Hi there! Morgan with Cat-Powered Raygun Studios, here; new user, first post. Thought I'd get some general input on an idea or two here. The questions are:

1) How important is the name of a given game component? More specifically, what does the name of an individual rule/in-game object/mechanical factor, or the term used for such, mean to you, as both a player and as a GM?

2) Is it important to you how you refer to specific components within a system? Do you enjoy (or desire) a certain term or name evoking a different response than the standard, mechanical terminology, such as "attribute" or "stat?"

3) Is it more of a treat or a hassle when a developer goes out of their way to change the typical terminology on you (for example, referring to "rounds" of combat as "cycles" or some such)?

4) And lastly, do you find (or think) that it bogs down gameplay unnecessarily when standardized terms are changed, or does it simply add spice without trouble? In either case, does the obscurity, uniqueness, or complexity of the new words you have to remember significantly impact your ability to play efficiently and have fun, or is it a minor bother?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and ideas! :3

Are you asking a specific question or just doing a survey? Either way it seems your asking the same thing multiple times.

Basically it boils down to whether or not the players understand what your trying to say, changing the terminology up can give your game a unique feel and adds to the color of a setting, but the classics are classics for a reason which goes back to understanding. A good example of this is Nobilis, the terms give the game a certain feel however can be hard to understand.

Ultimately it amounts to getting the right balance.

There is a really good episode of The Master Plan about this exact subject.

7VII7: Sorry, perhaps I should rephrase. Let me ask in a different way.

First, how much importance do you place on the names of things within the game, as both a player and a GM? (i.e., Do you care whether the human race is referred to as "humans" or as "Terrans?" Does it matter at all? If so, how much?)

Second, is the terminology you use in a game important to you, in terms of the response it creates? (i.e., In our current project, we have a principle similar to d20 "saving throws," called "response rolls;" we chose this term because the word "response" evokes a different emotion than "save," in that the first implies you are relying on the skills and abilities of your character to "respond" to danger, whereas the second implies that some invisible force has rescued or "saved" you. We hope that this makes the character feel stronger or more heroic to the player.)

Third, when an unfamiliar term is used to refer to something familiar, such as simply calling "hit points" something like "vitality" or "life force" instead, do you view it as a pain that you have to keep it straight in your head with relation to other systems, or do you place value on the fact that the developer went that far to make their system unique?

Lastly, when unusual terminology is used (i.e., naming a "strength"-type attribute "might" instead), does it distract you, personally, from gameplay because you find yourself wanting to call it something else out of habit, or for some similar reason? Or, does it make the game refreshing in some way?

mjbauer: Thank you. I'll follow this link and look into that later this afternoon, when I have time.

I think the best way to judge how well a term is working is to pay attention to its' usage in play. If people are frequently referring to a certain game aspect as something else (ie Vitality as Hit Points or the Host as the GM) then I think that it's an unnecessary complexity.

There is a principle in linguistics called the law of diminishing marginal utility and it means (basically) that language will inevitably be reduced to its' simplest form by those who speak it. Look around and you can see this in action in thousands of different situations. If there is a quicker, or more understandable way of saying something, that's how people will say it.

On the other hand (and this is explained much better in the podcast I referred you to) if people are using a term but you are continually needing to define it for them then perhaps a new term would be more intuitive. This can be true in cases where you are trying to label some new concept or if you are using an existing term (like Hit Points) for something that is somewhat different from its' traditional meaning.

In short, yes, I think what you call things is important.

Diminishing marginal utility actually arose during some of our brainstorming sessions, once we began to explore terminology. That was one of the reasons I thought i would ask; I wanted some feedback to judge how strongly such linguistic principles seem to affect the games of others. I've found that I'm a poor judge in that respect, because I don't have any real problems remembering the terminology used in a new system once I learn it. I suppose I just keep them all in different places in my head. We'd like for players to feel more fully immersed in our setting, however, and so we've been tossing over some ideas in our group about what to call certain things in order to fulfill that goal. An example:

The three "response rolls" (similar to D&D's "saving throws," although, I hasten to assure you, there are significant differences!) are "shrug off," "defy," and "react." The words were chosen deliberately to evoke specific imagery in the player's mind: When a warrior "defies" the charming voice of siren, for instance, we hope that the image of a battle of wills is conjured, from which the warrior emerges victorious. Brows drawn together, forehead beaded with sweat, teeth clenched, he struggles to fight off the enchantment worming its way into his brain. He defies the siren, which we feel sounds much more active--and heroic--than making a "Will save."

