What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept? (Keep Friendly)

[the Jester]

Nothing "should" be done, just because a few internet savvy gamers don't like the name. I don't think it's any more problematic than something like Power Attack, Combat Expertise or Combat Reflexes.

Now, if someone wants to rename it in their campaign, more power to them. I have several feats and prcs that are renamed in my campaign world, for instance.

 

[Smerg]

Now, I voted for WotC should not change the name. I voted for that not because I thought that was the best response but because I thought that was closest to the correct response.

There is something that many people have failed to do when they have a poll like this. They have failed to do what in business is referred to a Step 1.

A Step 1 is taking time to listen and think of the situation from the other person's point of view.

Currently, this poll is built around the end user's thoughts. It is a valid way of thinking because end users are important for the sale of business items. No end users and you have sunk a mountain of development costs into something without a reasonable payback.

That does not invalidate the need to look at things from the point of the producer and their needs.

Artists and developers have a reasonable need to protect the work that they produce. Unless you are the person that believes that you should have an open right to plagerize works and not support a company like WotC which does work hard producing original materials for your campaigns, funding stores to have events like world wide DnD game day, magic tournaments, and sponsoring conventions. Those are profits that they rechannel to support the end consumer and grow their business.

One of the developers said they send things like many of the feats to their legal department that does web searches to determine if there are any matches and makes recomendations.

Why is this?

What if the 4e team comes out with something that they call Spellshaper and someone else on the web has made an ability with the name of Spellshaper. Now the developers could be in a mess do to that person choosing to file a law suit stating that the Developers stole the Spellshaper feat from them. It is money that is thus diverted now into fighting a frivolous lawsuite instead of sponsoring a gaming convention.

Unfortunately, we live in a litigious world (aka we sue anything we can) and the best way to avoid these types of law suits is sometimes to go with silly seeming names. Not because the developers themselves want to do it that way but because our current world makes it safer for them to operate that way.

This is what I mean by saying that you need to think from the designer's needs first before you comepare your needs. This is why I do not oppose the WotC developers using names like Golden Wyvern.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Now, I voted for WotC should not change the name. I voted for that not because I thought that was the best response but because I thought that was closest to the correct response.

There is something that many people have failed to do when they have a poll like this. They have failed to do what in business is referred to a Step 1.

A Step 1 is taking time to listen and think of the situation from the other person's point of view.

Currently, this poll is built around the end user's thoughts. It is a valid way of thinking because end users are important for the sale of business items. No end users and you have sunk a mountain of development costs into something without a reasonable payback.

That does not invalidate the need to look at things from the point of the producer and their needs.

Artists and developers have a reasonable need to protect the work that they produce. Unless you are the person that believes that you should have an open right to plagerize works and not support a company like WotC which does work hard producing original materials for your campaigns, funding stores to have events like world wide DnD game day, magic tournaments, and sponsoring conventions. Those are profits that they rechannel to support the end consumer and grow their business.

One of the developers said they send things like many of the feats to their legal department that does web searches to determine if there are any matches and makes recomendations.

Why is this?

What if the 4e team comes out with something that they call Spellshaper and someone else on the web has made an ability with the name of Spellshaper. Now the developers could be in a mess do to that person choosing to file a law suit stating that the Developers stole the Spellshaper feat from them. It is money that is thus diverted now into fighting a frivolous lawsuite instead of sponsoring a gaming convention.

Unfortunately, we live in a litigious world (aka we sue anything we can) and the best way to avoid these types of law suits is sometimes to go with silly seeming names. Not because the developers themselves want to do it that way but because our current world makes it safer for them to operate that way.

This is what I mean by saying that you need to think from the designer's needs first before you comepare your needs. This is why I do not oppose the WotC developers using names like Golden Wyvern.

Er, aren't they covered by open gaming content license rules?

 

[Fifth Element]

Er, aren't they covered by open gaming content license rules?

Not necessarily. The ability in question could have been released as product identity, rather than open content. Meaning it could still be protected. This would probably be tricky, since it means that the ability could not use any existing open content, but it is possible.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

I voted for the second choice, though the third option would suit me fine. I want game mechanics names to actually remind me what they do. Flavor is fine, as long as it's also descriptive.

Not necessarily. The ability in question could have been released as product identity, rather than open content. Meaning it could still be protected. This would probably be tricky, since it means that the ability could not use any existing open content, but it is possible.

I highly doubt that WotC cares about the homebrew creations of random shmoes on the web. They're concerned about the IP of other companies and published authors, who will actually sue WotC to protect their IP.

