What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept?

[Najo]

Why does who posted it matter? Am I to understand that Fifth Element could post the exact same thing I post and you'd read them differently?

No, not exactly. I was surprised when I saw the reply from Fifth Element because I thought I was replying to you.

I went back and made sure there wasn't a posting error, and re-read everything. You and him have many posts next to each other.

His are constructive and rational.

Yours are taking things out of context and trying to start fights. You are looking for trouble.

I had read many of your posts along with his, I then read a statement directed at me and thought it was from you. It is not personal, I do not know you personally, but you have been attacking people left and right in here and I am sure getting on everyone's nerves. You are taking things out of context (like the post above) and trying to make people look stupid. You are looking for character damning traits and not staying on subject.

Your basically trying to win arguments by causing a smear campaign against people who disagree with you. This doesn't do any good, it only makes you look bad.

I am not trying to have issue with you. I would as if you can't be constructive and positive then please stop or go cool off and come back and re-read the posts. Your opinion matters as much as each of ours, but I don;t appreciate the personal attacks and I sure the others you've done it to don't either. If your not careful you could get banned.

Lets not fight, lets have a rational discussion to understand each other. If you feel so strongly about the GWA issues, instead of putting us down for our opinions then share why you feel your opinion is correct.

 

[Najo]

Yes, I am honestly telling you I won't get upset about those settings being revised to fit the 4e rule set. WotC does their thing, I buy what I find interesting, and then I do my thing with it and then we play.

If WotC does something I don't like and don't think I can work with, I'll just play a game I feel I can work with. Being upset about changes to a game doesn't enter into the picture for me. I co-created and wrote the first Mutant Chronicles RPG, and that's been made into a second edition which changed some things, and now it's being made into a third edition which changes a lot of things. And it's being made into a move which changes a truck load of things on a fundamental level.

I'm not upset about that, so I'm sure not gonna be upset about changes to D&D. Things change, that's all as far as I am concerned.

/M

You know, I get it. Lets just all get along and such. Overall I am with you. I am not looking to argue and we can agree to disagree. I would like to make a point though off what you said about Mutant Chronicles.

Mutant Chronicles had a campaign setting built in. They didn't make setting books to change the world into entirely different campaign settings. Mutant Chronicles was not a role playing engine made to run your own games with, it was a system built to run games in the Mutant Chronicles setting. Making changes to each or its core world is no different than the different versions of Forgotten Realms with each edition.

D&D is a game engine that then plugs campaign settings on to it. It is not a campaign setting that you plug other campaign settings on to. The people who play D&D play it for many different reasons, some of those reasons is to use the system to build their own campaign over. This direction they are taking hurts that. It also hurts WOTC plugging on campaign settings of their own. It is much more streamlined to put in examples in the core book removed from the mechanics than to put pages in every campaign setting explaining to DMs and Players how to modify all of the fluff to fit in.

What is happening by turning D&D into more of a campaign setting is the core rules are turning into a world with rules instead of just rules. By doing that, they are making us have to possibly make extensive changes to explore other worlds with different feels.

That is bad. It is like getting a blank canvas with coloring book lines on it. Sure I can paint over the lines, but they distract me from my painting, and they show through the yellow paint. I wished WOTC gave me as blank a canvas as possible, or if they wanted to provide guidelines, to have made them as overlays to the canvas that I can add on if I want instead of being forced to work around.

 

[Najo]

It matters, I think, because he made a comment to me without realizing who had said what I said. It's valid, given the misunderstanding.

Exactly. It places intent behind the comment. Fifth Element was being constructive and polite in previous statments when he made his comment. Zurai was being rude, and then I read the post and mistook its intent.

Zurai it is not personl, it is me not taking things out of context and judging you by your posts and general tone and attitude.

Again, to Fifth Element, I am sorry to have misquoted you. <hand shake>

To Zurai, lets keep things peaceful and no hard feelings. Just relax and add your 2 cents without attacking those of us who disagree. <hand shake>

 

[Zurai]

See, once again you are taking it out of context. I said you can add it to both sides because they do not care either way.

