# Dear 4e, Please Stop with the Horrible Portmanteaus!



## Garnfellow (Feb 25, 2010)

Reading the PHB3 thread I was struck yet again by a number of potentially very cool concepts marred by this utterly horrendous naming convention. I can understand that when the edition started out the 4e designers probably wanted to set out in a new direction and thought that maybe these portmanteaus would be a nifty way to go.

But I think at this point we can definitively say that many -- if not most -- of these neologisms are pure trainwrecks. Colliding two _mega-cool_ root words together does not always result in something _doublemegacool_, and in fact is more likely to produce something risible. 

Names are important, and should not look like they were generated using some lazy-assed random table. Heck, even some of the lamer 3e conventions couldn't be much worse: compare/contrast "shardmind" with half-gems, gemfolk, or dire crystals.

An occasional cool portmanteau is OK -- and there are plenty of precedents in the history of the game -- but the prevalence of these crappy names is really silly. Mindflayer > shardmind, but then again illithid > mindflayer, too.

Someone in WotC evidently thinks very strongly that any old crappy familiar-sounding name is superior to a cool-sounding but unfamiliar made-up name. If so, I submit they should really reconsider.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 25, 2010)

Very ardently stated. I dub thee, the _Namerager. _Whaddaya think?


----------



## Paradox (Feb 25, 2010)

Heh, personally, I like it. Now I can finally pronounce these darn fantasy names rather than guess, or have someone "correct" me.

In particular, all those names that are rather long, or contain multiple uncommon/never used vowel combinations, or other difficult to say words.

It may look fantastic on paper, and the author may love the pattern of typing it out, but Xtzj'vvrekkaa Nagaaloiousious doesn't roll off the tongue very well.


----------



## fba827 (Feb 25, 2010)

If I were to make a guess, I would guess that the current naming convention is there to make the game seem more approachable to the novice.

Plus, if you're a more experienced game group, you can easily rename anything you want without having any sort of detrimental effect on the game itself.


Edit: Whether or not I personally like all the names that have come about this way is really a case-by-case basis.  I don't have a general dislike of them and any particular thing i do have a problem with, I could rename it if I thought it's name would come up that often in the game group.


----------



## Mark (Feb 25, 2010)

Garnfellow said:


> Reading the PHB3 thread I was struck yet again by a number of potentially very cool concepts marred by this utterly horrendous naming convention. I can understand that when the edition started out the 4e designers probably wanted to set out in a new direction and thought that maybe these portmanteaus would be a nifty way to go.






Agreed.  Let's do brunch.   


I think the naming conventions are protection against the trend to clone editions through the OGL.


----------



## samursus (Feb 25, 2010)

I have no problems with the naming conventions as is.... its really a non-issue for me.


----------



## Elphilm (Feb 25, 2010)

Garnfellow said:


> Mindflayer > shardmind, but then again illithid > mindflayer, too.




Mind flayer > illithid > mindflayer

Other than that, I agree completely. Rivendell, Blackmoor and Greyhawk are cool fantasy names. Vicejaw, Godplate and Fightbr... sorry, Battlemind are not.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 25, 2010)

Paradox said:


> Heh, personally, I like it. Now I can finally pronounce these darn fantasy names rather than guess, or have someone "correct" me.



I kinda dig it too. They also make the default 4e world a little more distinct from others. 

/fanboy


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 25, 2010)

Wormwood said:


> I kinda dig it too. They also make the default 4e world a little more distinct from others.
> 
> /fanboy




Different strokes and all. I find the naming convention to be sloppy and unimaginative.


----------



## Teemu (Feb 25, 2010)

I think that bombarding the average player with strange foreign names makes them difficult to remember, whereas regular English words are easier. "Shardmind" is much easier than, say, "Dhalyyp" or something. Especially when you only hear it.


----------



## Scribe Ineti (Feb 25, 2010)

A fellow by the name of WILLIAM SHAKESMAN once wrote, "What's in a name?"

