with rich detailed story because then he might end up refered to as an expert fluffer...
Thinking about it, another gaming term(s) I hate is large (and huge, and small, and all the rest). Sense I started DMing again I've probably had more confusion over what size something is due to those terms than anything else at my table.
"you see a huge rat"
"christ! I thought we were in a ten by ten room"
"no...it's huge for a rat..."
"so it's large?"
"uh...no...it's a big rat..."
"medium?"
I try as hard as possible to leave game mechanics out of my discription...but when it comes to size it becomes...complicated. I would much rather have a numbered system for size.
I don't see anything negative about the word crunch (though I rarely use it, normaly I stick with rules...same number of sylables...one less letter...call me Mr. effecient). Though I have always felt the term fluff implied something less than quality writing. I use it alot when I talk about warhammer, largely because I think the story line behind warhammer is...well...lacking quality.
Fluff (negative connotation)
Gish (Refers to a Githyanki not a magic user/fighter)
Sword & Board (catchy but inane)
Striker (lame)
Defender (lame)
Agro (lame)
Controller (lame)
Stormwind fallacy (often overused and incorrectly used)
Strawman (often overused and incorrectly used)
James just doesn't want the word fluff associated with rich detailed story because then he might end up referred to as an expert fluffer...
Thinking about it, another gaming term(s) I hate is large (and huge, and small, and all the rest). Sense I started DMing again I've probably had more confusion over what size something is due to those terms than anything else at my table.
"you see a huge rat"
"christ! I thought we were in a ten by ten room"
"no...it's huge for a rat..."
"so it's large?"
"uh...no...it's a big rat..."
"medium?"I try as hard as possible to leave game mechanics out of my description...but when it comes to size it becomes...complicated. I would much rather have a numbered system for size.
I don't see anything negative about the word crunch (though I rarely use it, normally I stick with rules...same number of syllables...one less letter...call me Mr. efficient). Though I have always felt the term fluff implied something less than quality writing. I use it alot when I talk about warhammer, largely because I think the story line behind warhammer is...well...lacking quality.
I fallen afoul to this cross up too. Game size term vs descriptive size term, sigh.
|
|
Thinking about it, another gaming term(s) I hate is large (and huge, and small, and all the rest). Sense I started DMing again I've probably had more confusion over what size something is due to those terms than anything else at my table.
"you see a huge rat"
"christ! I thought we were in a ten by ten room"
"no...it's huge for a rat..."
"so it's large?"
"uh...no...it's a big rat..."
"medium?"
And then someone describes it as a 'Rodent of Unusual Size,' and the game degenerates into Princess Bride quotes.
Gah.
RAW and optimize or optimization.
RAW didn't start out bothering me, but it's become another way to say "I'm not going to listen to you or consider another point of view."
Optimize.. I guess.. falls into my own prejudice. I dislike munchkinism a great deal. I don't ramp up monsters deliberately to be an extreme challenge, and I don't expect players to do likewise. Optimize strikes me as trying to put a nice face on it, or somehow legitimize it. That might be unfair, and if makes someone angry, I apologize. Its how I feel about it "from the gut".
|
Optimize.. I guess.. falls into my own prejudice. I dislike munchkinism a great deal. I don't ramp up monsters deliberately to be an extreme challenge, and I don't expect players to do likewise. Optimize strikes me as trying to put a nice face on it, or somehow legitimize it. That might be unfair, and if makes someone angry, I apologize. Its how I feel about it "from the gut".
Yeah, I feel the same way.
I've got several terms/acronyms that I feel have been overused in gaming over the past few years.
1. AoE: Area of Effect ability. Prominently highlighted in the Leeroy Jenkins video.
2. JRPG: This one doesn't need an introduction. Lately I've seen this acronym used in a negative light. Having grown up on the Final Fantasy titles around the same time I got into pen and paper RPGs, I'm not sure what everyone's beef is with our Japanese counterparts. I wasn't even aware there was a war of words between Japanese and American console RPG publishers until I heard a comment from Bioware's president this week. Something about the JRPG market is "stagnant" and their games are "too linear."
3. Edition War: Be that between 4th Edition/Pathfinder, JRPGs/Domestic console RPGs, MMORPGs/Pen and Paper RPGs, this has never been in a good light. Too many arguments and flame wars over which games are better.
4. Overpowered/munchkin: Sadly enough, I'm just as guility of overusing these two related terms. Helping convert/create stats for a Legacy of the Force sourcebook for Star Wars d6 hasn't helped me with this habit either.
5. PWNed: I can't actually believe that they're trying to make this into an official word in the English dictionary.
6. Epic Win: I suppose this is an internet/1337-speak term (like PWN), but these two words together are used way, way too much.
7. Brick/Meat Shield: We need something more inventive to explain the ability to absorb damage. How about: Boris the Bullet Dodger? Bent like the Soviet sickle and hard as the hammer that crosses it.
8. Teh: Seriously, what is wrong with just using proper spelling? Not 1337 enough?!
I've got several terms/acronyms that I feel have been overused in gaming over the past few years.
2. JRPG: This one doesn't need an introduction. Lately I've seen this acronym used in a negative light. Having grown up on the Final Fantasy titles around the same time I got into pen and paper RPGs, I'm not sure what everyone's beef is with our Japanese counterparts. I wasn't even aware there was a war of words between Japanese and American console RPG publishers until I heard a comment from Bioware's president this week. Something about the JRPG market is "stagnant" and their games are "too linear."
Hey Sturm. I'm with you wholeheartedly on this one, although I'm a little more embroiled in the war than some. I'm a huge JRPG(mostly JSRPG) fan, and I get called all sorts of negative names for it. It hurts me to hear that Bioware is getting in on this childish war of words/worlds because I truly love their stuff- everything from SW:TCW and on(and before, when they were Black Isle, IIRC). It's unfortunate, but I will keep playing SRW in every and any incarnation and cheer mightly when such games come out stateside. When they don't, I import and I encourage others to do the same.