Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept? (Keep Friendly)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Najo" data-source="post: 3931507" data-attributes="member: 9959"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>There is more at stake here than just "change the feats name". WOTC is upsetting a valuable resource, their Dungeon Masters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Najo, post: 3931507, member: 9959"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept? (Keep Friendly)
Top