Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CrashtheStyx 04-24-07, 11:43 AM	I was just wondering, what sort of terminology do you use when speaking as your character? Do you identify spells as they are listed? Do you refer to wizards or warmages as casters; and barbarians and fighters as barbs and tanks? Do you try to cloak PHB terminology with what you would consider to be more appropriate for the setting? I have troubles with this some times when a player will talk in character using the same jargon and terminology as they would if they were talking to me about a new book they picked up. I play a game online, so we type everything that happens. Well in that case, say I cast a spell that doesn't describe what it looks like...I don't exactly want to just be saying "I cast this spell". That's pretty lame. Have you ever run into this problem, and if so what'd you do? Or do you just have some opinions? Even better...add to my list of examples because I can never recall all of what I want to say when I want to say it.
Pegasos989 04-24-07, 12:08 PM	I use pretty same terminology because they are distinctive. Wizard knows if he can cast 2nd or 3rd level spells and he also knows his casterlevel. I would assume that spell names are standardized so wizards can communicate with each other when shopping, etc... I would not necessarily refer barbarian -class always with barbarian name but normally those that can be described with the word often have levels in barbarian if they have PC class. Warmages and wizards know diffrence between each other - even evokers can use scrolls of a wide variety of spells while warmages don't. There are times when I don't use gameterms though. I might describe a large human without meanin large size as in 10 foot reach. I might say that assassins attacked a noble even if they did not have levels in assassin. Also, when it is hard to tell the diffrence I steer away from terminology (is someone a paladin or cleric/fighter? I call both paladins) EDIT: BTW, I could rant a bit... I hate how many DMs and players say "Your wizard doesn't know his casterlevel or what level spells he can cast!" or something. Sure as hell does! Most spells have effects directly coming from casterlevel... He knows that the wizard next to him can only cast magic missile and his summons last 3rd of the time of the PCs summons, who can also cast scorching ray... We are now talking often millenias old magic using traditions used by people with very high mental scores. Would they really NOT realize how spells last longer by stronger wizards and arrange a scaling table for it?
RevIron 04-24-07, 12:28 PM	I see a lot of people in the in-character threads on this board using "spell of the ... circle" to refer to spell levels. Spellcasters are likewise referred to as being of the circle of the highest level spell they can cast. I like to subsitute the name of a named NPC for spells with attached names rather than use the defaults (these spells generally have different names between the SRD and PHB). OOC Tank is any melee fighter, IC it's anyone in heavy armor. If we know the Barbarian bears that class we may call him a Barb IC, but if we don't it's not going to happen.
Murrdox 04-24-07, 01:34 PM	If the players in my campaign referred to Fighters or heavily armored PCs as "Tanks" or "Meat shields" I'd slap them around a bit. I can't stand meta-gaming terms like that. Also add into this pool basically any terminology you picked up from Everquest or World of Warcraft. "Buff" (Bull's Strength) "Debuff" (Ray of Enfeeblement) "DPS" (damage per second, sometimes altered to "DPR" damage per round in D&D) "Nuke" (Cast a high damage spell) My players encounter my wrath when they use these terms. ESPECIALLY in character.
Kouk 04-24-07, 01:35 PM	If you are all intentionally roleplaying, saying "tank" and whatnot would depend on the game world I suppose, but normally would be out of place in RP situations. Normally I just translate the player's meaning automatically rather than bother with having NPCs say things like "What is this 'tank' sir?". If a player slips and says tank, just assume the character said "warrior" or something. If a wizard is talking to another arcane caster about spell levels or something, just assume they use whatever terminology is appropriate, because there isn't really any. It probably all sounds like gobbledygook to non-arcane casters anyway.
KillerGM 04-24-07, 01:59 PM	My players referred to the Grigs they were fighting as "Manickets" (because they are the tiny, half-man, half-cricket fae). It's cute when the party has no Knowledge (nature). :D
Pegasos989 04-24-07, 02:04 PM	If the players in my campaign referred to Fighters or heavily armored PCs as "Tanks" or "Meat shields" I'd slap them around a bit. I can't stand meta-gaming terms like that. Also add into this pool basically any terminology you picked up from Everquest or World of Warcraft. "Buff" (Bull's Strength) "Debuff" (Ray of Enfeeblement) "DPS" (damage per second, sometimes altered to "DPR" damage per round in D&D) "Nuke" (Cast a high damage spell) My players encounter my wrath when they use these terms. ESPECIALLY in character. Well, DPS and Nuke would test my limits too, sure. However, I would imagine that in a world full of diffrent kind of roles, wizards referring to those stupid guys with pointy metal objects as their meatshields would be very possible to do perfectly in character...
Darth Syntax 04-24-07, 02:50 PM	I try to stay away from "rules" terms while in character if at all possible. Now, I might refer to some spells by their name (fireball for example), but I generally don't refer to things like class, or to the crunchy bits of the game. I have been know to (in character) refer to big, brutish fighters as meat-shield, but It's always meant as a derogatory remark. Clerics are generally refered to as priests or by some appropiate title. Paladins are usually just considered to be martial priests and so are refered to in a similar fashion. Wizards do not know their caster level, the level of their spells or things of that nature. They understand their power quite well, but those terms are meaningless to them. Instead, Wizards have their own complex technical language to describe arcane magic which relies wholly on world-internal terms.
Zankue 04-24-07, 03:00 PM	Ok, for the whole tank thing, in most DND settings tanks don't exist, therefore IC you can't refer to one as a tank b/c the word "tank" means nothing, it's like me calling you a Sentikshoj
Pegasos989 04-24-07, 03:00 PM	Wizards do not know their caster level, the level of their spells or things of that nature. They understand their power quite well, but those terms are meaningless to them. Instead, Wizards have their own complex technical language to describe arcane magic which relies wholly on world-internal terms. Well, that is nice. However, wizards do know "My spells last twice as long as that guy's." "My summoning spell always lasts 6/7ths of the time of that guy's..." It is REALLY easy for them to figure out their casterlevel. I have actually ran a campaign several times where this was well known information and boasted with. Practically all mages got certified that they really have the casterlevel they say they have, as that was a good way to demand for higher wages... It is really the same whether you think that they measure their power with terms like "CL 7" or "My summoning spells last 7/20" or "My arcane prowess is the level of young red dragon" or what, but unless you severely change the magic system, there needs to be really good explanation on how wizards would not know their casterlevel. They actually need to know it to buy scrolls and such. Very exact measurement of power. Whatever the name is you want to call it with, they know their CL with some name.
Darth Syntax 04-24-07, 03:19 PM	I'm not saying that wizards do not have a complex and detailed understanding of their magic. What I mean is that terms such as "caster level" or "spell level" do not exist in game, but are merely terms found in the rules where they should remain. Wizards might refer to "thaumatic magnatude" when refering to the relative power of the spells, but this is not a 1:1 correlation with terms like "spell level". It would also measure duration, effect size, potential to alter reality, an the like. So it might be the case that a level 2 trasnmutation spell has a significantly higher thaumatic magnatude than ice storm. A wizard is, above all, a schollar, and their jargon is going to be much more exacting when it comes to discussing their respective fields than the game rules are.
