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

[Triskavanski]

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.

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.

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"


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.


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.

[Extra Anchovies]

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.

Indeed. I find it more interesting to figure out ways to explain mechanical abilities in ways that your character would understand them - that shaman put up a good fight, but your quick reflexes got you through it mostly unscathed.

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.

I...

This makes my brain hurt.

Hunter, Ranger, Golem... those are all words that have real meanings outside of roleplaying games. A hunter is a person who hunts. A ranger is a person who ranges. A golem is a humanoid creature made from inanimate material and animated by magic. Of those, only Golem has any particular cause to be a word that doesn't exist in a fantasy setting due to its roots in real-world mythology, but D&D golems would have some sort of word that categorizes them as something different from other constructs (their magic immunity is a trait not shared with any other constructs AFAIK), and you might as well use "golem" for that word because making up your own word for it just creates a redundant name that your players aren't going to remember. If characters haven't identified a creature as a golem (via Knowledge checks, for example), the DM could say "you don't know it's a golem" and suggest some alternate terms like "automaton" or "living statue". However, your character is, well, your character. If your character's not under a compulsion effect, the DM can't just say "your character calls it a mannequin" and have that be what happens.

There are plenty of concepts that are both the OOC name for a class and realistic things for members of that class to IC call themselves - wizard, sorcerer, fighter, ranger, druid, alchemist, and so forth. There's also quite a few organization- or setting-based PrCs; you can't reasonably expect a Knight/Purple Dragon Knight to call themselves anything other than a Purple Dragon Knight, for instance. There are some names that are a bit niche - bard, for example - but in those cases the DM should encourage players to come up with terms that their character would use to describe themselves, rather than assigning equally arbitrary names to various classes.

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"

Uuuuugh. Instead of this, what your DM *should* do is recommend (and in the case of NPCs, use) a different way of describing injuries. Only being down three hit points is "a little shaken up from the fight, but nothing a good night's rest won't fix", whereas a character at 2 hit points out of 40 "looks like they've barely got the strength to stay upright, let alone continue fighting". Maybe give a small reward to players who offer their own descriptions of their character's physical and mental state at the end of a combat; action points or some equivalent game resource work nicely, as would a few temporary HP to help the injured PCs get through the next encounter.

IF NPCs are sent into a room that none of us can see, he removes them from the board.

This makes some sense - although NPCs doing anything that makes noise (washing dishes, talking, etc) would still be audible from the next room over.

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.

Okay, but... nobody is a perfect roleplayer. Separating player and character knowledge is never fully possible. In a collaborative storytelling game where nobody has vested interests in any particular group, saying "let's have character X screw over character Y" can work, but if character Y is the only part of the story that someone (i.e. character Y's player) has control over, they're probably going to be opposed to your suggestion and will possibly alter character Y's behavior such that they don't get screwed over.

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.

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.

Yup. That's good D&D, right there - some roleplaying, some gaming, some socializing, all a good time.

[thecrimsondawn]

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.

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.

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"


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.


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.

In this type of situation, your argument should be based off of
1) What would your character think? If you where a wizard, a crafter, or someone who is into the arcane, then you for sure would very well know what a golem is. Depending on your class, your experiences, and what you have gained, you have the right to call something whatever you want, and while RPing, that is out of the DM's hands.
2) What type of knowledge's you have. If you where say a fighter, but you had 10 ranks in knowledge arcane, then you would know that this is a golem. If you had a few ranks in it and rolled poorly, you could still make an educated guess that this is some sort of animated construct. Once again, this all boils down to what your character would think and know based off of their studies and experiences.
3) What others call it. If you are in an area that is not very well educated, then sometimes slang terms and nick names will appear such as 'doll' or whatever. If you are from these types of areas, you would very well call such beings that name, but if you later did a study to find out more and found its real name, then construct or golem would be applicable terms. If you where from outside said area and you come into it, you may very well use terms that nobody there will know what you are talking about.


Whenever you have an issue, try to talk to the DM first. If the DM does not give a good reason or a reason you agree with, talk to your other players to see how they feel about it. If you feel one way but everyone else feels the other, then you may need to reflect on your own opinion about the situation. However if several of the players feel the same as you do, there is far more power in your opinions as a group rather then a single individual.
There is a fine boundary between what a DM should be doing and what a DM can do. If you feel your DM is crossing a line that punishes RP or the game, then its best to resolve this issue as soon as you are able, less things will only get worse. However, your DM may have a very good reason for doing what they are doing, and it may strongly tie into the plot they have planned for you.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think your DM is mistaking the symptom for the cause. If you are conflating OOC and IC nuances of the same word, you are breaking immersion, sure. However, using a word OOC and IC does not automatically mean you're doing that. It's like playing two hands in a game of bridge: if you're mixing your information, it's unfair, but if you play both hands as separate games, it's quite possibly fair. Not everyone can keep things separate like that, of course, but your DM should have some faith (and it's not like mixing a term once or twice is going to break the game).

