On The Horrible Naming

[WhatGravitas]

But homebrewing by changing fluff from a to b, or by removing fluff, is more complicated and requires a good memory to look at your own fluff and be able to translate it back to the printed fluff.

I'm basically of the same stance - and the names bother me as well - so it's hard to find arguments against your reasoning (if you look on my earlier posts, I've basically said what you're saying!), I've said this earlier:

But it is easier to learn, memorise, whatever. If the name (your mental bookmark) has a connection to the content, you have an easier time learning it, not forgetting it. While not a full-fledged mnemonic, it's still helpful.

Furthermore, what bothers me: Pre-determined names for reference-heavy things. Class names? How often do you look it up? Once per level-up, hence it's easy to "ignore" the name.
Feats and spells? Much more often, even on the table, as in "Hey, pass the book, I need to look up 'Golden Wyvern Adept'!" - then you have the flavour at the table.

Cheers, LT.

Still, there must be some kind of motivator in the WotC-team - and I'm trying to understand it - even if I don't share their opinion!

What makes me a bit confused, however, is this:

And you'd be incomplete.

For Magic:

* Designers come up with card ideas, and give them wacky place-holder names.
* Developers get the cards into manageable forms.
* Story people come up with the card names.

(Incidentally, they have an article on card names this week!)

Why does Magic gets better names? No really, Magic gets full-fledged flavour development, that's often pretty good (Ravnica, Lorwyn's take on Halflings and Elves... and much more stuff)... sometimes I think, D&D is flavour-wise much less coherent and rather a hodgepodge of flavour the individual authors like... at least for the Core Books, I wish they could sometimes borrow some of the MtG heads.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Zurai]

You seem to have an incorrect definition of opinion. An opinion is: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

And a belief is: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

If something is not susceptible to proof, it cannot be right OR wrong. Note that it isn't "a confidence of uncertain strength". It's "a confidence in something not susceptible to proof". Proof is what is required to judge something right or wrong. No proof, no 'correctness'.

I may hold the opinion that lead paint chips are good and good for you. That belief would be a wrong belief regardless of how certain I am of it. And the fact that my opinion here would be wrong also invalidates your opinion.

No. That is not an opinion. Opinions are, by definition something that is not provable. It is provable that lead paint, when consumed, has negative side-effects. Thus, there is no opinion involved in saying that they are good for you: you are simply wrong. The very fact that I can say you are wrong and prove it means that "lead paint is good for you" cannot be an opinion.



Long and the short of all of this: You can say whatever you want, but the WotC designers cannot, by definition, be WRONG for liking certain names or naming styles. You're more than welcome to think they're stupid for continuing to like them, but they are not wrong - nor are they right.

 

[Zurai]

You can please everyone. You just can't do it all the time.

So you really believe that there is a magic compromise that would get every person in the world behind it? There wouldn't even be one person that wanted the compromise to be more to their side or less to someone else's?

 

[MerricB]

Why does Magic gets better names? No really, Magic gets full-fledged flavour development, that's often pretty good (Ravnica, Lorwyn's take on Halflings and Elves... and much more stuff)... sometimes I think, D&D is flavour-wise much less coherent and rather a hodgepodge of flavour the individual authors like... at least for the Core Books, I wish they could sometimes borrow some of the MtG heads.

IIRC, D&D actually now has a story team.

In fact, I think that once you see the core books for D&D, you'll see that the names are all of a piece. They may sound stupid when taken in isolation, but they work as a coherent whole.

Cheers!

 

[Simplicity]

And a belief is: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

If something is not susceptible to proof, it cannot be right OR wrong. Note that it isn't "a confidence of uncertain strength". It's "a confidence in something not susceptible to proof". Proof is what is required to judge something right or wrong. No proof, no 'correctness'.

Proof is seldom used outside the world of mathematics. Evidence is the more likely term here.