Bedevere 04-24-07, 03:20 PM	Wizards do not know their caster level, the level of their spells or things of that nature. They understand their power quite well, but those terms are meaningless to them. Instead, Wizards have their own complex technical language to describe arcane magic which relies wholly on world-internal terms. Yes, they do. Each spell level has certain spells that can be memorised / cast, that the previous couldnt. Each spell level can store spells of that level or lower, but not higher. No fireballs in a 1st level slot, for instance. Therefore, wizards can easily determine the list of spells that exist at each level. As for the level of the wizard himself? Easy again. First, his highest level of spells known determines it roughly. Next, the fact that his wizard level determines the duration of his spells, number of targets affected, etc, makes it clear enough. Now, his level may have a much smaller concept in game than most think, but it still is understood as meaning he is better. "I can make a haste spell affect ten people, he can only manage eight" is simply an in game way to say "I'm a 10th level wizard, he's 8th"
Pegasos989 04-24-07, 03:37 PM	I'm not saying that wizards do not have a complex and detailed understanding of their magic. What I mean is that terms such as "caster level" or "spell level" do not exist in game, but are merely terms found in the rules where they should remain. Wizards might refer to "thaumatic magnatude" when refering to the relative power of the spells, but this is not a 1:1 correlation with terms like "spell level". It would also measure duration, effect size, potential to alter reality, an the like. So it might be the case that a level 2 trasnmutation spell has a significantly higher thaumatic magnatude than ice storm. A wizard is, above all, a schollar, and their jargon is going to be much more exacting when it comes to discussing their respective fields than the game rules are. Ah, I now understand what you mean. Still, I think it is not really necessary. When I say Empowered Fireball CL 9, you know what I am talking about. It is simple and efficient system with really little language needed, so it could be well used as international system. Also, players are unlikely to learn this Thaumatic Magnatude, so I don't think player asking for CL 9 empowered fireball scroll is any less roleplaying than player saying "My character describes the thaumatic magnitude of the correct size and stuff... You know, something to make the shop owner understand what I want."
Darth Syntax 04-24-07, 03:47 PM	Part of all of this is my playin style. I avoid out of character speech at all costs. I can't remember the last time I spoke in the classic "I do X" manner while playing.
HawkTheOne-Handed 04-24-07, 03:51 PM	I use different terminology depending on whom I am talkign to. Casterwise; spells to peasants/low level npcs - "I have just used magic of the first power (1st level). Spells to people in the know - rank or circle. Spells to others of my class, especially if they are aligned - level. I never call arcane casters finger wigglers. I refer to them by their title if it is known or the generic "wizard". If an unknown npc or npc blockhead refers to a caster of mine as a finger wiggler, I will look down on them as being rude or one of the great unwashed. I don't refer to divine casters as heal bots, mana men, buff bots or rezzers. That's as insulting as going up to a buddhist monk and calling him a chanter. It's just rude. I always try to find out their titles (unless they are of an eenemy faction, then I refer to them as the false). I refer to rogues as adventurers as the word itself is rather indicitive of being a thief in my eyes. I refere to them as adventurers or by their specific title if they have one. Enemy rogues are openly referred to as thieves. Fighters are called fighters, cutters, warriors, swordsmen or whatever their title is. No one in the great majority of game worlds would refer to a fighter as a tank simply because they don't exist in most game worlds. Sort of kills the immersion. You get the general picture. I prefer to roleplay than roll-play. I even go so far as to walk out on groups where the majority of gamers use everquest speech rather than actively plaing their character.
Shadowhowler 04-24-07, 04:19 PM	I'm a big fan of immersive roleplaying... so when I'm in character, I try my best to not use game terms like level, alignment, and other terms that we as PLAYERS much know to have our characters function in the game world, but that our CHARACTERS would have no contact with. I try to play with other people who also enjoy a similar level of roleplaying... but recently that has not been as possible as it once was, and I've been bummed to be a part of a few games where the in game/out of game speach has become blured. I may have to not game for awhile until I can find good roleplayers again. :(
Pegasos989 04-24-07, 04:39 PM	Part of all of this is my playin style. I avoid out of character speech at all costs. I can't remember the last time I spoke in the classic "I do X" manner while playing. Exactly. This is what confuses me. I as the player can't understand all those thematic whatever thingies though my character would if they were used in the campaign world. So, if I choose they are used, I gotta start speaking like "My character uses the proper terms to buy scroll of fireball at minium CL" which takes away the immersions. If I decide that the term CL and standardized spell names exist in the world, I can stay in character and say "Do you have scrolls to sell? More precisely fireball of CL 5...". I prefer to roleplay than roll-play. I even go so far as to walk out on groups where the majority of gamers use everquest speech rather than actively plaing their character. I do not think it is any way reflecting anyone's capabilities of roleplaying if they use a few off-character terms to make the nonimportant situations (like shopping for scrolls) go smoother and faster. Roleplay and rollplay are both REQUIRED in DnD and not exclusive in any way. I'm a big fan of immersive roleplaying... so when I'm in character, I try my best to not use game terms like level, alignment, and other terms that we as PLAYERS much know to have our characters function in the game world, but that our CHARACTERS would have no contact with. My point is exactly that the characters could have contact with those terms so it is not out of character to use them.
CrashtheStyx 04-24-07, 05:50 PM	I think a lot of the caster terminology argument for me lays on just that it seems video-gamish to use terms like "CR 6" or even "empowered" in a fantasy world that where it may be enriched with magic, it's not enriched with science or technology (unless of course the setting differs from the normal game I've played in). I agree that Wizards would very easily be able to differentiate the power of their spells vs another caster, or that another caster had a lower range of spells that their ability allowed them to cast. So yeah, you could say that they know their caster level and could refer to one another in such a way. But maybe it's because I also find myself on the 'deep immersion' side of roleplaying...role playing becomes boring for me. Like I mentioned in the OP, I am currently playing a game online where we have an IC chat box and an OOC chat box that allows us to type exactly what happens IC and nothing else, providing a deeper sense of immersion that has really changed the way I play the game. That's why I brought this up in the first place...because as my paladin started to gain casting abilities I wanted someone else's input on how they go about describing such IC. Syntax said it well, and I like that style of descriptions (hope you don't mind I'll be borrowing some of that). Just using the words spell level, caster level, etc just seem like you're turning D&D into an MMORPG...when I play D&D to avoid the MMORPG style.
Shadowhowler 04-24-07, 06:01 PM	My point is exactly that the characters could have contact with those terms so it is not out of character to use them. For the most part I would dissagree with you. I don't think a fighter would in character say 'Well, Bob, I took improved toughness as a feat when I hit 6th level, so I can really take a beating now.' or 'Say Bob? I've noticed your a bit slow in combat, when are you gonna get enough exp to hit level 6 and get that extra attack eh?' These are game terms that we as players know, but our characters do not. Players are like gods in this respect, able to look over a character sheet and know all of that characters potential/abilities... but that CHARACTER does not have that acsess, nor would he use terminlogie that requires that acsess. I'm currious what game terms you think are ok to use in character, and which ones are not. Would I be safe in assuming you would NOT find the above example an acceptable in game conversation?
Cariyaga 04-24-07, 07:18 PM	That is not what he meant. In fact you completely misunderstood him. He said that if your character knows the terms, they can use them. A wizard, as was said many times before, would know of spell levels, be it in that terminology or whatever.
