I've got several terms/acronyms that I feel have been overused in gaming over the past few years.
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.
These two for me...
The only time I would ever say those phrasesis if I was deliberately mocking them...
Leet-speak needs to die. I play lots of mmo's
and fps, but I will sit on a bike without a seat
first then ever utter those words in a serious manner.
Gish.
That refers to a type of githyanki. Period.
(And, no, the lame excuse that "language evolves" doesn't apply when you're simply using a word incorrectly. It's just an excuse to be wrong... not a wise position to take.)
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.
This sounds like a musical. One guy talks while five guys dance behind him singing supportive things while decked out in epic fantasy garb.
"RAW"
Really?
Who wants to write 'Rules as Written' more then once in their life? I love RAW as its just efficient.
"RAW"Really?
Who wants to write 'Rules as Written' more then once in their life? I love RAW as its just efficient.
I hate "Rules as Written", too. It's meaningless. Somehow we're supposed to talk about rules without reading or interpreting them?
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...
I had not caught this one until you mentioned it but that is just too good and, from now on, this is going to be the only way I refer to him.
I hate "Rules as Written", too. It's meaningless. Somehow we're supposed to talk about rules without reading or interpreting them?"RAW"Really?
Who wants to write 'Rules as Written' more then once in their life? I love RAW as its just efficient.
I've always seen it used when discussing rules in which were commonly misinterpreted. The quintessential example was probably the rogue's backstab ability. The number of people that presumed that the bonus only counted for the first attack was extremely large.
You also saw this a lot with spell interpretations because it was something of a technical art. Mainly because you had to divorce yourself from drawing any meaning into the flavour text at the beginning of the spell as that would surprisingly often lead one astray and end up with them thinking the spell worked differently then the rules actually said the spell worked.
In essence I'm arguing that it does have meaning and is in fact appreciated when your correcting the 14th person who has made a logical but flawed assumption regarding how sneak attack works.
I've had about a six year hiatus from gaming, so there's a lot I'm still figuring out, but here's my short list:
1) Most, if not all, 1337 speak. I don't like it in IMs, message boards or in real life. Grr. It's why I don't play MMORPGs.
2) Fluff & Crunch (see above posts for reasons why!)
3) Optimizing/suboptimal/overpowered/underpowered (compared to what? play the character the way you want to, build them the way you want, and tell the story together). The DM isn't out to get the players, the DM's job is to tell a story with the players as their characters are built. I've always said to my players 'build what you want to play, but build them together, I'll make it work.' It's an inherent difference between a Video Game (even an MMORPG) and a pen & paper game. Sure, number-crunching is fun, but it's not the end-all-be-all of the game.
For those that complain that having a weak character follow them around and they have to 'carry the weight,' remember that some of the most beloved fantasy and sci fi stories and characters are about that very concept: The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Terminator, just to name a few.
We're not just playing chess, we're telling a story too. So play!
4) Broken. Fix it to your satisfaction. Someone mentioned 'Heal/Harm' guess what? Those worked the same or similarly for twenty years.
5) Sword and board. Heh. This one is catchy, but ultimately annoying. I used to say back in 1st & 2nd Edition that the game favored Longsword & Shield & Full Plate fighters. Which may have been true. Which was also true in history... Until guns were common. Then not so much. Be grateful that you're playing a game that lets other choices be viable (but not negating the Sword & Shield).
6) Dual-wield. Not sure why, but this one bugs me. I'm a two-weapon man, myself.
7) Nerfed. See above. Plus, the person that writes it sounds silly unless they're actually talking about Nerf brand products. Or herding them. As in 'that nerfherder in the stampede got nerfed.'
I'm sure there's more, (I know there's more) but I get to go home now.
1. AoE: Area of Effect ability. Prominently highlighted in the Leeroy Jenkins video.
An abbreviation, easier than continuously saying 'Area of Effect'. And stop watching that viral video crap, you'll go blind.
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.
TANK... heavily armored, takes a beating and usually hits hard. It can be a Russian tank if you'd like. :D
8. Teh: Seriously, what is wrong with just using proper spelling? Not 1337 enough?!
I'm guilty, though not for using it intentionally, just because I believe my left hand types slightly faster than teh right. Okay, that might've been intentional.
I remember one now.
Underpowered.
I was once told I had to bring something broken to the table in order to play a Healer(the argument was I couldn't nerf myself until I could break something).
If I want to to play something, it doesn't matter if others think it is underpowered.
I'm sorry, this is incorrect. I mean, sure, it doesn't matter if I, some random guy on a message board, thinks something is underpowered. If your DM or fellow party members think that the character you are considering is incapable of being a full contributor to the game, that's a problem, because you're hurting the enjoyment of others.
Remember - this is a collaborative effort. If the power level of your character is detracting from the enjoyment of others, that's when its a problem - and that's true regardless if you're making Superman or Jimmy Olsen.
