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

[Najo]

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.

I left that option off the poll because it is subjective. Whether or not Golden Wyvern is a good name is someone's opinion. The issue here is wether or not to use fluff names in core (non-campaign specific) games mechanics.

D&D is going to have to build worlds off of this rules set. OGL publishers are going to have to too. WOTC is making it harder for that world building and unqiue expressions to occur with fluff imbedded core rules.

In reply to the various posters who feel the poll is one sided or leaning a certain way. I have stepped back and looked at all of the message boards, looked at it as a player, as a DM, as a retailer as a future publisher and from WOTCs long term perspective with the D&D Brand. I see the value of using fluff in the core rules with new players, but I also see how it can causes issues later one when you try to create new and different worlds and then plug them onto the engine that is the player's handbook. WOTC is doing something risky here, along with all the other changes, could be a bad move.

My "opinions" are weighed very heavily against my better judgment and I have carefully kept them unbiased. If you read them with that perspective you can see I have fairly laid out the debate. Likewise, I looked at the poll questions and do not see how they are weighted one way or the other.

My interest as a professional is that D&D succeeds. If fluff named feats will make it more money and a stronger game, I am all for that. But I do not think it is the correct choice to alienate the creative driven DMs. WOTC knows that DMs are important. It is their goal to make as many as they can. The better DMs tend to be the ones who do not like their hands held, feats like this can step on the creativity of those types of DMs.

There is more at stake here than just "change the feats name". WOTC is upsetting a valuable resource, their Dungeon Masters.

 

[CleverNickName]

I feel that "fluff" (names, campaign references, etc.) should be published in splatbooks. I feel that the core rules should contain generic stuff that is suitable for every campaign. And I feel that both are important, so I buy both.

 

[Najo]

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.

I agree Bryon. I would like to see input from those who like the fluff feat naming that at least treat our concerns with respect and try to find a solution that works for us all. I have seen alot of bashing the anti-GWA people instead of offering constructive input.

Which is what Rel is talking about. Come on people, lets keep this positive and help each others concerns. How do we make the majority happy with fluffy + crunch?

 

[Kintara]

IIn reply to the various posters who feel the poll is one sided or leaning a certain way. I have stepped back and looked at all of the message boards, looked at it as a player, as a DM, as a retailer as a future publisher and from WOTCs long term perspective with the D&D Brand.

You're claiming a well-studied disinterest. Okay. I remain unconvinced, but whatever. The poll is fine as a conversation starter, I suppose.

 

[Fifth Element]

I agree Bryon. I would like to see input from those who like the fluff feat naming that at least treat our concerns with respect and try to find a solution that works for us all. I have seen alot of bashing the anti-GWA people instead of offering constructive input.

Which is what Rel is talking about. Come on people, lets keep this positive and help each others concerns. How do we make the majority happy with fluffy + crunch?

1. The majority may already be happy with the proposed fluff+crunch balance. We have no way of knowing, and no poll on this site will ever tell you that.

2. Perhaps there is no solution that "works for us all". You need to be willing to consider the possibility that the "best" solution overall will leave you unhappy. The solution that makes the most people happy may not be one that pleases you. You cannot make everyone happy about everything.

3. I agree that some have been bashing the anti-GWA people. But several have offered constructive criticism. I worry that you are treating anyone who disagrees with your position as if they are not respecting what you have to say, and thus dismiss what they have to say. I can respect your opinion and still completely disagree with it.

 

[rounser]

IMO, "mythologically resonant" far outtrumps "historically accurate". History is full of lame stuff, ignoble stuff, silly ideas that failed, and the posturing of the powerful and tasteless.

It's also broad enough that if you look long enough at history, you can probably justify anything. (That said, mythology is full of lame stuff too - but they're generally not the "resonant" bits.)

And, let's face it - stuff which was tough and powerful-sounding in the middle ages might be cheesey and overblown to a modern audience. Enter the Goldern Wyverns.

