How much does "rectification of names" matter to you?

There is this (janky, archaic, yet recently released) tabletop RPG I am looking at, The Nuadan Chronicles. The mechanics hold absolutely no appeal to me whatsoever, but what I would really like to point out is that a major part of the setting is "fae," which are what every other fantasy RPG setting would call "elementals": hulking, bestial manifestations of one or more classical elements, such as behemoths of magma or leviathans of living water. Some are small, though, like floating blobs of one or more elements, usually named "alaeya" but sometimes referred to as "wisps" or "fairies." The "fae" of this setting communicate in a human-like fashion only very tenuously.

I find this similar to the Cypher System's Gods of the Fall, where "elf knights" are described as:
>An elf knight is a bulky, hunchbacked humanoid 12 feet (4 m) in height composed of mushroom flesh covered in a bone-white carapace. Its head is a hump of translucent ooze. The creature uses obsidian claws to slash its way through the fungal spires of its home, and to attack those who intrude upon the quiet of the Second Deep.

>The term “elf” is lost to antiquity in the Afterworld, but is related to visions associated with exposure to fungal spores.

The "elf knight" in question is pictured to the left.

How much does it matter to you that creatures, species, and so on in an RPG are given an instantly recognizable name?

Couldn't give less of a fuck. Why?

>>95901286 (OP)
General indifference, with pic related being an example of the only real problem I have with the process, that being the kind of people who slap the names of familiar monsters onto weird things just to be confusing and dickish rather than for a specific flavor.

I have more respect for writers if they use funny made-up names for their weird critters.

>>95901286 (OP)
Not a fan of the misappropriation of language. Elf has had a consistent meaning for 400 years, if you dont mean that thing then you shouldnt use that word

>>95901286 (OP)
The point of words is that when I say something you can understand what I am communicating. Using words with established meanings to mean something completely unreleased is intentionally obtuse

>>95901494
I will defend a GM's right to withhold information about unique things, though sometimes dropping your players some contextual hints if it's severe can be a good compromise.

But your picrel is basically just bullshit along the lines of which I'm not sure if I would even believe that it actually happened.

>>95901286 (OP)
I like it when it's done in a game where those names existed already. (Like a sci-fi game having weird aliens be called "Airlock Elves")
I do not like it when there's no reason for them to be called that in universe (like calling shrubs with googly eyes Elves instead of shrubbies)

>>95901286 (OP)
There is nothing bad about having a race of bulky, hunchbacked humanoid 12 feet (4 m) in height composed of mushroom flesh covered in a bone-white carapace. But you need to really ask yourself why you are calling something an elf when it has nothing that people associate with the word elf.

The reason for why archetypes or common words exist in fantasy is that if my players are playing in a never seen before setting and I tell them that there are elementals around or that there are elves in the woods they instantly get a general idea of what to expect. But if I tells them that there are elves and then need to spend 10 minutes to explain them what an elf actually is in my setting, what was the benefit of calling them elves instead of calling them Fungal Warriors?

>>95901450
Great engagement, you're a wonderful addition to this hobby.

>>95901286 (OP)
>Hey is it okay if I bring my dog on the trip?
>Sure bro
>Shows up with a colossal, hideous homunculus of flesh and clay and steel, thrice the height of a man, slavering at its mouth-thing ringed in teeth of rebar and obsidian, leaking blood from every orifice
>Bro, what the FUCK is that thing?
>I told you, it's my dog
Things have names for reasons. Don't call things names that they don't fit.

>>95901286 (OP)
People who enjoy this sort of thing do so out of a form of "duping delight," or pleasure in dishonesty. These same people are likely to also conflate their capacity for mendacity with cleverness. It's the same personality archetype that smiles when it calls a man a woman, a teenager a "future doctor, lawyer or engineer," or a Pakistani "quintessentially British." No, it is not creative or original; it is magical realm where the kink is deception. There is also an unusually high likelihood of the author of any such work being in a polyamorous bdsm relationship, wearing vests and practicing "chaos magick" irl.

>>95902554
The hobby of /tg/ surveyposting?

>>95901286 (OP)
Trying to force some sort of established thing into being some off-kilter rug pull will always be one of the most retarded things.
Behold! My humans! *shows you a picture of the moon*

It's all Shakespeare's fault or using Elf, Fairy, and Goblin as interchangeable synonyms for each other, indirectly saying that the three things were the same.

>>95904812
And then there are Isaac Asimov's insectoid elves.

>>95901286 (OP)
eh it'd accept if the explanation had some connection with their usual name, such as that "Elf knight" having been more conventional fantasy elves many generations ago but then got corrupted by overusing magical mushrooms or something.

But
>The term “elf” is lost to antiquity in the Afterworld, but is related to visions associated with exposure to fungal spores.
this seems silly.

>>95901286 (OP)
Specifically in the case of Gods of the Fall it's 100% because the writers are fans of making unconventional fantasy settings. Another one in GotF is that "dragons" aren't giant flying lizards that breathe fire, there's only one creature in the setting that fits that bill and isn't called a dragon, but powerful people who hoard wealth, power, and knowledge. And 100% it's called an elf because one of the writers had trivia knowledge that "elf" in some ye olde englische means "white being".

>>95904931
that actually seems pretty based.

>>95901286 (OP)
I mostly think you need just the slightest bit of adherence to convention, like
>goblins: small and always up to something
>dwarves: short, wide, and digging holes into mountains
>elves: tall, old, just a bit smug
and once you've got those bases covered, you get free range, like the actual examples from published media below
>goblins are just malnourished, especially-runty orcs since orcs are born in litters with lots of runts
>dwarves are a eusocial colonial species like ants, where queens give birth to and command swarms of drones
>elves are eugenics-loving gnostics working to unmake the world

>>95901286 (OP)
Thought we did a pretty good job discussing this shit with the ratmen thing from that one youtuber: The idea of using a well known term to describe a completely ridiculous different monstrosity is retarded. There's no reason to do it. It's not clever. It's not cool. It can be funny in some very specific circumstances, but otherwise there's no real reason to do it. End of story.

>>95908750
>>elves: tall, old, just a bit smug
What's your stance on Keebler and Santa's elves?

Sounds retarded.

>>95909283
they're probably more gnomes or fairies, but they can get away with being called elves as a treat.