Mike Mearls comments on design

[Drammattex]

but my players are *never* going to remember when I tell them "OK guys, in my game "Golden Wyvern" is actually "<something actually appropriate to my setting>", they're just going to keep calling it Golden Wyvern until I crack and change my game to match their fluff.

heh heh. Yeah...

Coincidentally, this is also one of the big reasons I love 4e right now. 4e has changed to more accurately reflect MY game. Soon, many of the rules & flavor I've been tweaking & house ruling will have "official" versions and I'll have to house rule and tweak a whole lot less... er, hopefully.

 

[rounser]

The races are NOT mythologically based, they're D&D creations based on Tolkien.

I'm saying this till I'm blue in the face, but Tolkien didn't come up with this stuff, and he's not the first one to use it in fantasy either. Go read some celtic mythology, or norse mythology. To say that mythology and fantasy in general doesn't own elves, dwarves, wizards etc. is simply ignorance.

You are making the mistake that homebrewers are all world builders and I think that's completely false. I think the majority of homebrewers are patchwork DM's. They use whatever they can steal from whatever source and only create when forced to. The true world builders are actually in a very, very small minority.

You're simply speculating, here. I could just as easily be right as you. Anecdotal experience suggests I am, but that's not going to stand up in court.

 

[Hussar]

I'm saying this till I'm blue in the face, but Tolkien didn't come up with this stuff, and he's not the first one to use it in fantasy either. Go read some celtic mythology, or norse mythology. To say that mythology and fantasy in general doesn't own elves, dwarves, wizards etc. is simply ignorance.

You're simply speculating, here. I could just as easily be right as you. Anecdotal experience suggests I am, but that's not going to stand up in court.

Sure, mythology has elves and dwarves and the like. What it doesn't have is elves and dwarves in the same story standing side by side. And the elves and dwarves of fantasy resemble D&D elves and dwarves in name only. I mean, come on, elf as woodsy archer type? That's not mythological. Dwarves should be very powerful sorcerers if they were myth based. After all, dwarves in stories are almost always hugely powerful magic users. Turn straw into gold. Turn people into stone. etc. etc.

That's my point. While D&D may have borrowed the names, they've certainly put them in a very D&D context that has little or no relation to their original sources.

 

[rounser]

Sure, mythology has elves and dwarves and the like. What it doesn't have is elves and dwarves in the same story standing side by side.

You're really stretching here, I'm pretty sure that wasn't a Tolkien first either. Tolkien wasn't even the first to have trolls and elves in the same story, for instance, and that's norse crossed with celtic. Admittedly dwarves are more likely to hang out with giants in mythology, so you do have something there perhaps, but no, these are not Tolkienisms, nor are they D&Disms.

Are they mythologically resonant, though, thick with fantasy flavour, implication and assumed knowledge in a way that the term "eladrin" isn't? You bet.

 

[Remathilis]

I think you misunderstand: The implied setting is not just POL (although that's part of it), it's dragonborn, "warlords", and whatever else they deign to put in the core (the real core of PHB1, not the "core sells better, so everything is core" core which is going to be everything under the sun by the look of it). Unless you specifically exclude it.

I think POL is a great idea; it seems just be putting into words what has always been the D&D default, more or less - the odd town, village or city and wilderness in between full of roaming monsters. This has long been implied by wandering monster tables for the great outdoors, so it's not really much new, just spelled out.

It'll be interesting to see if they can nut out some logic as to why the local cave full of trolls just plain doesn't raze the local village to the ground within half an hour, though. I've toyed with the idea of rings of dolmens or standing stones with antipathy vs monsters on them, maintained by the local druids, but concluded that that was overthinking things.

How is dragonborn and "warlords" any different than the monks, half-orcs, and psionics that Gary put in the AD&D Players Handbook? Only difference I see is 20 years of "acceptance".

Fact is, D&D has always had fluff dictate crunch.