They just need to shorten it a bit. Gold magic, or a Gold Adept. Add Silver, Bronze, and a bunch of other metal names and you've got a better solution. Or colours. Didn't WOTC have one heck of a big success with something related to coloured magic already?

 

[TwinBahamut]

I left that option off the poll because it is subjective. Whether or not Golden Wyvern is a good name is someone's opinion. The issue here is wether or not to use fluff names in core (non-campaign specific) games mechanics.

Well, I don't see how you can possibly avoid any kind of fluff whenever you name something.

Even the "descriptive" name mentioned here has its own quality as fluff. "Spellshaper" is just as much a piece of fluff as "Golden Wyvern", it is just a different sort of fluff. To compare, Feat names like "Trip" is a purely fluff name for the ability to force a character to become prone. Something like "Knock Prone" is another way of adding fluff to the same concept, and has different implications for the way it is perceived, making it seem like a blow to knock the opponent off balance, rather than a trip with the foot or a weapon. As we have seen, "Dragon's Tail Cut" is another way of re-imagining the exact same mechanic, turning into inflicting a minor leg injury. Another example, the terms "Stormwalker" and "Lightning Mage" both have the same flavor impact on the game, except they are just different kinds of flavor.

The only difference between "Golden Wyvern" and "Spellshaper" is that the first one has a net benefit for the creative potential for the DM and his world, and the latter has a net detriment to the DM's creative potential. I know this may not be easy to believe, so let me explain.

If they choose purely dry and categorical names for magical schools, like "Spellshaping" or "Conjuration", then the existence of those schools tends to fade. A feat like "Trip" is not regarded as something that exists in the game world, it is regarded as being a pure mechanic. It is easy for players and DMs assume that the 3E schools, like Conjuration, are similarly removed from the game world, and are purely mechanics. This occurs quite a bit because of the dry name. Another probable result is that these dry mechanical terms will be used in the game, and as a result all magic in the game is peppered with dry, categorical names that do not evoke anything or sound impressive or magical. Making a magical school stand out and have a personality of its own is made a lot harder when this happens, and most mages start sounding like rulebooks in game, and worse, all the different traditions start to blend in as merely alternative wizards, and arcane magic becomes homogenized.

I guess another way of phrasing this is that I want there to be interesting, flavorful groups and traditions of mages in my own game. When D&D uses strictly mechanical and categorical names for everything, then the flavor of those names is just as permeating and damaging to that effort as the anti-Golden Wyvern group is claiming the GWA feat to be. I can always change the name of the magical tradition Golden Wyvern, but if no one in the game expects magical traditions like Golden Wyvern to exist in the first place, then adding them in a meaningful way is a lot harder.

Argh, this is where having a single unified thread on this topic would come in handy. I posted my feelings on the new names a lot more clearly here.

 

[Smerg]

Here is a list of real world secret societies (note can you spot the fake society?)

Skull and Bones
Freemasons
Rosicrusions
Ordo Templis Orientis
Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
The Knights Templar
The Illuminati
The Bilerberg Group
The Priory of Sion
Opus Dei

How much differance is there in a name like Golden Wyvern from say Golden Dawn???

Note: Most of these societies have little to do with their titles. For example, Skull and Bones is not a group of pirates and Freemasons generally do not work with stone. The Bilderberg Group is only known by the name of the hotel where this group first met and may not be the real name of the group.

 

[Ahglock]

I like the side bar option the most, but I can deal with things like Golden Wyvren spell shaper adept. As long as I can have an idea of what feats I want to take a closer look when designing a NPC or PC by just skimming the names I'm satisfied. I like the idea of flavor text added into side bars because it sparks ideas and it makes it more obvious to newer players that changing names around and alterations are a good idea for your campaign setting.

 

[rounser]

Here is a list of real world secret societies (note can you spot the fake society?)

I think you've been reading too much Dan Brown or Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

And as I said, just because something's historically accurate doesn't mean it is appropriate for core D&D.