And from what I've read, the Healer class (at least the one in the Minis Handbook) was so bad that it probably is too weak to contribute meaningfully to a lot of adventuring parties.
That is pretty much the exact opposite of the way I run my games.
I pretty much tell my players "Play what you want. I will -make- it work."
/agree!!
It's the DMs job to make the game fun for all (including himself)
I dislike the following words:
Rouge
Gimp
Optimized
Tier
|
Wow, some of these have given me quite a good laugh, especially the "huge vs. Huge as per the size category" one. This has definitely come up more than once in our gaming group, literally right down to the ROUS/Princess Bride comments. I think, for the most part, our common terms are something to be celebrated, not reviled; they are indicative of the somewhat sprawling gamer culture that has developed in recent years. Gamers use certain language to identify one another, and also to simplify commonly understood terms. Finally, it may seem a bit silly, but I actually take a small amount of joy to know that there are thousands of gaming groups I have never met and never will, but if we were suddenly plopped together, we could share similar stories in a common tongue. I feel a sense of pride for the tenacity and growing pervasiveness of our gamer tribe. Having seemingly brought an unasked-for lovefest to a thread about what we hate, allow me to say the following: I share irritation for many of the terms mentioned, but I feel like I need to clarify my distaste a bit more. While I don't live in constant terror of an Orwellian newspeak nightmare coming to pass, I do believe that words have power to shape our perceptions. While each OMG or LOL is a far cry from another nail in the coffin of intelligent discourse, I feel we should at least be aware of what reality we are helping to create with our choice of language.
Epic - This one gets overused a lot, much to its detriment. I actually rather like the word epic, and feel there are many appropriate applications. Peter Jackson's "The Fellowship of the Ring," or perhaps Blind Guardian's "Battlefield," for instance, though obviously everyone could find something different that has moved or awed them. That is the key element of what is epic, to me. If something is described as epic, then I want there to be a harrowing journey or two, across a vast and treacherous distance. I want love and loss and friendship and betrayal and redemption. Fantastic, superhuman feats are performed, the very thought of which quickens the pulse and dizzies the mind. These feats need not be of strength or skill, necessarily; the power of the human will can at times be quite epic in scope. Legends are told of that which shall be named "epic." So. I don't have a beef with the Epic Level Handbook, per se; the superhuman feats are (literally) present, and upping the power level of a game is not of necessity a bad thing. It's just that "epic" gets slung around everywhere these days, describing wins, fails, and swords that are kinda neat and stuff. I feel like this diminishes the impact the word has, and I do not feel my needs are served by a culture lacking vocabulary to sufficiently convey a sense of admiration for that which is wondrous or awe-inspiring.
Striker, Defender, etc. - In its simplest form, there is nothing wrong with these terms, any more than there is with calling someone a fighter or a wizard.(As long as this mostly takes place out of character - characters themselves somehow knowing exactly what another character's level makeup consists of is a pet peeve of mine.) As was pointed out to me by a fellow gamer just last night, these terms can be quite useful for communicating about strategy and balance within the party, and do address "expectations" that tend to be built into adventure modules in terms of what a party "should" be capable of. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this; in fact, it is the diversity of the plucky group of unlikely heroes that often wins the day where even a much larger, but less dynamic, fighting force, such as an army, cannot. My problems with these terms are as follows: 1.) They place 100% of the focus on combat. Combat is integral to D&D, of this we can make no mistake, but names have power, and by only naming roles as they pertain to the battlefield, we are implying that non-combat roles are so unimportant as to be non-existent. 2.) Saying, "A party consists of a combination of the following roles," can too easily/too often become, "A Party MUST consist of EXACTLY one each of the following roles." I am all for advice, but I greatly resent when "common knowledge" presumes to limit the choices and options available to a group of people who get together to have fun and tell a story together.
"DM Discretion" - This isn't so pseudo-sociologically motivated as my others, one might be relieved to discover. :) This refers to when a player makes, typically, some outlandish claim, is corrected as to how the rule actually works, then barks out, "DM discretion!" like a mantra. The DM, of course, does have final say on what is or is not Law in his or her game, but in order for a game to function in any way resembling printed D&D, we as players must assume it cleaves, in at least a few key ways, to the rules. This is a phrase generally uttered to cover up ignorance of the rules, an attempt at using the DM's ignorance of said rules against him, or some obnoxious combination of the two. If it's a house rule, fine. No big deal. If not, don't try to conceal the problem by implying that someone with a knowledge of basic game mechanics is disrespecting the DM's authority.
I'm sure I'll think of more, but right now I am fatigued. Yes, as per the status condition - is there any other way? ;)
Gish.
That refers to a type of githyanki. Period.