You said you can add it to both sides. This is false. You cannot add an abstention vote to any side. "I have no opinion" or "I do not have a preference between these choices" is not the same as "I want this choice to happen and I want this choice to happen". You cannot read abstention votes that way, it causes misunderstandings like you're having.

Again, you are correct that there is a very small majority for removing the fluff from the feat name. I don't contest that. I do contest that it means anything. Here are the statistical suppositions related to your poll:

1. It's a self-selecting sample. This is undeniable.
2. It represents only a tiny fraction of D&D players. I don't know the number of people that play D&D, but it's reportedly in the millions, and 56k/2m is 0.028%.
3. The people that post on this forum, and thus are able to vote in your poll, are in general fairly experienced and/or heavily invested D&D players.
4. The wizard schools are designed primarily for D&D players that are either inexperienced or not heavily invested in the hobby.

Those suppositions mean that your poll has very little statistical significance. In actuality, the fact that there is a bare 55% majority for removing the fluff name with a group of voters that is statistically stacked towards removing the fluff name indicates that the majority of actual D&D players would likely actually prefer the fluff stay in the name. That last statement cannot be actually proclaimed from this poll data, of course, but it's absolutely not usable to say that a majority of D&D players in general disagree with the feat name. The most exact conclusion you could draw is "a small majority of ENWorld posters would rather that feat names not include fluff".

I'm not saying this to attack you or cut you down or anything, merely to help you understand the results of your poll from a statistical point of view.

Are you trying to get this thread shut down?

Please be constructive, and stop being so manipulative and negative towards the people who are trying to share their opinions in a positive manner. You need to cool off and come back in with a level head and re-read things you misread, like most of the post you quoted here.

These are hardly constructive. I'll freely admit I lost my cool with BryonD. I'm being perfectly level-headed with you though, since you're being calm and collected yourself, and making reasoned (if ill-founded, IMO) arguments.

Anyrate, lets not get bad blood going on. I do not have any issue with you, nor am I trying to cause one. I also am not trying to misrepresent the poll or be using a minority position to infleunce a majority. Everything I have stated is supported by the poll.

I accept that you're not trying to misrepresent the poll, and that the numbers, without context, support what you are saying. Adding the context, though, turns it on its head. Again, not trying to be an ass with this; I just want you to realize the context of your own data, so that we can have a more constructive discussion.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I'll just try to simplify and condense what Najo was saying here

Has anybody in this thread ever attempted to use the Exalted Rules for a homebrew setting? Not an alteration of the existing Creation setting in the book, their own creation without the baggage?

You Can't

The campaign setting of Creation used in the core rules is so intertwined with the rules that you literally are unable to pull the two apart. Any setting you create will simply be Creation with some cosmetic differences on top.

I do not want D&D to become like that.

 

[Zurai]

On an unrelated note, Najo, could I politely request that you consolidate your replies into a single post instead of making five consecutive posts that say essentially the exact same thing? Just copy/paste in the specific quotes you're replying to and attribute them properly. It helps reduce the clutter in the thread.

 

[Rechan]

How many freaking threads are we going to have about the GWA? It's getting to ludicrous levels here.

 

[Cam Banks]

I don't think GWA is going to break the game. I don't want to give that opinion. WotC isn't polluting my head with teh evilz or anything.

But it adds nothing valuable, at the expense of some obfuscation, and does not meet its stated purpose properly. The suggestion I've been making is to take that stated purpose and use it somewhere with more play value.

So, in essence, it fails for what it tries to do. That's all.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Rel]

How many freaking threads are we going to have about the GWA? It's getting to ludicrous levels here.

I think one less than we did a few minutes ago.

People, some of the attacks and counter attacks made in this thread just make me sad. I'm very sorely tempted to ban about four of you for a week. Instead, simply know that you have worn out any further leeway.

Get some perspective folks. And tread lightly.