That is to say, a rose is a rose. A shardmind is a shardmind. Don't like the name, call it something else. It still is what it is.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 25, 2010)

It´s my fault. I want to play a game where a Shardmind Battlemind punches owlbears. Sorry. Wotc just gives me what my brainrays force them to create.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 25, 2010)

Most of the recent portmanteau names have been very poor, yup.  OTOH made-up words like Yrthak can be bad, too.


----------



## tallyrand (Feb 25, 2010)

<---Back from a quick trip to the dictionary.

I don't have a problem with it, if you want these things to sound more exotic, take the root words and translate them into another language.

The Stormclaw Scorpion becomes a Szponburza Scorpion in Polish which should be enough to satisfy anyone.

The Deathrattle Viper can be a Doodrammelaar Viper (Afrikaans)


and our favorite Battlemind becomes Mendjebeteje. (Albanian) 


_Google Translate is my new best friend_


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 25, 2010)

tallyrand said:


> <---Back from a quick trip to the dictionary.
> 
> I don't have a problem with it, if you want these things to sound more exotic, take the root words and translate them into another language.
> 
> ...




I must say, even as a multilingual group (English, German, Hungarian, Finnish, Portuguese) we're probably provincial enough to find foreign naming conventions funny. I love your proposal!

And grats to the OP. Kudos also to whoever first said that it's all about IP protection. *crosses both thumbs that WotC name generator will come up with next warlord feat named _Army Builder_*


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2010)

I actually prefer simple descriptive place holder names.

I recall one of the 3E books has "arrow demon" for a super archer demon. A lot of people took great exception to this.  I think it was a good approach.

This is not to say that the designers are then off the hook from using their imagination.  In my opinion, the "Shadow Hopper" demon should also include text like: "Known amongst the ranks of the Abyss as Kreqstalim, ....." or "In the Realms these horrors are commonly spoken of as Kreqatalim,..."

But, when it is three years later and I want to find that demon that dimension doors through shadows to hit people with sneak attacks, trying to recall Kreqstalim from hundreds of names is a pain.  

But if the designers can't add some flavor also, that gets a thumbs down.
And if a DM is actually using these place holder type names in-game then huge thumbs down.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 25, 2010)

My shardmind battlemind and my warforged warlock/warlord beg to differ.


----------



## boar (Feb 25, 2010)

Elphilm said:


> Mind flayer > illithid > mindflayer
> 
> Other than that, I agree completely. Rivendell, Blackmoor and Greyhawk are cool fantasy names. Vicejaw, Godplate and Fightbr... sorry, Battlemind are not.




Um, you do realize that Rivendell, Blackmoor, and Greyhawk _are all portmanteaux_?



As Elphilm's hilarious slip illustrates, the problem isn't the naming convention -- it's the names. When a portmanteau is good, you don't even notice that it's a portmanteau; you just think, "Whoa, sweet name." When it's bad, it's bad. Same thing with made-up names -- good ones are evocative and cool, while bad ones sound retarded. "Shardmind" is no more horrible than "Yggth'har."


----------



## Ourph (Feb 25, 2010)

BryonD said:


> But if the designers can't add some flavor also, that gets a thumbs down.
> And if a DM is actually using these place holder type names in-game then huge thumbs down.




Actually, I think what you're calling "placeholder names" often sound more authentic than made up fantasy names.

People don't go around calling Dogwood trees _Cornaceae Cornus_ trees. They use the common (portmanteau) name because it's easy to remember and say.

Likewise, in a fantasy world, it would make perfect sense for common folk and adventurers to call a bow-wielding demon an Arrow Demon. If a horrible creature rose out of the Abyss and started firing arrows into my face, the last thing I would be worried about is inserting a cool, creative, interesting name into the phrase "Run for your lives it's a ...........". In that situation, I think Arrow Demon would be perfectly satisfactory.


----------



## bagger245 (Feb 25, 2010)

"My fellow Shardminds, we are at war. The tainted Wildens with their Minotaur allies have breached out defenses and so I call to all the young Shardlings out there to take arms, while we wait for reinforcements from the Githzerai army to arrive," rallied the Battlemind commander.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 25, 2010)

boar said:


> Um, you do realize that Rivendell, Blackmoor, and Greyhawk _are all portmanteaux_?




