This mentality needs to die

[FireLance]

DMs making mistakes happens regardless of edition.

DMs saying "No" instead of "Yes" happens regardless of edition.

DMs interpreting the rules strictly and literally happens regardless of edition.

And I don't believe that 4E particularly encourages any of the above, either.

 

[Rechan]

DMs making mistakes happens regardless of edition.

DMs saying "No" instead of "Yes" happens regardless of edition.

DMs interpreting the rules strictly and literally happens regardless of edition.

And I don't believe that 4E particularly encourages any of the above, either.

But didn't you know, when you see someone do something stupid/wrong, it MUST be deeply indicative of the game and/or system they are playing! Not the quality of the DM or other mitigating factors!

 

[Kzach]

You know, after listening to the podcast, not only do I think this is such a non-issue as to make this a totally ridiculous accusation, but the fact that he prompted the players by reminding them they all had torches, and that the door could be melted by other fire-related means, this puts the accusation squarely in troll territory.

Not only is there nothing wrong with how he handled it, nobody was up in arms over it or upset by it or even noticed it beyond the half-second it took to mentally absorb the concept that the door was not a creature.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No he says in the first sentence I quote that 4e has this problem right down to its core.

And I'm pointing out that if it does, then earlier editions did too.

So, starting off, there's a LOT of evidence for bad 4e naming conventions. Darkfire doesn't stand alone. It is not the sole piece of evidence. 4e has this problem in many areas. Darkfire is one (not even particularly bad) datapoint, but there are so, so many more.

But hey, earlier editions don't get a pass. There's some evidence for cruddy names from earlier editions. The difference between them is more about those have a bigger problem with being "too exotic" (ixixachitl, aasimar) than "amazingly dumb" (Feywild, Wilden, Shadowdark). I'd also argue that they weren't nearly so prevalent or central to the game (monster names vs. place names and power names). The case for 4e having bad naming conventions goes far, far, far, far, far beyond this one power. If you'd like to make a case that older editions were no better, okay, but you'll have to provide more than this as evidence, you'll have to overcome the "exotic vs. dumb" comparison, you'll have to show centrality, etc. That's a whole separate conversation, and it doesn't absolve 4e of being ALSO bad, though it might show that D&D has a long history of horrible, horrible fantasy names. At best, we're all wallowing in the same mire. Not sure I'd buy that, but you'll need more than "This power was also confusing back then!" to convince me.

So, this fire-based confusion doesn't mean that 4e doesn't have horrible naming conventions, and it also doesn't mean that earlier editions did, too.

But let's look at Faerie Fire. With that name, there is a Mythological Basis Trump Card that is pretty evocative, and puts an image in the mind of someone vaguely familiar with myths or fantasy literature that use the myths. Which is what D&D does well. There may still have been some confusion, 'cuz not everyone's up on their Welsh mythology or whatever, but in grand Gygaxian fashion, D&D with faerie fire is edutainment.

Still, even with that trump card, it's probably not the best name. Your/my criticism remains valid. Evocative and mythological, but still confusing for the newbies. It's fire, but not fire, and this is probably not the first time in that power's history where someone thought it would melt ice. When they revisited the name in 4e, they clearly agreed that it could use a change, because they did change it. But they didn't think the "fire" part was problematic at all, just the "faerie" part. Which they changed to "dark." Because clearly the word "dark" doesn't get used enough in a D&D game? While "faerie" suffers from over-use? And they didn't know about potential "fire" confusion? Despite "fire" being almost as common as "Dark"?

I dunno. I don't know what they were thinking. But I can say that Faerie Fire -> Darkfire is not an improvement in any way in my eyes, since it retains possible confusion while obliterating mythological resonance, making up a newcompoundword and risking over-use singularity of the term "Dark."

So, take an evocative but probably confusing term, and turn it into a bland and probably confusing turn. Which is further evidence of 4e's bad use of names.

Though I will say that problem seems to be getting better. The only groaners I found in the Underdark book were legacy imports like "Shadowdark," "Feydark," "Swordwing," etc. Didn't see any "Darkcrawlers" or "Deepdwarves" or "Swordcrawlers" or anything.

