Dungeons and Dragons Wiki talk:Article Balance/Naming Convention Voting

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New round! Old voting can be found at Project talk:Article Balance/Archive2

Rules:

  • You cast your vote by adding a new bullet point and your signature under the option you want to support.
  • You can only vote for 1 option from each section.
    • You can vote for one of the two naming schemes.
    • You can, and should, vote for options for both schemes, even the one you don't support, just in case it wins out anyway.
  • The winning scheme and the winning options will go into effect in approx 2 weeks.

Voting is now closed. You can still add something below if you want, but it won't matter.

Naming Convention[edit]

Class Name Ranges
Ex: Soulknife, Barbarian, Rogue, Wizard

Power Level Ranges
Ex: Very Low, Low, Moderate, High

Class Name Scheme Options[edit]

Monk[edit]

Keep Monk

Replace with Soulknife

Fighter[edit]

Keep Fighter

Replace with Barbarian

Rogue[edit]

Keep Rogue

Replace with Warblade

Wizard[edit]

Keep Wizard

Replace with Druid

Replace with CoDzilla

Power Level Scheme Options[edit]

Very Low, Low, Moderate, High

Low, Moderate, High, Very High

Discussions[edit]

Note to Eiji[edit]

Check the instructions at the top. You've double-voted in the first section, which is something you are explicitly not allowed to do.

You also do this on the fighter and wizard options. --Franken Kesey 18:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Power ... Level?[edit]

I don't think "power level" is a good way to say it, since it's not just levels--that seems to imply they're plateaus, when they're actually ranges. Can anyone think of a better word rather than "levels"? Power ranges maybe? --Ghostwheel 11:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

D&D already uses "level" in hundreds of different contexts, thus D&D players would just recognize the term "level", since level already covers abstracts like spell circles, experience rankings, floor numbers, monsterous ecological standing, threat ratings, etc.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 05:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If you want to talk about what people assume and recognize, then it gets even worse. Every instance of "level" in D&D refers to a very specific thing, with no ranges or variations. A 5th level character is a 5th level character, and there's no room for leeway there. That just makes for a better reason not to use "level", since people will think it refers to a single point on a continuum, rather than a range of possibilities. --Ghostwheel 05:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Except the term 'power level' is well-established in the gaming community, both within DnD and outside of it. I'm not seeing the issue here. - MisterSinister 09:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The term "gish" is well-established in the gaming community too, but that doesn't make it an apt term to use here either. "Power level" is used to describe a singular level of power. That's not what these ranges represent. --DanielDraco 23:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
For clarity, can you define gish? --Franken Kesey 00:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It probably won't wind up on the actual page, and is only used here as a descriptor to differentiate it. So why do we care? - Tarkisflux Talk 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

CoDzilla[edit]

What is CoDzilla? Should we not keep all selections focused on concrete classes? --Franken Kesey 00:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

CoDzilla is an old meme started back on the old WotC CharOp boards. It refers to Clerics and Druids being easily the most powerful classes in the game, and has become a (fairly) established meme among the design-and-optimization-oriented crowd. - MisterSinister 01:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Then it should be replaced with Cleric (noting Druid is already a separate option). Otherwise it may infer that classes in the codzilla balance would be as powerful as a combination of a druid and a cleric. The objective of the name is for all to be able to understand it, not a focused crowd.
Please pardon the question. What is a meme? (Internet lingo is more susceptible to questions from outsiders.) --Franken Kesey 01:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The actual meme (def: unit of cultural idea transfer, often repeated or passed on verbatim. usage: annoying image meme) is "Cleric or Druid zilla", and is a combination acronym and reference to Godzilla. Cleric was thought inferior to Druid for expressing balance, since Druid is a better example in most ways. As it is currently less favored than either of the other two options, and the other scheme is more favored overall at present, I'm not worried about updating it or removing it from the list. - Tarkisflux Talk 02:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Switching My Vote[edit]

