
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:Meant older Video Games, where most of the stuff happened in towns or in Dungeons.Guy St-Amant wrote:TriOmegaZero wrote:kyrt-ryder wrote:Can some of you old timers explain the appeal to dungeon delving?Dungeons are more easily defended. Thus people tend to put more interesting things in them.+ you don't have to keep check at (at least) an half-sphere with a radius of seveal miles when in a dungeons, not that it mean Dungeons are less dangerous than open world.
... and something, something, video games.
Given that I'd guess that Table top RPGs have become less focused on dungeons even as video games become more dominant, I doubt there's any connection there.
But even so, the early years of TTRPGs were all dungeons and that was before any computer RPGs. D&D started with "Dungeons", it's even in the name. :)

Nutcase Entertainment |
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:But even so, the early years of TTRPGs were all dungeons and that was before any computer RPGs. D&D started with "Dungeons", it's even in the name. :)thejeff wrote:Meant older Video Games, where most of the stuff happened in towns or in Dungeons.Guy St-Amant wrote:TriOmegaZero wrote:kyrt-ryder wrote:Can some of you old timers explain the appeal to dungeon delving?Dungeons are more easily defended. Thus people tend to put more interesting things in them.+ you don't have to keep check at (at least) an half-sphere with a radius of seveal miles when in a dungeons, not that it mean Dungeons are less dangerous than open world.
... and something, something, video games.
Given that I'd guess that Table top RPGs have become less focused on dungeons even as video games become more dominant, I doubt there's any connection there.
Could partly be why it stayed and why it is "popular".

Quark Blast |
Jiggy wrote:constantly jumping into the negotiations and risking everyone's lives with their insistence on doing equal shares of the talkingIn TV, most conversation is between the central characters, and these interactions define them. In my RPG experience, most conversation is between PCs and NPCs, and the party rarely talk to one another - at least, not while staying in character. Is that normal?
Normal?
No. Decidedly no in my experience (both games I play/ed and observed).
To the extent that I can answer Yes, from direct personal and observational experience, in-character conversations tend to be rather more inane and do not really help the party of PCs actually do anything useful.
YMMV.
Back to the OP.
I find most Gaming Terms to be descriptive and, to that extent, therefore far more useful than annoying. Even the ones with fuzzier definitions.
In any group I've played in I always highly value the Rules Lawyer, even when it's the GM.

Scythia |

Scythia wrote:Tier.
It's not so much the word I dislike as the concept it has been used to represent. I find the idea of tiers both judgmental and needlessly limiting.
To clarify: do you mean that the thing you find judgmental limiting is (a) the actual meaning of the PF tier system, or (b) what it sounds like the tier system means because of the inaccurate use of the term "tier" to name it?
For me, it's the latter: the term "tier" suggests a hierarchy of superiority where the "best" is at the top and everything that isn't Tier 1 is inferior in some way. This is completely contrary to what's actually being modeled by the thing that is called the "tier system" for D&D/PF, leading to lots of needless arguments.
Thus, I too dislike the gaming term "Tier".
It's the second, particularly the numerical assignments that can be and sometimes are seen as assessment of worth.
The limiting part is more of a criticism of the one size fits all nature. In my experiences player and game has as much if not greater impact on a character's utility than class.