Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 4163984" data-attributes="member: 2525">I hope so.  Rules Simplicity /= Game Simplicity.  Complex rules don't help me have a fun game, they just help people who like to read and memorize and play with rules get a leg up on their peers who don't do that.  The game can be as complex as you want without the need for complex an inelegant rules.That is a risk with any game system, and no less with (for example) 3.5.  I don't think this issue correlates strongly with the issue we are discussing.I do not see that being lessened in any way by this naming protocol.  You already could take, for example, a bard, with Song of the Heart, Haunting Melody, and Music of Growth, and such a bard was already suggested in the Song of the Heart text.  Just because the names were not "Power of the Muse", "Haunting Muse", and "Muse of Growth" (to follow my earlier example), doesn't mean they were not intended to go together already.  You don't have to take all Muse feats, just as you didn't have to take all the feats listed under the Song of the Heart text.  It just makes it easier, from a rules perspective, to call out a bonus to those Muse feats, or a change to those feats as a group, rather than going through the complex procedure of spelling out each feat individually in the text of the basic Song of the Heart feat.  I do not see how the naming protocol makes you conform to someone else's idea  of how they should fit together any more than the basic Song of the Heart feat (or even the Bard itself) always did.Well, I have not seen that, and I am not sure how relevant that is to this naming protocol issue.  It sounds like you are looking for an opening for a rant about other issues, but I could be wrong.  Why don't we try and stick to this topic.No.  I will not prithee tell you anything. Why be cute?Because it will cause confusion on the same level of "enchantment" and "enhancement".  If the game is going to have room to grow and expand in different directions over many years, it needs lots of space for that.  Once you label something as "tactical" with a specific meaning, suddenly other things cannot have Tactical names even if they involve tactics, because it will cause confusion and may interfere with another suit of powers.  So you use something unique, like White Raven.  After a few games, everyone will know what White Raven means, and have an idea what White Raven Tactics will be about, and nobody will confuse it with Golden Wyvern, or what Golden Wyvern Tactics might be about. However, I think generic names that are descriptive in nature (like the ones you suggest) will get confused quickly.Take, for example, lessons from Trademark law.  Basic trademark naming teaches that descriptive names are the weakest trademarks, and unique names that have nothing to do with the product or service are the strongest.  So for example Apple Computers is a very strong trademark, while Spicy Salsa is a very weak trademark. You don't have to go to that extreme, but I think that field holds lessons for these kinds of naming protocols in RPGs.  In the end, White Raven will communicate better to players than Tactical.I lost you at the second set of parenthesis within parenthesis. But regardless, "Tactical" alone as a generic name doesn't fit most world's either, as it calls out for a name change to fit your world.  I'd rather WOTC do that job for me, and give me a name that at least COULD fit my world, than they make sure that I have to change everything because its all been given bland generic names.  If I need to change one or two lines of powers to fit my world, that is easier to do than change the whole thing because it's all flavorless.For example, I was a fan of d20 Modern.  However, the character class names were so bland and generic that they all had to be changed for a campaign.  For those not aware, d20 Modern classes were: Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, and Charismatic Hero. That is so boring and generic that, for my games, they all had to be changed.</blockquote>

Verification