New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 46 of 46
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Âmesang's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    41°6'53N, 73°24'21W

    d20 Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Quote Originally Posted by Debatra View Post
    Wait, aliens??? I thought this game was in a fantasy/medieval setting!
    Of course it is! They're ancient aliens!

    Quote Originally Posted by nyjastul69 View Post
    Huntsman vs Ranger? Ranger vs Huntsman? I see absolutely no difference. Why would a Wizard call themselves anything else?
    If I remember correctly, the wizards and sorcerers of the Empire of Netheril from FORGOTTEN REALMS® primarily referred to themselves as 'arcanists' …and, to your average Joe Schmo, there's no intrinsic difference between the two; they both cast the same kind of spells, often the same spells, in the same basic method (verbal and somatic components). There's no physical means of identifying a spell that was cast after being "prepared" as opposed to a spell that was cast "spontaneously" (aside from the extra time for spontaneous metamagic, but perhaps the caster merely took his time or didn't want to move).

    There's a difference in how each readies his spells, but that's typically done away from most prying eyes, anyway, and last I checked a wizard only needs his spellbook for preparation, not the actual casting… so what I'm saying is I can imagine both casters being grouped together under a similar title by most folk who don't know the finer details: wizards, sorcerers, arcanists, mages, magicians, witches, &c. (It gets really bad when you toss in DRAGONLANCE'S® "Wizards of High Sorcerery." )

    Granted, one of the reasons that archmage is my favorite prestige class is not only for what it can do but because of its name, as well; I'd be quite disappointed if my spellcaster couldn't call herself as such because it was a "class term" (at least until she picked up Epic Spellcasting and began calling herself a "Mage of Power").

    …in an almost reverse of the situation, I've been permitted to play as a drow "anti" paladin/rogue multiclass in 5th Edition and, since I'm alternating between levels, I simply wrote "blackguard" on her character sheet and have referred to her as such (that, and as a "Fang of Lolth").

    Actually this might be a good opportunity to bring back the "level names" from 1st Edition, such as the fighter being a "veteran, warrior, swordsman, hero, swashbuckler, myrmidan, champion, superhero," and finally a "lord."
    3e5e : Quintessa's Dweomerdrain (Drain power from a magic item to fuel your spells)
    3e │ 5e : Quintessa's Dweomershield (Protect target from the full effects of a magic item)
    3e │ 5e : Hordling Generator (Edit "cr=" in the address bar to adjust the Challenge Rating)
    3e │ 5e : Battle Sorcerer Tables (For Unearthed Arcana)

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Antonio.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Hmm. I recall thoughts I had about what class names make sense a while back. I tend to draw some lines, but I wouldn't do this what your DM is doing. Spellcaster is an IC term in my games, since spells are clearly defined things in a world.

    (I'm using Pathfinder classes because that's what I play)
    Core
    Barbarian- Could be used to describe any martial-type from the wilderness. Berserker could also be used.
    Bard- Denotes a specific profession and a style of magic. Perfectly fine in-character, though minstrel works as well.
    Cleric- Perfectly fine for any spellcasting clergyman. Fine in-character. Priest, preacher and the like also work.
    Druid- What ELSE do you call a druid? It's an in-character designation as well as a class.
    Fighter- Can be used to describe any martial-type, but this is one I'd personally shy away from, except maybe in certain circumstances ("He's a pretty good fighter, where did he train?"), and use the term 'warrior' instead. So more like current use of the word fighter in modern vernacular.
    Monk- Could be used to both describe the secluded religious-types, as well as orders of martial artists. So, if someone was mechanically a PoW Stalker using Broken Blade and acted the part, he would be called a monk.
    Paladin- I admit I'm pretty uptight about this in my games: somebody called a paladin in-character is, for all intents and purposes, a paladin class-wise (or else they are lying). While someone could be in a paladin order and not have paladin levels, I'd have them not actually have the title of paladin. The paladin could also be called a variety of generic words for martial fighter-types.
    Ranger- I don't use them often, but when I do, it's typically a static job position in the wilderness surrounding a civilized settlement. You can call yourself a ranger, but NPCs will get the impression you were a ranger somewhere. The exception is a campaign where there was a military organization called the Rangers. Hunter could be used if they use a bow, though archer would be more common.
    Rogue- Eh, this is a little more on the OOC side for me. Though it is fun watching players try to specify their expertise, that's half the fun of it. "I'm not a thief, I just have... roguish specialties."
    Sorcerer- Any arcane caster could be called a 'mage' in my games, but sorcerers have a specific method of casting, drawing from their bloodlines. Depending on how learned someone is, they might refer to any mage as a sorcerer, like someone may call a physician a 'doc' instead of something specific, like a proctologist or something.
    Wizard- Same as above: certain method of casting means it's an in-character designation open to interpretation. Any mage with a book of spells might be referred to as one, however.

