Gaming Terms that Annoy You... and why


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

My wife gets really annoyed at the use of the term "gimp" (or "gimped") to refer to weak or underpowered game elements. As such I had to strip that word from my vocabulary for the sake of not creating strife.

I am generally pretty tolerant of various terminology being used at my tables.
However, I generally won't put up with the terms for game mechanics, or phrases related to metagame concepts being used in character. For example, there is no reason for a Dwarven Fighter raised in Golarion to ever call himself a "Meatshield" or a "Tank".
On the other hand I'm generally pretty lenient about the use of game terms that have no better fluffy equivalent. For example I'm not going to get mad at a player if their wizard or cleric refers to "spell levels" or "spell-slots". In my campaigns the spell-casting system is an understood part of the metaphysics of their world. Spell-caster's generally understand that there is such a thing as a "spell-slot" (which are subdivisions of your "magical aura" in terms of narrative). That both spells and "spell-slots" come in different sizes, and that you can fill larger slots with smaller spells, but that you can't fill smaller slots with larger spells, and that you cannot combine smaller slots to form larger slots.

This one is pretty specific to the mechanics of Pathfinder and 3.0/3.5;
Move Actions:
There are lots of these so-called "move actions". Most of them having nothing to do with actual "movement"... And one of them is also called "Move", as if there is some way that isn't going to be confusing to those who read the rules literally.


Sundakan wrote:


Basically what you're saying is you don't like succinct language because you want people to measure up to whatever random standard you have set for whether someone is a "real roleplayer".

It's not other people that are the problem.

Hahaha! Sick burn dude!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shaun wrote:

Upon thinking about this further, it's not MMORPG terms I hate, it's reductive phrasing. I don't like "skill monkey" (agreed that it has a prejorative connotation) or "face" any better than the others. I don't like characters being referred to by their class or race either, for the most part.

I was a huge A-team fan and therefore Love the 'Face' or 'Faceman' term. Faceman was literally the guy on the team who used his wits and charm to acquire whatever they needed for the mission. He used everything from diplomacy, Charisma, bluff... whatever he had, and came back with the car, plane, warehouse... whatever they needed.

I had never heard it used in a gaming setting until these boards... but man I jumped on it when I did!! It just fits too perfectly.

I also enjoy monkeys... so if I can attach 'monkey' on to something, I usually will... Meatshields and murderhobos??? I find the imagery just hilarious. When we're at the beach playing Frisbee and someone is carrying a baby... and therefore we can't throw to her... We've turned it into a 'meat-buckler'.

I think there are people who have had bad experiences with the terms... but there isn't anything wrong with these terms in themselves. Healbot can be insulting, if you mean it to be insulting... but we also have a player who loves being the healer and truly embraces the Healbot term with gusto.

Adam Daigle wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
Haladir wrote:


To call world-lore "fluff" dismisses it as unimportant, especially when constrasted with "crunch" for game mechanics. And to me, the opposite is true.

I am very much a narrativist role-playing gamer. When I game, the story is what the game is about. The rules/game mechanics exist purely to serve the story.

I see where you're coming from... and I've seen James Jacobs say the same thing... but I don't really agree with the sentiment.

The world Lore is one of the main driving points of the game... absolutely. However, of the entire game system... it really IS dismissable and unimportant.

Before I get tackled and beat on... I just want to clarify.

<snip>

I see where you're coming from too, but what you're describing as 'world lore' is what I'd call "Setting." I also totally agree with you that that's one of the first things that GMs, players, and groups tinker with. Heck, there's even an enlightening thread here on the boards about Making Golarion "Yours". (Which is fascinating as a contributor and creator.)

Where "fluff" comes into play most often it's used is in a smaller factor than overall setting. It's bits and pieces that help contextualize everything. The descriptive text for a monster in a bestiary, for example, is what I, and many, call flavor text. (Instead of "fluff" I much prefer the word "flavor.") From that flavor, you know that goblins are maniacal pyromaniacs and that blue dragons are schemers. Much of what people call "fluff" is also what is what the vast majority of the people who play Pathfinder use to guide decisions in making adventures and adopting character concepts. That said, we've always said that people should change and adapt things to suit their own style of play and their particular group and preferred setting, but the fact is that at the core of things, flavor text, or "fluff" drives much of the creativity of individual games, even if individual players make a conscious decision to change it.