Azezel 04-24-07, 08:21 PM	Casters do not know their caster level. A caster knows, how powerful he is, compared to another caster, provided he has had the opertunity to study this other caster, but that only provides a relative level of power. A wizard might observe, "I am more powerful than him, because when I summon a beast, it remains on the Prime Material rather longer. I am far less powerful than her, because she can halt the flow of time, a magic which I could not begin to work - though, I beleive that given time and practice, I may grow in power, until such time as I can work such magics." At no point can this Wizard observe that his is CL4. (Incidentally, just because his Celestial Giant Fire Beetle remains for 24 seconds does not mean that he knows he's level four. A caster with a lower CL, but the right feats or metamagic could do just as well - the Wizard does not know that he has a couple of Summoning improving Feats - he just knows that he's quite good at summoning). As for which terms I use IC. Some classes, I use, Wizard, Sorcerer and Paladin for example. These are measureable things. A person who casts spells, and relies upon a book is a Wizard in-game, as well as on his character sheet. Some classes have names that I use IC - but not because a PC or NPC has that class on the character sheet. Anyone who makes a living from playing music/acting/poetry etc might be called a bard, even if that person does not have ranks in the Bard Class. Same goes for Barbarian or Cleric. If a character is from the uncivilised wilderness, he's a barbarian, if a character is the serveant of a church or deity, he's a cleric - even if that's not what it says on the character sheet. Meatshield is not a term I have used IC - but I see nothing wrong with it - it is descriptive and sounds good - just the sort of thing that an Adcenturing Sorcerer might call his warrior protector, or his summoned creatures. Tank is slightly harder. In a world with actual Adventurers (that is, a recognised class/group subset of society, rather than a single band of people, like say, the Fellowship of the Ring) there will likely be a certain amount of Jargon. All specialised groups have jargon, it is the natural form of things, and among Adventurers, there may well be a term for a well armoured warrior, one who is good at protecting his fellows. I see no reason why this term should not be 'tank'. The fact that there are no battle tanks to give rise to the term only matters if you assume that your fantasy world speaks English. In which case you're going to have to explain the existense of a shedload of other words including 'Dungeon' which to the best of my knowledge comes from vulgar Latin - which probably was never spoken on Oerth. (This is also my argument against people trying to use bastardised Elizabethan vocabulary). To be honest - I am much more concerned with the meaning of IC speech than the wording. I assume that whatever they say is: a: Translated into Common, or whatever other language the character is speaking - which is absolutely nothing like English, or any other language known on Earth. b: Modified as appropriate to the character's Inteligence and Charisma score. In acordance with the above, at my table, you may speak Elizabethan Ebonics if you please - I might not like it, but provided you don't role-play something that is beyond your character, and you're not anoying the othe rplayers, go ahead.
Kouk 04-24-07, 10:21 PM	WARNING: The following ramble uses logic and arguments from a semi-roleplaying perspective as well as the real world and might be hazardous to your mental health. Wizards are logical guys who learn through book study and often form guilds, in most people's views I would take it? I think the analogy of certifications or degrees is pretty good, like in a wizard academy you would go to your friend "How did you do on that level 2 certification exam?" "Dude, I totally fireballed it! How'd you do?". Then as an easy way of comparing skill levels when you apply for adventuring positions: Party Leader: "I see here you are a 'level 3' spellcaster?" Wizard: "Yes, I scored top in my class. I don't mean to brag, but I can shoot up to two magic missiles in the same time it takes most people to cast one." Of course it is unrealistic that all arcane casters go to a school where they are measured in this fashion(maybe), but if they have any ranks in Knowledge: Arcana they should have some kind of cultural gauge of what they are capable of, sort of like "I can type 60 words a minute" doesn't apply to a school or certification (per se) but it is a measuring stick you can use to compare yourself against others. You can go ahead and call spell levels "Thaumaturgalogical Phases of the Elements of Eldritch Magnitude" but that would be based on your culture as a trained arcanist and would vary by game world setting. Saying all that flowery stuff when the meaning is exactly the same is just using a synonym for "Spell Level" and doesn't make either more or less correct. The concept has to be called something that makes sense to practitioners, and it doesn't matter what it is as long as they understand each other. For sorcerers and other casters that are "living in a wizard's world", where most people don't know the difference between classes, "a fireball is a fireball it doesn't matter how you made it happen" etc., they would have to have some understanding of how they measure up to the wizards as well as each other wouldn't they? Of course it may be more of a rough estimate for a self-taught sorcerer compared to a wizard, and so their caster levels are a bit off sometimes depending one when they can learn different levels of spells:D . Anyway, it makes no difference what you call a spell level or caster level, if you assume people in your game world understand the concepts they can make up terminology for them. The term for the power of spells you create can be called your "Energy Manipulating Aptitude" or it can be called "Spellcrafting Score", or whatever. If you then consider that other races with their own languages probably have their own words and phrases for things, then how can you communicate that you have different abilities from one language to the next? Why, use the language Common and say "Spell Level" :rimshot: The words used are dependent on what each player feels is roleplaying or not. If you are going to actually speak elvish when your character needs to talk to an elf in private, then I guess you would also consider the term "Spell Level" to be out of place. But the game world is not this world, so who's to say the characters don't actually say things like "Spell Level" or "Paladin" (assuming they are educated and can tell the difference). Spell Levels and Caster Levels are abstractions anyway, but at some point people assign names to differences that are perceivable "enough". Think about how we deal with colors. What makes the color red different than pink? It is a matter of perceived degree of difference and there isn't really a clear-cut definition of where one starts and the other starts (at least not in common usage). You can have "light red" or "dark pink" if you don't feel the distinction is enough to warrant a looking up (or inventing) a specific name for every change of the light wavelengths. In the same way there can be a red spell level and a pink spell level, with infinite variations in between, but people will group them as either red or pink and that is how you have spell level 1, spell level 2 etc.
Cariyaga 04-24-07, 10:26 PM	Regardless of any points made here, if the people in your group agree that it's not metagaming, it isn't metagaming.
Jagyr Ebonwood 04-24-07, 11:15 PM	Allow me to open up another can of worms. In reference to the poster who said that characters wouldn't know of things such as Feats, Alignment, etc... If characters don't know about Alignment, then how does a Paladin detect Evil? Does he get a feeling of "He's not a nice person" ?
CrashtheStyx 04-24-07, 11:46 PM	Regardless of any points made here, if the people in your group agree that it's not metagaming, it isn't metagaming. Yeah my question wasn't really if it was metagaming or not, but more on the lines of the flavor for roleplaying in the game and what type of word usage would kill the IC conversations/etc. I don't think any of the arguments here pass the line into metagaming.
Lord_Tirian 04-25-07, 12:06 AM	Does he get a feeling of "He's not a nice person" ? Or... naughty-bad (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/gamespyarchive/index.php?date=2006-02-22)? :P
Shadowhowler 04-25-07, 01:10 AM	Regardless of any points made here, if the people in your group agree that it's not metagaming, it isn't metagaming. Uh... I would disagree with that as well. A group of my friends can get together and give each other backrubs, and say it's sex, dosn't make it so. Or we can all cornhole each other and say 'It's not sex' but I suspect the world would disagree. :) A better philosophy would be, as long as everyone in your group is cool with your style of play, then you got no worries. Play on.
daggeroflath 04-25-07, 01:15 AM	I've been playing for a looong time now. At first, I took great care in keeping my speech clean of OOC terms. Honestly these days I can't be bothered any more... my roleplaying looks like a page out of Order of the Stick (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html) some days.
Shadowhowler 04-25-07, 01:17 AM	Allow me to open up another can of worms. In reference to the poster who said that characters wouldn't know of things such as Feats, Alignment, etc... If characters don't know about Alignment, then how does a Paladin detect Evil? Does he get a feeling of "He's not a nice person" ? Ah yes, Detect Evil... that one IS a can o Worms. :) I'm still learning all the terms and their aplications as they relate to 3.5... I stalled learning the new system for 7 years, but recently have taken it up. In 2nd Edd, there was a lot more of what 3.5 people call 'fluff', but I read some good stuff on spells like detect evil and detect alingment. They described the sensation often acompanied with the use of these spells, and that the information gained was not nessarily 'This person is Chaotic Evil' but more of a discriptive senssation 'His spirit is dark, malicious... there is a hissing and sneering that coils about his soul, shifting constantly, pulsing and ebbing in strength and focus' IE Chaotic Evil. I have noticed a lot less of this sort of narrative in 3.5... becuase apparently more people care about the 'Crunch' then the 'Fluff'. I will contenue to run my games with the old flavor, but the new systems... hopefully this will preserve the 'Feel' of the old game that I like so much, but clear up the rules... so we won't have to focus on them so much anymore. Thats my hope, anyway... we shall see.