(And, no, the lame excuse that "language evolves" doesn't apply when you're simply using a word incorrectly. It's just an excuse to be wrong... not a wise position to take.)
Except that it has. People have been using the term to mean something beyond its original meaning for several years now, to the point where it does now mean and is regularly recognized as also meaning something new.
Your own annoyance with the issue is only further proof of that - you recognize that it now means something new, and understand what it's referring to. Even if you don't like the fact that it does so.
It may have started out as an inappropriate use, but that has changed in the years since. Sorry if you don't like that but them's the breaks.
Gish.
That refers to a type of githyanki. Period.
(And, no, the lame excuse that "language evolves" doesn't apply when you're simply using a word incorrectly. It's just an excuse to be wrong... not a wise position to take.)
Except that it has. People have been using the term to mean something beyond its original meaning for several years now, to the point where it does now mean and is regularly recognized as also meaning something new.
Really? It has been around that long? I had never seen or heard the term gish even once before seeing it on the message boards here the past couple of months. I did not even know it was related to Githyanki, because I never use them as a DM and almost never encounter them as a player, and I thought it was just some stupid nonsense word someone had made up.
|
|
On the other hand, discussion of optimization is useful to groups of players who all genuinely want to have a good time together and share the spotlight.
+1
Optimizing is a very literal term: make optimal decisions and you've optimized. I wish people would just accept the fact that optimization is just the art of realizing your character concept through game mechanics, instead of lumping it in with powergaming/munchkinizing.
On the other hand, discussion of optimization is useful to groups of players who all genuinely want to have a good time together and share the spotlight.+1
Optimizing is a very literal term: make optimal decisions and you've optimized. I wish people would just accept the fact that optimization is just the art of realizing your character concept through game mechanics, instead of lumping it in with powergaming/munchkinizing.
The reason optimizing gets lumped in with powergaming/etc with me is due to all the asshats that play mmo's, where if you do not follow the accepted guide for making the perfect, optimized whatever, then you are a loser.
So please, the next time your about to call somebody analyzing the mechanics, or looking to employ them effectively, don't attack them for it people.
Then it would be wise to do the analysis without using catchwords or -phrases. To give a generic example: If an analysis starts with "this rule is broken", folks gonna jump on it. If it starts with "there is a problem with this rule IMO, and this is why", it is much less offensive. I don´t say you or the others on your list are posting in an offensive manner, but it may be worth it to think about the wording for a second - after all, you want the readers to consider your opinion or analysis, not to dismiss it out of hand.
Stefan
Then it would be wise to do the analysis without using catchwords or -phrases. To give a generic example: If an analysis starts with "this rule is broken", folks gonna jump on it.Emotional reactions can be useful, though. Like, if a class is a completely unplayable wreck (the only example I can think of is ECS artificer or 4e implement paladin), it's fair to say that it's broken because you're making a strong claim that should rouse strong emotion. You're making a strong claim, and (one hopes) you're also giving it strong support.
Right, if you want a strong reaction, use strong words. Still, "unplayable wreck of a class" is much better than "broken" IMO, because broken is an almost generic term now, and unplayable wreck is a strong image while being more specific than just broken.
Strong reaction can mean a flame war as well, of course, so this is not without risk.Stefan
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
What is 1337?1337 > LEET > ELITE
LEET SPEAK - The not so clever art of using numbers/symbols in place of letters when typing or intentionally mispelling a word. (ex: teh, bai, etc.) Internet slang. LINK LINK2
Thanks, Daniel! I've never seen or heard that term before. Color me ignorant, but I don't know why our existing alphabet needs to be replaced.
Man in Black and other Optimizers,
You have my sincere regrets that my post offended you. Sincerely. It was targeted towards any one on these boards specifically. Literally I was speaking about the term and to some extent the practice. I didn't have any of you specifically in mind when I wrote it. I tend to skip threads with the optimize tag, so I was unaware that any of you specialize in that area.
I can appreciate that you're frustrated, and I suppose I would feel the same way if the situation was reversed. I understand that what you do comes out of seeking better gameplay for you and others. That's a very worthwhile motivation.
Having said that, it doesn't change anything. You're fighting a prejudice and a stereotype. Unfortunately stereotypes often have some small grain of truth to them that inspires them in the first place. That doesn't mean they're accurate; just that the preconcieved idea about a group came from 'somewhere'. In this case, it comes from every person who engaged in a truly negative behavior that came before you. Unfair as it is, you're weighted down by every time a munchkin/powergamer wrecked or disrupted a game, wasted a GM's time, or made it unfun for either the GM or other players.
That's not fair to you at all. Yet I'm being honest enough to say it to your face; that's exactly what is happening here.