Of course, it may sound like I'm picking on D&D, which isn't true. That's just a convenient comparison. What I mean is that some systems use their terminology as a tool for something above and beyond the limited purpose of "naming things." I'd like to know how powerful other people view that tool as being, for reference.

We've decided to keep other things simple, such as "defense." Our mental statistic, on the other hand, we chose to call "Wits." This is supposed to represent a character's ability to think quickly and efficently under pressure as much as it represents their actual intelligence, because the former is quite often the more important quality in an adventurer, someone who "lives by their wits."

Thoughts?

I do quite a lot of this, but I'm not sure how universal it is. Mostly I try to avoid jumping on another games terminology without mentioning the differences, and then just insure that within my own system I have good reasons for what I call what.

Your verb-based will save thing makes a lot of sense. Verbs and adjectives seem to form a very elegant division between "skills" and stats.

One thing to watch out for though, your reactions are quite transparently similar to will, fort and ref saves, and it's good that you recognise this. Renaming stuff for the sake of it without putting in fundimental changes just makes you look a bit pretentious! So they have to be working together, renaming thematically and interestingly, and insuring that the structures of the mechanics behind the names live up to their implied behaviour.

Now before that gets too semiotic, I'm not saying you spend months divining the true essence of "constitution", rather that you insure that it is actually behaving within your system as your own symbolic framework has defined it. So if you call a guy a facilitator instead of a GM, look at what that change is supposed to mean, and (I would suggest) don't give him primary author type authority for world elements. You make the differences meaningful by the structures you put under them.

Thanks. This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

And you're right--I don't want to "jump on" to another system (I lurve D&D), it's just difficult to find an easy comparison sometimes, and comparison, of course, is one of the greatest tools of both instruction and of learning. I hope. I am aware of the similarities, and it is for this reason that I want to ask questions about not only the differences in terminology, but also the necessity of such differences and the impact they make, based on the system.

Here's a more thorough definition of our response rolls:

Shrug Off: When a character "shrugs off" damage or some other effect, they are not only physically resisting, through a combination of sheer willpower, determination, and endurance, the source effect, they are also expressing appropriate heroic disdain for it, as well. We hope that the term "shrug off" implies either (as appropriate to the situation) an image of condescension for some effects, like a death spell, or an extreme effort on the part of the character that enables them to overcome, via their heroic and thus "superhuman" qualities and abilities, something that would kill anyone else. It might hurt, but they grit their teeth and, in cinematic fantasy fashion, shrug off the sword in their gut or the disabling attack of a wraith.

The "shrug off" response is not limited to the simple world of physical pain. One might "shrug off" the effects of a poison, but one can also "defy" them as well, demonstrating that, in some cases, the sheer willpower of a character might surpass their anatomical durability. Shrugging off entails a certain amount of psychological elements, but is not wholly mental; by the same token, defiance can be partially physical, too. So, one might shrug off a critical hit in combat, an invasive poison, the effects of disease, a variety of harmful magic, fatigue, massive damage, and, in some cases, even death--albeit temporarily. One can also substitute a "shrug off" response for defiance in some cases, and it can be used more cinematically, as well. Take, for example, a character who receives an axe to the torso; she successfully shrugs off the effects of the critical hit, reducing what appears, to her enemies, as a massive deathblow to little more than a scratch. She glances down at the blade embedded in her side, snorts, and glances around at the foes surrounding her before grinning and lunging back to the attack. Her opponents, stunend with surprise, amazement, and probably fear at this point, cannot react. She has just added the successful result of her "shrug off" response to an Intimidation test. This more immersive use of the concept of "I'll roll these dice to see whether or not it actually kills me" pulls the player deeper into the character and invests their interest and their sense of adventure more firmly in the game, with increased returns. They actually experience their character being a hero (or villain).

React: Reaction is not an autonomous response, mere muscular action and primal instinct pulling a character from sudden danger. It is the heightened senses of an adventurer, trained in various heroic arts and attuned to the presence of death and destruction, using this training and their experience to dodge, leap, roll, tumble, hide, or otherwise "react" to unexpected changes of any kind. A good example would be combat, or even a more innocuous activity, onboard a moving ship. No matter how seaworthy a vessel is, the motion of the ocean makes it pitch, buck, and roll. When the planking beneath your feet acquires a 35-degree angle without warning, you need to react to keep your balance. A more gradual change might be a different sort of check or dice roll, but a near-instantaneous swell of the waves, combined with the distraction of spellcasting or fighting, requires you to react. You might also react to hide from someone entering a room by sweeping the surroundings for viable places to do so and then ducking into one. A Stealth test, at this point, would be secondary, and moot if one cannot locate a place from which to safely make one. Reaction could be used to dodge a spell, yes, but also to parry a blade or even an arrow, to make a sudden Persuasion test to talk over an offensive companion and smooth out a quickly degrading social scene, and even to spot something in a dangerous situation that might assist you in some fashion.