    Advanced Player's Guide
    Alchemist- In-character term, though it can be used for for anyone that primarily uses alchemy, rather than just the magic-infused variation that the class uses. 'Chemist', 'madman', or 'crazy scientist' may also apply.
    Cavalier- OOC term, unless the specific order is of cavaliers (in which case it's just any mounted warrior). Knights, riders, cavalry all work.
    Inquisitor- IC term. Somewhat like the case of paladin above, but a little more loose. It's a title, most often filled by those of the inquisitor class, though the term may be different for certain religions. They may have a different position, as well, like preacher or priest.
    Oracle- A bit hazy. The word could be used for any seer, but those in the know might refer to cursed divine casters as oracles. They could also be called a shaman or priest.
    Summoner- Anyone that summons creatures using magic. Those bound to an eidolon are again sometimes called summoners by people with training, though 'mages' again rules the day.
    Witch- Definitely an IC term, though any mage that stores spells in a familiar might be called one politely, or it could be a hostile term for anyone that uses magic. An unlearned commoner could refer to any weird magic as witchcraft, while a learned person might refer to anyone that gets their magic from a patron or a focusing on curses as a witch.

    Base Classes
    Gunslinger- IC term to describe any warrior that uses firearms (they tend to be a bit more common in my games), though it's a rare term. Definitely denotes some style, not just someone who carries a flintlock.
    Magus- I prefer it as an OOC term. In-character, one might be referred to as a warrior mage or, more commonly, a spellsword. Generic warrior terms are also sometimes used.
    Vigilante- Would be used as a term for anyone that takes the law into their own hands. The class could be called by anything, thought some of the archetype names might be used (a warlock that uses magic might be called a warlock in addition to being called a mage, etc, a serial killer would definitely be called a serial killer, though that is definitely not a unique term).

    Advanced Class Guide (AKA where it gets tricky)
    Arcanist- Unlikely to be called one, but it is a discipline of magic where someone with magic in their blood channels it towards study. Just calling them a mage is sufficient, thought the word 'arcanist' would be used to describe any arcane caster.
    Bloodrager- Pretty much an OOC term, but I could see it being used as a term of self-identification. Preferably shouted. An obscure form of magic, but them being called berserkers is also likely.
    Brawler- Just a word, OOC term. In a barfight, everyone's a brawler. Same terms as most other martials, though calling them a boxer is not out of the question.
    Hunter- Like the magus, I don't like a hunter being called a hunter IC. Unless of course he's referring to it as a profession. I can't think of any names that really apply; they aren't druidic enough to be called druids, though I can see myself houseruling that to just make them called druids (they share the alignment restriction, but not the armor and the language).
    Investigator- The class would be called anything an alchemist could be called if they are blatant about alchemy, and IC the term 'investigator' would be a job title. Investigators are rather good at doing it, though.
    Shaman- Could be used IC, since their magic is unique (divine magic gained through spirits would be called shamanism), though the term could also be applied to any primitive divine caster.
    Skald- An IC-term used by viking-types used for their storytellers. Very often used by actual skalds.
    Slayer- OOC term. The word could of course be used.
    Swashbuckler- A term more noting a type of lifestyle, I guess. I could see it being used to describe anyone that fits the bill, an extravagant warrior.
    Warpriest- Could be used for any martial-oriented member of a clergy, though again, warpriests being called warpriests is pretty common.

    Hybrid Classes
    Antipaladin- Somewhat like the Paladin up above, though I see it having more 'internal' use. 'Overlord' comes forth as a fun word to use.
    Ninja- IC term to describe anyone with ninja training from a ninja clan. I don't mind the ninjas, can't imagine why.
    Samurai- A specific class of warrior that serves a lord in a Japanese-inspired setting; a fighter could be called one, and someone with the samurai class could be called something else. I've seen a Bushi Stalker also called one.

