Stupid feat naming: Does it really matter that much?

[Imaro]

Gold is a malleable metal, easily shaped. GWAs shape spells. That makes it easier to remember what the feat does. Also it's exactly the sort of connection of ideas that occurs in magic-type thinking, for example the connection of silver with the moon.

The problem I see with names like these is...the average person doesn't think along these lines. D&D is a game first, IMHO, and thus it's rules should be clear and concise to facilitate gameplay. Using analogies and metaphors with this level of abstraction gives no net gain that a quick sidebar on naming feats, or examples of alternative names players and DM's can use if they want wouldn't give. It's again a barrier to new players as it doesn't have a strong word association with it's effects, unless your willing to think abstractly as above. In the end I guess my main thought is...I haven't seen anyone give a real positive to the implementation of these names. While quite a few negatives have been presented.

 

[Incenjucar]

While I'll get over it, and I don't mind the idea of flavorful categorization methods (If The Black Sphere feats or whatever all have a very specific thing you can expect from them, like the colors of Magic cards, that's fine), I really do prefer blunt terminology for feats and spells and so forth.

I'd really prefer that D&D didn't read like an Exalted book.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I can't think of a single example, in the real world, of 'gold' being used descriptively to suggest malleability. That's just not how it's used to evoke a response.

It's one of those "the designers are creating new archetypes instead of using existing archetypes" moments.

This makes the game weaker, IMO.

 

[The Little Raven]

It's one of those "the designers are creating new archetypes instead of using existing archetypes" moments.

This makes the game weaker, IMO.

And IMO, sticking to the 1970s style fantasy that has been maintained simply because it's tradition makes the game weaker, because you're not adapting to the changing tastes of your potential market.

That makes the game weaker for me, and probably makes it weaker for their sales.

 

[maggot]

Are there any good reasons for feat names like "Golden Wyvern Adept"? All the argument for them seems to be "you can change them" or "they aren't so bad". If something isn't a positive, why include it?

I don't like these kind of names because (1) they don't mean anything, (2) they may give the wrong impression of my campaign world (that there is a Golden Wyvern tradition in the world), and (3) they often sound really lame.

 

[Imaro]

And IMO, sticking to the 1970s style fantasy that has been maintained simply because it's tradition makes the game weaker, because you're not adapting to the changing tastes of your potential market.

That makes the game weaker for me, and probably makes it weaker for their sales.

Huh? How are practical & descriptive names in anyway sticking to 1970's style fantasy? I always thought that was, unless there's a specific reason for doing otherwise, just good game design. What potential market is asking for silly and/or abstract naming conventions for powers? Are these names suppose to evoke a certain feel or theme in the implied campaign world? If not, to me it's like saying hey let's rename Fireball because it's too 1970's...Our market really wants us to call it Buster Bomb. Some change (admittedly not all) really is just pointless or a waste...to me these naming conventions seem like just that. If anything the wrong naming conventions can make a game seem goofy or childish rather than strengthening the game.

 

[Incenjucar]

Personally, I'm all for purely utilitarian terms.

"Energy Sphere (Fire), 20' Radius," etc.

 

[The Little Raven]

Huh? How are practical & descriptive names in anyway sticking to 1970's style fantasy?

Try reading my post with proper context, including the person I quoted, who claimed that creating new archetypes (instead of just reusing the same 1970s fantasy archetypes that have been in D&D since... well... the 1970s) weakened the game. You'll note nothing in my post concerning naming, but rather archetypes and whether new developers should create new archetypes or just keep reiterating what Gary wrote.

 

[Imaro]

Try reading my post with proper context, including the person I quoted, who claimed that creating new archetypes (instead of just reusing the same 1970s fantasy archetypes that have been in D&D since... well... the 1970s) weakened the game. You'll note nothing in my post concerning naming, but rather archetypes and whether new developers should create new archetypes or just keep reiterating what Gary wrote.

I did read both quotes. Kamikazee (unless I'm misinterpreting) was basically saying the whole Golden Wyvern Adept naming thing and relating it to gold being a malleable metal (which there are quite a few metals that could be said of, but that's a whole other point) is basically creating something with no reference for the average person to draw on...like a "new" archetype.

I believed you in turn we're continuing with the analogy as far as new being the best thing to strengthen the game and attract new customers, even when "the new" is confusing or creates no connection for the average person to make with it. If I was wrong I apologize.

 

[The Little Raven]

I believed you in turn we're continuing with the analogy as far as new being the best thing to strengthen the game and attract new customers, even when "the new" is confusing or creates no connection for the average person to make with it. If I was wrong I apologize.

I was arguing the point that just because it's a "traditional archetype" doesn't make it good, nor does something being newly generated as an archetype make it bad. D&D has soiled all kinds of traditional archetypes and created whole new ones, so I see no reason for them to stop that now.

As for the confusion, I don't see it. I went through it with one of my players, who has only ever played WoD games before.

Me: "What does Golden Wyvern mean to you?"
Her: "Uhh... gold dragon. Why?"
Me: "If I told you they were spell-shapers, would that make sense? Think about it for a few."
<10 minutes go by>
Her: "Okay, well, I guess gold stands for the shaping, since gold is one of the most malleable common metals, and the wyvern stands for magic, since wyverns and dragons are magical creatures. Is that right?"
Me: "No clue, but it sounds like a reasonable explanation to me."