Dwarves cannot be magic users because dwarves hate magic.
There is only one 14th level druid in the whole world at any given time. They all belong to the same super-secret organization, even the local wild hermit in the grotto over yonder.
Elves cannot be brought back from the dead, as they have spirits, not souls.
Paladin's only ever keep 10 magical items on them: a suit of armor, a shield, 2 weapons and six misc (excluding potions).
Due to there long lives and alien mindsets, the most powerful elven magic user can only reach 15th level in experience.
Magic doesn't work in armor. Unless you are also trained as a fighter.
The Gods frown on priests who use sharp objects, even the Gods of War, Destruction and Death.
Rangers who cease to uphold goodness in their hearts loose the ability to track.
Gnomes have no interest, aptitude or desire to learn magic unless it belongs to the "illusion" school.
Humans alone can dual-class, unless your a half-elf who is attempting to become a bard...

As dumb as they seem now, they dictated game rules. I fail to see how "Golden Wyvern" is any more ridiculous...

 

[rounser]

How is dragonborn and "warlords" any different than the monks, half-orcs, and psionics that Gary put in the AD&D Players Handbook? Only difference I see is 20 years of "acceptance".

You make the mistake of assuming that I think these things aren't D&Disms, and that they automatically belong in the core because I'm engaging in edition wars. You assume wrong.

I've always thought psionics didn't fit (Gygax agrees in retrospect), monks to be too oriental not to be a D&Dism amongst so many occidental archetypes, and that half-orcs were borderline D&Disms (being half-breeds), and perhaps too monstrous.

They're indeed there in the core, though. My point is that just because we have some D&Disms in the core as classes and races, that doesn't imply a blank cheque to overrun the core with them.

Fact is, D&D has always had fluff dictate crunch.

And that's as it should be! (Within reason.) Some of the aesthetically worst monsters I've seen for D&D are in the 3E MM, and come from reversing this equation. WOTC seem all too willing to leave flavour as an afterthought, bowing to some crunch need. This is bad news if not done in moderation IMO.

 

[Hussar]

They're indeed there in the core, though. My point is that just because we have some D&Disms in the core as classes and races, that doesn't imply a blank cheque to overrun the core with them.

I guess that's where the disconnect comes. You see these as minor elements in the game. I think that D&D has always been overrun in the core with D&Disms.

And, no matter how many we point out, people refuse to budge from this position.

 

[Remathilis]

You make the mistake of assuming that I think these things aren't D&Disms, and that they automatically belong in the core because I'm engaging in edition wars. You assume wrong.

I've always thought psionics didn't fit (Gygax agrees in retrospect), monks to be too oriental not to be a D&Dism amongst so many occidental archetypes, and that half-orcs were borderline D&Disms (being half-breeds), and perhaps too monstrous.

They're indeed there in the core, though. My point is that just because we have some D&Disms in the core as classes and races, that doesn't imply a blank cheque to overrun the core with them.

I'm missing your point.

You either

a.) Want a absolutely generic core-book which is flavored via supplements (Forgotten Realms) or homebrew.
b.) Want 4e to only carry "legacy" fluff (gnomes and clerics) but not "new fluff" (dragonborn and warlocks) (and legacy has to be accepted legacy, so no monks or barbarians)
c.) Want only fluff that has some historical/mythological pedigree (elf yes, eladrin no)
d.) Want only fluff you personally like and damn the rest. (j/k)
e.) Other

Otherwise, I fail to see your pain.

 

[PeterWeller]

You're really stretching here,

Dude, and you're really stretching if you're trying to equate D&D Elves, Dwarfs, etc to their mythological namesakes. Tolkien may not have been the first to put them in the distinct forms that D&D's versions are drawn from, but he definitely codified the coexistence of them in those forms. In mythology, Elf and Dwarf mean a whole plethora of different things depending on which mythological source and what translation you're reading. You can point to an Elf that precedes Tolkein's Elves, and say, "this came first," but that doesn't mean it didn't first go through the lens of Tolkien before becoming a D&Dism.