    Occult Adventures (Phew!)
    Kineticist- Yeah, I like the term OOC, but it's even a bit too modern for my tastes. "____mancers" would be the most common term applied to them.
    Medium- Occupational term that can be applied to anyone that professionally channels spirits, but the Medium could be called that IC and I wouldn't raise a fuss, since they will almost always be channeling one.
    Mesmerist- Like most of the other caster classes, it could be used as an IC designation. Can't really think of many good names to describe them otherwise, except perhaps 'psychic' and 'mentalist' for any psychic class.
    Occultist- Pretty flatly an OOC term, though I can see it again being used as a way to designate what form of magic they practice.
    Psychic- Called such by people referring to the casting method. Could just be called a mage or a mentalist.
    Spiritualist- Used by people designating someone with a phantom, but more often they would actually be called a medium.

    It gets really hazy with 3rd party classes, like some of Dreamscarred Press' output (I don't use psionics for the most part, so I'll just go over PoW and Akashic stuff)
    Harbinger- OOC term. They might be called a 'fell warrior' IC, though that's more of something you might hear from a survivor of their attacks than a title.
    Mystic- Sometimes used as an IC term to describe them, depending on how educated in magic the describer would be. 'Magical warrior' might be used instead, 'spellsword' to somebody that couldn't tell the difference between a supernatural maneuver and a spell.
    Stalker- OOC term, though again it could be used to describe somebody that stalks. Assassin would be a frequent IC term.
    Warder- OOC term, again. If somebody is called a warder, it would probably be used to describe someone putting up magical wards.
    Warlord- OOC term, used frequently to describe people who IRL would be described as warlords, who of course could have Warlord levels.
    Zealot- Never seen the class in play, and it's a fringe cases, since I don't really like Psionics, but I like the class. Definitely would not be called a zealot in description to what they do, but would be if they act like, well, a zealot.
    Daevic- Like most other magic classes, this would be an IC designation to describe someone that has a bond with a Daeva.
    Guru- Could describe someone with guru levels, depending on how they act and what they do. They could also be called monks.
    Vizier- Definitely a designation, though many other generic mage terms would be used. The word 'vizier' would of course be used to denote the actual position.
    Last edited by Ninjaxenomorph; 2016-09-25 at 12:32 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Zanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Quote Originally Posted by Âmesang View Post
    If I remember correctly, the wizards and sorcerers of the Empire of Netheril from FORGOTTEN REALMS® primarily referred to themselves as 'arcanists' …and, to your average Joe Schmo, there's no intrinsic difference between the two; they both cast the same kind of spells, often the same spells, in the same basic method (verbal and somatic components). There's no physical means of identifying a spell that was cast after being "prepared" as opposed to a spell that was cast "spontaneously" (aside from the extra time for spontaneous metamagic, but perhaps the caster merely took his time or didn't want to move).
    The arcanists of Netheril called themselves arcanists because that's what they were. They literally had a unique class that was called Arcanist. It doesn't exist anymore because their spellcasting paradigm no longer functions under the new magic rules created by Mystra after the Fall.

    In the 3.5 Faerun lore, Joe Schmo might not know the difference, but the magical community at large certainly does. Many arcane colleges only accept Wizards, and there's many cases of them looking down their noses at Sorcerers.
    If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Lord_Gareth's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaxenomorph View Post
    Hmm. I recall thoughts I had about what class names make sense a while back. I tend to draw some lines, but I wouldn't do this what your DM is doing. Spellcaster is an IC term in my games, since spells are clearly defined things in a world.