I'm totally not trying to be confrontational, by the way. I just wanted to point out what I saw as a difference between setting and flavor text. Settings are less assumed overall than individual pieces of flavor text.

I agree. I'm not trying to be confrontational either. There are a lot of viewpoints and a lot of perspectives out there. Myself, I have a hard time separating Flavor text and Setting. To me, flavor text are little specific things in bestiaries or world/race books that describe things not governed by the 'rules'... Setting is a WHOLE bunch of those flavor texts put together.

One of the first things I do when I start playing in a new world... is try to get as much of the flavor or lore or whatever as I can, so that my characters who have lived here forever... can act like they've lived here forever.

But there are always things that we change or don't work for us. My DM hates catfolk... Goblins don't NEED to be Pyromaniacs, (though I can't figure out why people would NOT have them be ;) ) Personally, I dislike everything about Calistra and finding out she's a massive god to the elves I've loved in other settings... was not something I go with.

None of these things actually change the mechanics though. A blue dragon who isn't a schemer...still has the same stat block. Flavor is wonderful and helps shape a world... but it's also optional. There are lots of things that can be changed, adapted, or ignored before Golarion doesn't FEEL like Golarion.

And again, I think a lot of the issues that cause people's problems are that they all have different definitions and experiences with these words.

Of the ones I don't care for...

I really dislike 'toon'. I had never even heard that one before... but apparentely it comes from an MMO describing the visual character you have on the screen....

Which is exactly the opposite of what tabletop RPG is. There is no animation... it is not a 'toon'.

I'm also not a fan of name calling and insults. If someone describes adventurers ass Murderhobos... I find the idea funny. If someone says You're nothing but a murderhobo, you're an idiot who's playing wrong....

Well... that's a differnet story. It's not the term... it's the attitude.

Liberty's Edge

I agree with pretty much all the things mentioned in this thread!

Pally, barb, gish, boss, meat shield, healbot, skill monkey etc all make me absolutely bat-crap crazy!

Something I don't think I've seen mentioned yet, but it really annoys the bejeezus out of me ... actually saying things like HP, AC, or XP in conversation! It's one thing to use the abbreviations in a stat block, but dear lord use the actual term when speaking!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Stormwind Fallacy....mostly because I know the discussion following after is going to be laborious and annoying.

Falling (within the context of classes losing power) because of the same reasons as above.

I am not familiar with this Stormwind Fallacy.

The basics of the Stromwind Fallacy deal with the idea that optimized characters are inherently bad for role playing and/or that non-optimized characters are better for role-playing. Which gets turned into "you're a bad role player if you optimize".

I will add, MMO speak really bothers me, though it's been mentioned before I thought of it. But the term "toon" realllllyyyyyy bothers me. I also dislike the concept of "tank" since it simply doesn't work in Pathfinder (at least how people think of it in the context of an MMO).

Paizo Employee Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the main thing that riles up or annoys people when it comes to using terms is whether the poster or reader is familiar with those terms. These moments are where conversations can go astray.

There're a lot of groups and people that use certain terms that might not be obvious to other groups or players, and encountering them in a way that seems ubiquitous can be jarring or might feel exclusive.

I just want other folks who encounter them to know that there are even some widely-used terms that are confusing, inaccurate, or just plain wrong to the folks who make this game. Don't feel like the terminology is keeping you from enjoying the game. And I hope when you ask your fellow players for clarification that they are cool and give you a fair and legit answer.

Not everyone comes from the same place (or has American English as their first language) so I'd hope that people have some tolerance for certain terms that pop up in the usual RPG discussions.


Claxon wrote:
The basics of the Stromwind Fallacy deal with the idea that optimized characters are inherently bad for role playing and/or that non-optimized characters are better for role-playing. Which gets turned into "you're a bad role player if you optimize".

The Stormwind Fallacy is a rebuttal for an argument never made. It is however a correct observation that an obsession on min-maxing does have a impact on roleplaying decisions.


