This mentality needs to die

[Hussar]

I think the podcasts really illustrate the need for DM's to get honest criticism from their players beyond, "Hey, that was a fun session." Getting honest, open criticism from players can be like trying to pull kidney stones with pliers.

 

[Mark]

Yeah, 'cause 15 minutes of "are those yoinkable fries? Gimme!" is simply riveting.

One of the things these podcasts illustrate is that games have a rhythm you want to keep going. If the pacing slows down in the wrong place, you lose people. The question is how to identify where those spots are, and how to keep people focused?

Trev has begun recording his sessions and adding coordinated notes so that he can find ways to improve (though I am sure he is an excellent DM already). Perhaps he can be persuaded to share his thoughts on the matter.

 

[Kzach]

I don't think 4e is stupid. I do think it has a bad habit of having stupid names.

What I just love about this logic is that a) it applies to all editions so singling out 4e is ridiculous and b) if it was named something more descriptive of the power like, for instance, Outline Foe, you'd claim 4e is bland and boring and lacks flavourful naming conventions for it's powers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I wouldn't want to videotape one of my sessions...especially if the camera was set in a position to capture my ear hair for Internet immortality.

As for cringeworthy moments...we'd have lots. But that's due in great part to our use of language that would make sailors run away. (Even though we only do so for comedic effect.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

What I just love about this logic is that a) it applies to all editions so singling out 4e is ridiculous and b) if it was named something more descriptive of the power like, for instance, Outline Foe, you'd claim 4e is bland and boring and lacks flavourful naming conventions for it's powers.

Well, for a, 4e is the only edition currently in production, so it is the only one that the designers can actually respond to criticism of in future products (which they seem to be doing, like I said above, I think the problem has gotten quite a bit less). 4e also has changed names of things that have had perfectly fine names for several editions now. You change Faerie Fire to Darkfire, and you are not making anything better (and Faerie Fire isn't even a particularly good name, like Rechan pointed out). 4e's new inventions also have very mockable names (the Penny Arcade dudes riffed on Shadowdark, for instance, and a casual browse through the Monster Manual will turn up quite a few). Even the things that 4e shepherded in from 3e tend to have some pretty dorky names (Dragonborn).

Those are all uniquely 4e's burden to bear, things that other editions can't hold a claim to.

So it is a problem that 4e has, that 4e has not changed, and that 4e carries on a deep level.

Again, not that they aren't getting better. But they didn't start getting better when someone was paid to change "Faerie" to "Dark."

For b, you're pretending to be an internet psychic, so I suppose in that respect, I'll do whatever you imagine me to be doing for the sake of your hypothetical fantasy, but I don't see how that's mostly relevant.

But, here's some names that I thought of while looking casually at the articles I linked to above, and thinking about them in the context of Drow, and how the power is supposed to be used:

"Elfshine"
"Spiderlight"
"Assassin's Guide"
"Drowmark"
"Pallid Glow"
"Victim's Halo"
"Lolth's Candle"
"Lolthlight"

I kind of like "Drowmark" and "Assassin's Guide" best out of those, since they both imply that whoever has this light on them is likely to die, which is kind of the point. I could see the first being used in-universe. "Beware the Drowmark, the violet light some call the Assassin's Guide. The dark elves place this on their victims before they strike, so if you see someone outlined in flickering purple light, ye best run and save yerself. The poor glowing sap's gonna be dead in a few seconds, and ye'll be next if they spot ya!"

Here are some others. The real world has done most of the work already. Slap "Lolth" in place of most of 'em, and use words like "light," and "glow," and "halo" instead of fire, and I bet you can come up with a few good ones yourself.

 

[Kzach]

Well, for a, 4e is the only edition currently in production, so it is the only one that the designers can actually respond to criticism of in future products (which they seem to be doing, like I said above, I think the problem has gotten quite a bit less).

You're missing the point. You will find something wrong with whatever WotC does. It's a talent.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Oh noes, the big, bad DM didn't allow a player to do whatever he wants, however he wants, whenever he wants!

There is fire needed here, for sure, but not for the door.

You know, after listening to the podcast, not only do I think this is such a non-issue as to make this a totally ridiculous accusation, but the fact that he prompted the players by reminding them they all had torches, and that the door could be melted by other fire-related means, this puts the accusation squarely in troll territory.

Not only is there nothing wrong with how he handled it, nobody was up in arms over it or upset by it or even noticed it beyond the half-second it took to mentally absorb the concept that the door was not a creature.

You're missing the point. You will find something wrong with whatever WotC does. It's a talent.

If you don't like trolls so much, why do you keep trolling in this thread?

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're missing the point. You will find something wrong with whatever WotC does. It's a talent.

Ain't never been no perfect game. And I've directed a lot of compliments to things WotC does, too. I have nuanced opinions. Is this somehow a problem for you?

PS: Lighten up on the whole "you would/you will" anticipatory stuff, okay? It is really hard to have a conversation with someone who is deligitimizing opinions like that. You are not an internet psychic, man, you can't predict the future of ENWorld conversation threads.

 

[Mournblade94]

What I just love about this logic is that a) it applies to all editions so singling out 4e is ridiculous and b) if it was named something more descriptive of the power like, for instance, Outline Foe, you'd claim 4e is bland and boring and lacks flavourful naming conventions for it's powers.

Are people just looking for fights?

How are people deriving negative 4e comments from Kamikaze Midget's posts?

Sometimes criticism is just criticism.

 

[OakwoodDM]

I kind of like "Drowmark" and "Assassin's Guide" best out of those, since they both imply that whoever has this light on them is likely to die, which is kind of the point. I could see the first being used in-universe. "Beware the Drowmark, the violet light some call the Assassin's Guide. The dark elves place this on their victims before they strike, so if you see someone outlined in flickering purple light, ye best run and save yerself. The poor glowing sap's gonna be dead in a few seconds, and ye'll be next if they spot ya!"

However, if they'd used those names, someone (I'm not saying it'd be you, but someone) would complain "Why did they call it drowmark? It doesn't cause the target to take -2 to hit targets other than the drow. Does it supersede other marks? I don't understand. Why couldn't they have avoided such awful, conflictig names?" or "Assassin's Halo? But my drow is an enlightened Paladin of Pelor. Does that man I'm forbidden from using my racial power?"

I'm not getting at your names, just pointing out that there will be criticism of the name whatever you call it.

Oh, and I imagine Faerie was changed to Dark because you can't have the classic emo/goth race have a power that suggests bright twinkly lights and panpipes...