Fluff vs Crunch

[Will]

Personally, I don't care about fluff at all; I never play in established worlds, so changes to them don't bother me in the least. My interest is solely in 'what cool elements can I use,' like war-forged.

But I understand other people really like established fluff. Cool.


As an aside, GWA makes as much sense as calling the feat Pancakes of Doom; it doesn't involve pancakes, or doom, but does happen to involve the International Guild of Pancakiers, who fold swedish pancake spells into unusual shapes.

 

[Agamon]

!?!?

How does Golden Wyvern communicate anything but flying bling-monster?

I am truely not seeing a hint of relationship here.

Another reason why taking such things out of context is not a good idea. I assume that after one reads the PHB, Golden Wyvern will mean something besides expensive dragons.

 

[Ahglock]

Its a proper noun. Go reread the Wizard Implement article. "Golden Wyvern" is a defined term in 4e, not just something dreamed up for one particular feat.

It communicates as much as any other well defined, pervasively used proper noun. If your players are capable of remembering their own spells, they will be able to handle this feat. If they are not capable of remembering their own spells, suggest to them a different class.

Um, yeah the player using them can memorize them. You could call it #5 and a player can memorize it. Sure if Golden Wyvren Clan is extensively mentioned people who are interested in that area of the game may understand its likely use just by seeing the name.

It sure as heck doesn't help anyone else though. You are flipping through the feat section, but you haven't read the magic chapter backwards and forwards what does GWA tell you? Absolutely nothing.

A new player to the game wants to play a mage, and wants to pick some good feats how does this help them? Oh wait it doesn't.

Sure people can overcome the defects in this name and after they do maybe it will add something to there game. It is still defective and a side bar would add just as much.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

That's just what we want you to think. (Told you it was a really good spell.)

I don't want to completely spoil it, but 2009 is going to be the "Year of the G___E!"

Year of The Game?

 

[small pumpkin man]

Um, yeah the player using them can memorize them. You could call it #5 and a player can memorize it. Sure if Golden Wyvren Clan is extensively mentioned people who are interested in that area of the game may understand its likely use just by seeing the name.

It sure as heck doesn't help anyone else though. You are flipping through the feat section, but you haven't read the magic chapter backwards and forwards what does GWA tell you? Absolutely nothing.

A new player to the game wants to play a mage, and wants to pick some good feats how does this help them? Oh wait it doesn't.

Sure people can overcome the defects in this name and after they do maybe it will add something to there game. It is still defective and a side bar would add just as much.

Look, it's a Paragon level power, meaning you can't take untill 11th level, and it only affects Wizard powers, Goldern Wyvern is one of the six traditions or "school replacements", so if you're playing an 11th level wizard and you don't know what the 4E equivelant of "transmutation" or "evocation" means, it's not WoTC's fault.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

3.5 First level NPC wizard had 900 gp in gear, more than enough to have a wand of magic missle or an orb spell which is practically 'at will'.

Good point. I remember in AD&D 2e and Rules Cyclopedia D&D I used to be quite generous with scrolls for 1st level wizards to help compensate them for being so (IMHO) underpowered.

So the idea of a 1st level wizard with a consistent magical ability of some sort isn't that far from what a lot of people were probably doing all along.

 

[PeterWeller]

I don't know anything about 4E dwarves, but pre-4E dwarves had an AC bonus against giants:

Okay AC bonus, but it's still an advantage in combat specifically against Giants. There's just more reason given for it now.

 

[Ahglock]

Look, it's a Paragon level power, meaning you can't take untill 11th level, and it only affects Wizard powers, Goldern Wyvern is one of the six traditions or "school replacements", so if you're playing an 11th level wizard and you don't know what the 4E equivelant of "transmutation" or "evocation" means, it's not WoTC's fault.

How does that address any of my points?

I freely say the dude playing the wizard will most likely learn it eventually.

But people who aren't actively using it and looking through the feat section wont know anything about it and wont even know if they should spend the time to look it up.

Guy is mutliclassing abit in wizard but he is paragon level, what does this feat name tell hi, how does it help him, it doesn't, it hinders ease of play.

New player to a wizard but starting at parapgon level, maybe his old rogue got smote and he wants to play something different. how does this help them, it doesn't, it actually hinders ease of play.

Maybe a new wizard and there is golden wyvren apprentice or other dumb sounding heroic level feat, how does the name help them when looking it up. Not at all it only hinders them.

Players like some in my saga game who don't read the books and don't even own them. They are there to game not memorize the rules, one of them happily not learning them since he is the GM for another game and he had to learn those rules backwards and forwards. Do names like this help or hurt, well actually they hurt.

Add the flavor to a side bar or a chapter in the appropriate section, don't force the flavor into the feat names it only hurts, and it hurts the new players they are trying to help the most.

 

[Orius]

My take is that too much official fluff makes it harder for DMs to homebrew. D&D has almost always had official campaign settings, but it's always been generic enough so a DM could create his own setting if he or she wanted to. The more fluff the rules have, the less creative freedom it gives to a DM. And for DMs who've been running homebrews for years, their campaign fluff has probably reached a point where it becomes difficult to use new fluff ideas that clash with established campaign elements. Players, especially newer ones will invariably want to use some element of the newer fluff. So either the DM outright disallows it, and eventually causes conflict at the game table, or it just sticks out like a sore thumb.

That's why a lot of the old grognards have rejected stuff that was later released for Greyhawk; it was originally designed to be very open-ended so the DMs could customize it, and the later stuff just didn't mess with some of the customization they were doing. Or look at the Realms; that's been around pretty long too, and some people don't like that 4e's assumptions are turning some aspects of the setting inside out. Yeah, change does happen, but remember that people also tend to dislike a lot of radical changes, especially when it comes to leisure activities.

Even when it's newer stuff, some DMs want to be able to shape things their own way. That seems to be the argument with the Golden Wyvern whatever. I have no idea what that is, some posters in this thread said it's supposed to represent some wizardly order or something. Even if a DM doesn't have a problem with the name itself, the name stifles some amount of creativity. Maybe the DM would rather name the wizard orders himself, rather than having them already "forced" upon them by a book. Putting in a name like this makes it more difficult for a DM to homebrew, and some DMs have a very strong preference for their own worlds.

 

[PeterWeller]

Orius, good point, but the people it makes things more difficult for are the experienced DMs who are going to be doing their own thing with the rules anyway. On the other hand, the inexperienced, lazy, or just plain bad DMs out there can use all the help they can get.