On The Horrible Naming

[Charwoman Gene]

So, a while back we had the infamous "Dragon's Tail Cut" kerfluffle.
We were told we sorta won, and they'd be scaling that back.

Is it possible the recent "Races and Classes" bizzareness of "Crazy Aardvark Slide" names a holdover from old drafts, and maybe a little bit of this silliness has been bled out?

 

[Abstraction]

I believe that was the Electric Slide.

 

[Simplicity]

As I said in the other thread, perhaps it could be an obfuscation system designed to hide the actual names of feats.

You'd just need a list of A-Z adjectives, A-Z nouns, and A-Z verbs.
Put one in each slot and you get a stupid name. Like Lightning Panther Strike.
But perhaps the real feat name is Leaping Power Slash or something...

Then again, I doubt it.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Is it possible the recent "Races and Classes" bizzareness of "Crazy Aardvark Slide" names a holdover from old drafts, and maybe a little bit of this silliness has been bled out?

Eh... then why have they pulled the non-cheesy Wizard Implement article and put up that Emerald Frost/Golden Wyvern one?

Cheers, LT.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Eh... then why have they pulled the non-cheesy Wizard Implement article and put up that Emerald Frost/Golden Wyvern one?

Cheers, LT.

That was before Dragon's Tail Cut.

((Speculation WARNING))
I think there is a group of designers who LIKE these names and one that hates them. There is a secret war...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

((Speculation WARNING))
I think there is a group of designers who LIKE these names and one that hates them. There is a secret war...

I know that for a fact.

EDIT: Let me revise that fact. There is a group of designers who LIKE these names and some that SAY they hate them.

 

[Mouseferatu]

There's also only so many purely descriptive names one can use before you've started adding levels upon levels of "greater, lesser, even more greater" descriptors. Leaving aside the issue as to whether the specific names chosen are good or bad, I certainly understand the need for flavorful names over purely descriptive ones, given the vast array of powers and feats presented.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I know that for a fact.

EDIT: Let me revise that fact. There is a group of designers who LIKE these names and some that SAY they hate them.

I've already suggested that the game designers stick to game designing and hire some writers to fill in the fluff info for them. There are several types of creativity, and it takes a brave man to admit that he might not have facility with all of them.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

There's also only so many purely descriptive names one can use before you've started adding levels upon levels of "greater, lesser, even more greater" descriptors. Leaving aside the issue as to whether the specific names chosen are good or bad, I certainly understand the need for flavorful names over purely descriptive ones, given the vast array of powers and feats presented.

Even if you abandon the hope of getting a descriptive name for every feat, spell, and power, there's still the issue of "is this awful?" There are good flavourful names, and there are bad flavourful names. I get the feeling that the folks in charge of generating these names don't exactly have their finger on the pulse of the aesthetic sensibilities of the audience. Or they do, but this is the best they can come up with.

 

[GlassJaw]

I've already suggested that the game designers stick to game designing and hire some writers to fill in the fluff info for them. There are several types of creativity, and it takes a brave man to admit that he might not have facility with all of them.

The problem is that I think that's how it works at WotC now.

They have developers and designers. Developers make the rules, designers write the fluff.

Personally, I'd rather have developers write the rules and choose a mundane or generic name as the "fluff". Personally, in a core book, generic should be the fluff.