    (I'm using Pathfinder classes because that's what I play)
    Core
    Barbarian- Could be used to describe any martial-type from the wilderness. Berserker could also be used.
    Bard- Denotes a specific profession and a style of magic. Perfectly fine in-character, though minstrel works as well.
    Cleric- Perfectly fine for any spellcasting clergyman. Fine in-character. Priest, preacher and the like also work.
    Druid- What ELSE do you call a druid? It's an in-character designation as well as a class.
    Fighter- Can be used to describe any martial-type, but this is one I'd personally shy away from, except maybe in certain circumstances ("He's a pretty good fighter, where did he train?"), and use the term 'warrior' instead. So more like current use of the word fighter in modern vernacular.
    Monk- Could be used to both describe the secluded religious-types, as well as orders of martial artists. So, if someone was mechanically a PoW Stalker using Broken Blade and acted the part, he would be called a monk.
    Paladin- I admit I'm pretty uptight about this in my games: somebody called a paladin in-character is, for all intents and purposes, a paladin class-wise (or else they are lying). While someone could be in a paladin order and not have paladin levels, I'd have them not actually have the title of paladin. The paladin could also be called a variety of generic words for martial fighter-types.
    Ranger- I don't use them often, but when I do, it's typically a static job position in the wilderness surrounding a civilized settlement. You can call yourself a ranger, but NPCs will get the impression you were a ranger somewhere. The exception is a campaign where there was a military organization called the Rangers. Hunter could be used if they use a bow, though archer would be more common.
    Rogue- Eh, this is a little more on the OOC side for me. Though it is fun watching players try to specify their expertise, that's half the fun of it. "I'm not a thief, I just have... roguish specialties."
    Sorcerer- Any arcane caster could be called a 'mage' in my games, but sorcerers have a specific method of casting, drawing from their bloodlines. Depending on how learned someone is, they might refer to any mage as a sorcerer, like someone may call a physician a 'doc' instead of something specific, like a proctologist or something.
    Wizard- Same as above: certain method of casting means it's an in-character designation open to interpretation. Any mage with a book of spells might be referred to as one, however.

    Advanced Player's Guide
    Alchemist- In-character term, though it can be used for for anyone that primarily uses alchemy, rather than just the magic-infused variation that the class uses. 'Chemist', 'madman', or 'crazy scientist' may also apply.
    Cavalier- OOC term, unless the specific order is of cavaliers (in which case it's just any mounted warrior). Knights, riders, cavalry all work.
    Inquisitor- IC term. Somewhat like the case of paladin above, but a little more loose. It's a title, most often filled by those of the inquisitor class, though the term may be different for certain religions. They may have a different position, as well, like preacher or priest.
    Oracle- A bit hazy. The word could be used for any seer, but those in the know might refer to cursed divine casters as oracles. They could also be called a shaman or priest.
    Summoner- Anyone that summons creatures using magic. Those bound to an eidolon are again sometimes called summoners by people with training, though 'mages' again rules the day.
    Witch- Definitely an IC term, though any mage that stores spells in a familiar might be called one politely, or it could be a hostile term for anyone that uses magic. An unlearned commoner could refer to any weird magic as witchcraft, while a learned person might refer to anyone that gets their magic from a patron or a focusing on curses as a witch.

    Base Classes
    Gunslinger- IC term to describe any warrior that uses firearms (they tend to be a bit more common in my games), though it's a rare term. Definitely denotes some style, not just someone who carries a flintlock.
    Magus- I prefer it as an OOC term. In-character, one might be referred to as a warrior mage or, more commonly, a spellsword. Generic warrior terms are also sometimes used.
    Vigilante- Would be used as a term for anyone that takes the law into their own hands. The class could be called by anything, thought some of the archetype names might be used (a warlock that uses magic might be called a warlock in addition to being called a mage, etc, a serial killer would definitely be called a serial killer, though that is definitely not a unique term).

    Advanced Class Guide (AKA where it gets tricky)
    Arcanist- Unlikely to be called one, but it is a discipline of magic where someone with magic in their blood channels it towards study. Just calling them a mage is sufficient, thought the word 'arcanist' would be used to describe any arcane caster.
    Bloodrager- Pretty much an OOC term, but I could see it being used as a term of self-identification. Preferably shouted. An obscure form of magic, but them being called berserkers is also likely.
    Brawler- Just a word, OOC term. In a barfight, everyone's a brawler. Same terms as most other martials, though calling them a boxer is not out of the question.
    Hunter- Like the magus, I don't like a hunter being called a hunter IC. Unless of course he's referring to it as a profession. I can't think of any names that really apply; they aren't druidic enough to be called druids, though I can see myself houseruling that to just make them called druids (they share the alignment restriction, but not the armor and the language).
    Investigator- The class would be called anything an alchemist could be called if they are blatant about alchemy, and IC the term 'investigator' would be a job title. Investigators are rather good at doing it, though.
    Shaman- Could be used IC, since their magic is unique (divine magic gained through spirits would be called shamanism), though the term could also be applied to any primitive divine caster.
    Skald- An IC-term used by viking-types used for their storytellers. Very often used by actual skalds.
    Slayer- OOC term. The word could of course be used.
    Swashbuckler- A term more noting a type of lifestyle, I guess. I could see it being used to describe anyone that fits the bill, an extravagant warrior.
    Warpriest- Could be used for any martial-oriented member of a clergy, though again, warpriests being called warpriests is pretty common.