Please understand few if any munchkins or powergamers recognize themselves as such. Rather they volunteer that they're anything but. They swear up and down that they're "role-players" not "roll-players". They denounce all munchkins as the bane of RPGs. They do not, and in most cases, can not recognize the behavior in themselves. When confronted, they look baffled and point the rules as if to say, 'The rules don't strictly forbid it, so you know- I thought it would be no big deal.' They say they just want to build an effective character.
So it's hard to hear the counter-arguments from you.
That being said, I get that you want to be given the benefit of the doubt. Sure! No problem. I have no reason not to believe you guys. For what it's worth, I'm sorry. That being said I invite you to try to see it from the other side.
A few specific comments:
The problem is that if you aren't within spitting distance of optimal play, monsters tend to get better than melee really fast, to the point (somewhere between level 10 and 13) where the GM is often fudging to keep from killing people all the time. This isn't the GM ramping up monsters to keep up with the PCs; this is a fire giant with no modifications wrecking badly-optimized melee.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but that has not been my universal experience. You might be more experienced than I in the topic, I don't know. I've got players in that range right now. Last night a giant dropped a player with a lucky critical hit. However, from experience, the players do that to monsters all the time as well. It happens more to the player's benefit than to the monsters.
When you have a player who is intending to overshadow the other players, that player is going to disrupt your game regardless of how they make their character.(You don't need any feats to shout over people.)
True, and I would deal with them accordingly. I hear what you're saying, but I think poor table conduct is another issue and is unrelated, or is only tangentially related. A polite munchkin is still a munchkin.
On the other hand, discussion of optimization is useful to groups of players who all genuinely want to have a good time together and share the spotlight.
I think this gets closer to the heart of the matter. That is, "what does my character have to be able to accompish, in order for me to feel good about the character and have fun."
Using your own words: folks shouldn't need the rules to set a benchmark on all characters in order for them to be able to have fun together. That should come from inside. Likewise, making sure everyone shares the spotlight is also a function of the GM and all the players combined. You're hardwiring the mechanics in order to enforce basic social skills that should have been learned in kindergarten.
Now people aren't all perfect and well adjusted. I realize that too. So I'll grant you that optimization might be a path for people who can't bridge that gap themselves. Not you and the folks on this board, I give you the benefit of the doubt, but rather the other folks that I've encounted.
This will be my last and only reply to this particular discussion. I made it a long one, because I don't plan on revisiting it. I felt you deserved a reply, but ultimately, this isn't going to go anywhere. I've met you as close as I can on the subject and have to trust you to do likewise. Life is short, and I don't want to spend the energy arguing on a messageboard.
For what's worth, I have no problem accepting you and the colleagues you mentioned as being completely sincere.
Yep, what Watcher said. And not to be misunderstood by my comments, generally the person who writes the "guide to optimizing whatever" is a good person and knows what they are doing. But the problem begins when others come along afterward, take over this "perfect" build and decide this is the only way that particular character should be built and then put down or deride others who don't do it "their" way, as if they and the original author are of the same mind on the matter.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Watcher, very nice post. Would that we only had a flag for "Good Example".
--+--+--
I expose myself as a grumpy old coot by admitting that, ten years later, I'm still bothered by the 3rd Edition use of the terms "feat" (a feat is an enedeavor, an extraordinary action; what the 3rd Edition designers mean to say is "talent" or "knack") and "melee" (a melee is a large combat, either two sides or more commonly a free-for-all; what the designers mean to say is "hand-to-hand combat".)
The growing popularity of "melee" as a slang term for a hand-to-hand fighter makes me even grumpier and cootier.
Watcher, very nicely put.
I 'optimize' my character, sure, meaning I aim it toward a specific goal. For instance, I was joining a long-running 3.5 Age of Worms group (jumping in when the characters were 13th level), and played a short-lived wizard. I then noticed a severe deficiency in the party: we had a mobile, fast, furious but ultimately low-damage dealing chain fighter, a cleric that didn't even bother to carry a weapon, a wizard/rogue that never sneak attacked and didn't have any offensive spells and a cohort cleric whose main ability was grappling.
Read: no damage capability.
So, since they were in a jungle, I thought I'd build a barbarian to fill that hole. She had a relatively low AC, but when she hit, she hits hard (her max single damage roll is around 142 points, which I'm not sure is entirely legal... but the DM okayed the feat\class\ability combination). She also takes damage like a fiend, but because of Frenzy and Diehard, she's REALLY hard to kill. And the cleric that doesn't use a weapon? He heals like a fiend. It's handy.
I optimized the character that way, sure. I also had a good backstory, good roleplaying hooks, a reason to be with the other characters, a reason she had the equipment she had, and I drew the character for good measure. She also fit with the party (more than my wizard did), and she fills a few other roles. She's the party's tracker, a hellacious bowmaker, can intimidate fiercely and provides amusing social gaffes (offering the powerful cleric of Pelor minor blood sacrifices because of the obvious strength of his god...). She also provides impetus for a party that seems to want to be led around by their noses...