I once had a copy of Exalted 2nd Edition, and I was reading the whole thing through, but when I got past the world lore and into the rules of the game, I found myself getting bogged down and that usually doesn't happen to me. Later, I realized what was happening. It was happening at several instances, but the one that still jumps out at me most is this:

"clinch"

Exalted was using that word to mean "holding or grappling" as a specific term. Along with other uncommon words as stand-ins for other actions in the game. It seemed like Exalted had taken a lot of care to come up with specific terms for in-game elements that wouldn't be replicated in general conversation (like how Paizo cannot now talk about hunters or arcanists without specifying whether they're referring to the classes or just a person who hunts or casts arcane spells). The trouble is, those terms are actually very reaching and, I found, do not naturally map to what Exalted was using them for. So my problem was that I was basically running two different translations in my head to try and parse out what the game meant. "The game says 'clinch' which means this specific action or condition in-game which is their way of talking about grappling or wrestling." And it just never clicked for me, so I kept getting bogged down while reading the book. It seemed like they were acknowledging the necessity of being precise in one's rules-language but going too far away from ease-of-use in their efforts to achieve that precision.

So, yeah, "clinch". Absolutely hate it as a gaming term.


Seems like there is a certain degree of agreement here. :)

The misuse of 'Gish' has probably been my number one annoyance.

What I like to call The 'Stormwind Fallacy' Fallacy is another: any time someone comments that they want to avoid some mechanical element or optimization trick for flavor reasons the chances are some idiot is going to start screaming "STORMWIND FALLACYYY!!!!!!!!".

The use of MMO terms in table-top is another. There is a set of people who seem locked into this way of thinking about games and in some cases want to use these terms in games where it doesn't make much (or any) sense.


Tacticslion wrote:

Using, "to hit bonus" instead of, "attack bonus" - I said I'm sorry!

I know, I know - it's just kind of part of the gaming culture, but it's so incredibly off-sounding.

Me, reading a conversation wrote:

Person A's post: "What is the 'to hit bonus' in that situation?"

Me reading, silently: It's "attack bonus" - literally in the rules, that's what it's called - just say, "attack bonus," that's all I'm asking, just say...

Person B's post: "Your 'to hit' would be a +12."

Me reading, silently: ... daggummit.

It not even shorter - 'to hit' is five letters and a space (six characters total), while 'attack' is six letters (still six characters total).

It flows awkwardly in English conversational structure.

It doesn't even make sense within it's own wording.

I love you all so dearly, but daggum, for some reason that is completely unfathomable this structure hangs on and thrives through conversation.

I mean, even saying, "bonus to hit <subject>" flows better, but it's so consistently, "'to hit' bonus" (or "'to hit' value") in so many conversations that it's just... it's weird.

Joana wrote:

You can tell who's a grognard by that. In the AD&D rules, it was literally called a "to hit" bonus, quotation marks included.* I mean, you're free not to like it, but if you really don't know where it came from, that's where. :)

** spoiler omitted **

I know where it came from.

It was always terrible to me, even when I was playing the game. So awkward.

I find it funny, though, that my dislike is being used as a, "You lack con."

Sundakan wrote:

It's not just a grognard thing. I've only been playing TRPGs since late 2011.

It just makes more sense as a term. Additionally, the word "attack" is used in like 4 different contexts in Pathfinder's rules. People gripe about how "level" and "level" get confused too much but the overuse of the word "attack" in the rules with no indicator as to which context it means when so many are so dadgum close to each other brings me great pain.

So sorry Tacticslion, but I'ma keep using to-hit instead of attack.

Hey, as I said: you do you, dude. My frustration is my own. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I must admit that I use the phrase "to hit bonus" pretty much whever I play an RPG in the D&D family...


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Pokes Tacticslion with a THAC0 stick.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
90 Year Old Beggar with a Cane wrote:
Pokes Tacticslion with a THAC0 stick.

HEY! YOU LET THAT POOR THING DIE IN PEACE! >:(


Refering to any creature, monster, NPC, or walking Hit point stack as a "Mob".

Oh so annoying.


(THAC0 never actually bothered me as much, because it was an actual reference to something that didn't otherwise exist. But I'm glad we're done with it, now.)

EDIT: made this into its own comment for better flow.


Haladir wrote:
I must admit that I use the phrase "to hit bonus" pretty much whever I play an RPG in the D&D family...

My presumption is that it's a convenient habit.

That makes sense.

I've just never liked it.