    Hybrid Classes
    Antipaladin- Somewhat like the Paladin up above, though I see it having more 'internal' use. 'Overlord' comes forth as a fun word to use.
    Ninja- IC term to describe anyone with ninja training from a ninja clan. I don't mind the ninjas, can't imagine why.
    Samurai- A specific class of warrior that serves a lord in a Japanese-inspired setting; a fighter could be called one, and someone with the samurai class could be called something else. I've seen a Bushi Stalker also called one.

    Occult Adventures (Phew!)
    Kineticist- Yeah, I like the term OOC, but it's even a bit too modern for my tastes. "____mancers" would be the most common term applied to them.
    Medium- Occupational term that can be applied to anyone that professionally channels spirits, but the Medium could be called that IC and I wouldn't raise a fuss, since they will almost always be channeling one.
    Mesmerist- Like most of the other caster classes, it could be used as an IC designation. Can't really think of many good names to describe them otherwise, except perhaps 'psychic' and 'mentalist' for any psychic class.
    Occultist- Pretty flatly an OOC term, though I can see it again being used as a way to designate what form of magic they practice.
    Psychic- Called such by people referring to the casting method. Could just be called a mage or a mentalist.
    Spiritualist- Used by people designating someone with a phantom, but more often they would actually be called a medium.

    It gets really hazy with 3rd party classes, like some of Dreamscarred Press' output (I don't use psionics for the most part, so I'll just go over PoW and Akashic stuff)
    Harbinger- OOC term. They might be called a 'fell warrior' IC, though that's more of something you might hear from a survivor of their attacks than a title.
    Mystic- Sometimes used as an IC term to describe them, depending on how educated in magic the describer would be. 'Magical warrior' might be used instead, 'spellsword' to somebody that couldn't tell the difference between a supernatural maneuver and a spell.
    Stalker- OOC term, though again it could be used to describe somebody that stalks. Assassin would be a frequent IC term.
    Warder- OOC term, again. If somebody is called a warder, it would probably be used to describe someone putting up magical wards.
    Warlord- OOC term, used frequently to describe people who IRL would be described as warlords, who of course could have Warlord levels.
    Zealot- Never seen the class in play, and it's a fringe cases, since I don't really like Psionics, but I like the class. Definitely would not be called a zealot in description to what they do, but would be if they act like, well, a zealot.
    Daevic- Like most other magic classes, this would be an IC designation to describe someone that has a bond with a Daeva.
    Guru- Could describe someone with guru levels, depending on how they act and what they do. They could also be called monks.
    Vizier- Definitely a designation, though many other generic mage terms would be used. The word 'vizier' would of course be used to denote the actual position.
    This is in no way an objection, but I'd like to know why Harbinger is on your list of OOC titles.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chilingsworth View Post
    Wow! Not only was that awesome, I think I actually kinda understand Archeron now. If all the "intermediate" outer planes got that kind of treatment, I doubt there would be anywhere near as many critics of their utility.
    My extended homebrew sig

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Antonio.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    I guess someone could be described as a harbinger, but my immediate reaction would be "Harbinger of what?" It just isn't something I personally would leap to. If I was watching one in action without knowing the class, a character I was running would probably call it something like 'curseblade' or 'soul claimer' or the like. If I had to name the class without knowing, I might choose 'reaver' or something.
    Last edited by Ninjaxenomorph; 2016-09-25 at 03:13 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Quote Originally Posted by Vizzerdrix View Post
    Thats a mighty fine Stormwind Fallacy ya got there. Ain't seen one that big in months.
    Isn't the Stormwind Fallacy when someone argues there is a strict delineation between 'role'players and 'roll'players, and that the two are a strict dichotomy, rather than acknowleding that these are two unlinked values? I mean, there patently are people who only care about mechanics and people who only care about RP (I have friends in both campa) but there are also people who care about both to various degrees.

    Also, out of curioisity, are you aware of the fallacy fallacy?
    Baruk Khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!

