Fluff vs Crunch

[Irda Ranger]

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.

I already speak English, thanks. I see no reason to learn new proper nouns because WotC doesn't like any of the very, very many proper nouns already in the dictionary. The whole point of language is to communicate, and when people randomly change the meaning of words, that defeats the point. I could "pervasively" refer to EN World as a "platinum poodle artisan" if I wanted to, but that would be IDIOTIC when we already have perfectly acceptable proper nouns like "gaming forum" and "online community", which new users who are conversational or better English speakers already know the meaning of without having to be told.

And your proper noun argument still doesn't address any of the "world building" concerns already raised. (EDIT: meaning that the point raised by Orius).

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

Hence the popularity of the "sidebars" option in the poll.

 

[Najo]

Are we assuming, by the way, that all of the feats have flowery non-descriptive names? If we are, I agree, that would be both annoying and confusing.

If it was just the one or two, I'm not sure it's too big of a problem.

Its more than one or two. But my expectation is the assumed setting and the mechanics are tied together more in this edition than any previous edition.

 

[Wolfspider]

"platinum poodle artisan"

Heh heh heh!

 

[Cadfan]

I already speak English, thanks. I see no reason to learn new proper nouns because WotC doesn't like any of the very, very many proper nouns already in the dictionary. The whole point of language is to communicate, and when people randomly change the meaning of words, that defeats the point. I could "pervasively" refer to EN World as a "platinum poodle artisan" if I wanted to, but that would be IDIOTIC when we already have perfectly acceptable proper nouns like "gaming forum" and "online community", which new users who are conversational or better English speakers already know the meaning of without having to be told.

And your proper noun argument still doesn't address any of the "world building" concerns already raised. (EDIT: meaning that the point raised by Orius).

A more apt comparison would be if you objected, loudly and strenuously, to the name "EN World" because you felt the site should be called "Website for gaming including a popular forum started by Eric Noah around the time of the 3e D&D release and with a focus on discussing D&D issues but by no means an exclusive focus."

I mean, EN World? How is someone reading that supposed to know anything about what that describes? A world of ENs? What's an EN? Its an acronym for something. I'm pretty sure it stands for "Enrolled Nurse," actually. Acronym lookup tells me it also stands for "Explosive Neutralization."

Now once you know that websites are sometimes called "World" if they have a lot of content on them, and that "EN" is short for "Eric Noah," AND who Eric Noah is and why he might have his own world, you can decipher the site name. But not until then.

You're right that it doesn't address the world building objections. I tend to consider those overblown, as its just as easy for me to ignore deity portfolios as it is for me to ignore feat names. I can't tell you how many times I've had players of Paladins come to me and say that they've rolled up a Paladin of Hieronymus Bosch or whatever that guy's name is. I just say, "we're not using the deities from the book, but you can certainly be a Paladin, and just describe your ideals how you feel is appropriate." And they say, "ok."

 

[grimslade]

I already speak English, thanks. I see no reason to learn new proper nouns because WotC doesn't like any of the very, very many proper nouns already in the dictionary. The whole point of language is to communicate, and when people randomly change the meaning of words, that defeats the point. I could "pervasively" refer to EN World as a "platinum poodle artisan" if I wanted to, but that would be IDIOTIC when we already have perfectly acceptable proper nouns like "gaming forum" and "online community", which new users who are conversational or better English speakers already know the meaning of without having to be told.

And your proper noun argument still doesn't address any of the "world building" concerns already raised. (EDIT: meaning that the point raised by Orius).

But if you refer to 'ENWorld' now, a lot of gamers/users know exactly what you mean. A new proper noun that takes the place of 'gaming forum' or 'online community'. Golden Wyvern adept is no different, but it could be improved.

I think the best of both possible worlds would be the inclusion of a better descriptor than 'adept'. Keep the fluffy tie-in with the magic school but add 'shaper' or 'sculpt'.

 

[Will]

Again, like a lot of people have pointed out, having a proper noun when you expect a proper noun is, um, proper.

Like for a class, a tradition, and so on.

Having a proper noun for a class feature gets in the way and is not expected (at least so far).

EN World is also rather singular, rather than one term in a book filled with terms; if some group were creating a large number of forums on various topics, you'd bet they'd name this site something more descriptive or suggestive, or at least have a subtitle.

To repeat a bunch of folks, the issue is twofold: one, that basic mechanics having proper nouns is unpleasant for a host of reasons, and two, if you're going to use a proper noun, pick one that is immediately suggestive of the feat.

For example, 'Craft of the Heavenly Eagle' might be the name of the metamagic for extending spell range. It's a bit vague, but people can somewhat associate 'eagles see far, particularly in the heavens, and this ability is somehow crafted into something... farsight? Long range? Maybe bows?'

Once it's explained, it's likely to stick.

I still don't like proper nouns for feats, but at least if they are suggestive my forgetful players have a chance.

Something arbitrary, like the platinum poodle? Not a chance.


By the way, as a point of clarification: I, at least, am not saying the usage of GWA is objectively wrong or that everyone will have a problem with it. If you have no issues, great!
But I think it's worth understanding and appreciating that people have reasonable objections and dislike of the usage; neither 'side' should engage in absurd vilification.

What's more contentious, admittedly, is the other claim: that this usage is likely to be a barrier to new players, rather than a bridge.

 

[JohnSnow]

To repeat a bunch of folks, the issue is twofold: one, that basic mechanics having proper nouns is unpleasant for a host of reasons, and two, if you're going to use a proper noun, pick one that is immediately suggestive of the feat.

For example, 'Craft of the Heavenly Eagle' might be the name of the metamagic for extending spell range. It's a bit vague, but people can somewhat associate 'eagles see far, particularly in the heavens, and this ability is somehow crafted into something... farsight? Long range? Maybe bows?'

Once it's explained, it's likely to stick.

Golden: In heraldry, gold symbolizes value, purity and finesse.

Wyvern: In medieval heraldry, wyverns symbolize strength or power.

Adept: a skilled or proficient person.

So clearly, someone with the feat "Golden Wyvern Adept" is proficient at handling power with finesse. In other words, it virtually screams "metamagic."

So by your own standard, there's clearly nothing wrong with the name.

Now that it's been explained, do people still have a problem with it?

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Once it's explained, it's likely to stick.

I really think the big deal about GWA is that we don't have nearly the context for it, and it relies heavily on existing context.

I'm pretty sure that in December 1999 if I'd been told there were "feats" called Power Attack and Expertise, I wouldn't've known what they did enough to use them. "So...does it do more damage to psionicists?"

Brad

 

[Orius]

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.

My point is that it creates conflict in game groups run by the good, experienced DMs when a player want to use official fluff that conflicts with established homebrew crunch. My guess is that newer players are going to be more likely to want to use fluff, simply because they're inexperienced with the campaign and/or aren't aware of the fundamental flavor of the campaign. That's not as severe, either the player will decide to go along with the rest of the group, or leave for a different group that likes the fluff. Or maybe the group plays more than one campaign, some old-school gaming in one or more campaign, and more modern stuff in other(s).

But there can be the occasional experienced player that will pick a fight that can damage the camraderie of a gaming group, and this is a more serious problem. One problem people can have is finding game groups, and if a group breaks up over stuff like this, how is it good for the game?

On the other hand, the inexperienced, lazy, or just plain bad DMs out there can use all the help they can get.

I'm not talking about inexperienced DMs.

OTOH, lazy or just plain bad DMs suck anyway.