There's nothing wrong with good portmanteaux, but some moderation is a good idea. In the MM1, there are something like 5 under Archons alone. And when you get to B you find them doing double duty with Warthorn Battlebriars and more.

We used to joke about games in the 1990s being the colon games. There was <name>:<subtitle>. White Wolf was THE colon game company. Now, 4e is the game that brings us oodles of portmanteau-named monsters. It's the Portmanteau Monster game (which sounds like it could be an awesome comedy game from CheapAss Games).


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 25, 2010)

QTF and rep...


Teemu said:


> I think that bombarding the average player with strange foreign names makes them difficult to remember, whereas regular English words are easier. "Shardmind" is much easier than, say, "Dhalyyp" or something. Especially when you only hear it.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 25, 2010)

tallyrand said:


> <---Back from a quick trip to the dictionary.
> 
> I don't have a problem with it, if you want these things to sound more exotic, take the root words and translate them into another language.




I heartily approve.



> The Stormclaw Scorpion becomes a Szponburza Scorpion...




Szponburza works well enough.  Since szp doesn't occur in English, I'd probably happily shorten it to Sponburza.



> The Deathrattle Viper can be a Doodrammelaar...




And a 'Doodrammelaar' is simply a better name than 'Deathrattle Viper'.  And if we want to get away from the foreign language portmanteau we could change the spelling to something like Dudrammelair.

I think the problem with using American English as a naming convention is that it sounds anachronistic rather than mythic.   In English, virtually nothing mythic has a modern English name.  Even myths that come out of English culture tend to retain their old or middle english names.   Translating into other languages makes the creature sound in the ear (to an English native speaker) more fantastic, legendary, and typical of the way things are named especially if they are occult, esoteric, or cryptic.


----------



## avin (Feb 25, 2010)

IP protection resulting in horrible uninspiring names.

I'll tell that again: no offense, but I hope that people responsible for 4E fluff are kept far away from this specific task when 5E design starts.


----------



## awesomeocalypse (Feb 25, 2010)

I wonder if the shift away from generic, to the point names to strangely-specific portmanteaus and orginal names has anything to do with trademarking, specifically, it would be very difficult to trademark "fireball" or "fighter" or "dwarf", but names like "tide of iron" or "swordmage" or "shardmind" might be easier to trademark.

Of course, if that is the reason, then I think its a bit silly--what makes 4e cool, distinctive and popular are the mechanics, which are awesome, not the names, which are stupid. Another game could have a "battlemind" class as well, but if it didn't have nifty 4e mechanics, I doubt anyone would want to play it. And if it *did* mimic those mechanics, but named the class something different like "Precog" or something, that strikes me as a far more serious breach of copyright--the fact that it wasn't actually called something as stupid as "Battlemind" is hardly a mitigating factor.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 25, 2010)

Yes! Oh, to harken back to the days of the Fighting Man, Magic User, Gelatinous Cube, Owlbear and Darkmantle. Such original and foreign names!


----------



## Garnfellow (Feb 25, 2010)

Teemu said:


> I think that bombarding the average player with strange foreign names makes them difficult to remember, whereas regular English words are easier. "Shardmind" is much easier than, say, "Dhalyyp" or something. Especially when you only hear it.



You really think "shardmind" just trips off the tongue and immediately evokes a vivid image to an average player? A totally newbie is going to hear that word and immediately understand what it means? 

Seems like a terribly generic and colorless name to me.

Maybe I'm limited, but I wouldn't immediately associate "shardmind" any more with a magical crystal construct people than I would "Dhalvyp." 

But that's a little bit of a strawman. All made up names don't have to be gibberish. To people sensitive to the nuances of language, it is possible to create completely made-up words that actually seem to sound and look like what they are meant to evoke. There used to be this guy, Tolkien, who had a real knack for it: Mordor, Sauron, ent, balrog, Lothlórien. And he made up a whole bunch more just like that!

Don't get me wrong: good names are difficult. But crappy portmanteaus are much too easy.


----------



## Garnfellow (Feb 25, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Yes! Oh, to harken back to the days of the Fighting Man, Magic User, Gelatinous Cube, Owlbear and Darkmantle. Such original and foreign names!