Would just like to make a notation so it doesn't look weird in the edit history or cause confusion. I switched my scheme choice from "Low, Moderate, High, Very High" to "Very Low, Low, Moderate, High" simply on the grounds that I feel that "Moderate" reflects a level I see most comfort with players. --Ganteka Future 18:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to chime in on why I picked this range as well. Simply put, the word 'Moderate' creates the sense of 'most people would be OK here' or 'people can play this level with agreement'. In the scheme I voted for, 'Moderate' equals 'Rogue' - which is designed to pass the SGT but not destroy it. This seems like a better choice, simply because it means people picking up this content won't suck utterly at any point in the game. However, if we define 'Moderate' as 'Fighter', we are literally saying that it's OK to lose at some point without hope or redemption - and this offends me deeply. - MisterSinister 00:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Playing devil's advocate, I could easily see the same argument used to make "moderate" be wizard-level and everything else "low", "very low", and "very very low" :-P --Ghostwheel 00:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Counter perspective - setting Fighter at Moderate is not saying that 'most people would be OK here', it is saying that 'most people who don't do char op or are cognizant of the issues (i.e. casual non-forum based players) are playing here'. It's not saying that it's ok to lose without hope or redemption, it's saying that the game is built such that these things happen without effort on someone's part to avoid them. It is a measure of the optimization or class feature bases expected at that balance level, not a measure of its performance with respect to the SGT or any other benchmark system. That the Rogue is only Rogue level with UMD abuse and good feat/skill/wand/scroll/item selection only further suggests that the level requires a reasonably high level of optimization, not simply a moderate one.
The choice here is basically between setting it such that people who expect imbalance will get what we are suggesting without further reading and setting it such that people who don't notice imbalance will get what we are suggesting without further reading. I am firmly in the casual camp, in so far that I think either of those choices is optimal. Your offense is noted, however, and some offense was expected, so hurray expectations being met :-p - Tarkisflux Talk 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ghostwheel: That's missing my point completely. Wizard-level overpowers the SGT, so calling it 'moderate' is both disingenuous and more than a little stupid.
Tarkis: The idea that people who don't do charop and don't troll relevant forums would even know about this place, much less take content from it, is something I find incredibly difficult to believe. We are a sub-community of a sub-community of a sub-community of people who play a game made by one company in the industry (admittedly the biggest) - by definition, we're talking to a very specialized group. I personally find it offensive that fighter-level would be labelled as 'moderate', and it is a pandering to offendable newbies that I find both unnecessary and actually kind of stupid, given what I have stated above. Fighter-level play is not 'moderate' by any definition of the word - it's underpowered.
Rogue-level play (regardless of whatever problems the rogue class may have - hence my decision to vote on a different name) however, is something that can reasonably be termed 'moderate'. You perform expectedly within the SGT, you don't massively overpower many challenges, and you don't (generally) snap the game the fuck in half with effort. All of the above suggests that if moderate were to be pegged anywhere, it would be here. You're welcome to disagree, but your argument simply doesn't hold up. - MisterSinister 08:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It's an argument based on second hand stories and other bits, just like all of the other arguments for casual user improvements and is pandering to offendable newbies. It is a recognition that the game does not work as intended, and that a moderate level of optimization and effort is not sufficient to play the game at all character levels with all classes without MC interference. It is offensive because the failure of the game is offensive. Fighter level play is what a moderate group is going to wind up in without help or awareness of the issues, and making us friendly to that sort of thing is what will better attract and keep new contributors who search for new content on google and don't wind up on paleowiki. Which I think is much more important than setting the power level bar such that it indicates how you perform with respect to the game. You don't find that a compelling position, and that's fine, but I don't think that's the same as saying it doesn't hold up and should be abandoned.
That said, I doubt anything that either of us has said has changed anyone's mind. The time for formative argument is probably long past, and I'm done defending an option I consider vastly inferior to the alternate naming scheme in the first place. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Why do you feel that the class-based one is superior? I don't think I ever heard your argument on the matter... --Ghostwheel 16:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It's in a few places on the balance points talk page, but here's the short version by request - Some level of initial obfuscation is a good thing when you want people to engage with the material and come away from it with an understanding of what you intend. Confuse and reframe is a real sales and discussion technique that really works to disarm people of their preconceptions and their initial resistance to new ideas. So simplify the explanation, sure, but don't over simplify the terms or you run right back into preconceptions - just like MS's or mine above about what the terms are actually representing. The simple terms suggested here don't work the way people want them to, and are a straightforwardly worse tool for imparting our intent. - Tarkisflux Talk 19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Late to the conversation, so I'm just going to throw in a glob of my various two cents on things said here.
Setting anything at Moderate says nothing but, "This is more or less in the middle of the rest of the stuff." It doesn't say that the middle is good or bad. It says it lies roughly halfway between the really high stuff and the really low stuff. Personally, I think it's most apt to say that about Rogue.
Tarkis: The Rogue itself requires high levels of optimization to achieve the (academic) understanding of Rogue level. A class that is actually at that level does not. In fact, a class that is actually at any power rank requires only casual "don't make stupid decisions" levels of optimization in order to fit its own power rank. So measuring the optimization required to reach the rank is really not a viable way to consider it. Ultimately, the lines we draw between the four ranks are arbitrary. We can set them wherever we want to. If we're to pull the veil off our considerations behind power ranks, they are basically defined as "Severely underestimating the power required to win", "Making some real effort to contend at all levels but scaling too slowly to do so very well", "Feasibly capable of winning at any level", and "God mode". To define them around classes is to use the opposite reasoning that we should. The whole reason one of the options is to rename the categories with other classes is because we recognize that they are misleadingly named. To return to the main point here, I personally prefer VL/L/M/H, because, with the understandings that I have of the ranks, at least, it better reflects where the greater granularity lies -- and because Moderate is closest to actually being the middle.
MS: The SGT is rather like Schroedinger's cat at this point -- it was an interesting thought a long time ago, but it's rather wearying that people still cling to it as a serious premise. To misquote Hawking, when I hear about the Same Game Test, I reach for my +1 dagger. It was never a viable way to achieve a full grasp of a class's power, and it really has no place in a serious discussion of the matter.
Tarkis again: Confuse and reframe is valid in sales. I can't help but doubt its application here, though. This is a free website -- I think people are largely just going to leave and go elsewhere if they can't dive in. --DanielDraco 23:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Reset indent to one colon