EDIT: You guys are cool, though. :)


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The basics of the Stromwind Fallacy deal with the idea that optimized characters are inherently bad for role playing and/or that non-optimized characters are better for role-playing. Which gets turned into "you're a bad role player if you optimize".
The Stormwind Fallacy is a rebuttal for an argument never made. It is however a correct observation that an obsession on min-maxing does have a impact on roleplaying decisions.

Only to the extent that game options are terribly unbalanced. It would be wonderful if all of my role playing ideas had a strong mechanic to represent them. Bringing bad characters to a game simply isn't an option for some tables.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hate the term "Minis" "Boss" "Gish" "Grognards" "Munchkins".....I could go on for hours with this list. I miss the years when everything was simple, no acronyms, no computer oriented video game terms, players and DM's were not so lazy as to abbreviate things in conversation. Give me the early 80's gaming feel back and I will be happy.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
In my ideal gaming experience, the rules/mechanics are basically the laws of physics of the setting. Thus, every rule I read informs me about the setting, because that's how things work in that world. For me, the rules and the world are synthesized into a cohesive whole. If the mechanics tell me that a dagger will never kill a high-level character in a single hit, then don't accuse me of metagaming when my character, who lives in a world where a dagger can't one-shot an experienced adventurer, is suspicious of the dagger-assassination of a high-level character. Or from the other direction, if you're going to try to tell a story in which a thief could sneak into a powerful character's room at night and lethally slit his throat, do not then tell me that daggers' mechanics are such that that wouldn't be possible.

For me the mechanics are the abstraction of the story... not the story itself. And BTW, there are many ways that a dagger CAN one-shot even a mighty adventurer. They just require one of many possible mechanics in play... or the blessing of something that mechanics does not touch. (Marvel's classic In-Betweener from the original Adam Warlock series is a perfect example of such a character)

Story events are the core of the world... Not all of them boil down to player-accessible mechanics.

I'm... really curious what you think I was getting at. Parts of your reply are framed like a rebuttal, but don't contradict me. Could you summarize what you took me to be saying, so I can clear up any misunderstandings? Thanks.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

deusvult wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
The above is a decent example of what I was talking about.
Actually, you're not giving yourself enough credit. I did indeed see your referenced post. I didn't quote you but I was indeed responding directly to it. (Apologies for any confusion on failing to quote-wasn't trying to imply your view was without value by contradicting it). I felt a countering/divergent opinion had its place, coupled with an explanation.

Huh. I had no idea it was a reply to me; I just saw a post and thought "Oh hey, that's basically what I was talking about earlier." And since I was bored at the time, I said so.

Quote:
I'd have thought someone espousing the virtues of playstyle relativism wouldn't be absolutist in one's own view ;)

How does citing an example on a given topic mean that my view is absolutist?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:

I agree with pretty much all the things mentioned in this thread!

Pally, barb, gish, boss, meat shield, healbot, skill monkey etc all make me absolutely bat-crap crazy!

Something I don't think I've seen mentioned yet, but it really annoys the bejeezus out of me ... actually saying things like HP, AC, or XP in conversation! It's one thing to use the abbreviations in a stat block, but dear lord use the actual term when speaking!

[sarcasm] Wouldn't that be statistics block, not stat block then if we want to use actual terms?


Even 'block' is slang.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I hate the term "dead levels."

I first heard about this in an old WotC article which set out to "fix" this problem.

For those who don't want to read through that page, "dead levels" are levels in a class progression where you don't gain a new class ability (or an improvement of an existing ability). Note that spellcasting classes gaining new spells (or even spell levels) are still considered to be "dead levels" if there isn't a separate class ability given as well.

I absolutely can't stand this, since even aside from the sense of entitlement (e.g. the idea that there "should" be some new class ability at every single level), I hate how it reinforces the meta-game involved in D&D/Pathfinder. I much prefer to have the focus be kept on what the characters accomplish, not what abilities they have.


Alzrius wrote:

I hate the term "dead levels."

I first heard about this in an old WotC article which set out to "fix" this problem.

For those who don't want to read through that page, "dead levels" are levels in a class progression where you don't gain a new class ability (or an improvement of an existing ability). Note that spellcasting classes gaining new spells (or even spell levels) are still considered to be "dead levels" if there isn't a separate class ability given as well.