I still don't understand why people think the Golden Wyvern is going to force definitions upon their homebrewed fluff. Seriously, it's a feat; you can gloss the name without trouble. You don't have to rename it to fit your fluff because it doesn't have to exist in your fluff at all. It's just a damn feat, like power attack or mobility.

I can't comprehend the argument that all this new stuff is somehow limiting you're ability to play generic fantasy with the D&D rules. Tieflings, Dragonborn, Eladrin, Warlords, and Warlocks do nothing but add to the range of generic fantasy you can play with D&D.

Finally, to all the people who are saying warlord is a bunch of abilities in search of an archetype, what about King Arthur, Odysseus, Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Guan Yu?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I still don't understand why people think the Golden Wyvern is going to force definitions upon their homebrewed fluff. Seriously, it's a feat; you can gloss the name without trouble. You don't have to rename it to fit your fluff because it doesn't have to exist in your fluff at all. It's just a damn feat, like power attack or mobility.

To put it in context, the objection, again, isn't that you can't gloss over it. It's that people don't understand why they should have to when the words "golden wyvern" don't add ANYTHING to the game, as far as can be seen from the previews thus far. I made a diagram, even -- people didn't ask for it, while things people DID ask for are being ignored.

And having to gloss over it is a little bump. It's not a game-breaker per se, but if this is representative of many of the feats in the PH, then there will be many more little bumps, and those will be much more annoying en masse. But more to the point right now, that little bump has no justification for being there. I adds NOTHING to the game, as far as is evident from the previews.

This could all be revealed later, and perhaps it will be worth the annoyances when seen in context, but the trust isn't high amongst those with a problem with the feat.

I can't comprehend the argument that all this new stuff is somehow limiting you're ability to play generic fantasy with the D&D rules. Tieflings, Dragonborn, Eladrin, Warlords, and Warlocks do nothing but add to the range of generic fantasy you can play with D&D.

It's not necessarily limiting the ability to play generic fantasy. It's limiting my ability to take the rules and do whatever I want to them.

Again, the comparison that crops up in my head is that the original 3e rules were locked up and transplanted anywhere from Africa to the Wild West to Rome to the biblical era to the age of pirates to colonial America without, largely, changing the words around.

I think the tell for this will be the 4e SRD. Check the 3e SRD against the 3e core books -- that's how much "D&D" was in 3e (e.g.: not that much. Some wizard's names and a few monsters). If the 4e SRD has more changes in it than the 3e SRD, then 4e will be "less generic" than 3e, and thus less easily portable to somewhere else just out of the box.

Perhaps that's part of the intent, but from where I'm sitting, making it harder to disentangle 4e from 4e's implied setting works against one of the major strengths of tabletop gaming: that is, the ability of the gaming group to OWN how they play the game. That I could be playing a french elf paladin in mythic colonial america and you could be playing a dwarf samurai in mythic japan and next week we could be playing a group of people going against a vampire lord in Ravenloft in a third game, and we're all playing it as D&D and referencing the same Power Attack feat is a very very strong element of 3e D&D, and of D&D in general (which has always be kludged into new shapes, even if it didn't entirely fit comfortably). 4e's ability to support that, if things like "golden wyvern adept" feats are the norm, is reduced from that of 3e. The more 4e has it's own 4e-isms, the less easily I can inject my own group's -isms.

It's not GWA per se, it's more the fact that it can represent a whole approach that threatens one of the best things about D&D. That is, if you're inclined to be suspicious of WotC. And given that "making new IP" is a voiced consideration, but "supporting your ability to play the game outside of our core assumptions" isn't, it's not an unreasonable suspicion to have.

We won't know for sure 'till the books get here, but these are entirely valid concerns that spring out of Golden Wyvern Adept, and none of them are about how hard it is to remind your players that GWA has a different name in your campaign. They're all about how hard WotC is pushing their own pet setting fluff that, it must be said, no one really groks at the moment. If the books come out and it's still as obtuse as it seems now, we have a problem in the way that the 1e grappling rules were a problem: no one will really use it.