If a name can't be cool or evocative, it sure as heck ought to at least be utilitarian.

Fighting Man, Magic User, Gelatinous Cube, or Owlbear all might be prosaic, but do you really have any confusion over what any of those terms signify? If not, mission accomplished -- albeit without any flair.

The bad portmanteaus easily fail all three tests. (And for the record, darkmantle is a good example of a bad portmanteau.)


----------



## Elbeghast (Feb 25, 2010)

My fightbrain is hijacked by multiple mindshards of battlerage, just thinking of all the ridiculous portemanteaux used in the game.


----------



## Turtlejay (Feb 25, 2010)

I've no problem with a mix, but I think in general we are kind of awash in less creative names anyhow.

Sitting in my local Cold Stone the other night and looking at the names of ice cream, I was kind of wondering what it took to 'normalize' a name.  Vanilla ice cream is named vanilla, and we know what that is and what it is referring to.  If I were to create a new flavor of ice cream that kind of tasted like flowers and cinnamon, I could either name it Hargrabl ice cream, or more likely, name it something descriptive like Cinnamon Bloom or something.

Go to a restaurant and look at your options.  They are discriptive, and even if the word used is nominally new, it is most likely indicative of the dish being referenced.  New names in 4e seem to be similarly constructed (see Penny Arcade's cartoon about the Shadowfell for illustration).  I'd like to see some new classics.  Things like Dragons, Illithids, and Drow all hold meaning to the average D&D player, and it would be cool to have more of those types of things, where the word was not at all indicative of what it refers to.

That being said, I'm not sure I think the battlemind, shardmind, etc stuff isn't as horrible as it is being painted.  Better than the ardent, certainly. . .

Jay


----------



## MrMyth (Feb 25, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> And a 'Doodrammelaar' is simply a better name than 'Deathrattle Viper'. And if we want to get away from the foreign language portmanteau we could change the spelling to something like Dudrammelair.




Whereas, for myself, I find "Doodrammelaar" as both hard to remember and somewhat silly (I can already hear my local gaming group proclaiming, "Dude! Rammelaars!"), as opposed to the very functional Deathrattle Viper. 

I admit - there are some new WotC names I find over the top. On the other hand, it is a trade-off from names that are incomprehensible or seem meaningless. In all honesty, either method of names you use, some will be good and evocative and memorable, and some will be dull and uninteresting (or complex and inaccessible). I think it reasonable to complain about specific choices as poor ones, but not to condemn the entire method as a whole.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 25, 2010)

As with every edition of D&D there are some odd names, but I do nto wee it as a big deal.

I mean the original game had, "Elf", how could you go downhill from that?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 25, 2010)

Garnfellow said:


> But I think at this point we can definitively say that many -- if not most -- of these neologisms are pure trainwrecks.




I think at this point we can definitively say that a material number of people disagree with your definitive statement.

The names seem fine to me, and as you can see with this thread, a lot of folks are fine with the names for the most part.


----------



## The_Gneech (Feb 25, 2010)

I must agree that the 4E nomenclature makes my teeth itch, starting with "Feywild" and "Shadowfell" and moving on from there.

On the other hand, we already had "Underdark" and "Duskblade," so I guess there's not a whole lot of room to complain. But it would be nice for the mangling of the language to back off a bit...

-The Gneech


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 25, 2010)

I don't mind most of them (I just don't like it if too many of them sound similar...) - but then I'm not a native English speaker.

It's a good thing there's no longer a German publisher for D&D 4e, though. Those names are usually atrocious if you translate them into German. It was my main reason for buying Diablo2 in English (well, that, and the English speakers).

Does anyone else remember those Diablo2 (random) boss and item names?


----------



## Mallus (Feb 25, 2010)

Garnfellow said:


> To people sensitive to the nuances of language, it is possible to create completely made-up words that actually seem to sound and look like what they are meant to evoke.



To people 'sensitive to the nuances of language' it is possible to write good and enduring poetry like "Fern Hill" and "Buffalo Bill's defunct". Most people are stuck writing sentimental drivel about how much they love their cats.

Not to sound overly critical... but I'm guessing most game designers are closer to the cat-balladeer camp. 