Defy: Defiance, finally, is the ultimate usage of one's mental strength, one's force of personality and psychic grit. To defy is to spit in the face of danger, not simply to overcome it, and so defiance occurs not only in the face of psychologically-damaging effects, but also to overcome some physical phenomena, as well. Fatigue may be ignored, or at least postponed, with a defy response; the effects of statistical reduction can be lessened, and source effects that target the soul can be negated completely--a vampire's life draining, for example, or a spell that transformed a character into an undead creature. This shows strength of character, strength of mind, confidence, determination, and the power of belief in a goal, dream, ideal, or significant figure.

We're hoping that the changeover from nouns, which are used in a lot of current systems, to verbs will affect gameplay positively. This hope extends to a variety of other carefully-chosen terminology, as well.

Also, as a side note, is the Power 19 still considered a viable and useful strategy in the current community? If so, in which forum should I answer those questions, and are there any recommendations for doing so (i.e., keep answers below X lines, etc.)? I realize that's slightly off-topic, but it's only an aside, and then I wish to continue the running discussion.

One thing you might consider that I have seen work very well in rustbelt and pdq# is to use adjectives for stat equivalents: pdq# uses them as subdivisions of the basic skills or "fortes", and rustbelt uses them as general divisions for all activities. In all honesty it may not fit your game, as a certain amount of the style of the reaction is already implicit in your various descriptions.

Also I would not use "shear willpower" in shrug off; using willpower is in my mind very closely associated with active defiance, which undermines the casualness of the "shrug off". The ability to laugh something off should be distinct I think from the ability to strike it down:

Consider a social situation: Shrug off? The Tony Blair debate tactic, "come on now" and humour. React? A quick witted laser sharp reply. Defy? Get your temper up and reject utterly their suggestion.

Keep them distinct and you reduce confusion, and you add to the moods that your game can support.

Tactically, you can see how those different responses could be better against different types of social attack.

On the power 19, don't answer it all at once, as that will be overload, and don't consider your answers finished, or there's not that much point telling us! (i.e. they are supposed to be the starting point for discussion not the end of it). Everyone here has their own preferred questions, mine are probably:

What interests you most about the game?

What do the characters do?

What choices and creative activities do the players do?

What kind of experience do you want it to be?

And very importantly what kind of help would you like here? What's sticking in your game that you would like to see resolved?

Obviously those are not just examples, I would be interesting in hearing your answers to them!

Currently, our stats are labeled as:

Strength (sheer physical capability; we thought that some synonyms, such as "might," actually caused more confusion than anything else, as there were multiple definitions; however, I have recently been tossing over the idea of switching it to "muscle")

Grace (a character's control over their own body)

Endurance (physical durability)

Wits (a character's intellect, judgment, and sense)

Influence (personality)

Power (magical potential and strength of spirit)

I have to admit, I kind of like the idea of statistics as adjectives, and I also like the idea of sets and subsets, but one of our goals is to keep things as simple as possible. This is why I've been considering trying to compress the six stats you see listed into five--fewer numbers to remember, less math to do in one's head, and so forth. One of the biggest aims of our game is to simplify the mechanics as much as humanly possible, while still retaining a depth of gameplay and flexibility of system players will find attractive.

Also, you're probably right; using willpower in the description of the "shrug off" response is likely unnecessary. Now that you say it, and I reread what I wrote down before, I can see what you mean about the difference between active defiance and the "come one, now" result. That's a good interpretation, and a cute image, as well. I can just see the character from the example, one eyebrow raised as though to say, "Really? That's it?"

Thank you, too, for your input on my other question. I think I'll go ahead and start another topic where I'll actually introduce the game and answer some of those questions.

If you looking for ways to cut down the number of stats you could combine endurance and strength into one physical stat.

I like that concept. What could it be called? Fitness, perhaps? Not stamina, I think, because it isn't inclusive enough of strength. Ideas? Suggestions?