Anyways, she's optimized but she's more than that. Anytime a character is built it's usually optimized to the player's taste, to the DM's quirks, to the campaign world and to a theme/archetype/style that the player comes up with. It's when optimizers say you HAVE to build to a particular style, or that a particular style is unplayable that bugs me.
A good DM can play to those weaknesses, just as he can occasionally take away those strengths (my barbarian is about to be led into a social/roleplaying/diplomacy adventure, where that holy cold iron greatsword and frenzies probably aren't and advantage, but I will do my best to play her as a curious, somewhat well-traveled and well meaning savage (think Fafhrd meets a Celt berserker/Aztec hunter)).
Also, on the same lines, the ones that eke out every ability become frustrated and sulky when they can't use any of their abilities (especially when it's their fault). A wizard in a recent game I ran irritated some leprechauns and fairies who proceeded to polymorph his clothes into lingerie...they were playing and if the party would have asked nicely, everything would have gone back to normal. Instead, in a fit of sulkiness (it's not my fault he kept botching the DC14 saves), he declares that the wizard is going to strip naked.
So, the leprechauns promptly polymorph, illusion and then hide ALL of his gear. He is naked, after all. This includes his spellbook and spell component pouch, which falls under the category of ALL.
So, he spends the next game sulking (even though he had one of those annoying Complete Mage feats that allow you to keep throwing damage as long as you have a spell of a particular type and level). But toward the end, the naked mage, started breaking out. He started realizing what he could do with his character, even without the spells or equipment. After putting down the inevitable whining ('obviously, when he said he was taking off all of his gear, he didn't mean ALL of his gear!'), I really had to restrain myself from pointing out that they were exploring a wizard's stronghold filled with components and spellbooks... yeesh.
Soon, the party were fighting golems that they were simply (and deliberately) not equipped to deal with (but which could be deactivated by covering them with cloth). The golems were hammering party members right and left, including the cleric NPC, the only source of healing. So the mage, who eventually realized that his firebursts were actually healing the mini iron golems, moved up and punched them.
Punched them? Iron golems? Is he nuts? So, he hurts his hand. But I figured out why he was doing it. He was using up the golem's attacks of opportunity! That way, the grapplers (with much better base attacks) that were trying to cover it could do so with better chances to hit, and not get wailed upon by the golem, or they could run to safety if they needed it. He was also fighting defensively, so that the relatively poor to-hit golems would miss him more often.
So, after stripping the clothes off of a fallen but smaller NPC cleric (two days after he torched a pile of conspicuously well clothed hobgoblins with his feat as he burned a room down around him for fun), the player had a new appreciation for what he could do as a character. It may not have been the smartest thing, it may not have been written on his character sheet, but it was thinking, roleplaying and working as a team.
Wow, this devolved quickly, but suffice to say, if a character isn't optiimized and maxed, it can still be useful, fun and interesting.
After all, with no spells, and one feat that actually helped the golems and hurt his friends, he saved the party.
Usually, when I have a character that can't seem to do much, I start looking at the environment the characters are in, then do my best to confound my DM by using it... It's one of the reasons I like pen'n paper vs. computers.
Long post, sorry. Hope it was amusing and insightful...
Derek, could you point me toward a page where the normally erudite Gygax talks about a fighter character as "a melee"?
I do not see a specific line where Gygax calls a fighter, a melee character, but there are enough mentions of melee in the books to figure that hand-to-hand and melee were interchangeable for him.
From page 104 of the 1st ed PHB under the heading Combat:
This broad heading covers all forms of attack and fighting. It includes clerical turning undead, magical control, spell attacks, breath and gaze weapon attacks, magical device attacks, missile discharge, and melee (hand-to-hand combat).
Also from page 104 in the first paragraph under the heading Melee Combat:
Fighters able to strike more than once during a round will attack once before opponents not able to do so, regardless of initiative, but if fighter and fighter melee, initiative tells.
From page 228 of the 1st ed DMG:
Melee - Combat with hand-held weapons between more than two figures. This is distinguished from list combat, which is between two opponents, and missile (q.v.) combat, which is at a distance and involves thrown or propelled weapons.
Derek, could you point me toward a page where the normally erudite Gygax talks about a fighter character as "a melee"?I do not see a specific line where Gygax calls a fighter, a melee character, but there are enough mentions of melee in the books to figure that hand-to-hand and melee were interchangeable for him.
From page 104 of the 1st ed PHB under the heading Combat:
This broad heading covers all forms of attack and fighting. It includes clerical turning undead, magical control, spell attacks, breath and gaze weapon attacks, magical device attacks, missile discharge, and melee (hand-to-hand combat).