> There used to be this guy, Tolkien, who had a real knack for it: Mordor, Sauron, ent, balrog, Lothlórien. And he made up a whole bunch more just like that!



Tolkien's names make some people laugh. I know this firsthand. I am married to one of them.

"His name is _Strider_?" 
"Well, sort of. He's really named Aragorn... son of Arathorn... the last in the line of the Numenor..."
"You know that's not helping, right?"

<the above is paraphrased from _many_ actually conversations>


----------



## fireinthedust (Feb 25, 2010)

Interesting fact:  Octopus is Greek, basically meaning an eight-tentacled sea creature.  Its name is functional, just like the names complained about here.  It is what it says it is.
  Latin names used in scientific identification of a species try to do just that: describe the creature according to its traits, but in a language that modern scientists (from Europe, a couple centuries ago) all understood: Latin.
     This is the same deal as using Google Translator to change one functional name from one language to another.

  You're not really changing the name, you're just making it so that it doesn't sound like a word you understand the meaning or origin of.
    If you want to be amazed by the cool sound of a word, or weird spelling, just keep being ignorant.  In fact, be *more* ignorant than you already may be, and include words in English.  

Oddly, I'm content to use a language that my players speak to describe the monsters I throw at them.  Unicorns (one-horned), Red caps, Draco-liches (dragon-liches), Mindflayers, Owlbears, Fire Elementals, all these and more can finally be included honestly in D&D games at my house.
    Likewise, when I'm trying to convey to my players that they're being attacked by a pile of demons they've never encountered before, I can differentiate between the Arrow Demons and the others (many of whom don't have easy-to-remember names).

Granted, some flavor text along the lines of "Arcanoloths, known to scholars as Raavasta" would be handy.  That particular name-change, from a functional and already present name, to a less-direct name, wasn't good imho; frankly, they're going to be Arcanoloths, specifically the one from the Ravenloft adventures and the Van Richten's Guide to Fiends!


----------



## Rechan (Feb 25, 2010)

And yet "ViseJaw" is about as clearly indicative and explaining. Visejaw: It Bites Hard. Tells me what it is. A Battlebriar sounds like, well, a thornbush-type plant made for attacking. And that's what it is! 

Want the spooky words? Fine. Sorrowsworn. "Sworn of Sorrow". That's as spooky as illithid or aboleth. Or the Blaspheme. 

But those dont' tell you WHAT It IS? Then how about Derro, Genasi, Norkers, Duergar, and any other race name. Or how about a Balgura? That tells you nothing of what you're dealing with.

The only difference between Derro and Wilden is because you're _familiar_ with Derro.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 25, 2010)

fireinthedust said:


> Interesting fact:  Octopus is Greek, basically meaning an eight-tentacled sea creature.  Its name is functional, just like the names complained about here.  It is what it says it is.




I know what 'Octopus' means.  I doubt anyone here doesn't.  I thought I had already explained that the reason that portmanteau's in foreign languages worked better for the native English speaker than English ones is that in English, when we want to make a proper name for something most of the time we do in fact make a portmanteau's in a foreign language (or borrow it's common name from what it is called locally).  The fact that we make words like this in Greek or Latin is precisely the point.

Octopus sounds 'cool', that is to say right and proper to the native English speaker, in a way that 'Eightlegs' does not.  



> You're not really changing the name, you're just making it so that it doesn't sound like a word you understand the meaning or origin of.




So?  Most of Tolkien's invented proper names are built up from stem words in invented languages.  Almost all English proper nouns are built from foreign words whether we are talking about place names or personal names.  In English, you are just used to hearing borrowed words as proper names as the proper way to name something.  In English, you don't normally name someone Purity Spearthrower or Builtlikeaking Strongarms or Giftofgod Furnituremakersson, even if the name you do give to the person actually means that.  It doesn't sound right in the ear.  



> If you want to be amazed by the cool sound of a word, or weird spelling, just keep being ignorant.   In fact, be *more* ignorant than you already may be




This borders on being an ad hominem attack.  Lexicography is a hobby of mine.  I adore etomology.  I may not be a Tolkien caliber philologist, but I do try to invent my own languages.  I don't suggest using foreign portmanteaus for proper names of creatures out of ignorance that many English words are, but quite the contrary.