 

[Turtlejay]

Oh God, so now. . .my game is stupid because the names in it are stupid? Wow, have you seen this guy's articles where he highlights all the dumb creatures D&D has seen?

Your edition war trolling is not impressive. Go start a thread about how 4e=wow, *that* has more merit than this arguement about Darkfire equalling omg suck.

Jay

Admin here. Folks, this is a good example of how not to respond to someone you disagree with; it helps nothing and drags down the thread. Remember -- if you're in the process of losing your temper over a post, walk away from the keyboard for an hour or so. Then report it if needed, or calmly discuss the issue. Don't start typing invectives. ~ PCat

 

[Pig Champion]

Does this really need three pages? Their being videotaped, what do you expect? I bet if I taped one of your sessions I could find faults as well.

Seriously.

 

[Mark]

So, starting off, there's a LOT of evidence for bad 4e naming conventions.

This comes from, IMO, the IP-ization of 4E and corporate efforts to stave off others from doing with 4E what some have done with editions previous to 3E, namely, using the OGL to create a clone and thus create opportunities to out-D&D, D&D (or cut into brand territory). The GSL creates a limited area in which 3PPs can tread and the naming conventions at work in 4E limit what someone can do with or without the licenses. This practice is also one of the reasons why 4E needed to be and is so different from previous editions, again, IMO.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not only is there nothing wrong with how he handled it, nobody was up in arms over it or upset by it or even noticed it beyond the half-second it took to mentally absorb the concept that the door was not a creature.

I dunno, man, I wasn't there, but Bluebell's player seemed legitimately lost there for a while, looking at his pile of powers, wondering how they apply, until the DM gave him something to do, that he then failed at.

I mean, it is easy to judge like that, and I'm sure it didn't ruin the game, and I do think the first few posts in this thread are pretty reactionary, and no one can be a perfect DM at all times, and blah blah blah extenuating circumstances, whatever. It's still not a great call, and it's something we can learn from as well.

Though mentioning the torches, and darkfire's actual in-game purpose, does remind me how much lighting rules in D&D are kind of borked, too. But anyway, the idea that I can only use my powers against game-defined "creatures" is pretty imagination-breaking at the best of times.

 

[deadsmurf]

While his ruling was worded badly, or used faulty logic, he came to the correct ruling.
I don't think Darkfire is a terrible name for the power (though i can see how a First time player might misread the name and not look at the power etc) I can't come up with a better name for the power, faerie fire is no better, and can be thought of as a little 'lame' - and I'm sorry, the mythological connections that us as adults know about because we were geek kids even before D&D, is a lot less common these days - when a kid wants to read fantasy they don't generally go to faerie myths and such - they can grab a stack of fantasy novels that use different tropes.
Anyway, the thing a lot of people up in arms about this playstyle and everything seem to be forgetting is that all but one of these players are brand new, have never even looked at their power cards before and don't know any of the rules for the game. Mr. Perkins is trying to ease them into the game by letting them take 4 or 5 minutes on their turn so they can get used to doing actions etc. As the game goes on I expect the amount of gameiness to go down and the roleplaying and cool actons encouragement to go up.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Oh God, so now. . .my game is stupid because the names in it are stupid? Wow, have you seen this guy's articles where he highlights all the dumb creatures D&D has seen?

Your edition war trolling is not impressive. Go start a thread about how 4e=wow, *that* has more merit than this arguement about Darkfire equalling omg suck.

Jay

I don't think 4e is stupid. I do think it has a bad habit of having stupid names.

I play in and actively DM two different 4e games at the moment. I buy books and have an active DDI subscription. I don't play 3e, or Pathfinder, at all at the moment. In fact, 4e is the ONLY RPG I currently play. I have (gasp!) had fun in 4e. I even posted a thread a few days ago RAVING about a 4e book that I bought.

Rechan called out the totally fair example that "darkfire" and "faerie fire" are both pretty confusing, and I was simply defending my criticism, which is not mine alone.

Calm down, and quit jumping at shadows, okay? I am saying "Darkfire" is a bad name, like a lot of 4e names, and that if 4e were better at naming things, we might not have had the problem that Bluebell had (which I'm sure occurred in previous editions, too). That in no way claims that 4e killed my puppies.