Also from page 104 in the first paragraph under the heading Melee Combat:
Fighters able to strike more than once during a round will attack once before opponents not able to do so, regardless of initiative, but if fighter and fighter melee, initiative tells.
From page 228 of the 1st ed DMG:
Melee - Combat with hand-held weapons between more than two figures. This is distinguished from list combat, which is between two opponents, and missile (q.v.) combat, which is at a distance and involves thrown or propelled weapons.
Wow, this reminds me why second edition was so helpful and then third was even more helpful (though I will always love 1st and 2nd). It's been a long time since I've read those (my players are interested in trying out a 2nd edition game again, just to remember or learn what it's like)...
We should all take melee fighters to mean people that attack groups of diamonds (from dictionary.com):
melee
–noun
a group of diamonds, each weighing less than 0.25 carat.
Origin:
1910–15; orig. uncert.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Melee (or sometimes referred to as "brawl" from the French mêlée) generally refers to disorganized close combat involving a group of fighters. A melee ensues when groups become locked together in combat with no regard to group tactics or fighting as an organized unit; each participant fights as an individual.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I do not see a specific line where Gygax calls a fighter, a melee character, but there are enough mentions of melee in the books to figure that hand-to-hand and melee were interchangeable for him.
Thanks for those, Enevhar. And bless you for that last one.
But I'm objecting mainly to the current fashion, exemplified in the sentence: "If your opponents fly, they can just pass over the poor melees and attack the spellcasters."
Melee - Combat with hand-held weapons between more than two figures. This is distinguished from list combat, which is between two opponents, and missile (q.v.) combat, which is at a distance and involves thrown or propelled weapons.
But I'm objecting mainly to the current fashion, exemplified in the sentence: "If your opponents fly, they can just pass over the poor melees and attack the spellcasters."
I understand that one with the poor grammatical use of the word. Melee and fight are basically the same thing. Add -er to fight and you have a fighter, add -er to melee and you have a really weird looking word that means the same thing. ;)
GISH
Number one right there.
Makes me feel bad for the user of the term.
To tell you the truth RP is loosing most of it's meaning to me too, seen it used to defend "being a jerk" more then anything else.
|
|
[threadjack]
Words.
After reading that, I can't help but feel your overall message was a very heartfelt roundabout way of saying "I claim to accept that you aren't a powergamer/munchkin and actually have very different goals from that particular group, but I will continue to classify you under the same umbrella... simply because... well... anyway, look: I don't hate you, I just hate your kind; I'll not discuss this any longer, good day scum."
Anywho, I wanted to, for the umpteenth time point something out. Here goes:
I think this gets closer to the heart of the matter. That is, "what does my character have to be able to accompish, in order for me to feel good about the character and have fun."
This is the heart and soul of how I optimize. If someone clearly states their character concept then I will endeavor to help them create and develop their character so that they can actually accomplish their goals and enjoy themselves.
A simple, straightforward example: if your concept involves being the best damn rancher the world has ever seen, and that is really what you want your character to be able to do, then there are optimal decisions, and suboptimal decisions. You will never run a successful ranch if you put all your skill points into Linguist, Climb, Acrobatics, and Swim. You need Handle Animal, Profession: Rancher, and Profession: Blacksmith, maybe even Heal. If I tell you as much, please understand: I'm not being pushy/powergaming/being a munchkin, I'm telling the truth; like it or not - if you want X, you cannot acquire it by pursuing Y.
You're hardwiring the mechanics in order to enforce basic social skills that should have been learned in kindergarten.
This statement surprises me, because while the first quote seems to imply that you "get it" - this one implies that you don't. Apply the same logic I use above to anything from diplomacy to swordsmanship to being a champion swimmer, and you have the gist of optimization; absolutely nothing about it involves being a munchkin or wanting to steal the spotlight - that's a personality issue and cannot be appropriately described in someone's preferred character creation/development methods. You need to divorce those ideas, they're nothing alike.
The same goes for Makarnak, who opens up their story with: "I 'optimize' my character, sure, meaning I aim it toward a specific goal." And then goes on to say "Anyways, she's optimized but she's more than that. Anytime a character is built it's usually optimized to the player's taste, to the DM's quirks, to the campaign world and to a theme/archetype/style that the player comes up with. It's when optimizers say you HAVE to build to a particular style, or that a particular style is unplayable that bugs me."
More or less, it makes me wonder if I'm not being clear enough. I don't know how many times I've stated that "optimization is a way to enable your character concept." Nor do I know how many times I'll have to say it before people start hating me/adopting the lingo. I don't know one optimizer on this board who has ever told someone they MUST do "this" or "that" unless it meant the success/failure of a concept - plenty of munchkins and powergamers would, but not an optimizer.
I'm not here to win D&D, I'm here to enjoy it, and I enjoy it far less when the BMX Bandit feels overshadowed by my ability to summon a horde angels, so I do what I can to help him out.