    My Homebrew:
    Spoiler
    Show

    The Clanhold Warden - Dwarf Racial Archetype for Dreamscarred Press' Warder
    Glorious Thunder - The God's own wrath as a Paladin's ranged option.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Zanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Quote Originally Posted by Sayt View Post
    Isn't the Stormwind Fallacy when someone argues there is a strict delineation between 'role'players and 'roll'players, and that the two are a strict dichotomy, rather than acknowleding that these are two unlinked values? I mean, there patently are people who only care about mechanics and people who only care about RP (I have friends in both campa) but there are also people who care about both to various degrees.
    Yes, and in the post Vizzerdrix quoted, the poster argued that only "roll"players care about mechanical game terms, and only exist to ruin the "role"play. The Stormwind Fallacy makes the argument that the values are either unrelated or at least not strongly correlated. A person can be good at both, neither, or either.

    Also, out of curioisity, are you aware of the fallacy fallacy?
    The Stormwind fallacy is not a classical logical fallacy of argument, but rather a way to address the (rather tiresome) argument that people who care about having mechanically effective characters can not also be good roleplayers.
    Last edited by Zanos; 2016-09-25 at 04:54 PM.
    If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    EDIT: Nvm, I think I just managed to confuse the hell out of myself. Zanos said it way better.
    Last edited by Name1; 2016-09-25 at 05:06 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Antonio.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Also, I'm confused about the OP's mention of golems. Did you identify it beforehand? Because I'm perfectly okay with not saying a monster's name if people haven't identified it, but if something is obviously a golem (the players have figured it out OOC because it looks like a golem, acts like a golem, has immunity like a golem, etc), I'm not going to another term unless there is a more specific one (if a wax golem is made up like a giant doll, I'm going to call it a giant doll even if players identify it as a wax golem).

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Fair enough, it seemed to me that Darth Ultron was saying that there exists a subset of players who care only about mechanics, and that game words are a problem for them, not that mechanics players only care about mechanics, but I might a read that wrong.
    Baruk Khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!

    My Homebrew:
    Spoiler
    Show

    The Clanhold Warden - Dwarf Racial Archetype for Dreamscarred Press' Warder
    Glorious Thunder - The God's own wrath as a Paladin's ranged option.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Snow-blind's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Quote Originally Posted by Sayt View Post
    Fair enough, it seemed to me that Darth Ultron was saying that there exists a subset of players who care only about mechanics, and that game words are a problem for them, not that mechanics players only care about mechanics, but I might a read that wrong.
    *Ahem*
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    ...
    The 'game words' is a big problem for a lot of players, [b]specifically[b] the optimizing roll players.
    ...
    In light of the above, I don't know how you could interpret the post any way other than "if you have a big problem with using game words, you are almost certainly a disruptive rollplaying min-maxing munchkin". The part of that where he linked being terrible at roleplay with being good at mechanics and then declared that a large segment of the gaming population has that behavior is where Stormwind implicitly comes in. The fallacy isn't explicitly there, but it is hard to justify such a sweeping generalized declaration of player behavior without invoking it.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lincoln, RI
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Quote Originally Posted by Âmesang View Post
    Of course it is! They're ancient aliens!


    If I remember correctly, the wizards and sorcerers of the Empire of Netheril from FORGOTTEN REALMS® primarily referred to themselves as 'arcanists' …and, to your average Joe Schmo, there's no intrinsic difference between the two; they both cast the same kind of spells, often the same spells, in the same basic method (verbal and somatic components). There's no physical means of identifying a spell that was cast after being "prepared" as opposed to a spell that was cast "spontaneously" (aside from the extra time for spontaneous metamagic, but perhaps the caster merely took his time or didn't want to move).

    There's a difference in how each readies his spells, but that's typically done away from most prying eyes, anyway, and last I checked a wizard only needs his spellbook for preparation, not the actual casting… so what I'm saying is I can imagine both casters being grouped together under a similar title by most folk who don't know the finer details: wizards, sorcerers, arcanists, mages, magicians, witches, &c. (It gets really bad when you toss in DRAGONLANCE'S® "Wizards of High Sorcerery." )

    Granted, one of the reasons that archmage is my favorite prestige class is not only for what it can do but because of its name, as well; I'd be quite disappointed if my spellcaster couldn't call herself as such because it was a "class term" (at least until she picked up Epic Spellcasting and began calling herself a "Mage of Power").