Pie 04-25-07, 02:38 AM	If the players in my campaign referred to Fighters or heavily armored PCs as "Tanks" or "Meat shields" I'd slap them around a bit. I can't stand meta-gaming terms like that. Also add into this pool basically any terminology you picked up from Everquest or World of Warcraft. "Buff" (Bull's Strength) "Debuff" (Ray of Enfeeblement) "DPS" (damage per second, sometimes altered to "DPR" damage per round in D&D) "Nuke" (Cast a high damage spell) My players encounter my wrath when they use these terms. ESPECIALLY in character. I couldn't agree more, WoW terms are not acceptable in game terms in DnD. Although I'd allow "meatshield", this does not just apply to a fighter though. If you are perhaps evil inclined [or chaotic neutral] everyone is a meatshield to you, while you just sneak around avoiding injurt :D. As for some other points; what is and is metagaming is subjective. In fact the example of sex is subjective as well. You can get a basic term going, but past that [ie; including each and every specific action] it gets far too complex to define, not to mention not everyone will agree with you. So I'd agree that metagaming is group-relative. Onto detect evil! Yes, what is "evil" what is "good". These questions are so insanely philosophical that they fuel my hatred for the DnD alignment system [good and evil in the real world are not objective, whereas in DnD it is said that they are {ingame i stress! ingame!}, which I hate]. Of course this is getting off topic a bit, but it does show that the terms are as much out of game terms as they are ingame. Besides a paladin that said somthing along the lines of "Aha! I sense that you go against the moral norms of this society and as a result I must rectify this problem!" would hardly be taken seriously [among other things, but that is getting off topic].
monai75 04-25-07, 03:31 AM	Look people! we as human beings do not greet each other by saying "Hello, What level are you? what is your class, and if you don't mind me asking, what alignment are you?" I am a role=player from the old school of thought. When speaking as your character in game One should never speak with book terms. when my 3rd level Beguiler casts a spell and it's target does not make it's save, he does not say "Good thing I took that Spell focus feat!" Out of game conversation and in game conversation are and should be two different things. As a player of D+D since the early 80's, I have seen a large number of players turn over to the dark side of roleplaying....that is to say they have let the rules and numbers part of the game draw them away from the true aspect of what role-playing really is meant to be. The interactions of characters from and within our imaginations. Do not get me wrong, I am currently playing a character in a campaign with other players who could go though a whole 4 hour game with literally no character in game conversation. So I have to find a comfortable medium for myself and the rest of the players. It is amazing the strange looks you get across the table when you start to speak in a different voice acting as your character!
Kouk 04-25-07, 03:45 AM	Look people! we as human beings do not greet each other by saying "Hello, What level are you? what is your class, and if you don't mind me asking, what alignment are you?" Pfft, speak for yourself.:looloo:
Pegasos989 04-25-07, 11:04 AM	You are exagerating needlesly. Me: "Spellcasters would know their spell levels, their casterlevels and possibly standardized names of spells." Several others: "No, it is totally not roleplaying that character knows what their feats are called and such." It had nothing to do with my point. Though I might slightly disagree there too. Feats require training and concentration in one thing over others. A dwarf might not call his skill as weapon focus:waraxe but he would know he has trained with waraxe so much that he is better using it than other weapons. Wizard might not know he has a feat called extend spell but he would know that while others studied how to make spells more effective, he studied how to get them last longer. So while the dwarf might not say "I have weapon focus" or wizard "I have extend spell -feat" with those words, they would know they have them. And really, for those who say that wizards don't know their CL but just know "some wizards are a lot more powerful as they can stop the time and I can't"... How do you think they shop for scrolls? 8th level wizard wanting a scroll of fireball CL 8 needs to buy CL 8 scroll, he can't use CL 9 and doesn't want CL 5, 6 or 7. He needs to know his CL and the shopkeeper must know CL of the scroll. It can be "I want a scroll of fireball CL 8" or it can be "I want a scroll of the third circle of evocation that creates a blast of heat with the power of which has arcane meta..." but then it is just the same with diffrent, far more complex name. It could be "I want a scroll of fireball with the power of half way between the wizard who learned polymorph and wizard who learned <insert 5th level spell>" but it really doesn't seem any more ingame realistic. And then wizard would need to know you get 5th circle spells at CL 9 and... Those saying "the fact that you know your summons last 24 second tells nothing as some have extend spell, etc."... No. Wizard needs to study how to extend his spells more than others and when he prepares them, he knows he prepares them to last longer and thus being harder... So it isn't that they wouldn't know when they have spells extended and when not.
CrashtheStyx 04-25-07, 11:15 AM	So I have to find a comfortable medium for myself and the rest of the players. It is amazing the strange looks you get across the table when you start to speak in a different voice acting as your character! Try an online game. Out of all the games I've played tabletop save for one (and I flippin' DMed it), I've never been able to take part in such a deep feel of roleplay as the online game I'm playing now. We play using mIRC (google it) and the DM keeps one chat open for IC and one for OOC, allowing you to just read what is happening IC for a full immersion effect. Mind you typing gets a bit tedious, but when we type things we have to describe what's going on. Meaning we're doing more than just typing what we say, we're typing what our characters are doing. We have this elf wizard girl in the group, who interjects, at the perfect time, a random "Alonesta rubs at a new ink stain on her robe, wondering where that one came from" emote. A few of the players started getting really deep into the roleplay, and when the rest realized how fun it was to add that extra bit of life into your character's personality they took hold and started up as well. This is why I started the thread, because I didn't want to kill that sense of immersion like I said before. As for the detect evil, I agree with Shadowhowler and was going to say basically the same thing before I read his post. Detect evil, even if in many games is answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no' or even a 'You feel a great evil' or vise versa, is answered in OOC. You as the player, knowing the spell/ability, have to put that into IC terms. You don't detect a preset variable option of alignment, you are feeling out the subject for a darkness in them(or whatever you would describe undeniable evil as)...so to speak. Personally, I think that a Paladin that detects evil just to be able to swing a sword is a bit rash, but you could play a 'swing now, ask later'...just make sure you get your DM to okay the substitution of diplomacy for intimidate as a class skill.
CrashtheStyx 04-25-07, 11:43 AM	8th level wizard wanting a scroll of fireball CL 8 needs to buy CL 8 scroll, he can't use CL 9 and doesn't want CL 5, 6 or 7. He needs to know his CL and the shopkeeper must know CL of the scroll. It can be "I want a scroll of fireball CL 8" or it can be "I want a scroll of the third circle of evocation that creates a blast of heat with the power of which has arcane meta..." but then it is just the same with diffrent, far more complex name. I still don't think that anyone ever meant for those terms to be used in game. I agree that a Wizard would know his spells and ability to an umpteenth degree of detail, and because of that he would be able to identify what would be above and beyond him. I would say that if the Wizard picked up a scroll of CL9 fireball, he could recognize it as an arcane spell, maybe even that the base of the spell would be fireball, but could only understand it enough to know it was past his potential; not that he could recognize it as a fireball he can cast after his next increase in potential. A lot of these posts seem to be going around and around...and in many ways it seems like we are saying the same things, but have different preferences as to how to word them. Personally, I don't like using any book terms because it seems to cheapen the game for me. Rules, levels, BAB, saves, etc etc are all put together logically in terms of what would be the most realistic in a situation. A Barbarian's full BAB is the reflection of his ever-increasing martial potential, where a Wizard gets crap BAB because he never deals with combat in his studies. These are all set in place not only to keep balance but because it's logical, a wizard never swings a sword when he's reading his books...so why would he get better at it? If you look at the Wizard and his spells under the magnifying glass labeled "rules", you'll see the mechanics and the CR levels and the bonus feats etc. If you wish to play under those pretenses, it's your game and as long as you're having fun I can't fault you for it. But if you look under the "character flavor" mag glass, you're seeing a Wizard whom when he looks at that CR9 fireball scroll knows he as of now he can't understand it enough to cast, but he's excited for the day when he can. It's all in your play style, I'm personally all about the flavor. It's also why I avoid MMORPG's, WoW in particular.
