On The Horrible Naming

[Simplicity]

Lightning Panther Strike is a much better name than Leaping Power Slash.

Just trying to come up with an example that fit the lettering scheme. I think I did pretty well with a whole 5 seconds to think about it. Perhaps if I were writing some kind of book or something, I'd put more effort into my names.

 

[GlassJaw]

Can you speak on any kind of authority or from experience in stating this? Because as I understand designers create material and developers playtest and edit that material. At least, that's the way magic works.

Pretty sure that's not how it works. Just peruse the Job Postings at WotC sometime.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

Absolutely. That's why I included the caveat "Leaving aside the issue as to whether the specific names chosen are good or bad..." My point was simply that people who want the generic, the whole generic, and nothing but the generic should steel themselves for disappointment now. Even if the names change, at least some of them will simply change to other flavorful descriptors, as opposed to purely functional ones.

 

[BadMojo]

Even if the names change, at least some of them will simply change to other flavorful descriptors, as opposed to purely functional ones.

I'd be very happy to see more descriptive descriptors (heh) that actually fit the flavor of one or both of the main campaign settings. I just can't see names like Lightning Panther Strike fitting with the tone of FR or Eberron at all.

 

[BryonD]

Absolutely. That's why I included the caveat "Leaving aside the issue as to whether the specific names chosen are good or bad..." My point was simply that people who want the generic, the whole generic, and nothing but the generic should steel themselves for disappointment now. Even if the names change, at least some of them will simply change to other flavorful descriptors, as opposed to purely functional ones.

We the customers do note that we are hereby put on notice for disappointment.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Then our public school system needs to hurry up and CRUSH the dreams of every single aspiring novelist so we'll get more DMs.

Seriously.

More DMs.

We need 'em.

I can't help it.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Yeah, it's, at least for me, less the use flavourful names, but the somewhat random choice of flavourful names.

Prime example: Golden Wyvern: "Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast."

No connection whatsoever. How do I get from golden, winged beasts to battle-mages who shape area spells?

But this: "Stormwalker theurges channel spells of lightning and force through their wands." or "Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring" is something I can get behind.

Stormwalker Theurge - it screams of elemental air, storms, the power of lightning.
Serpent Eye - Kaa's serpentine hypnotic is a classic.

Well, that's my opinion...

Cheers, LT.

 

[BryonD]

It is interesting to note that one sales point of 4E has been "easier for new DMs" and thus it will grow the hobby by growing the DM pool first.
I'm not clear on how flustering a new DM because he can't recall what his npc's feat *does* is going to fit into that plan.

 

[BryonD]

But this: "Stormwalker theurges channel spells of lightning and force through their wands." or "Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring" is something I can get behind.
Cheers, LT.

To me the very best choice is simple descriptive names. If they want to tack on some common "in world" names as flavor text then fine.
However, as long as there is a connection, I'm fine with it. The options you suggested would be ok. But, like you said, the total lack of any connection is a negative.

 

[WhatGravitas]

To me the very best choice is simple descriptive names. If they want to tack on some common "in world" names as flavor text then fine.
However, as long as there is a connection, I'm fine with it. The options you suggested would be ok. But, like you said, the total lack of any connection is a negative.

1) Well, I'd like to have purely descriptive names as well - but I certainly see the need for more flavourful names, if you want to make the core books more appealing and less textbook-like. Especially for a newer group, that only gets into contact with Pen'n'Paper-RPGs for the first time. Individual flavour and homebrewing is something that develops over time.

2) The options weren't mine, they were cribbed from the "Wizards and Wizard Implements"-article waaay back (the revised, current one). So they CAN do that. But why they present us the strange Golden Wyvern... *shrug*

Cheers, LT.