Choosing names from the list

Hi.  I'm a new Apocalypse World player, just started my first game with Robert Bohl as the MC.  I had a question about something that came up the game, and wanted to run it by folks and see what the general sentiment was.  

I had my character concept fixed in my mind, including his name.  Rob indicated that generally, people pick their character names from the provided list.  That felt wrong to me, as names have power and confer ownership, and my character's name felt really right to me.  Rob's POV (if I can speak for him, though I hope he will comment on his own) is that the names are archetypical, and by picking one off the list, you are buying into the world.

Was I wrong (not wrong, but maybe not quite approaching things in the best spirit of the game) to pick my own name?

If you're wondering, my character is a Maestro D' and the named I picked was Dickson.  He's the proprietor of a high class retro-Victorian brothel.

You were wrong. Rob's rational is correct: it's about buying into the setting and the character.

As an MC, I don't come up with names either - I cross them off the list.

In life, we don't pick our names.

When I read the book, I didn't realize it was mandated that you MUST pick a name off the list.  My impression was that the list provided the prototypical names, and you could pick one or come up with your own name in the same vein.  If I had known it was a rule, I wouldn't have let myself get attached to my own choice.

Is it truly violating the spirit of the exercise to deviate from the list? For instance, the Battlebabe list contains many gemstone names.  Why would Sapphire be OK but Topaz wouldn't?  The difference to me is quantitative, not qualitative.  The exercise of buying in then lies in coming up with your name and making sure it fits in with the pre-gen list.

I'm not sure it's totally true that in life, you don't get to pick your name, but it IS true that you also don't get to pick your stats IRL, yet I picked my character's and made up his history.  It's a game, and if I'm creating this person, is it "wrong" to want to name him? 

Maybe the way to do this, if you really want to give the feeling of lack of choice, would be to have the MCs name the characters after you describe them.

To provide a different perspective, I would say that you were neither right nor wrong.  Because the setting is something created by both the MC and the other players, the names are as open to your creative impulses as anything else is - which means that it's fine to come up with new stuff as long as other people can buy into it as well.  That includes the MC, of course.

As I would play it, this means that details of setting (including character names) will change from game to game depending on whether they feel right or wrong.  Could be that there are a pile of different names in one game, and in another they all come from the lists.  Who knows?

What it comes down to for me is that I can buy into Dickson as a name in AW, so I don't see a reason not to let someone be named Dickson.  But in the end I would say that you should go with the MC and your group.

Thanks, henrythewhite, I think your perspective jibes with mine and Rob's.  Rob was totally cool about it, explaining his rationale but also accepting mine.  Everyone was fine with how it went and it is not a problem.  This is just a theory question, one to mull over and keep in mind for future games.  Also, I enjoy discussing philosophical questions like this, so I appreciate the insight folks offer, as I am new to this game world.

Spiral,

Apocalypse World's character creation flourishes when you approach it with no preconceptions, and just pick stuff off the lists.

You're supposed to pick a name from the list, as well as a body type from the list, as well as a stat combination from the list. Could you make up your own name or body type or stat combos? Sure. It's just not how you're told to play the game. But, then, you're also told that AW is a game that's meant to be tinkered with custom moves and little exceptions.

The best situation is when you grab a playbook without any preconceived ideas, and let the lists inspire greatness. When you've already got an idea in your head, obviously something has to give: the details of the list, or the details of the vision. I don't think anyone can tell you which one "should" be sacrificed at the altar of the other.

I think I had too much time beforehand to read and think about stuff.  I read the book over the course of about 2 weeks, during which I had this vision for my character.  Perhaps a better way to do it is to not think at all about your character until you sit down for Session One.  I guess I could have just chucked my name and it would have been fine (though I'm not sure why Boiardi or Emmy is so much more in the spirit of AW or a Maestro D' than Dickson-- frankly, some of the pre-gen names are kind of annoyingly bad).  Or is the mere act of being forced to choose off the pre-gen list that creates the intended feeling?

A funny rule that I've played with once was that if you ask your MC "Can I have this name instead?" then no, you have to pick one from the list. However if you just take another name without asking, it's okay.

A funny rule that I've played with once was that if you ask your MC "Can I have this name instead?" then no, you have to pick one from the list. However if you just take another name without asking, it's okay.

Yeah, I've seen this advice on the forums before, too. I think it's totally hilarious and encourage it's use. I certainly do whatever the fuck I want when making an AW character. There is no actual rule in the book that says you have to pick from the list. They are not even formatted like the other lists where you get to (or have to) pick options from.

In life, we don't pick our names.

Mcdaldno did.

I'm running two AW games.

In the first one, we obeyed the rules and chose our names in the playbooks lists.
What about the result?
My players have chosen to live their own apocalypse in our own country, in France...
The result is... Ahem... Offbet... I'm not sure, the humorous tone was the colour first designed by Vincent (look at my appropriate use of the passive voice :P )...

For the second one, I felt more relaxed and, as the players were to choose their names, I offered them, the ones in their playbooks as examples of colour first choices in Apocalypse World. I'm sure i've done the right choice since they decided to live their apocalypse in Crimea (south of Ukraine).

My own approach is:
It's not the name list that is important, it's the colour first names which are. And the colour first is changing occording to the apocalypse you are barfing. So, feel free to change the names as it fits.

You and the GM talking about it? That's one of the reasons there are name lists.

The way authority is hashed out there, between you and Rob, and the role of the text and all: kind of like practice, in a way. Those exceptions hashed out beforehand ("Can my tank actually be a helicopter instead?") are an easy way for the group to find its feet and start the process of judgment calls and shared vision needed for play.

I'm relieved that others have played this game with chosen names instead of picking off the list, so I'm not way out in left field.  Of our three players, two of us had chosen names beforehand, not realizing we shouldn't have, and one chose off the list.  Maybe next time I play, or when I make another character, I will just do it the way it's intended and see how/if it feels different.

This is totally one of those "do you play with RAW" things. Do what works for your group!

For Maestro D' names I suggest...

Nigella, Child, Hervé, Naked, Martha

Well, "scarcity" IS sort of a theme of Apocalypse World, and "scarcity of names" seems like an interesting concept.

I wonder if that's what my next apocalypse will be about?

I like picking off the lists, no problem, and I encourage others to do so too. The constraints are there as part of the game. And also, I just introduced NPCs named Clearasil and West and Always Flowers.