    …in an almost reverse of the situation, I've been permitted to play as a drow "anti" paladin/rogue multiclass in 5th Edition and, since I'm alternating between levels, I simply wrote "blackguard" on her character sheet and have referred to her as such (that, and as a "Fang of Lolth").

    Actually this might be a good opportunity to bring back the "level names" from 1st Edition, such as the fighter being a "veteran, warrior, swordsman, hero, swashbuckler, myrmidan, champion, superhero," and finally a "lord."
    I'm going to assume you are correct on your FR setting lore. I know your GH knowledge is excellent. It's better than mine. That said, I assumed the obvious was just that. Sorcerer or Wizard or Druid or whatever won't seem different to those whom cannot make or whom fail their check. But yeah, what you said.
    Last edited by nyjastul69; 2016-09-25 at 09:47 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Âmesang's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    41°6'53N, 73°24'21W

    d20 Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Honestly Zanos' comment made me re-research what I said (at least with regards to Netheril: Empire of Magic), and although it does claim that 'arcanist' is "Netheril's name for a wizard" (p.5), the effective stats of the class (p.18) appear, to me, akin to the "spell points" variant from 3rd Edition's Unearthed Arcana; each arcanist also specialized in either "inventives," "mentalisms," or "variations" (see "Netherese arcanist" from Player's Guide to Faerûn; there was no "generalist" arcanist).

    …however if an arcanist failed to learn a spell, he failed to learn it forever. Eep.
    3e5e : Quintessa's Dweomerdrain (Drain power from a magic item to fuel your spells)
    3e │ 5e : Quintessa's Dweomershield (Protect target from the full effects of a magic item)
    3e │ 5e : Hordling Generator (Edit "cr=" in the address bar to adjust the Challenge Rating)
    3e │ 5e : Battle Sorcerer Tables (For Unearthed Arcana)

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Darth Ultron's penchant for the Stormwind Fallacy not withstanding, the part of his post that made me raise an eyebrow this time was where he suggested that lack of information only hurts "optimizing roll players" who want to perform near-cheating "tricks" with the rules.

    Far from it.

    An optimizer can pull those tricks using whatever lexicon the DM chooses to enforce, and can do it without needing to know how much damage the enemy has taken (which is the only genuinely "secret" information present, since the rest is deducible by an adequately numbers-oriented gamer).

    On the other hand, somebody who isn't optimizing to the hilt for the gameplay best-move is going to be far more hurt by this, being unable to judge what "he looks hurt" means in terms of whether or not his guy-who-swings-swords with a talent for sacrificing accuracy for extra oomph when he hits is going to be able to take him down soon or "in a while," let alone before he goes down, himself.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    Quote Originally Posted by Triskavanski View Post
    Not sure if that is the best title for this, but well, I've got one GM here that I play with occasionally who's got this opinion that allowing 'game terms' be used at the table breaks roleplaying. Though its more than just having your character strait up saying something like "Oh man those orcs shaman where really tough, but thankfully I got evasion and a reflex of 10." Which I can kinda understand.
    Oh man, I read through the whole thing first and I have to say, I haven't had an encounter with such an assanine DM in 10 years of playing. We all used to be like this at one point until we kinda grew up and got out of the phase of trying to make the versimilitude too high. At the end of the day, the game is quite silly and should be treated as entertainment, not a job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triskavanski View Post
    Its more things like the first house rule he stated that he's not letting anyone use class names IC. So you're not a ranger. You're a huntsman.. but not hunter because that is a class term. We came up against a golem, but he wouldn't use the term golem, because we wouldn't know what that is, instead it was mannequin. (Interestingly enough this happened on the same day as I read a not always working story about someone who didn't know what a mannequin was.)

    my Archaeologist bard is a 'storyteller' under this rule for some insane reason. Granted, I wouldn't call myself a bard either, but I couldn't call myself an archaeologist either. And the character never told a story in his life, at least not in the way of entertainment.
    If it's a big moving statue, there is no problem with referring to it as such until somebody has researched the creatures. But it really sounds like a fault on your DM's end for failing to describe it in colorful enough variety to bring you on board with his fantasy. If he wanted you to describe the monster as a mannquin, he would have described a mannequin (a large wooden construct descends from the ceiling, its movements stiff and jerky, as if somebody were controlling it, as a puppet on a string, but no strings are visible, at least none that could support such a massive structure standing before you)

    As for the class thing, that's really silly, he's basically describing professions at that point. You're not even as much a storyteller as you are an adventurer, a vagabond, a wanderer or a rogue. As a bard, you can even reserve your right to call yourself any number of things, because that is how a bard do.