I absolutely can't stand this, since even aside from the sense of entitlement (e.g. the idea that there "should" be some new class ability at every single level), I hate how it reinforces the meta-game involved in D&D/Pathfinder. I much prefer to have the focus be kept on what the characters accomplish, not what abilities they have.

The problem for a lot of classes what they can accomplish is tied to what abilities they have.


Talonhawke wrote:
Alzrius wrote:

I hate the term "dead levels."

I first heard about this in an old WotC article which set out to "fix" this problem.

For those who don't want to read through that page, "dead levels" are levels in a class progression where you don't gain a new class ability (or an improvement of an existing ability). Note that spellcasting classes gaining new spells (or even spell levels) are still considered to be "dead levels" if there isn't a separate class ability given as well.

I absolutely can't stand this, since even aside from the sense of entitlement (e.g. the idea that there "should" be some new class ability at every single level), I hate how it reinforces the meta-game involved in D&D/Pathfinder. I much prefer to have the focus be kept on what the characters accomplish, not what abilities they have.

The problem for a lot of classes what they can accomplish is tied to what abilities they have.

This.

It's kind of why the classes exist in this game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I hate the term "Minis" "Boss" "Gish" "Grognards" "Munchkins".....I could go on for hours with this list. I miss the years when everything was simple, no acronyms, no computer oriented video game terms, players and DM's were not so lazy as to abbreviate things in conversation. Give me the early 80's gaming feel back and I will be happy.

I like the term Grognard and wear it proudly.

I hate the term "Murderhobo". First it started as a dig at D&D type games,a way of saying "well, the RP games we play are soooo much more sophisticated then you D&D knuckledraggers with your murderhobos." Next, I wont play with anyone like that, but happily I have seen it only a couple of times. Oddly the last time was with a 5th Ed games, with three testosterone laden immature lads, who literally would kill anything- such as a old hermit by the road offering advice.

"Toon" to me means characters with nothing invested in them emotionally or backstory wise, just a set of states, often with names liek "Knuckles the 34th". I wont play with those guys either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The basics of the Stromwind Fallacy deal with the idea that optimized characters are inherently bad for role playing and/or that non-optimized characters are better for role-playing. Which gets turned into "you're a bad role player if you optimize".
The Stormwind Fallacy is a rebuttal for an argument never made. It is however a correct observation that an obsession on min-maxing does have a impact on roleplaying decisions.
Only to the extent that game options are terribly unbalanced. It would be wonderful if all of my role playing ideas had a strong mechanic to represent them. Bringing bad characters to a game simply isn't an option for some tables.

This is the WindStorm fallacy" ie any character not optimized to the max is a "bad character".

Just about everytime I have seen "Stormwind fallacy" trotted out as a rebuttal, it is a attempt to rebut a claim that wasnt made.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I miss the years when ... players and DM's were not so lazy as to abbreviate things in conversation. Give me the early 80's gaming feel back and I will be happy.

Would that be a "lazy" abbreviation for the early 1980s?

;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

This is the WindStorm fallacy" ie any character not optimized to the max is a "bad character".

Just about everytime I have seen "Stormwind fallacy" trotted out as a rebuttal, it is a attempt to rebut a claim that wasnt made.

The irony/hypocrisy (I can't decide which term is more precise) in this pair of statements is truly mind-boggling.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*facepalm*


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I hate the term "Windstorm Fallacy" because whenever it's brought up, the discussion has a very high tendency to turn into a flamewar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
I hate the term "Windstorm Fallacy" because whenever it's brought up, the discussion has a very high tendency to turn into a flamewar.

Thats kind of like assuming that because firefighters are often corelated with fires that they're the source of the flames.


I just want to be known as a Dungeons & Dragons player,


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The basics of the Stromwind Fallacy deal with the idea that optimized characters are inherently bad for role playing and/or that non-optimized characters are better for role-playing. Which gets turned into "you're a bad role player if you optimize".
The Stormwind Fallacy is a rebuttal for an argument never made. It is however a correct observation that an obsession on min-maxing does have a impact on roleplaying decisions.

So you claim the argument is never made and then make the exact argument in the exact same post?


Alzrius wrote:

I hate the term "dead levels."

I first heard about this in an old WotC article which set out to "fix" this problem.

For those who don't want to read through that page, "dead levels" are levels in a class progression where you don't gain a new class ability (or an improvement of an existing ability). Note that spellcasting classes gaining new spells (or even spell levels) are still considered to be "dead levels" if there isn't a separate class ability given as well.

I absolutely can't stand this, since even aside from the sense of entitlement (e.g. the idea that there "should" be some new class ability at every single level), I hate how it reinforces the meta-game involved in D&D/Pathfinder. I much prefer to have the focus be kept on what the characters accomplish, not what abilities they have.

The reason people don't like "dead levels" is the same reason people don't like boring Christmas gifts. Experience is typically one of the rewards for success at events in the game. Experience is then used to unlock new levels. A "dead level" is kind of like getting a pair of socks for Christmas. Except they aren't even new socks, your grandma just went into your room, took some old socks, wrapped them and gave them back to you. Again.

The thought is that advancement becomes more interesting when you actually get something. Sometimes they're just new socks, but hey, at least they're socks you didn't already have.

The reward system of D&D isn't new or novel, it's been there since before it was called D&D. You're essentially railing against the evolution and improvements in understanding of a subsystem that has been present for the entirety of gaming.

BTW: there are games that don't use levels and don't include advancement. I can recommend some if this is a huge issue.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Skill monkey" has never sat right with me, and this thread has finally clarified why. Sometimes in my professional life, people ask me for things in a disrespectful way, and I want to yell at them "I AM NOT YOUR DATA MONKEY!" I do not do so, partly because these people outrank me and partly because I realize, yes, I am their data monkey. But this is not something I want to be. So while I love being skill support (Investigators 4eva!), I don't want to be the skill monkey.

I do call paladins pallies, though, and I love the term "murderhobo."

Sovereign Court

I don't mind grognard, either. I too embrace it as a badge of honor to reclaim the word (and it WAS a badge of honor in original use anyway).

Murderhobo doesn't particularly bother me either... to me using the term is more of a criticism of the way d20 rules predicate character capability on the loot they've accumulated than it is criticising player behavior in greedily grabbing every loose bit of magic not nailed down secured with Sovereign Glue. You can't blame people for doing what the rules incentivize doing.

I've even used another word for it that's caught on with my players.. "Greyhawking" is shorthand for searching the dead for valuables. "Let's Greyhawk up these prisoners." To the DM: "We Greyhawk the room." When I get to play, I even get some occasional enjoyment out of stating that my character is searching the "pockets" of slain monsters like snakes and swarms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:

You can't blame people for doing what the rules incentivize doing.

I've even used another word for it that's caught on with my players.. "Greyhawking" is shorthand for searching the dead for valuables. "Let's Greyhawk up these prisoners." To the DM: "We Greyhawk the room." When I get to play, I even get some occasional enjoyment out of stating that my character is searching the "pockets" of slain monsters like snakes and swarms.

Looting the dead after battles has been going on since Og killed Ugg with his club, and looted his fur loincloth.

And "murderhobo" has to do with killing everything and everybody that isnt obviously more useful alive. Not looting.

Sovereign Court

DrDeth wrote:
deusvult wrote:

You can't blame people for doing what the rules incentivize doing.

I've even used another word for it that's caught on with my players.. "Greyhawking" is shorthand for searching the dead for valuables. "Let's Greyhawk up these prisoners." To the DM: "We Greyhawk the room." When I get to play, I even get some occasional enjoyment out of stating that my character is searching the "pockets" of slain monsters like snakes and swarms.

Looting the dead after battles has been going on since Og killed Ugg with his club, and looted his fur loincloth.

And "murderhobo" has to do with killing everything and everybody that isnt obviously more useful alive. Not looting.

You can say what you think Murderhobo means. I can say Murderhobo means killing people to take their stuff. Since it's a made up word, we can agree to disagree or try in vain to prove the other wrong. I'll go with the former.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Since it's a made up word, we can agree to disagree or try in vain to prove the other wrong.

Do you know what "murder" means? Do you know what "hobo" means?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
I can say Murderhobo means killing people to take their stuff.

You could, but you didn't. Your previous post was completely focused on theft/loot, not on violence in particular. Had you indeed "[said] Murderhobo means killing people to take their stuff," you probably wouldn't have gotten the reply you did.