HawkTheOne-Handed 04-25-07, 12:43 PM	I just realized something. I have never run into a gamer using that pseudo shakespear speech. I must be one of the lucky ones.
WHW4 04-25-07, 12:46 PM	A lone warrior walks into the tavern your party is spending the evening at. As the tales of daring and heroism dwindle into a quiet shovelling of food down your own gullets, the stranger approaches, clears his throat and speaks... OOC: Would you rather hear....? A:"I am Kor, son of Thrak, of the Bearclaw Tribe. I hail from the great steppes of the North. I have heard honor heaped upon your names, and tales spread far of your deeds of valor. I wish to join you, wherever your questing takes you, so that my own name might join the ranks of the honored dead someday. I offer my blood and my blade to your cause. "Skills? I am as fast as the wind, as strong as steel,and no man can distract me from my foe once I have engaged him in combat. In my heart burns the fury of a thousand hells, and once provoked, I am not easily turned aside." Or...? B:"Dudes, my character's name is Kor, since the DM killed my last character with that lame Ogre. He's a 5th level Barb with fast movement, imp. uncanny dodge, and I can rage like twice a day. Oh, he's got an 18 strength too. Oh crap I forgot to buy potions, I spent all my cash on this sweet sword, anyone got extra? So when do we leave and get rich, b******?" I know which I prefer. The latter! No, I'm kidding, the former.
daggeroflath 04-25-07, 12:55 PM	Casters do not know their caster level. A caster knows, how powerful he is, compared to another caster, provided he has had the opertunity to study this other caster, but that only provides a relative level of power. It's this kind of thing exactly that makes me create a mage with high intelligence, profession: taxonomy and knowledge arcane, then in character develop a system of classification (curiously precisely equivalent to that in the PHB) with full justifications and measured results which I can then publish so that any character I play in a continuation of that campaign world can use the game terms freely. (This is also my argument against people trying to use bastardised Elizabethan vocabulary). One of my players once used an Elizabethan vocabulary in order to signify that the character was speaking in an outdated dialect of common. The effect was rather spoiled though by the necessity of explaining it to everyone.
Castegyre 04-25-07, 12:57 PM	What WHW4 said... I would like to say it better; that you do not need to necessarily use mechanics terms and definitions in game to speak while still getting your point across, but I can't.
daggeroflath 04-25-07, 01:03 PM	OOC: Would you rather hear....? The second. Seriously. The first one, the player obviously wants to say the second dialogue option there but is repressing it through a filter to get the flowery prose that means exactly the same thing. Maybe if they weren't just saying the same old rubbish that would be neatly explained by game terms then it wouldn't be so bad.
CrashtheStyx 04-25-07, 01:21 PM	The second. Seriously. The first one, the player obviously wants to say the second dialogue option there but is repressing it through a filter to get the flowery prose that means exactly the same thing. Maybe if they weren't just saying the same old rubbish that would be neatly explained by game terms then it wouldn't be so bad. To me that seems to reflect a play style that is focused on the roll play, not the roleplay. But like I said before, whatever suits you. I just make characters with personalities I enjoy playing out...and that don't seem cheesy or novelish.
Pegasos989 04-25-07, 01:24 PM	Just a note about detect evil... http://goblinscomic.com/d/20061223.html
WHW4 04-25-07, 03:03 PM	The second. Seriously. The first one, the player obviously wants to say the second dialogue option there but is repressing it through a filter to get the flowery prose that means exactly the same thing. Maybe if they weren't just saying the same old rubbish that would be neatly explained by game terms then it wouldn't be so bad. I'm not saying your group doesn't need to know what mechanics your character is bringing to the table, or that one way is better than the other. I'm just showing what I've run into. It totally destroys the scene or scenes being RPed out (if your group was doing this to begin with) if the Player just blurts out his feats, skill point distribution, and alignment right off the bat. For me anyway. Diff'rent strokes I guess, eh?
Holy_Beholder 04-25-07, 03:11 PM	Once I used colors for wizards. A silver enchanter would be able to cast 9th level enchantments for instance. In addition there are ceremonial robes that wizards are given if they are able to cast certain spells. In addition the wizards might not have robes for some spell things, since they have different patterns. The colors went like this: 1st-White 2nd-Yellow 3rd-Orange 4th-Red 5th-Blue 6th-Purple 7th-Brown 8th-Black 9th-Silver There were also wizard colleges with training where people could go up through the robes, they often released the Red Robes as graduates.
Nathreet 04-25-07, 04:04 PM	If you search the rule books, especially certain spell descriptions, it describes which rules exactly are knowable in game, and which are not. For example: alignment is (!) race is class isn't level isn't (but the quantities of level-dependant effects may be researched) Yeah, I'm sure wizards can know how powerful their spells are. But they wouldn't refer to the power using the word "level".
Matthew77 04-25-07, 04:41 PM	Yeah, I'm sure wizards can know how powerful their spells are. But they wouldn't refer to the power using the word "level". I understand that some people prefer vague abstract descriptions instead of just blurting out game statistics, but I'm curious how you make a distinction between saying "I can cast a level 3 spell" and "I have mastered the third circle of magics" or "I am a wizard of the orange robe". We already have a perfectly good vocabulary to describe a caster's or spell's power using the terms spell level, caster level and difficulty class. Why bother inventing new terminology for exactly the same concepts?
iam_bkee 04-25-07, 04:58 PM	People who can speak in character are so much fun to have around. I can't do it, so I never expect or require those around me to. When we talk as players, we always use optimal terminology. After raiding in wow, it's impossible not to use terms like "tank" and "agro". The last DM I played with was really good at always speaking in character for NPCs. He would use spell names, but never levels, stats, skills, or even class names. Not me though. I have to stick with "The king so eloquently and in a roundabout way hints that if you do not leave immediately, you will be killed." "Like a 2 bit redneck using slang you've never heard before, the begger explains in great detail the full commings and going of the local royal authority."
Pegasos989 04-25-07, 05:16 PM	If you search the rule books, especially certain spell descriptions, it describes which rules exactly are knowable in game, and which are not. For example: alignment is (!) race is class isn't level isn't (but the quantities of level-dependant effects may be researched) Yeah, I'm sure wizards can know how powerful their spells are. But they wouldn't refer to the power using the word "level". They could. They might not know they are statted as 7th level wizard but they could have invented a scaling system for their power which may as well be levels ranging from 1 to 20 (or infinity) as it can be diffrent colors or circles. People who can speak in character are so much fun to have around. I can't do it, so I never expect or require those around me to. When we talk as players, we always use optimal terminology. After raiding in wow, it's impossible not to use terms like "tank" and "agro". The last DM I played with was really good at always speaking in character for NPCs. He would use spell names, but never levels, stats, skills, or even class names. Not me though. I have to stick with "The king so eloquently and in a roundabout way hints that if you do not leave immediately, you will be killed." "Like a 2 bit redneck using slang you've never heard before, the begger explains in great detail the full commings and going of the local royal authority." I disagree about not being able to not use aggro or tank -terms. I have played little WoW but a lot of MMORPGs with similar terms long before I started playing DnD which was long before WoW came out. I have no problems at all with speaking in character while playing. I try to speak in character when DMing too but I think too much (what info may he reveal? what not? what does he need to reaveal even if players don't know it?) and it distracts me and I start browsing the papers, looking down, etc... Not happening in online games though, just when I need to do things fast.