    A ranger wouldn't necessarily be a huntsman, albeit it could be what your specific ranger was before he became an adventurer. There are plenty of different things a ranger could be, perhaps he was a spelunker, another wanderer or even a tamer. A class distinction is merely a title and a character in the D&D-verse is just a person wearing many faces. Consider his style a challenge to name yourself a number of things. It might annoy him, but it is just giving him what he asked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triskavanski View Post
    Damage is also not given a value. Just not wounded, wounded, and dead. We're not suppose to say how much HP we have, in fact during the last session he kept cutting people off when they were asking about wounds with "He's wounded"
    This is fine, he's not obligated to tell you the hit point value of another person, hit points itself are an abstraction. A character at 1 hit point could be completely uninjured, but his nerves could be in skitters and the next danger that strikes him could be enough to knock him unconscious if not dead.

    If he pulls this one again, do either a Heal check, a Search check, a Spot check or ask "how bad is it?" You should be able to tell a cut from a dagger from a gash from a dragon claw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triskavanski View Post
    IF NPCs are sent into a room that none of us can see, he removes them from the board.

    And even with all the secrecy, attempts to avoid metagaming and the like... If we're preforming secret actions, the DM doesn't like passing secret notes. So we've got to announce our secret actions to the entire table, which is a particular bother for me, because even as insane as his secrecy is in game, trying to play a character who only tells half the truth if even that much is kinda hard when everything I do is announced to the entire table.

    Now I again, I understand that having characters directly reference mechanics can break immersion into the game world.. but even putting my secret actions aside, I oddly find the attempts to not break immersion...immersion breaking. In fact I don't think I can really even get the slightest of my RP Jollies on in this game.
    Removing NPC's from the board to prevent you from meta gaming is perfectly fine though? If you want an indication of where people stand, you want a line of sight to them or at the very least request information by way of skill checks. Say "I peer into the darkness" for spot checks, say "I hush the other players and orient my ear to listen for sounds" for listen checks and if all else fails, go for the bardic knock spell to open a locked door (literally knock on the door and wait for them to open it)

    Secrecy between players is something some DM's are okay with, but some are very controlling. Usually if they are controlling secret messages, it is because they want to help you succeed, and if you notice a DM use this to intentionally trip you up, you might be right to take a time-out, take the DM aside and tell him he's being railroading and not open enough to play experimenting in the scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triskavanski View Post
    In another game I play in with a different DM, The game terms are thrown around the table fairly loosely, but not really by the characters. We often do refer to our classes, we make checks and the like, Secret notes are passed around.. but we're more thoroughly immersed in the game. More engaged, and progress though things at a pretty good rate, even while getting our roleplaying jollies on.
    Right, these are different styles of play. Both can be really fun and engaging. But you have to treat them as different games. This other game is going to the movies to watch Deadpool. The other game is dressing up as a dwarf and sitting through a Lord of the Rings marathon. Yes, it is geeky, but D&D is a geeky hobby.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GMs that insist on not having 'game terms' leak into roleplaying

    The DM is trying to do something reasonable, and doesn't know how to do it.

    I try to avoid using out-of-character terms when I'm speaking in-character. My Ranger Gustave doesn't refer to his "Guisarme +4", but he does speak of his magic guisarme. But I refer to it when necessary, during combat. "OK, that 5 points of damage, +7 for STR bonus, +4 for the guisarme, +5 doubled to 10 for the power attack..."

    Similarly, the Fighter 2 / Ranger 4 / Horizon Walker 6 calls himself a "ranger".

    So I sympathize with the DM's goal. But what he's doing doesn't succeed in reaching that goal. Even with care, we cannot avoid referring to the game mechanics, if we want to tell the DM that his monster took 23 points of damage.

    So the important skill for successful immersion isn't self-consciously trying to avoid breaking character, it's the ability to get back into character quickly and easily.

    I find attempts to get rid of all D&D terms to be far more focused on the mechanics and not on the fantasy world. I'd prefer to say what needs to be said quickly and get back to the battle with giants. The attempt to rephrase a gaming mechanic into the fantasy milieu, so the others have to try to translate it back to the game mechanic, is far more modern and intrusive.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •