Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tarchon" data-source="post: 1638541" data-attributes="member: 5990">! Have you ever heard any real Medieval names?&nbsp; Roger Bacon, for instance?&nbsp; Skull-Grim?&nbsp; Harald Bluetooth?&nbsp; Odo?&nbsp; Ivar the Boneless?&nbsp; Brian Boru?&nbsp; Sichelgaita?&nbsp; Amalasuintha?&nbsp; Beatrice of Aa?&nbsp; Liutprand?&nbsp; Clovis?&nbsp; Cnut?&nbsp; You'd probably nix most of those right away.&nbsp; I suspect the only reason you don't think most Medieval names are silly is that you don't know very many and you don't know what they mean.&nbsp; The problem with excessive name regulation is that you're forcing your taste on your players, and - pardon me if I say this - but it's amply apparent from this thread that the average DM is not so wise and well-informed that he or she has a monopoly on good taste.&nbsp; I don't presume to say that just because something like &quot;Rufus&quot; sounds funny to me, that there's something inherently silly about it.&nbsp; There are over 30,000 people in the US alone named Rufus for Pete's sake.&nbsp; If you have a character named &quot;Odo&quot; and players sit around making Deep Space 9 jokes through the entire session, the problem isn't the name; the problem is that you're gaming with 12-year-olds.DM: &quot;John the Gnome comes up to you and...&quot;Player 1: &quot;Flushes&quot;Player 2: &quot;Asks how much it'll be for an hour with him and two buddies&quot;DM thinks &quot;Gosh, I should quit using silly names like John.&quot;It's everyone's game.&nbsp; Sure, the DM has more control and should prevent extremely bad names, but you have to let players have some latitude to contribute to the campaign setting with details like that.&nbsp; There's a serious risk of losing their interest if you quash everything they come up with because it doesn't meet your own refined and elegant standards.&nbsp; D&amp;D doesn't stand for &quot;Dictating &amp; Demanding.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tarchon, post: 1638541, member: 5990"] ! Have you ever heard any real Medieval names? Roger Bacon, for instance? Skull-Grim? Harald Bluetooth? Odo? Ivar the Boneless? Brian Boru? Sichelgaita? Amalasuintha? Beatrice of Aa? Liutprand? Clovis? Cnut? You'd probably nix most of those right away. I suspect the only reason you don't think most Medieval names are silly is that you don't know very many and you don't know what they mean. The problem with excessive name regulation is that you're forcing your taste on your players, and - pardon me if I say this - but it's amply apparent from this thread that the average DM is not so wise and well-informed that he or she has a monopoly on good taste. I don't presume to say that just because something like "Rufus" sounds funny to me, that there's something inherently silly about it. There are over 30,000 people in the US alone named Rufus for Pete's sake. If you have a character named "Odo" and players sit around making Deep Space 9 jokes through the entire session, the problem isn't the name; the problem is that you're gaming with 12-year-olds. DM: "John the Gnome comes up to you and..." Player 1: "Flushes" Player 2: "Asks how much it'll be for an hour with him and two buddies" DM thinks "Gosh, I should quit using silly names like John." It's everyone's game. Sure, the DM has more control and should prevent extremely bad names, but you have to let players have some latitude to contribute to the campaign setting with details like that. There's a serious risk of losing their interest if you quash everything they come up with because it doesn't meet your own refined and elegant standards. D&D doesn't stand for "Dictating & Demanding." [/QUOTE]

Verification