DD: I think that, absent an alternative, I'm gonna keep referring to the SGT. This is simply because we still don't have any benchmarks for what 'your-mum' level actually means. Otherwise, I'm in full agreement. - MisterSinister 04:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's the next order of business after we finish this. We already have a starting skeleton benchmark list of what to rate which stuff at :-P --Ghostwheel 04:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
^This. Also, even in the absence of food, I would not recommend resorting to cyanide for sustenance. In the same way, I think it's better to simply say that we lack a benchmark (and need to work on completing that new one) than to use a faulty one in the meantime. --DanielDraco 04:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think if anything, we should establish benchmarks before we rename them. But that's just me. - MisterSinister 04:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Ideally, yeah. But the fact remains that we lack a concrete system as of right now, and we are beginning the process of formalizing one by deciding on names of the ranks. If the class-based naming convention wins, the classes chosen will probably become the centerpoints of the ranks. If the low-high convention wins, we have literally a blank slate, since those terms are entirely subjective; we do already have a good idea of what we'll write on that slate, but it's not a formal and systematic idea. It's not the SGT. --DanielDraco 18:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Also switching[edit]

Would state that im switching from warblade to rogue, not that if fell rogue is best example for "rogue" level since you only have to do a few mistakes in charekter build to make it a fighter level rogue. It simple that warblade is to far from core so we are gonna lose some understanding of the level if we go wit it. Wildmage Talk 18:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'far from core' argument isn't really one I fear that holds. We're talking about an edition that has already been out of print for four fucking years. Anyone who's harvesting homebrew content for it would have likely at least heard of warblades, if not actually read the rules for one. If we were still talking about a current edition, this argument would make sense, but in reference to 3.5, I simply can't see it.
Also, please SPAG-check your work. I had to read it twice to figure out what you were trying to say. - MisterSinister 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Accessibility of terms is important. Most people who look to homebrew are at least basically familiar with the Warblade -- it's a highly-lauded class. But not everyone will be. It's valid to want to use something more universally known. That's why I, for instance, am against the Soulknife name -- yeah, it's even SRD, but it's such an overlooked (for good reason) class that I think Monk is still a better way to summarize the power rank for most people. --DanielDraco 23:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

An Observance[edit]

It is good to know that there are only about 16 people who continue to habitat this site.

How do you figure that?--Ideasmith 03:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
16 votes
Not seeing your reasoning--Ideasmith 04:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
And would you please sign your posts, Franken Kesey.--Ideasmith 04:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe only the good people are left. Those with only true grit can survive in this dark world we call homebrew. I took the role of observer and occasional commenter, mainly due to lack of time. Others weren't so lucky as to find an escape like mine. First the stress gets to you, "will I finish this class ability before it gets deleted?" which leads to depression "This class is probably going to suck anyway *sigh*" then you descend into insanity "If i give them full BAB d12 health and all good saves then my Wizard variant will be the most balanced of them all MWahaHAhahAHHAAhAhAHHA!" and in the aftermath of that insanity these broken homebrewers fall to the ground never to rise again...At least that's what I like to think of those who have left us.--Stryker 05:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Or we have a large number of casual users who don't give a damn about decisions like this. --DanielDraco 00:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Possible. I do not see anything wrong with having a small number of high-quality people. I wonder only how to enhance the number of casual viewers (we do not need it, but world domination is always a fun fantasy). I doubt voting will change it much. --Franken Kesey 00:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The world is a changing. I try to stay focused on what Wizard is doing most of the time. 4e and now 5e. And optimizations of core material take precedence over homebrew for me too. That said, this site is a fun detour. I come here to 'Think outside the Box'. Haha. Is it really that surprising this site has grown so little in it's celebrities and management? Nah. Not really. --Jay Freedman 01:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Bump[edit]

Naming convention changes go into effect tomorrow sometime. Last minute voters should go ahead and get those in. - Tarkisflux Talk 17:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And the winner is...[edit]

...Power Level (or whatever), starting at Low and going up to Very High. Any complaining or bitching about the naming conventions should go in a sandbox, because I don't want to see it for another few years.

These changes will be written into the main article shortly, and I'll edit the author template to reference these right now. Preloads will need to be updated, but the template will continue to take the old names until we can bot edit them away, so there's no immediate rush. - Tarkisflux Talk 06:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://dnd-wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki_talk:Article_Balance/Naming_Convention_Voting&oldid=159849"