Anywho, that's my 2 gold in on the subject.
[/threadjack]
I'm beginning to hate the term "Optimizer" because it's becoming apparent that most people can't help but associate it with evil maladjusted powergaming munchkins for one reason or another. I suggest we re-name it "People Of Worthwhile Eager Resolve Gladly Aiding Most Everyone Readily."
[threadjack]
The same goes for Makarnak, who opens up their story with: "I 'optimize' my character, sure, meaning I aim it toward a specific goal." And then goes on to say "Anyways, she's optimized but she's more than that. Anytime a character is built it's usually optimized to the player's taste, to the DM's quirks, to the campaign world and to a theme/archetype/style that the player comes up with. It's when optimizers say you HAVE to build to a particular style, or that a particular style is unplayable that bugs me."
I'm sorry if this came out as an attack on you. I've read most (but not all) of the thread, and I was basically wanting to make sure I didn't needlessly overgeneralize. Also, because I genuinely enjoy putting 'game' pieces together in a 'world' setting. When I figured out my thunderous damage trick, I fairly quivered with delight and promptly told many, many folks about it (most of whom didn't play D&D and could care less ;) ).
Probably the way the term is often used rubbed me the wrong way, but it's a perfectly valid PART (and not the be-all) of the game. My post was certainly not aimed at you. Think of me as the loud guy that says something random, but very loudly, in the middle of a party. :)
To be fair, though, I think a slowly built character with diverse capabilities can be just as much fun as one that is deliberately aimed. Maybe more so...
I suggest we re-name it "People Of Worthwhile Eager Resolve Gladly Aiding Most Everyone Readily."
Ahahaha. P.O.W.E.R.G.A.M.E.R.s unite!
|
|
Derek, could you point me toward a page where the normally erudite Gygax talks about a fighter character as "a melee"?
My point was we've (people I've gamed with/chatted with at the FLGS/ or otherwise discussed gaming with) been calling fighters, rangers, thieves, paladins, monks and, after UA was released, cavaliers and barbarians "melee" characters for years. It isn't anything new, at least not to me (or more than a few people who wrote to the old Dragon Magazine "Forum" way back when).
And to be honest, I personally have never seen a character referred to as simply a "melee", I've always seen it as "melee character", meaning someone who hits something with a weapon or hands.
Gygax never specifically called a character a "melee", but he did use the word a zillion times in the DMG, even going so far as pointing out magic users and illusionists had no business being in one, and, presumably, clerics and druids should stick to their weapons while in one.
min/max
optimizer
build
power gamer
suboptimal
optimal
(see a pattern here?)
You can't min/max yourself in real life, so why go overboard with it in a game. Some of it isn't that bad. But, trying to create the perfect 20 level build before you even play the character is just too much.
min/max
optimizer
build
power gamer
suboptimal
optimal
(see a pattern here?)You can't min/max yourself in real life, so why go overboard with it in a game. Some of it isn't that bad. But, trying to create the perfect 20 level build before you even play the character is just too much.
Bad analogy! Most people can and do optimize themselves in real life. They plan, have long term goals, and generally try to do whatever it is that they plan to do to the best of their abilities.
For the most part that is what optimization is all about - coming up with a theme or plan for the character, giving him goals if you will, and then making that character able to realize those goals as optimally as possible.
I'm seeing a lot of people here not listing terms that they dislike, but rather terms for groups of people that they dislike.
min/max
optimizer
build
power gamer
suboptimal
optimal
(see a pattern here?)You can't min/max yourself in real life, so why go overboard with it in a game. Some of it isn't that bad. But, trying to create the perfect 20 level build before you even play the character is just too much.
Bad analogy! Most people can and do optimize themselves in real life. They plan, have long term goals, and generally try to do whatever it is that they plan to do to the best of their abilities.
For the most part that is what optimization is all about - coming up with a theme or plan for the character, giving him goals if you will, and then making that character able to realize those goals as optimally as possible.
I'm seeing a lot of people here not listing terms that they dislike, but rather terms for groups of people that they dislike.
Good analogy for me. YES you work with what you have in life. My point exactly. You may start out optimizing your choices, but you dont get your whole life mapped out in advance. You will make wrong choices. You will make a suboptimal decision. You can't erase it off you 'character sheet' & rebuild.
Good analogy for me. YES you work with what you have in life. My point exactly. You may start out optimizing your choices, but you dont get your whole life mapped out in advance. You will make wrong choices. You will make a suboptimal decision. You can't erase it off you 'character sheet' & rebuild.
Even aside MIB's excellent answer to this, that's what makes gaming fun. It's NOT real life. It's NOT "you're stuck with what you have". It IS "you can be the best you can be", it IS people who are nothing less than superhuman.
|
|
Wow - this was a great thread.