CrashtheStyx 04-25-07, 05:59 PM	We already have a perfectly good vocabulary to describe a caster's or spell's power using the terms spell level, caster level and difficulty class. Why bother inventing new terminology for exactly the same concepts? Because it ruins the aspects of ROLEplaying that are the base of the game. If I just want to be powerful and kill stuff, I'll play the MMORPG's out there. When you use terminology like that you make the game feel like just another MMO...which for me are lacking in anything other than repetitive "get more powerful" quests and you might as well be watching the same rerun over and over on TV. But...like I've stated before, that's just me. I rather a roleplaying game than a hack n' slash. It's a breath of fresh air for me after being so bored with MMO's. If you enjoy the other route, please by all means enjoy it. Just not at my table :D
Another_Poet 04-25-07, 08:50 PM	Well, that is nice. However, wizards do know "My spells last twice as long as that guy's." "My summoning spell always lasts 6/7ths of the time of that guy's..." It is REALLY easy for them to figure out their casterlevel. I might know I can throw a baseball twice as far as the guy next to me, but that doesn't mean I can accurately guess exactly how many pounds of weight he can lift compared to me. Even if wizards thought in terms of "levels" it might be hard for an 8th level wizard to guess whether a weaker wizard was level 1 or 2. And that is assuming that the levels are meant to be taken literally (i.e., your spells are -exactly- this powerful until you kill -exactly- this number of monsters, and then they become -exactly- this much more powerful). A more useful view, in my opinion, is that the caster levels are an abstract (like experience points). In reality one wizard might be level 3.34 and another one might be level 3.78. In other words, one might still be shaky on the spells he learned when he reached 3rd level and another might already be dabbling with the spells he'll learn at 4th.
SokenzanMarauder 04-25-07, 09:41 PM	With spells I describe them and if the DM asks I give their name. As for referring to other people, if I see someone in armor with a sword I'll call them a warrior. If the person is casting divine spells with I call them a priest, if the person is a holy zealot (paladin) I'll call them a knight. Rogues, I call them just that. As for others doing it, I personally can't stand it when people refer to classes as 'tanks', 'blasters', or the like ('toon in particular gets on my nerves). -Gene
Holy_Beholder 04-25-07, 10:13 PM	Exactly my point. Except for fraud is thrown in, and a few of my characters have derogatory terms for all of them. Like referring to the warrior as a thug or a brute(or a few things that the CoC would have trouble with), priests are generally more revered, but uptight shiny ***** works well for paladins. As for rogue, miscreant, and criminal often work nicely.
Shadowhowler 04-25-07, 10:52 PM	A lone warrior walks into the tavern your party is spending the evening at. As the tales of daring and heroism dwindle into a quiet shovelling of food down your own gullets, the stranger approaches, clears his throat and speaks... OOC: Would you rather hear....? A:"I am Kor, son of Thrak, of the Bearclaw Tribe. I hail from the great steppes of the North. I have heard honor heaped upon your names, and tales spread far of your deeds of valor. I wish to join you, wherever your questing takes you, so that my own name might join the ranks of the honored dead someday. I offer my blood and my blade to your cause. "Skills? I am as fast as the wind, as strong as steel,and no man can distract me from my foe once I have engaged him in combat. In my heart burns the fury of a thousand hells, and once provoked, I am not easily turned aside." Or...? B:"Dudes, my character's name is Kor, since the DM killed my last character with that lame Ogre. He's a 5th level Barb with fast movement, imp. uncanny dodge, and I can rage like twice a day. Oh, he's got an 18 strength too. Oh crap I forgot to buy potions, I spent all my cash on this sweet sword, anyone got extra? So when do we leave and get rich, b******?" I know which I prefer. The latter! No, I'm kidding, the former. :D Totaly hilarious... you made my day. For the record, I prefer the former myself as well.
Shadowhowler 04-25-07, 10:57 PM	I understand that some people prefer vague abstract descriptions instead of just blurting out game statistics, but I'm curious how you make a distinction between saying "I can cast a level 3 spell" and "I have mastered the third circle of magics" or "I am a wizard of the orange robe". We already have a perfectly good vocabulary to describe a caster's or spell's power using the terms spell level, caster level and difficulty class. Why bother inventing new terminology for exactly the same concepts? Becuase it helps set up boundries between in game and out of game... and some poeple REALLY need help wtih those boundries. Also, I think the level based characteristics of wizard magic is really only talked about among other wizards. Certainly, those trained in the magical arts of some sort of vovabulary to express their studies and abilities (Much like docters and scientests do) but it would not make much sense to one who was untrained.
daggeroflath 04-25-07, 11:45 PM	To me that seems to reflect a play style that is focused on the roll play, not the roleplay. But like I said before, whatever suits you. I've been gaming for 15 years, I have heard every single way under the sun of describing "Hi, I'm a fighter", "Hi, I'm a wizard"... after this long it's a pleasant change to not deal with someone hiding that in prose, yet again. That said, I could speak a single sentence and the rest of my group could recognize which of my many characters was speaking. So I don't think we have a problem with characterization. I'm not saying your group doesn't need to know what mechanics your character is bringing to the table, or that one way is better than the other. I'm just showing what I've run into. It totally destroys the scene or scenes being RPed out (if your group was doing this to begin with) if the Player just blurts out his feats, skill point distribution, and alignment right off the bat. For me anyway. Diff'rent strokes I guess, eh? If people design their characters together then introductions become a matter of character, not character class. It stops being "I'm core-mechanics <fake flowery prose>I'm a barbarian</fake flowery prose". And becomes "I'm Kor. I want to come with you when you attack the evil necromancer Bob, it's a matter of honour." Because really, as someone said before, who introduces themselves by class and level, no matter how well you hide it?
WHW4 04-26-07, 02:00 PM	I've been gaming for 15 years, I have heard every single way under the sun of describing "Hi, I'm a fighter", "Hi, I'm a wizard"... after this long it's a pleasant change to not deal with someone hiding that in prose, yet again. That said, I could speak a single sentence and the rest of my group could recognize which of my many characters was speaking. So I don't think we have a problem with characterization. If people design their characters together then introductions become a matter of character, not character class. It stops being "I'm core-mechanics <fake flowery prose>I'm a barbarian</fake flowery prose". And becomes "I'm Kor. I want to come with you when you attack the evil necromancer Bob, it's a matter of honour." Because really, as someone said before, who introduces themselves by class and level, no matter how well you hide it? It's a little trickier when you have one player who is forced to roll up a new character every session or two due to what I can only call "selective amnesia." This is what we deal with in our group. Also, any time a new character joins the group, we kind of like to know what his general abilities are (and thus, it becomes a RP interaction) so that the group knows whether to say "take a hike, farmboy, you'll get yourself or us killed" or "well, we could use a mage of your caliber." That character then goes on a kind of unsaid "probationary period" until his trustworthyness/mettle/skills can be verified. It's what I would do if I were an adventurer. Oh, and... are you under the impression I was belittling your play style? I wasn't. I haven't been gaming for 15 years, and I'm not sick of hearing people at least attempt to be in character when describing their abilities/skills. That wasn't an insult either, by the way. Like I said... diff'rent strokes, man.