[Darth Ultron]

Your DM is being a bit silly. I would just go with it or leave the game.

The 'game words' is a big problem for a lot of players, specifically the optimizing roll players. They are just playing the straight up mechanical combat adventure game, exploit loopholes in the rules and think anything else is a waste of time. They go out of their way to ruin the role playing, immersion and fun of others.

And some DM's try the 'word ban' as a soft way to deal with them, other then just having them leave the game. And it does work somewhat as the poor optimizing roll players can't do there ''crazy high-jinks'' with no information to exploit. They can still be jerks and disrupt the game though, so it's not a fix all.

I do think the game is much better when, in character, people don't use game terms.

[Inevitability]

Does your GM forbid you from calling dragons, goblins or sheep by these names because the monster manual refers to them with those names? That ought to make for a fun game.

Commoner Villager: "Help us, huntsman and storyteller! A firebreathing reptile and his little green men have laid waste to our settlement! We shall pay you ten dozen shining yellow coins if you embark on this que... great and terrible journey!"

[Deophaun]

Commoner Villager: "Help us, huntsman and storyteller! A fire...

No! That's a game term for describing a damage type, you wicked metagamer!

[ace rooster]

Erm, what? The game terms are chosen to represent concepts that make sense in universe, so banning them makes no sense. Character speech is differentiated from player speech (which describes actions) by context, which is usually pretty clear.

Mechanical descriptions are often a good shorthand for communications that you don't want to include all of. For example, you could have your rogue tell a long detailed story of how you evaded the orc shaman's spells, from which the rest of the party could infer how good you are at evading stuff, or you could skip the story (it is a waste of most player's time to tell it all), and shorthand it as an Action. "I tell the rest of the party about my reflex of 10 and evasion" is player shorthand for a much longer conversation between characters about capabilities. This makes sense because 4 advanturers that have been travelling for a week will probably have been talking more than the players will in a session.

Your character might not have any concept of HP, but they know what a wound looks like, and can judge from sight how serious or not it looks. The DM can either describe how serious it looks, and then give you your character's assesment of how serious it looks, or they simply can give you the HP value, which is a summery that contains all the crunchy information that the player needs, and implies all the fluff that the character sees.

If you want to have fun, start using other game terms for things. "Attack the sorceror!" for instructions to your party to attack the wizard.

If you really want to get serious, start calling out the uses of words like "attack", "hide", "damage", "fire", "cold", "strength", "size", "armor", "poison", "spell", "trip", "charge","swim", "concealment", and "darkness". Then ask an NPC what the best way to deal with the "burny, big scaly thing that goes in the air". Get the DM to rephrase until they include no games terms.

[Triskavanski]

Whenever you have an issue, try to talk to the DM first.

I do want to talk with him first, but do need to figure out how to exactly say what I mean in a way he'd understand it. I tend to have issues with that at times.

Overall, I just find it rather interesting the difference between the two games I play in real life for Dnd/Pathfinder.

The Wordbanning DM's game is a lot less engaging. Its kinda like watching that movie The Room, through the internet, while on a dialup.

The DM that doesn't word ban, is far more engaging. Like I said, we freely use game terms IC. Not things like Thac0 (It is a second edition game after all) but we do mention our classes. Or rather only two of our classes. The Priest and the Rogue. We also refer to the DMPC as the Paladin too, though at a lot less frequency since that character was dragged to hell.


Granted, I don't really have full player rights in the Wordban DM's game, as I only play that game when the second game isn't playing on the same day. Wordban Dm knows this, and it was set up to be that way before hand, which is part of the reason my character is suppose to be someone who only speaks in half truths. Enough to help the party, but not someone to rely on.

[Malimar]

There's a spectrum: on the one end, you have terms that are perfectly reasonable to use IC, like "dragon" and "golem" and "knight" and "wizard". On the other end, you have terms that are completely unreasonable to use IC, like "base attack bonus" and "dexterity score" and "hit points". Somewhere in the middle there are things where you could go either way, like spell levels -- a wizard absolutely knows he has various levels of spell available, but I tend to lean towards using "spells of the first circle" instead of "first-level spells".

I've been known to refer to monks without any levels in the Monk class as "cenobites" in an effort to minimize confusion (but that can still get people confused with Hellraiser's peculiar use of the term). But I see no reason to refrain from calling a character with Monk class levels a monk unless they're not actually a monk (e.g. not affiliated with a monastery). And a character can be a Samurai without any levels in either Samurai class, a Knight without any levels in the Knight class, and so on -- and for that matter a character with levels in the Samurai or Knight classes can still be not a Samurai or Knight (especially if they have levels in both classes, they're probably one or the other, not both).

But that's specific to each character! An Archaeologist Bard who isn't particularly an Archaeologist nor a Bard probably shouldn't go around calling themselves an Archaeologist or a Bard -- although it sounds like Storyteller isn't any better, so you should find something good for your character to call themselves, which isn't necessarily even related to their class -- I've got a cleric/warlock who still thinks of himself as a tanner's apprentice. "Ranger" is a perfectly reasonable thing for a person to call themselves (IIRC, Aragorn, the prototypical Ranger, called himself "ranger", was a member (leader?) of a group of people calling themselves "rangers"), as is "hunter" or "huntsman" -- although a Ranger who doesn't actually hunt shouldn't have a hunting-related name thrust upon them. And it's perfectly reasonable for especially the uneducated to call things by the wrong name -- Peasant McDirtfarmer doesn't have any reason to know if you're a Wizard, a Sorcerer, a Warlock, a Witch, or what.

[Toilet Cobra]

I do want to talk with him first, but do need to figure out how to exactly say what I mean in a way he'd understand it. I tend to have issues with that at times.

Break your DM's various bans into separate rules and discuss them. Come to reasonable agreements about why certain words & concepts are not welcome, then discuss how to better achieve that goal. He doesn't want anyone saying the word 'hit points'? Tell him you need a reasonable way to at least know how much damage you've taken, and work out a system for it ("bloodied" is half health, "critical" is one-quarter, and so on). He doesn't want anyone to say 'archaeologist'? Ask him what the proper term for one who studies archaeology in this world is.

Or you can just be obnoxious about it. "Um, pardon me- I've noticed you're using a lot of words with Latin roots? Am I to believe that there was an Ancient Rome in Greyhawk's history? I demand you speak in Common because otherwise you're just ruining my immersion."

[Arael666]

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"

I use a similar rule in my games, but I copied it from neverwinter nights, a character can be:

1- uninjured;
2- barely injured;
3- injured;
4- badly injured;
5- near death.

Mathematicaly, each name represents 25% of a characters hit points (aside from uninjured wich is represents full HP). I also found that it improves roleplaying, since people will ask for healing in a more credible way, like a "I'm badly injured, I NEED HEALING!", and it even made people pro active and starting conversations in character: "Brad, do you need healing? Nah, I'm barely injured".

Sure, some people may think calculating percentages every time you want to heal or talk about it is boring and adds to book keeping, but you quickly get used to it and it's also good for your brain

[NerdHut]

Yeah, that's taking Anti-Meta too far. I try to minimize OoC terms being used, but not at the expense of playability.

My players aren't allowed to discuss exact hit points during battle. But they can say "I'm fine" "'Tis but a scratch" "Help, I'm nearly dead" "Don't worry, my entrails are just hanging out" anything describing their situation as long as it's not an exact numerical value (They can, however, use exact amounts out of combat). But "Not wounded" "Wounded" and "Dead" is beyond vague. When you have 100 hp, you need some wiggle room to express your health.

And what the hell is wrong with class names? Fighter, Ranger, Cleric, Wizard, and even Barbarian are pretty generic terms.

Even class abilities should have some leeway. Sure, a Rogue shouldn't be saying (in character) "I can do an extra 3d6 damage on a sneak attack" but I would think it's fine for them to say "I'm an expert in trapfinding"

[Zanos]

Games I play in usually tend to focus on more tactics that super serious roleplay, so people will often say, OOC of course, that they're down X number of hit points. Even if we weren't so casual, I would still expect a reasonable DM to let people differentiate between people who got nicked by a crossbow bolt, and were essentially run through.

When I roleplay, however, hearing meta terms pretty much ruins my immersion. However I think your DM has deeply confused what a meta term is and is not.

These things, and their like, are meta terms:
Hit Dice
Hit Points
Base Attack Bonus
Saving Throw
Attack Roll
5ft Step

Basically, if it relates to a die roll or is part of tactical combat, it should be abstracted or explained IC differently. A +5 sword doesn't add +5 to attack rolls, it makes your sword mystically accurate, and should be described as such. Someone knowledgeable about magic items still knows it's better than a +4 sword, and how much better.

Outside of the scope above, very few things are meta terms. Calling something a Golem is how most people in the setting refer to it. Depending on your setting they might be uncommon and require an Arcana roll to even know what one is, but Wizards(yes, they call each other Wizards) almost certainly refer to certain Constructs(yes, they use the term Constructs) as Golems. Just as a Red Dragon is a Red Dragon, and Iron Golem is an Iron Golem. I can agree that some class titles should probably not be used to refer to people. Fighter is extraordinarily generic but Bard, Wizard, and Paladin are all very specific.

Now, there are some concepts that people have varying toleration for. I personally don't like people using the term "Spell Level", and in most of my campaigns prefer to use "Magic of the Xth circle" instead, but that's just me being anal.

[Debatra]

little green men

Wait, aliens??? I thought this game was in a fantasy/medieval setting!

[Inevitability]

Wait, aliens??? I thought this game was in a fantasy/medieval setting!

Did you just say 'setting'? How dare you, you filthy metagamer?

[Yahzi]

allowing 'game terms' be used at the table breaks roleplaying.

Have him read my novel, which is a straight-up serious fantasy novel where the characters talk about how many levels they have in various classes.

And it's on sale for $2.99 right now!

Game terms don't break role-playing. To be fair, encouraging in-character comments and actions is great, but not at the expense of fun.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Just remind your DM that Aragorn was known as a Ranger to quite a few people in Middle Earth,
that Gandalf was called, and referred to himself as a Wizard.

The term Bard was used LONG before even first edition D&D ever existed.

In short, your DM seems to think that D&D has somehow invented these literary and historical terms. Best to explain to him that distinction.

As for injuries and such, well, yeah. He's not really wrong about HP counts being a little metagamey. On the other hand, it makes the game easier to play, and having the game run smoothly is sometimes more important than immersive role playing.

[LordBlades]

The way I see it, there is a broad spectrum of game terms that also have an in-world meaning and these are all fine in my book (stuff like druid, cleric, wizard, golem, dragon, undead etc.). There might be a fun debate to be had how precise these terms are in a given world (for example, does the in-world meaning of 'cleric' cover any member of a god's clergy, or only those capable of divine magic, are 'wizard' and 'sorcerer' interchangeable or do they distinguish between prepared and spontaneous arcane casters etc.) but in general I wouldn't object to players using them as a DM, nor would I feel bothered by them as a player.

Then there's the deeper mechanical terms, which are a bit iffy. Characters are most likely aware of the concepts of 'class' and 'level' since in-world the improvement in their skills doesn't come gradually but in breakthrough steps (levels) and the class is a conscious choice of the character (you learn predefined skill-sets, you cannot cherry pick what to focus on) so it makes sense these terms would have some sort of in-world name. Similarly, characters (at least Arcane Spellcasters) are aware of Hit Dice due to the multitude of spells that reference them (up to Animate Dead, which requires an amount of Onyx dependent on Hit Dice). Characters are also aware of class features that require activation (since it's a conscious choice to use them), but it's debatable if they're aware of automatic class features (like Evasion)

Beyond that, I'd expect in the typical fantasy world characters wouldn't be aware of deeper stuff like Attack Bonuses, Base Save values and and so on, but if you're leaning more toward Tippyverse (or at leas a world where mechanics are reflected more closely in the reality of the world) it's not inconceivable that some crafty wizards have, through experimentation, reverse engineered most of the system :P

[Vizzerdrix]

If it was me, Id start making up names for things and insisting everyone else use them. Claim your speaking elvish or something. DMs love elvish junk.

The 'game words' is a big problem for a lot of players, specifically the optimizing roll players. They are just playing the straight up mechanical combat adventure game, exploit loopholes in the rules and think anything else is a waste of time. They go out of their way to ruin the role playing, immersion and fun of others.

Thats a mighty fine Stormwind Fallacy ya got there. Ain't seen one that big in months.

[Fizban]

You can always take it upon yourself to track hp, it's freely available information unless the DM breaks his own note-giving rule and starts handing out secret damage notes for every single attack and healing spell. In just a few fights you'll have rough totals of everyone's hp, garnered from the practical experience of watching them takes hits in combat, and know exactly how bad X damage is for each person. Then define your own "immersive" words for percentages and whenever someone wants to know hp you just tell them that way.

Or instead of forcing all that busywork the DM could let people play their role-playing game which includes precise hit point totals, and come to think of it I don't think I've ever read a DMG suggestion of banning players from communicating that in 3.5.