Besides, there's an easy solution: If they rename it, just do a search for the new name!

 

[TwinBahamut]

The only option I would favor, renaming the Golden Wyvern school to something slightly better and more descriptive, but equally specific and flavorful, is not on the poll.

I don't really care for the name Golden Wyvern, especially since Wyverns have little to do with shaping spell effects, as far as I am aware, but I would dislike having it just be the Spellshaping school even more.

I like the names for the Iron Sigil, Serpent Eye, Hidden Flame, and Stormwalker schools. They manage to be descriptive and flavorful at the same time. If the name "Golden Wyvern" was replaced with a name that was as good as those, I would be happy. If there is some reason that it works well that I am not aware of, and it doesn't need to be changed, I would also be happy. If it didn't get a new name or a better explanation, I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't be mad. Certainly though, the Emerald Frost school needs a new name much more than Golden Wyvern.

 

[Najo]

Up to the present moment, the attitude of the I Hate Golden Wyvern club has been, essentially, that they're Right, and that anybody who views the idea of a core feat with a name that doesn't sound clinically detached (i.e. boring) either neutrally or with interest is Wrong. And they've said it umpteen different times in umpteen different threads and tried to mash into the carpet anybody who disagrees with them, so suddenly expressing shock and dismay at my relatively mild expression of irritation with the whole damned mess is more than a little dishonest.

Those of us who don't like the fluff in our game mechanics feel that it is forcing a certain flavor or feel into our campaigns we have worked hard on.

Personally, I prefer being given abilities and rules that are detacted from fluff so I can control the fluff. I use intricate history, character background, adventure hooks and other dramatic devises in my games. A series of feats that refers to something that doesn't exist in my world creates confusion and extra work, it forces me to work around WOTCs flavoring of the rules more than any previous edition did. This is how many of the DMs who create homebrews are feeling.

For the players and DMs who use premade stuff or just wing it, they are not going to feel the same impact. It is going to seem like we are overreacting to you. I assure you we aren't, not from our position.

It is important to try and make the majority of the players happy. If there is a solution for everyone, then that is what we should work towards, something that takes into account everyones interests as much as possible.

I would also point out, that my players and myself do not refer to our game mechanics in character. But, the flavor of the names does affect the feeling of the setting. As an example, in the Star Wars RPG they renamed Bull Rush as Bantha Rush, the reason being there are no Bulls in star wars and using Bantha gave it a star wars feel. I think this is minor, but it points out how things like this set the mood and feel of the game. Of course, you might argue that we were happy with Bull Rush before, but it is so common of a reference it doesn't detract from the setting (whether bull's are in it or not). Also, bull's rush is one feat, the wizard orders (and the possiblity of fighter camps, rogue guilds, churches etc) mean alot more than just a single feat is what we are talking about.

 

[Najo]

Anything that might spark my imagination is a good thing. This is one of the reasons I like Campaign Setting Books is all the flavorfull feats n'stuff. (And no, I don't have any compunction about stealing a feat I like from, say, the FRCS even if I'm not playing there.)

That is why they should have sidebars with fluff and then keep feats named golden wyvern adept, child of winter, emerald frost acolyte and serpent eye cabalist in campaign setting books. Why would every single D&D campaign have the very same wizard orders in them? It makes them boring and frustrating to create a world around.

 

[Najo]

I really like this.

I understand that WotC wants to inject some flavor into things. I just happen to think they are choosing the worst way of doing it in this instance. Something like the feat above seems like one of the best ways. There's definitely flavor there to spark the imagination of some players, but it's very unobtrusive and easy to ignore if someone doesn't like it. Seems like a great compromise.

Yeah, this is one of the best approaches I've seen so far.

 

[BryonD]

Up to the present moment, the attitude of the I Hate Golden Wyvern club has been, essentially, that they're Right, and that anybody who views the idea of a core feat with a name that doesn't sound clinically detached (i.e. boring) either neutrally or with interest is Wrong. And they've said it umpteen different times in umpteen different threads and tried to mash into the carpet anybody who disagrees with them, so suddenly expressing shock and dismay at my relatively mild expression of irritation with the whole damned mess is more than a little dishonest.

To the contrary, the tactic of the *one flavor fits all* side has been to consistently misrepresent the opposing side's views and arguments. As you have done here.
Telling us why your ideas are good and expressing thoughtful reasons that our actual concerns are unfounded would be much more productive.