D&D 4E Concerned with 4e now, do you agree or not?

[Aldarc]

If it was just a name, there would be no flavor text for the class or feat. But the flavor text affects the selection and usage of the mechanics.

 

[neceros]

D&D is a setting on the D20 system.

That's the most important key. For years, as many have pointed out, D&D rode on the fantasy of other stories as a hodgepodge. Yes, they have invented their own ideas throughout the ages, but now they are actually standing on their own as an actual setting/campaign.

You don't have to use it. I've run Shadowrun without the setting before. It's possible.

I think it's a step in a better direction. I can still go back and scrap their default campaign if I don't like it, but so far I don't mind what they've released.


As always, don't be deciding anything until you fully understand the situation.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

This is me speaking strictly from a technical writer standpoint. These "fluffy" names are primarily bad because they are jargon, and they present a barrier to rules mastery.

It makes sense, perhaps. But you're no more informed about the function of the feat than you would be with any of the following:

Golden Wyvern Adept: Gain +1 to hit with any of your spells as long as you are wielding a staff.

Golden Wyvern Adept: You may freely change the area of effect of any of your cone, line, or burst spells to any of these three shapes.

Golden Wyvern Adept: Gain +2 to all Persuasion rolls when dealing with other members of the Golden Wyvern tradition

All right, I have to call strawman because all three of the feats you mentioned would be easy to name more effectively: Staff Focus, Spell Geometry, and Friend of the Wyvern all immediately come to mind and work perfectly well.

But the feat itself that GWA describes is far harder to effectively name.

As a fellow technical communicator I cannot for the life of me think of a way to name it that doesn't turn into either jargon or stupidly ineffecient descriptiveness, I mean based on what it does here is what I can think of:

No Team Kill

Hole in the Fireball

Registered Mage strike

-Both somewhat jargonny, cause let's not pretend here fireball is absolutely DnD jargon, and absolutely lame and maybe misleading as the feat doesn't apply strictly to either teammates or fireballs. The third is accurate but highly jargonny.

-And even if I go with descriptive jargon, as with Exalted, it doesn't work too well

Companion's in the Storm technique

Shadow in the Sun Strategem

-See, also unsatisfying.

Now, I don't know that there aren't good names for this feat out there, and if you can come up with one I will be relieved to see it.

But until someone does I think the whole issue of flavorful names is a moot point.

What we've seen here, thus far, is a lack of overly fluffed names and jargon except where no clear name could be had.

From a technical communicator's standpoint I think it may be indicative of a larger strategy where a lot of feats about spell shaping are in some way associated with the word's Golden Wyvern so that your brain immediately makes the connection where it would take too many words, and awkward, to make the connection for you otherwise.

I could be wrong, we haven't seen the book yet, but I think what we see here are decent writerly strategies for dealing with issues any writer, technical or otherwise, would find challenging.

 

[Jinete]

Companion's in the Storm technique

Shadow in the Sun Strategem

-See, also unsatisfying.

Actually, I kinda like these two. And I'll probably have storms, sun and shadows in my campaign so no problem there

 

[Najo]

DTC was given as an example and openly stated that it was not going to be in the game. On the other hand, they've given us Toughness (instead of something Exalted-like, such as Ox-Body Technique), Alertness, and First Reaction, all plainly named.



Well, we've only seen the Paragon-tier GW stuff. Who's to say there isn't a "Golden Wyvern Initiate" in the Heroic-tier?

Secondly...



That's straight from the wizard/implements article. Having a group called the Golden Wyvern that's described as shaping their spells and having a feat called "Golden Wyvern Adept" that allows you to do exactly that... well... makes sense.

Except, I don't want a group called the Golden Wyvern in my campaign nor in my wizards.

Espcecially when they are going to release a campaign setting every year. How silly does it become if ALL of the groups in the core books are found in each and every setting. This is why they need to keep the fluff out of the character creation rules, because DMS can't remove them very easily.

Think about it.

Dark Sun - oh, there is those sneak Golden Wyvern wizards, they don't hide as well as the Veiled Alliance, but no one cares about them because of their silly name.

Ravenloft - even with all of this doom and gloom, it is good to see those Golden Wyvern guys are so chipper.

Forgotten Realms - Those golden wyvern guys, didn't Elimenster start with them?