Okay, better idea: Vitality. Simple and all-inclusive.

Also, thinking of adding a fourth response here for the last couple of days. "Shrug off" is Vitality-based, "React" is Wits-based, "Defy" is Influence-based; considering a "Withstand" response, which would be Power-based. Characters will shrug off that which attacks the body, react to that which requires quick thinking or judgment, defy that which would assault the mind, and withstand any effect which targets the soul or the spirit, the character's essence. So, instant-death effects, some stat-drain effects, level drain, and so forth would be "withstood."

This would also extend the use of the Power stat significantly for non-spellcasters. Even though we have made magic available to all character classes, Power is still the least-used statistic, as it affects spellcasting and the Magecraft skill only, and nothing else. The other stats affect a wide variety of mechanics. So, a Power-based response roll would enable a warrior with a high Power score to get some use out of it, since he probably will never know many spells and won't be great at casting them, anyway.

What do you think?

This is a great topic. I've been dealing with this issue a lot while developing Ten-Cent Heroes. Personally, I have found naming mechanics a lot of fun, and have gotten some very positive feedback during char-gen sessions and playtesting. I could talk about this all day, but I'm going to try to condense my thoughts; hope I don't ramble.

First, I have worn out many a thesaurus trying to find game terms that don't appear in other games. This has some merit, but can be very time consuming and, in some cases, be a waste of time. I would be surprised if most game designers didn't check for alternate terminology while building there rules; sometimes, you can find a gem of a word, that not only doesn't get used much, but also really connects to a game mechanic.

I've been on the Forge for a few years, and have been moved and motivated by the originality and unconventional nature of some of the projects here. Having said that, the best advice I would give on naming mechanics would be: BE TRUE TO YOUR GENRE (OR CONCEPT)! It doesn't matter how obscure, complex, or strange a word is. My rule here is use terms that you would hear a character say during play, and avoid words they wouldn't.

So, if your game is about tribes of cave men adventuring in pre-history, I would avoid checking a Ballist Combat Ratio Table to see if their spears hit their targets. Thats just me.

Ten-Cent Heroes is a golden age super game that I've been working on for a while now. Terminology has been a big focus, so I'll share some experience here:

I try to pick terms with attitude. This includes the powers list, too; there are a number of powers with unconventional names that I think better fit the setting. (Mesmerize instead of Mind Control/ Transmogrify instead of Shape Shift/ Ray instead of Power Blast, Gizmos instead of devices, for instance). I have maneuvers like "Second Wind" and "Snap Out Of it". My health chart has three nests stats: Verve, Vigor, and Vitality. In the game, I call them THE THREE Vs.

As far as the system is concerned, I use coins instead of dice. We have throws, not rolls. Stacks not pools. An early rules set had a system were your coin stack would be reduced before the throw; I called it "Busting the Stack"; my group loved saying that during play, for some reason. (They were busting stacks all over the place.) I have three stats: Physique, Thought, and Spirit. I tried to keep the terms dated and with a hard fun vibe, when I could. Super characteristics were call Magnified Characters; part of my thought process here, was that it could be abbreviated to Mag Strength, Mag Dexterity, etc., and sound pretty cool. I put a lot of thought into creating a unique glossary for my game.

I gave out a bunch of copies for char-gen. The feedback was wonderful. When I made characters, the process made me smile, and I was hoping that someone who didn't write the game could get the same fun out of the rules. A number of players liked the terms and loved saying them during play.
This wasn't just because I was trying to be different, but because I wanted everything thing the players did and said (in character or not) to move along the vibe of the game. I've play tested on and off for about 3 years, and it doesn't seem to get old.

In this case, I don't think it was tough for anyone to learn the new terms. When you buy a new game, you pretty much learn the terms with the rules, so unless the terms are unintuitive or weird, then you shouldn't have much trouble. If your game terms are too clinical in a nonclinical game, then you could risk loosing some people. Just be true to your genre.

Looking forward to reading more.

Thanks, Ken. This is the direction I'm interested in exploring most. We've done a little character generation to test the mechanics and make sure things aren't too complicated and so forth, and feedback has been very good. I agree that renaming some terms is counterproductive (skills, for instance, or experience points--what would be the point of calling them something else?); I want to focus on exactly this: The parts of a character and of a situation which mean the most to the players and which have the most game impact. Is it fun to announce your actions to other players in the game, etc.? I'm hoping to spur more discussion on this as more of our game mechanics get posted here on the Forge, and people are able to get a broader view of the kind of terminology we're using.

