D&D 4E 4e - Is the Terminology the Problem?

[mxyzplk]

So from the previous information, and the Massawyrn and D&DE scoops, I think I've put my finger on what's concerning me the most about 4e. It's not the "pure fluff" per se, as in setting info and race origins, and the "crunch" seems fine - it's kinda the fluff about the crunch that I'm finding lacking.

In other words, the naming of and terminology about the abilities and suchlike. I'm concerned that the inevitable bleed-over between table talk and in-game talk will harm versimilitude.

Examples.
* Distances are in "squares."
* Monsters are "artillery".
* PC healers are "leaders".

In the same category are the rules bits that seem to have pretty unclear/gamist origins ("marking", "healing surge", etc.) and items with names stolen from MMORPGs ("elite" mobs).

I wasn't necessarily against the "Dragon tail cut" kind of cinematic naming of maneuvers, but this practice of using anachronistic terms etc. seems like it'll easily slip into the game and break suspension of disbelief. It also seems to go against a lot of historic game design, where people go to pains to name their stats, skills, combat maneuvers, character class/archetypes, etc. in a way consistent with the genre to minimize disjoint between the lexical space of the game rules and the game play.

I value my simulation in a game, and a DM has enough to worry about without having to filter all the terms. So I'm worried I'm going to start playing 4e and hear a DM say "you see three goblin artillery minions appear 6 squares away!" to which I respond with a "f*ck this, I don't play minis games!"

Know what I mean?

This isn't a 4e hate post, just pointing out something that I think if they changed, it would make things a lot better.

 

[Voss]

The language they use bothers me as well, but not necessarily these examples. Its more the disconnects between real meanings and game meanings- feats being passive abilities now is a weird disconnect.

I find the use of artillery and leaders odd (particularly since the sample cleric is buffing, attacking and healing, and not really leading in any sense of the term), but I doubt you'll see them in game. I don't see a DM saying 'the kobold artillery arrive', but rather 'two kobolds, armed with slings come out of the passage'. Though oddly, this is what bothers me about the kobold minions- if two kobolds with spears show up, I have no idea if they'll be real combatants or die if they trip over a rock.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I don't mind it simply because I like the divide between their in-game writing and rule-writing. It makes deciffering and using the rules/coming up with new rules easier in my eyes.

 

[Rechan]

I have no problem with the language they're using.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Though oddly, this is what bothers me about the kobold minions- if two kobolds with spears show up, I have no idea if they'll be real combatants or die if they trip over a rock.

I really like this, as a DM, it keeps my players on their toes. I am happy for them to make BAB cheacks or some such to assess the capability of their enemies, but I mostly don't like them knowing exactly what they face just by the creature type.
3E was great for that with templates, easy adding classes and increasin monster size. However it took to long to prep! Hopefully 4E will help me defeat errm sorry suprise my players.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah I like how it can keep them on their toes as well, sorta like the AICM review:

"It also lets you have a little fun by replacing several of the minions with a regular fighter type of the same monster. Why are there only 13 zombies this time? Because one of them is a level 3 nasty. Guess which one it is before it eats your cleric."

 

[mxyzplk]

Yeah I like how it can keep them on their toes as well, sorta like the AICM review:

That's a *perfect* example of encouraging metagaming and turning D&D into a combat minis game. "I know how many points should be in the opposing warband, woot."

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think it's a bit of an adaptation problem. Most of the language we'll get used to, but there are some ones that rub me the wrong way. "Exploits" for fighter powers, for example, since exploit has a horribly negative connotation elsewhere in gaming.

That's setting aside silly fluff like "Dragon's Tail Cut".

 

[Wormwood]

I have no problem with the language they're using.

Every game has its own jargon. Don't mind this new batch any more than I minded the old ones.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

in 3.5 every kobold could be a a level 20 fighter, every human with a quarterstaff could be a commoner, or a LVL 20 monk... you never knew...

actually i can follow the reasoning why the roles are using anachronistic terms. So metagame terms and ingame terms don´t get mixed up usually...

and to squares: anything is better than measurement in feet...