Exhibit A: Lightning Panther Strike.
Exhibit B: Golden Wyvern Adept
Expert Witness Testimony: "I don't like it."
On cross-examination: "I still don't like it."
Case Closed.

I hold a variety of opinions which could be disproved at any point in time. One's belief in a higher power might be validated or invalidated at any minute if, say, a column of fire erupted in front of you.

No. That is not an opinion. Opinions are, by definition something that is not provable. It is provable that lead paint, when consumed, has negative side-effects. Thus, there is no opinion involved in saying that they are good for you: you are simply wrong. The very fact that I can say you are wrong and prove it means that "lead paint is good for you" cannot be an opinion.

Almost anything is provable or disprovable by unexpected events.

The goodness of lead paint is in fact an opinion. Many toddlers hold this very opinion due to the sweetness of the lead. What exactly would you call the toddler's belief if not an opinion?

Long and the short of all of this: You can say whatever you want, but the WotC designers cannot, by definition, be WRONG for liking certain names or naming styles. You're more than welcome to think they're stupid for continuing to like them, but they are not wrong - nor are they right.

Okay. You can think that if you like.

 

[Simplicity]

So you really believe that there is a magic compromise that would get every person in the world behind it? There wouldn't even be one person that wanted the compromise to be more to their side or less to someone else's?

Are you saying Lincoln's opinion is wrong?

 

[Zurai]

Exhibit A: Lightning Panther Strike.
Exhibit B: Golden Wyvern Adept
Expert Witness Testimony: "I don't like it."
On cross-examination: "I still don't like it."
Case Closed.

This is a textbook example of an opinion. Congratulations.

I hold a variety of opinions which could be disproved at any point in time. One's belief in a higher power might be validated or invalidated at any minute if, say, a column of fire erupted in front of you.

At the point it becomes provable, it ceases to be an opinion and becomes a statement of fact, or a statement counter to fact.

The goodness of lead paint is in fact an opinion. Many toddlers hold this very opinion due to the sweetness of the lead. What exactly would you call the toddler's belief if not an opinion?

I doubt many toddlers even have a concept of "good for me". They are of the opinion that lead paint tastes good. That is an opinion. If a toddler told you that lead paint was good for him, that would be an incorrect statement of fact. If a toddler told you that he liked the taste of lead paint, that would be a statement of opinion.

Are you saying Lincoln's opinion is wrong?

Nope - but I'm now saying you don't even know what you're talking about. Lincoln never made any claims about satisfying people. The attribution you're trying to make is to the poet John Lydgate. And, for the record, I wasn't even referring to that. I ask you again: Do you honestly believe that there is ANYTHING - any single statement at all - that 100% of the 6+ billion people on Earth would all completely and totally agree with? No dissention at all?

 

[rounser]

Maybe WOTC should hire Games Workshop for the project.

They're really, really good at cool, flavourful fluff. Can't remember them striking out on anything.

Their rules, on the other hand...

 

[Zurai]

Maybe WOTC should hire Games Workshop for the project.

They're really, really good at cool, flavourful fluff. Can't remember them striking out on anything.

Their rules, on the other hand...

Eh, they've struck out on little things from time to time - especially their worldwide campaigns that they claim the players have a say in but in reality the story results are pretty much pre-determined. There's also a lot of revisionist fluff.

That said, they do have a lot of really awesome story elements and I wouldn't mind seeing D&D incorporate some of the same story principles. The problem is that GW has two very distinct rulesets for two very distinct settings. WotC has a single ruleset for a dozen settings that range from very distinct (Dark Sun) to very similar (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Mystara).

 

[Simplicity]

You got me. Misattribution.

I ask you again: Do you honestly believe that there is ANYTHING - any single statement at all - that 100% of the 6+ billion people on Earth would all completely and totally agree with? No dissention at all?

How about: "Shall I let you breathe again?"
Or "Should I stop killing you now?"

I'm pretty certain that if 6 billion people didn't agree, those who do not agree could be quickly dealt with.