Don't forget that if you really want to combine stats, influence and power could be combined.

This can either be done through associating both with "strength of spirit", or even by adding a interpersonal element to the magic system, like talking to the wind.

If you do this, the only stat without an associated reaction will be grace. In other words characters who focus primarily on being graceful will be more fragile. Now you might be fine with this, or you might make grace the stat of D&D style "armour class".

Sounds symmetrical and straightforward yes, but if you do this, bear in mind that it could result in "roll your highest stat vs their highest stat". In terms of strategy, that makes the stat labels irrelevant, and opens up the possibility of arbitrary stats, with yours as the standard ones. How do you avoid this interchangeability, assuming you want to? Make some defences work better against different things. D&D 4e takes this to extremes by allowing you to only use specific defences against certain attacks, you could shift from that by giving bonuses to the rolls vs certain kinds of attacks etc. This half-way position allows more "easy bad choices", in terms of sub-optimum responses, so I'd rather make things more interesting by shifting consequences rather than bonuses.

If that's too much of a jump in logic, suppose someone tries to defy a sword attack; they stare down the person striking to make him loose his nerve. If it is just a "-5 for inappropriate defence", then all the player will do is calculate what stat difference makes it more efficient to stick with your favoured defence. But what if on success the person must shake off the influence in order to attack again, but on failure they take double damage, or are themselves stunned by the action. That kind of thing creates a distinct difference between responses, one that is more qualitative and hopefully, more illustrative of the differences between the various defences.

I think I'm probably satisfied with five statistics; I'm really liking the way that Vitality, Grace, Wits, Influence, and Power look together on a character sheet. An interesting idea, though I personally think that there's too much of a difference between Influence and Power to really combine them. Strength and Endurance are going together very well, however. Thanks a lot to 7VII7 for that suggestion.

On the other hand, I'm definitely interested in this idea of shifting consequences. After reading your idea, I've been trying to organize this into a chart (some things it's all right to ad hoc, other things, I feel, just need a chart) and am finally making some headway. What about combining the two examples you gave? If the response is inappropriate to the situation, a penalty is assessed, but players are still encouraged to try it out if it works for them because it can have significant impact upon the game? Returning to your own example, defying a critical hit or similar from a sword would suffer a -5 or higher penalty on the roll, being mismatched to the situation, but if the character succeeded in spite of that penalty, then the opponent would be stunned for a round or possibly frightened; on a failure, the character would suffer maximum critical damage or double damage for making an inappropriate response.

I have to admit that the first time I read through that example, it sounded a little odd, and I couldn't really see it playing out well in my head, but I wanted to give it some more thought before dismissing your suggestion out of hand (hence the long wait before replying). In the interval, I've come to kind of like this concept, and I think it adds not only flexibility, but new depth to the game. Thanks a lot, JoyWriter.

Here's an example of the chart that I'm working on:

<img src="http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2175/rspchrt1.png" alt="Example chart">

That matches up to my first idea, where you can imagine the different defences as being like archery targets; there's the middle bullseye where they work really well, that +x, the main region they defend against, the +0, and the outer regions, like the -5 and -10, that are like the low scoring edges, or like the penumbra of the moons shadow, or the edges of compression around a foundation. If that seems strangely all encompassing, I'm talking about fuzzy sets, influence factors, all that business.

Imagine those archery targets as contours on a map, and then add the bonus to the height of that hill. Then you have a landscape of defence strength, where the inappropriate for one defence may overlap with the appropriate for another. Now one of those hills, if it gets big enough, could dwarf all of those other hills, making them irrelevant as defences, and this would happen when it's associated stat gets 10 bigger than all the others.

Now I'm not sure if this visualisation is helping or hindering, so I won't push it!

The big tricks to avoid power gamers (or anyone with a tactical itch they can't ignore) just maxing one stat and going "25 -10 > 8, I guess I'll just defy again", is to make it not just about the defence number, but the consequence. Make that last column of your table a thing people consider, and shape their actions according to that logic. Now this is just my last few paragraphs expanded, glad you like the idea!

So your big objective now will probably be to fill in that table; replace "appropriate" by descriptions that actually tell players what kind of situation it is designed to apply to, and what is a very unusual example of using it. Then you could fill in the benefit/penalty.