Video game terms and slang, acronyms, and abbreviating class names like "Pally", "Sorc", "Barb", etc. Those make me grind my teeth flat.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also hate using the word 'damage' as a unit of measuring wounds. When someone says "you take 15 damage" it annoys the bejeezus out of me. Damage is an abstract term not a specific unit of measurement. It's "you take 15 hit points of damage." A hit point is a specific unit of measurement.

Using the phrase health when it should be hit points also annoys me. Your character has a certain number of hit points. He doesn't a certain amount of health.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

RAW. Nuff said.


Irontruth wrote:
Alzrius wrote:

I hate the term "dead levels."

I first heard about this in an old WotC article which set out to "fix" this problem.

For those who don't want to read through that page, "dead levels" are levels in a class progression where you don't gain a new class ability (or an improvement of an existing ability). Note that spellcasting classes gaining new spells (or even spell levels) are still considered to be "dead levels" if there isn't a separate class ability given as well.

I absolutely can't stand this, since even aside from the sense of entitlement (e.g. the idea that there "should" be some new class ability at every single level), I hate how it reinforces the meta-game involved in D&D/Pathfinder. I much prefer to have the focus be kept on what the characters accomplish, not what abilities they have.

The reason people don't like "dead levels" is the same reason people don't like boring Christmas gifts. Experience is typically one of the rewards for success at events in the game. Experience is then used to unlock new levels. A "dead level" is kind of like getting a pair of socks for Christmas. Except they aren't even new socks, your grandma just went into your room, took some old socks, wrapped them and gave them back to you. Again.

The thought is that advancement becomes more interesting when you actually get something. Sometimes they're just new socks, but hey, at least they're socks you didn't already have.

The reward system of D&D isn't new or novel, it's been there since before it was called D&D. You're essentially railing against the evolution and improvements in understanding of a subsystem that has been present for the entirety of gaming.

BTW: there are games that don't use levels and don't include advancement. I can recommend some if this is a huge issue.

I regularly ask for socks for Christmas. They are quite useful.

To contribute to the actual discussion, this would bother me if it were the player getting upset because they didn't have the ability or power they want yet. If someone mentions it casually, more as a matter if fact, I don't have a problem similarly, if someone mentions to me that they received socks for Christmas, that's cool. If you're upset and expressing such sentiments in regards to receiving socks (instead of X), then I'll probably just ignore you.


What terms annoy me? Fluff as stated in the first couple posts (and basically the reasons why).

Shorthanding class names. Pally (or pallies, which is 1 letter short from paladins), barb, sorc, shammy (shaman, shammy is 1 letter short from shaman), etc.

deusvult gave me a new one that instantly annoyed me: using Greyhawk as a verb. (nothing against deusvult).

@Marc Radle: I usually say "15 points of damage". "15 damage" sounds weird to me.

And "murderhobo" is the term used for characters who slaughter everything in sight when it serves to purpose to them. They murder with no second thought and then move on to the next place to murder everyone in sight (hence the hobo part because they typically don't have a home and wander the country slaughtering everything in their path).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is only one term which somewhat annoys me - 'thief' for rogue. We are in the 21st century now, and rogues can do more than thieves of ancient editions.

The prize for the weirdest term goes to THAC0. Not only it's strange mechanics (get it lower to hit better), but it also reads to me like taco - a Mexican snack. AB is way more handy.


"squishy" used for a character with low HP and/or poor defenses. "Help, im squishy!!!!" /rolls eyes


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

On the flip side, if, as GM, anyone complains about being "squishy" I know who to aim for. :-)


Haladir wrote:

Fluff for non-rules world lore.

This one annoys the stuffing out of me.

The actual, real-world meaning of "fluff" (when not pertaining to something physically fluffy, like a kitten's fur) is "Something of no consequence" or "a mistake or blunder; especially an actor's memory lapse when delivering lines."

To call world-lore "fluff" dismisses it as unimportant, especially when constrasted with "crunch" for game mechanics. And to me, the opposite is true.

I am very much a narrativist role-playing gamer. When I game, the story is what the game is about. The rules/game mechanics exist purely to serve the story...

Well, that's might be why it end up being called "Fluff", the disconnections between those info/lore and the mechanics/rules.

51 to 100 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Gaming Terms that Annoy You... and why All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.