Greyhawk - I think the golden wyverns are those guys who really built castle greyhawk and hide a mad god down there, right?

Birthright - Wow, that is pretty odd. Who would think that the Golden Wyvern and the Golden Wyverns would have BOTH thought of the same name. Considering that the Golden Wyvern has been ruling over a dark kingdom to the east, and no one knew what he looked like until he unleashed his army last season, it is amazing that those wacky wizard guys got their club emblem spot on the nose 500 years ago. Do they realize there is only ONE Golden Wyvern, do you know if they want to join him...or are they just a fan club?

Spell jammer - Wow, these golden wyvern guys get everywhere. They even have airships with their own club logos and jammer helms that run on wyvern juice!

Anyrate. I think I have made my point. This is why it is plain stupid to put player chosen feats and talents tied to story into the core books. If Child of Winter from Ebberron were in there it would make no sense and only cause confusion.

 

[Najo]

All right, I have to call strawman because all three of the feats you mentioned would be easy to name more effectively: Staff Focus, Spell Geometry, and Friend of the Wyvern all immediately come to mind and work perfectly well.

But the feat itself that GWA describes is far harder to effectively name.

As a fellow technical communicator I cannot for the life of me think of a way to name it that doesn't turn into either jargon or stupidly ineffecient descriptiveness, I mean based on what it does here is what I can think of:

No Team Kill

Hole in the Fireball

Registered Mage strike

-Both somewhat jargonny, cause let's not pretend here fireball is absolutely DnD jargon, and absolutely lame and maybe misleading as the feat doesn't apply strictly to either teammates or fireballs. The third is accurate but highly jargonny.

-And even if I go with descriptive jargon, as with Exalted, it doesn't work too well

Companion's in the Storm technique

Shadow in the Sun Strategem

-See, also unsatisfying.

Now, I don't know that there aren't good names for this feat out there, and if you can come up with one I will be relieved to see it.

But until someone does I think the whole issue of flavorful names is a moot point.

What we've seen here, thus far, is a lack of overly fluffed names and jargon except where no clear name could be had.

From a technical communicator's standpoint I think it may be indicative of a larger strategy where a lot of feats about spell shaping are in some way associated with the word's Golden Wyvern so that your brain immediately makes the connection where it would take too many words, and awkward, to make the connection for you otherwise.

I could be wrong, we haven't seen the book yet, but I think what we see here are decent writerly strategies for dealing with issues any writer, technical or otherwise, would find challenging.

How about:

Stormeye Spell
Selective Area Spell
Control Spell Area
Shape Spell Area
Protective Area Casting
Controlled Area Casting
Protective Spell Area

 

[Najo]

D&D is a setting on the D20 system.

That's the most important key. For years, as many have pointed out, D&D rode on the fantasy of other stories as a hodgepodge. Yes, they have invented their own ideas throughout the ages, but now they are actually standing on their own as an actual setting/campaign.

You don't have to use it. I've run Shadowrun without the setting before. It's possible.

I think it's a step in a better direction. I can still go back and scrap their default campaign if I don't like it, but so far I don't mind what they've released.


As always, don't be deciding anything until you fully understand the situation.

No, D&D is not the setting.

Greyhawk is a setting
Forgotten Realms is a setting

Dark sun, ravenloft, birthright, spell jammer, eberron, planescape ... those are settings.

D&D is the engine that runs them, or lets you run your world and should not have a default setting. They already said they are releasing setting books every year, so why hamstring themselves with this.

 

[Najo]

Which is a very good reason to name feats and such based on what they do, rather than terrible fluff text. If you're not going to be talking about them in-character, they don't need in-character names.

I agree

 

[Najo]

While I actually love the colorful names and the school traditions etc etc, I will concede that "It doesn't tell you what it does, and thus is confusing for new players" is a valid point.

Will you concede that it hurts plugging settiings on top of the core engine too?

 

[Najo]

I think this is the best reason to stay away from overly flavorful names. A name causing people to groan because it's silly is one (very minor) problem. A name that impedes the ease of which one can learn the game is a more serious issue. Then again, WoW has talent names like "pursuit of justice" and that hasn't stopped anyone from learning (or playing).

Pursuit of Justice is a bit of a groan. Thing is, if it were a feat, it isn't forcing an organization of faction of a group into my campaign setting.