For example, I'd probably say that to act as incentive to using more appropriate stuff, people could get the bonus side of the effect on "critical", and the negative for inappropriate use on any fail. This also means that in "normal use", defying someone's attempt to intimidate you is just a failure for them, but on a critical not only do they fail to intimidate you, they have to shake off that influence before they can attempt it again.

Notice that I used the same mechanism I suggested for damage to intimidation. The game will be even more elegant (and likely awesome), if you can go through situations of how you imagine people using these abilities, and find ways to match up the bonuses and weaknesses to the same mechanism. That way people will know what happens when you defy something and it goes wrong; "do your worst!" "ok I will, fsshing" or if you "over-react" when using react inappropriately etc. If you can get that last column of the table to look mostly the same but behave differently in those different situations, then you'll be golden!

Hmm; I see what you're saying. Here's an idea: Do you think that it would be more appropriate to (as in your example) reward a success with an inappropriate response, in spite of a penalty, with simple failure on the part of the opponent, and a critical success with added benefit; or, to say that an inappropriate response only works if it is a critical success? For instance, you may attempt to defy poisoning (mind over matter) all you like, but because it is an inappropriate response (you should really shrug poison off), then you can only successfully do so on a critically successfull defy roll. However, if you manage it, then you respond spectacularly as opposed to typically.

To me, this seems a slightly more self-limiting system; players will be less likely to attempt it unless circumstances are dire, since they have only the slightest chance of succeeding. In order to get a critical success, after all, you would have to beat the Response Factor of the obstacle by [insert arbitrary number here].   :)   The self-limiting aspect is important because there are certain things in the world it doesn't really make good sense to respond inappropriately to (and some things you cannot respond inappropriately to at all, such as defying falling damage or reacting to a death spell), and characters shouldn't be able to go around defying poison all the time, willy-nilly. But there should always be a glimmer of chance that, in a tough moment, they might. To represent that, we've had this rule built into the system for some time:

Extreme Effort: Once per adventure, any heroic character (that is, anyone with levels in something other than the NPC class or a monster class) may add their level to any dice roll they make, as a part of the same action required to execute the dice roll. If they successfully apply extreme effort to a truly heroic or "cinematic" roll (and survive), they may gain another use of extreme effort for this adventure, at the Narrator's discretion.

In a pinch, characters can use this to critically succeed when the odds are against them.

This is an interesting discussion.

Planet tries to do fun things with terminology.  For example, learned skills like using a particular class of weapon well, luck-based things that either happen or don't like a Bar Sark's ability to resist death, and racial powers like a cat's good night vision are combined under the umbrella term of Nifties.  I used the term Nifty because having one is a beneficial thing that might make someone say:  "Well that's nifty!'

Planet is itself one example.  I was thinking of setting and mechanics at nearly the same time, and I had a thought about how unimaginitive humans can be when naming important things.  For example The Earth and The Moon are the most boring names in the solar system.  Everything else is named for a God that has some trait similar to the planet.  So it made sense to me that an artificial planet might simply be called Planet by its inhabitants.  So the game I am creating to describe adventures on Planet is named Planet.

Both the modern sapiens sapiens and the extinct sapiens neandertalis subspecies of Homo sapiens are playable races in Planet, so they are referred to as such on the main list of playable races.

Then there's the IntAmHuP, another playable race.  Intelligent Ambulatory Humanoid Plants sounded like a more accurate description for a sentient flora PC race than plant men or treefolk or any of the usual suspects from fantasy, SF, and RPG history.

That's an interesting take on the idea: Use people's tendency to take language for granted to provoke a reaction. By calling the world "Planet," you create layers of different meanings for different players, but you also draw attention to the fact that it's the concept that's important, not so much the name. The name evokes a response about the concept. That's a slightly different branch on the tree of what I meant, but I like it.

I've used a bit of the same technique; when it came time to name cities and countries and rivers and things, the cartography slowed to a crawl because we started running out of creative names. "Pellucidan Prison," "Emeraldale," and "Shiva's Breath" devolved into "that big long river, you know, the one that goes all loopy just here." I decided to start coming up with simpler names based on the location of the site, and before long, I found I was actually getting some good names again. Not every name or term has to be "special" to evoke a response; now, looking at our maps, I find that "Snowmount," "Hagmarsh," and "Starfall" conjure images just as powerful as "Cathedral Canaliculus" and "Sarkûn." It's a bit of a relief, actually--to us, the developers, because we can think up names more easily, and to the players, because their tongues can take a break from horrible dwarvish and draconic place names.  :)