James Wyatt - Story Team

[Baby Samurai]

(Also because the standard D&D names, like Mordenkainen and Tenser, are still going to appear in the spell list.

Really, is that confirmed?

I really, really hope not, because in my 20 years of playing this game I have always detested having to say the name Tasha or whatever as a prefix to my hideous laughter spell etc.

My buddies and I have always gone with black tentacles, and not mentioned this Evard bloke.

 

[wedgeski]

My buddies and I have always gone with black tentacles, and not mentioned this Evard bloke.

Seriously? Wow, those names are so evocative of D&D to me. My players will say 'Evard's' and not 'Black Tentacles'. They're so intrinsic to the game (and the IP) that I can't conceive of Wizards ever dispensing with them.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Seriously?My players will say 'Evard's' and not 'Black Tentacles'. They're so intrinsic to the game (and the IP) that I can't conceive of Wizards ever dispensing with them.

For you maybe…

As I said, I have been playing the game for about 20 years and those names are not "intrinsic" to the game, quite the opposite for me – always thought they were cheesy.

 

[jasin]

Wow, those names are so evocative of D&D to me.

I agree.

I use the SRD a lot, so I tend to say "black tentacles", but I know they're actually Evard's black tentacles, and that makes them cooler.

The names hint at history, which is cool in-game for most fantasy fans, and with 30+ years of the brand's existence, it might be a valuable asset even in the real world.

And unlike some other D&D sacred cows/legacy elements, the names can't actually be said to be outdated or cumbersome. The only reason for doing away with them would be if they were consciously trying to get across the message that this is not the same game anymore.

 

[Baby Samurai]

And unlike some other D&D sacred cows/legacy elements, the names can't actually be said to be outdated or cumbersome. The only reason for doing away with them would be if they were consciously trying to get across the message that this is not the same game anymore.

...Or it could be them trying to say you don't have to feel shackled to some silly names (Bigby etc) anymore.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Really, is that confirmed?

Yep. Andy Collins said as much at the seminar I attended.

Honestly, I think this is one of those non-issues. In the case of something as minor as a name, it's certainly easier to drop the proper name for people who don't want it, than it is to add them back in for people who find them evocative.

 

[Dalamar]

I, personally, like the "famous" mages, but I really hope that when the spells are listed in alphebetical order, the name is treated the same way as Greater and the like are treated in 3.5. Sure, it does spread out the Bigby's Hand spells, but that's minor.

 

[Glyfair]

I have seen him elsewhere refered to as leading the "story team." I think we're trying to wrap our heads around what that means for 4th edition.

I was searching the posts of the 4E designers and I stumbled upon a post from Mike Mearls that seems to cover this (from the end of July, a bit of foreshadowing here).

We're actually a step ahead of you. About 3 months ago, we re-organized the design team into a mechanics team and a story team. The story guys work on world development and flavor. The mechanics guys work on game rules.

 

[Graf]

Wyatt and "elvin sight"

On the contrary, it seems that the aim is to make race matter throughout all levels (unlike now, when it pretty much becomes invisible which race someone is)

Interesting.

In Wyatt's Eberron book (In the Claws of the Tiger) the elf and the half-elf are always seeing things at a distance that the main (human) character can't pick out.
It happens like 3 times and elven sight is presented as being like having binoculars.
At the time it was irritating since (as a DnD player) you know that +1 or +2 to spot is not going to consistently make a wizard better at seeing things off in the distance than a rogue.

As a story idea it was an easy way to remind players that "oh, this old elf isn't just a human -- he's different!"
Personally I thought it was a bit of inexperienced (fiction) writer struggling to make interesting scenes. I didn't really care who notices the griffon (or whatever) first.

But maybe he was just future proofing?

 

[hong]

I've never been a fan of the Vancian naming convention ("Personage's Flamboyant Adjective Noun"). I much prefer the style in Bo9S and/or Exalted. But if that's too big a change, even "Adjective Noun of Personage" would go down better with me.