Re: the golem example; well of course it's not a golem, you don't know that. The proper general term is construct. But you don't know for sure it's a construct, it could be under an illusion or transmutation, so the correct term is presumed construct. Except it might not even be a creature, so you'd better stick with presumed creature of possible constructed origin. Actually you might be in a dreamspace and none of this is real, how about we go with "thingy?"

[Vizzerdrix]

Re: the golem example; well of course it's not a golem, you don't know that. The proper general term is construct. But you don't know for sure it's a construct, it could be under an illusion or transmutation, so the correct term is presumed construct. Except it might not even be a creature, so you'd better stick with presumed creature of possible constructed origin. Actually you might be in a dreamspace and none of this is real, how about we go with "thingy?"

Ah! But the term thingy may be in a book someplace, so just use the "elvish" word for thingy wich is luhurunumoonoruhurialawehokeptaal. In fact, everyone at the table should refer to the target thingy by that name. Everyone. Insist on it.

[Eisirt]

As for injuries and such, well, yeah. He's not really wrong about HP counts being a little metagamey. On the other hand, it makes the game easier to play, and having the game run smoothly is sometimes more important than immersive role playing.

On the other hand, it becomes really "metagamey" when a character looks at his remaining hit-points and decides that the falling damage will not kill him because the max amount of damage he will receive is less han his current HP's and takes the plunge laughing all the way down.

[nyjastul69]

Huntsman vs Ranger? Ranger vs Huntsman? I see absolutely no difference. Why would a Wizard call themselves anything else? Why would other people refer to them as anything else? Your DM is simply substituting one arbitrary word for another arbitrary word.

I've never had a problem using meta terminology in game. The players use terms like hit points, attack bonus, savings throw, etc. I assume that the characters use whatever terminology is acceptable. We play mostly 3rd person though. Even when in character I see no reason to change the terminology. It just makes things more confusing and increases the chance for miscommunication.

[Tohsaka Rin]

On the other hand, it becomes really "metagamey" when a character looks at his remaining hit-points and decides that the falling damage will not kill him because the max amount of damage he will receive is less han his current HP's and takes the plunge laughing all the way down.

If it fits the character's personality, that's not metagamey at all.

I recall a character (Faust VIII) in a manga (Shaman King) who dosed himself heavily while he (and several other people) was (were) dropped out of an airplane. He knew the fall wouldn't be enough to kill him, and with the amount of morphine he'd taken, he'd hardly feel it. Then he'd just pick himself up, fix himself back up (he was a trained doctor, as well as a shaman), and be on his merry way.

If a character is sure he's tough enough to survive something, it's hardly metagaming to laugh in the face of certain death. It's Dungeons and Dragons, it's literally in every player character's resume before third level.

[Deophaun]

You can always take it upon yourself to track hp, it's freely available information unless the DM breaks his own note-giving rule and starts handing out secret damage notes for every single attack and healing spell.

You know, I wouldn't put it passed such a DM to keep track of the PCs' HP himself, and just hand out notifications like "The goblin stabs you in the leg with its spear, leaving a nasty-looking gash."

[nyjastul69]

Maybe you should ask your DM to rename all the classes in your game. That way the ranger renamed to huntsman can be called a ranger again, because huntsman is too meta.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Maybe you should ask your DM to rename all the classes in your game. That way the ranger renamed to huntsman can be called a ranger again, because huntsman is too meta.

If you are going to do that, you should rename the ranger to something completely unrelated and incomprehensible, such as "ilyaa fm'latghagl r'luh", to avoid competition with English words.

[nyjastul69]

If you are going to do that, you should rename the ranger to something completely unrelated and incomprehensible, such as "ilyaa fm'latghagl r'luh", to avoid competition with English words.

Lol I was going to suggest nonsensical words. I wasn't sure which would get the point across better.

[Fizban]

You know, I wouldn't put it passed such a DM to keep track of the PCs' HP himself, and just hand out notifications like "The goblin stabs you in the leg with its spear, leaving a nasty-looking gash."

That's a tougher system to crack but it should be doable. Just gotta make your hp irrelevant. Conventional methods such as being undetectable or nigh impossible to hit work, but are less reliable. How about a remote control build, minion enters the dungeon but you don't. Or doctor buffman mcartificer, buff the party up, hand them some trigger items, and go back to bed. Could hard cast manifest Vigor for max hp every fight, though I suppose they could just refuse to tell you when temp hp runs out. Millenial Chainmail is crazy cheap and gives you fast healing 3 all the time, makes sure you start every fight at full.