Count_Chumleigh 04-26-07, 02:14 PM	A lone warrior walks into the tavern your party is spending the evening at. As the tales of daring and heroism dwindle into a quiet shovelling of food down your own gullets, the stranger approaches, clears his throat and speaks... OOC: Would you rather hear....? A:"I am Kor, son of Thrak, of the Bearclaw Tribe. I hail from the great steppes of the North. I have heard honor heaped upon your names, and tales spread far of your deeds of valor. I wish to join you, wherever your questing takes you, so that my own name might join the ranks of the honored dead someday. I offer my blood and my blade to your cause. "Skills? I am as fast as the wind, as strong as steel,and no man can distract me from my foe once I have engaged him in combat. In my heart burns the fury of a thousand hells, and once provoked, I am not easily turned aside." Or...? B:"Dudes, my character's name is Kor, since the DM killed my last character with that lame Ogre. He's a 5th level Barb with fast movement, imp. uncanny dodge, and I can rage like twice a day. Oh, he's got an 18 strength too. Oh crap I forgot to buy potions, I spent all my cash on this sweet sword, anyone got extra? So when do we leave and get rich, b******?" Honestly, I'd prefer the latter, both from an in-game and out-of-game perspective. I prefer it from an out-of-game perspective because, as someone else has already said, my characters never introduce themselves by their abilities, only by their, well, character. And when they do introduce themselves in terms of their abilities, they do so less in terms of flowery prose and more in terms of, "I'm real good with this here axe--maybe not the best, but the best you'll find in twenty miles." I also prefer the latter approach from an in-character perspective not because I think it's especially compelling dialogue, but because none of my characters would ever adventure with someone who walks up to them out of the blue and speaks of joining them in the honored halls of the dead, lending his "blood and blade" to their cause, and claims to "burn[] with the fury of a thousand hells" once provoked. Hell, my current character's a carefree dwarf drummer! He doesn't even have a cause. Well, groupies maybe, but having a very angry man standing next to me, killing all those who provoked him, would not be conducive to furthering said cause, I don't imagine. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
WHW4 04-26-07, 02:38 PM	Honestly, I'd prefer the latter, both from an in-game and out-of-game perspective. I prefer it from an out-of-game perspective because, as someone else has already said, my characters never introduce themselves by their abilities, only by their, well, character. And when they do introduce themselves in terms of their abilities, they do so less in terms of flowery prose and more in terms of, "I'm real good with this here axe--maybe not the best, but the best you'll find in twenty miles." I also prefer the latter approach from an in-character perspective not because I think it's especially compelling dialogue, but because none of my characters would ever adventure with someone who walks up to them out of the blue and speaks of joining them in the honored halls of the dead, lending his "blood and blade" to their cause, and claims to "burn[] with the fury of a thousand hells" once provoked. Hell, my current character's a carefree dwarf drummer! He doesn't even have a cause. Well, groupies maybe, but having a very angry man standing next to me, killing all those who provoked him, would not be conducive to furthering said cause, I don't imagine. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh My example was a generic (see: I don't know your friggin' campaign details/ party make-up) one. Plus, no one in my group has ever laughed, dismissed, or said "dude, say it in normal-speak" to me when I RP my characters. I guess it helps if you use a voice appropriate to the character. I don't know. I think a big bad warrior, essentially pitching himself to the group, would at least try to play his abilities up a little. Depends on the personality of said character "I got uh axe, and uh... I join you!" just doesn't really interest me in your bland generic barbarian. It's all about spin. Obviously you guys just thought I was trying to be pretentious with my example, which I most assuredly was not. I really apologize if I came off wrong, guys.
Count_Chumleigh 04-26-07, 02:40 PM	My example was a generic (see: I don't know your friggin' campaign details/ party make-up) one. Plus, no one in my group has ever laughed, dismissed, or said "dude, say it in normal-speak" to me when I RP my characters. I guess it helps if you use a voice appropriate to the character. I don't know. I think a big bad warrior, essentially pitching himself to the group, would at least try to play his abilities up a little. Depends on the personality of said character "I got uh axe, and uh... I join you!" just doesn't really interest me in your bland generic barbarian. It's all about spin. Obviously you guys just thought I was trying to be pretentious with my example, which I most assuredly was not. I really apologize if I came off wrong, guys. No worries, man; it's the internet. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
Shadowhowler 04-26-07, 04:46 PM	My example was a generic (see: I don't know your friggin' campaign details/ party make-up) one. Plus, no one in my group has ever laughed, dismissed, or said "dude, say it in normal-speak" to me when I RP my characters. I guess it helps if you use a voice appropriate to the character. I don't know. I think a big bad warrior, essentially pitching himself to the group, would at least try to play his abilities up a little. Depends on the personality of said character "I got uh axe, and uh... I join you!" just doesn't really interest me in your bland generic barbarian. It's all about spin. Obviously you guys just thought I was trying to be pretentious with my example, which I most assuredly was not. I really apologize if I came off wrong, guys. No appology needed, *I* at least got the point of your example, even if the example itself was a bit flowery. :) It's just a mater of playstyle... yours and mine tend towards the heavy character immersion playstyle... but ever sense the advent of MMO's less and less people play D&D that way. :(
Kylain 04-26-07, 05:09 PM	If the players in my campaign referred to Fighters or heavily armored PCs as "Tanks" or "Meat shields" I'd slap them around a bit. I can't stand meta-gaming terms like that. Also add into this pool basically any terminology you picked up from Everquest or World of Warcraft. "Buff" (Bull's Strength) "Debuff" (Ray of Enfeeblement) "DPS" (damage per second, sometimes altered to "DPR" damage per round in D&D) "Nuke" (Cast a high damage spell) My players encounter my wrath when they use these terms. ESPECIALLY in character. My group seems to have met something of a compromise. While you'll never see video game terms make their way to the table, some of the game's characteristics do make it. For example mages do refer to spell levels, class names are fairly commonly used, terms like specialist and master make their way in. 'Buff' is teetering on the edge at the moment, as is generally only used when a character is carrying an excessive number of them. Some of the more rule based stuff is now a little commonplace post a series of arguments between a Modron and a weapon sage gladiator. In an attempt to one up each other, we started pulling out the technical jargon differentiating various weapons and armor. A half hour later we're calling old Grimtol's Armor Classification scheme absurd given it works in progressively more negative numbers, whereas Victorious's new Defensively Ability scheme covers its problems nicely. Shortly thereafter the wizard gets involved, giving his critique on Champ's Enchantment Classification, Dr. Watson's Physical Endurance Approximation method, Whesley's Combat Time scale and so on. We called it a night when someone tried to broach the Exp system... Many of them were amusing enough to keep around.
Cariyaga 04-26-07, 05:35 PM	As for rogue, miscreant, and criminal often work nicely. Most rogues would take that as a compliment.
Matthew77 04-26-07, 07:12 PM	Look people! we as human beings do not greet each other by saying "Hello, What level are you? what is your class, and if you don't mind me asking, what alignment are you?" Last time I applied for a job, my prospective co-workers definitely asked about my experience, skills and philosophical inclinations.
M1kh43l_P4r4d1s0 04-26-07, 07:56 PM	it's like me calling you a Sentikshoj Well, I am deeply offended that you would use such a rude, hatful term here on these public boards. Good day sir. But seriously, I hate it when players look at your sheet and are all like oh well, I don't see a spell book, you must be a sorc. That's why my Fire elemental sorc is very cocky and "rude." When the party leader tried to incorporate my character by saying "What is your class" I simply replied noble. Later he realized that that meant I was a very powerful sorc, and didn't offend me any more.
daggeroflath 04-27-07, 10:01 AM	Oh, and... are you under the impression I was belittling your play style? The tone of this thread as a whole had a tone of "using game terms in character is bad, mkay?". Your post was merely a well written post in the thread and included an example, meaning that replying to it gave a good opportunity to share my thoughts. I think it's important for me to advocate my own position because a lot of DMs on this thread have basically said "I won't tolerate this horrible behaviour from my players". That means that chances are, a lot of people out there are being turned away from gaming and having a lousy day because their playing style is seen as inferior. I can write with a minimum of spelling mistakes, have a lot of experience with gaming and by offering myself up as a "sacrificial goat" and confessing to the sin of "using game terms in character", I may be able to help some new players out there get a footing in a game I love. ... geez, you can see why I end up playing the cleric when I game.
CrashtheStyx 04-27-07, 10:25 AM	It's just a mater of playstyle... yours and mine tend towards the heavy character immersion playstyle... but ever sense the advent of MMO's less and less people play D&D that way. :( THIS is what I've been saying!!
WHW4 04-27-07, 01:54 PM	The tone of this thread as a whole had a tone of "using game terms in character is bad, mkay?". Your post was merely a well written post in the thread and included an example, meaning that replying to it gave a good opportunity to share my thoughts. I think it's important for me to advocate my own position because a lot of DMs on this thread have basically said "I won't tolerate this horrible behaviour from my players". That means that chances are, a lot of people out there are being turned away from gaming and having a lousy day because their playing style is seen as inferior. I can write with a minimum of spelling mistakes, have a lot of experience with gaming and by offering myself up as a "sacrificial goat" and confessing to the sin of "using game terms in character", I may be able to help some new players out there get a footing in a game I love. ... geez, you can see why I end up playing the cleric when I game. I understand your position as well. I never expect every player to have a two page backstory, a completely fleshed out goal, or to describe their powers in an in-character manner all the time. It just isn't reasonable on my part to do so. My first character, I had a name and a general idea where he came from... and nothing else. He is my favorite character to this day, and he has evolved alot. Here's what usually happens in our group. We tend to roleplay alot of the first time meetings, partings, humorous interactions, and negative interactions. Alot of the travelling, resupplying, and general "info-seeks" are done narratively. The encounters, of course, are played out (both the "bad guy" and the "another traveller" encounters) on the map, since they can devolved/evolve into a messy combat or a talk-through encounter. Planning is kind of dubious. We all go into a "hybrid" state where we OOC ask everyone to check and see what would be useful, but we RP asking about it too. It's hard to explain without an example: The group was about to enter a captured keep, which was lorded over by a green dragon. We were told we had a few rounds to prepare, and so we each combed our sheets over for anything useful. I asked (IC) if one of the other characters had some magic that could give me great sight, since an earlier scouting had found a deeper darkness spell in effect. I knew the other guy had truesight, he knew he had it, but I tried to work it so that it was done somewhat IC. It's what works for us. If we had just done game-terms, it would have moved quicker, but it wouldn't have felt -quite- as rewarding roleplay-wise; and if we had done it all IC, it would have taken an hour as we each play twenty questions with each other trying to determine what buffs could work on who effectively.
daggeroflath 04-27-07, 03:13 PM	I understand your position as well. I never expect every player to have a two page backstory, a completely fleshed out goal, or to describe their powers in an in-character manner all the time. Thing is, most of the time I will have a two page backstory (or at least I could sit down and write it without pausing for thought) and I will describe my powers in character. Yet there are times when I just want to say "It's a +4 sword" rather than fumbling with, "It is a weapon of the basic creation, with no ancilliary powers. Despite that it holds a more complex and powerful dweomer than your sword of flame my good friend. Its power though is weaker than the divine grace that surges through our paladin friend's Holy Avenger". Here's what usually happens in our group. We tend to roleplay alot of the first time meetings, partings, humorous interactions, and negative interactions. Alot of the travelling, resupplying, and general "info-seeks" are done narratively. The encounters, of course, are played out (both the "bad guy" and the "another traveller" encounters) on the map, since they can devolved/evolve into a messy combat or a talk-through encounter. We have a bad habbit that I am trying desperately to shake, of roleplaying our characters' lives 24/7. We rarely even fast forward much, every time a person goes to buy a longsword we end up in a scene with the blacksmith roleplaying word for blasted word through the purchasing and haggling of a longsword. Damn I am desperate to shake this habbit. Planning is kind of dubious. We all go into a "hybrid" state where we OOC ask everyone to check and see what would be useful, but we RP asking about it too. It's hard to explain without an example: Within our group we use a handsign, putting one hand palm down on the fingers of the other to make a 'T' sign, (for Time Out), and anything we say while doing that is OOC. Saves on a lot of confusion. It's what works for us. If we had just done game-terms, it would have moved quicker, but it wouldn't have felt -quite- as rewarding roleplay-wise; and if we had done it all IC, it would have taken an hour as we each play twenty questions with each other trying to determine what buffs could work on who effectively. Exactly, you need to balance these things. Everything in moderation, including moderation and all that.
Shadowhowler 04-27-07, 06:05 PM	We have a bad habbit that I am trying desperately to shake, of roleplaying our characters' lives 24/7. We rarely even fast forward much, every time a person goes to buy a longsword we end up in a scene with the blacksmith roleplaying word for blasted word through the purchasing and haggling of a longsword. Damn I am desperate to shake this habbit. Thats too bad... thats exactly the habbit my old group used to have, and that I wish I could get my new group into. Within our group we use a handsign, putting one hand palm down on the fingers of the other to make a 'T' sign, (for Time Out), and anything we say while doing that is OOC. Saves on a lot of confusion.. Thats a very good idea... my old group used this method as well, and it works great for limiting confusion between in and out of character speech.
daggeroflath 04-28-07, 03:11 PM	Thats too bad... thats exactly the habbit my old group used to have, and that I wish I could get my new group into. Have my group, I'll take yours. (I think I just invented a new reality TV show... DM Swap). No, seriously, my group is wonderful but I'm not exaggerating when I say we roleplay 24/7 of the character's life. You know, if I could get it down to maybe 12 hours a day and the weekends off it would be nice.
Tyraxus 04-28-07, 06:20 PM	Last time I applied for a job, my prospective co-workers definitely asked about my experience, skills and philosophical inclinations. Good point. And how many times have you (generic "you", not Matthew77) been at a social function of some kind (cocktail party, neighborhood cookout, etc) and had someone ask you "So, what do you do for a living?" or "Where do you work in town?" So yes, in real-life (which seems to be the measuring stick for what a character "would do in-character") people often introduce themselves by name and profession at the very least, and often by some sort of level-equivalent ("I'm a floor manager down at the mill," or "I've been on the police force for eight years; I'm up for sergeant next month.") as well.
celtredleg 04-28-07, 10:11 PM	I am largely with Dager, but then I have played 30 years this fall. I have however been through times when we all tried to avoid all game terms. Sometimes you wind up with even more strange things than the terms would. Now, I just dont have the energy. The last DM who chided me for useing spell level, I requested a dictionary from, so that I could talk right in his world. I told him I did not have the time or inclination to make up a whole new language, but I was perfectly willing to use his. But, until such a time as he gave it to me, I would continue to use my game terms. It turned out, he didnt have the time to write a whole dictionary either, so we stuck with our old terms.
daggeroflath 04-29-07, 04:32 AM	The last DM who chided me for useing spell level, I requested a dictionary from, so that I could talk right in his world. Hilarious, I've got to try that one.
Shadowhowler 04-29-07, 10:29 PM	Have my group, I'll take yours. (I think I just invented a new reality TV show... DM Swap). No, seriously, my group is wonderful but I'm not exaggerating when I say we roleplay 24/7 of the character's life. You know, if I could get it down to maybe 12 hours a day and the weekends off it would be nice. DM Swap, I love it. Sign me up. :)