First I'd like to use the old adage: "Ignorance is bliss"
Prior to reading this thread I hadn't ever even heard of a nearly a dozen of these terms - and now I already dislike them after only 30 minutes!
Gish, 1337, trap, pwned (still don't know what the hell that is!) are things I've never come into contact with and knew nothing about.
To keep on topic, the terms I've come to dislike as they pertain to RPGaming are
Pally when you mean Paladin.
Nerf - which is a football I had as a kid.
Build.
Toon - when you mean character - I understand it's reference to the CGI animated character that you portray in a computer game - but it's specifically referencing the "physical appeal of the image" as in "Hey, that's a badass looking toon" To use Toon to reference the abilities and attributes and otherwise the characters info that makes it what it is, is not a toon; that's a character or Player Character (PC). My character is a barbarian, the 'toon' has reddish skin; In the pen and paper world, it's always on paper - not a cartoon image on a screen so it's certainly not a toon that I'm playing.
I can't stand woot either - but I don't think that specific term to gamers.
As for other terms that irritate me: are things like Min/maxer, power-gamer etc - but I'll mirror what others have said - it's not the words themselves, it's the deragotory connotations that many use them for. I am not a fan of "labels" at all, and do not appreciate being labeled or pigeon-holed into any particular category. Sure I can min/max a character, and I can successfully powergame; but I'm also a roleplayer a storyteller, whatever. Most experiences I have with people is that they are not extreme in a particular 'label' instead they have varying levels and variations of many aspects.
Other things worth mentioning from this thread, language does indeed evole and change and words take on new meanings:
Cool and hot are interchangeable now. Good and Bad mean the same thing! Calling something "the sh*t" is now somehow something good - when I was growing up, if you were called that particular name, that said volumes about how much the orator didn't like you.
I loved Courtney's comments. I feel very similar; particularly with the socio-pyschology of the language and terms and their use etc. I too take a measure of satisfaction (if a bit amusingly) that so many can have such a common vernacular that is intrinsic to the hobby. Computer techs share this. Star Trek fans share this. I work in the medical field, and there are medical terms and shorthand medical terminology that no one outside the medical field would understand; yet any two of them from across the continent could speak to one another and understand exactly what they meant.
Especially with regards to "epic". Another word that falls victim to this is 'Evil'. Too many things are "evil" in roleplaying games and are detectable as 'evil' It takes away and minimizes the most basic of all evils unfortunately - the devils, the demons, etc. When Dr. Loomis describes Michael Meyers as "evil", we truly felt a twinge of fear and goosebumps. The word was heavy and had an impact. I feel that is lost simply based on the fact that in any less than utopian dockside tavern you can detect evil and two-thirds of the patrons there have an evil aura about them. '
I agree - though maybe not to it's extreme - with A Man In Black that people who are successful do so because they are optimized in themeselve to attain their goals, and there is nothing inherently wrong with optimizing an idea etc for a player character if you indeed has specific goals in mind to acheive. Since playing an RPG is believed by many that it is a distraction from reality and real life and one would aspire to take on the role of a champion hero who are indeed more super human than any of us could ever be - optimizing is a necessary tool to that end. It's not the ONLY way to have fun with the game - but I don't think theres at all anything wrong with that being an obvious way to have fun if you goal is to play something that is super heroic character - which many many RPGers are playing for that reason. Failing and/or struggling all the time can be frustrating and lead to displeasure thus begging to question why bother play a game meant to be fun and distract one from the real frustrations of the world. I'm not saying it shouldn't be challenging and difficult at times, but it's not fun playing (for many people) if you rarely if ever succeed well enough to enjoy yourself.
Finally:
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.This sounds like a musical. One guy talks while five guys dance behind him singing supportive things while decked out in epic fantasy garb.
I'm not sure if you're just being silly or you really couldn't see a legitimate use of the "aid other" for diplomacer - if it's the latter, then I might wonder if you've ever had kids. If you have.....
Kid 1: "Can we go to the mall today, Daddy?"
Dad: "No. That doesn't sound like fun"
Kid 2: "PLEASE?"
Kid 3: "We'll be good. We promise." (diplomacy score: 15)
Kid 1: "Yeah, we won't touch anything."
Kid 2: "And we won't run around and we won't be loud, and we'll stay right next to you the whole time."
Dad: "I don't know....."
Kid 3: "If we go clean our rooms right now, can we go?"
Kid 1: "Yeah, yeah, we'll clean it up real fast....."
Kid 2: "Please! I'll be the best son in the whole world." (aid other +2)
Kid 1: "And you'll be the best dad in the whole world if you say yes." (aid other +2)
Kid 3: "I have my own money...." (circumanstance bonus!)
Dad: "Okay......"
Kids: "YAY!!!" (and they begin to run around and be loud....)
Robert