> Granted, some flavor text along the lines of "Arcanoloths, known to scholars as Raavasta" would be handy.




I'd prefer the reverse, known to scholars as Arcanoloths, and some list of how they might be know regionally and colloquially such Raavasta, Minochmen, Decievers, etc.  (that is, assuming Arcanoloths are commonly enough encountered that they'd even have common names, which they might not).

Under that structure, 'Deathrattle Viper' might be listed as one of the creatures common names.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 25, 2010)

Rechan said:


> But those dont' tell you WHAT It IS? Then how about Derro, Genasi, Norkers, Duergar, and any other race name. Or how about a Balgura? That tells you nothing of what you're dealing with.




How about zebra? Elephant? Lion? Cat? Dog? Porpoise? Haddock? Scorpion? 

Hippopotumus and Leopard might tell you something if you know a bit about language, but what they tell you might give you entirely the wrong picture in your head.

Sure, we have Portmanteau's in English: rattlesnake, pronghorn, etc.  And we have descriptive names: white-tailed deer, black bear, etc.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with dropping the occasional combo-word, especially for something that is supposed to be common and ordinary.  The problem becomes when you try to do this for everything.  It's lazy and grating on the ear.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 25, 2010)

In the real world, things are named one of three ways:

1) Named after someone. 

2) Named for a descriptive characteristic.

3) A word chosen from a native language to describe it.

Using place names as a running example, Jamestown after King Games. Virginia was named after the "Virgin Queen". Georgia after King George. Washington after... guess. 

As for descriptors... I live near a place called "Middletown". I can think of others: Grey Rapids, the Rocky Mountains, Capetown (town on the cape), White Plains, Strawberry Fields. The list goes on.

As to native langauges: Chicago is just Native American for "onion field". Chattanooga is Muskogean for "rock dwelling". 

This happens all the time with animals too. "Kangaroo" is just Aboriginal for "big animal". Pretty sure the Prevost squirrel was named after some guy named Prevost.

But you see this the most with descriptive names: Big mouth bass, red snapper, snapping turtle, prairie dog, ground squirrel, red-tailed howk, ringtailed lemur, ringtail (a different animal), red wolf, grey wolf/timber wolf, maned wolf, red fox (and silver fox and so on), mountain lion (or Florida panther), FLYING squirrel, mountain goat, barn owl, musk deer, mule deer, white tailed deer, black backed jackal, big horned sheep, brown bear, black bear, grizzly (that's an adjective) bear, polar bear, honey badger, snow leopard (real inventive there), laughing/spotted hyena, striped hyena, ghost bat, flying fox (another bat), kangaroo rat, dung beetle, stag beetle, praying mantis, black widow spider, wolf spider, brown recluse, camel spider, water beetle, water spider, diving beetle, trap door spider, jumping spider...

Or we could just pick animal names that are smooshed together: hedgehog, bobcat, polecat, rattlesnake (there's even a DIAMONDBACK rattlesnake), reindeer, funnelweb spider, whiptail scorpion, grasshopper, dragonfly, anteater, ladybug, bumblebee, mockingbird, yellowjacket...

And of course folklore did the same thing: werewolf, bugbear, hobgoblin.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 25, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I heartily approve.
> 
> 
> 
> Szponburza works well enough.  Since szp doesn't occur in English, I'd probably happily shorten it to Sponburza.




I'd just call them "spooning scorpions."


----------



## The Ghost (Feb 25, 2010)

I think that WotC does quite well with their naming conventions on the M:tG side of the company. Consider the creature names from their Zendikar expansion:

Bala Ged Thief
Blood Seeker
Bloodghast
Bog Tatters
Crypt Ripper
Gatekeeper of Malakir
Giant Scorpion
Guul Draz Specter
Guul Draz Vampire
Hagra Crocodile
Hagra Diabolist
Halo Hunter
Heartstabber Mosquito
Kalitas, Bloodchief of Ghet
Malakir Bloodwitch
Mindless Null
Nimana Sell-Sword
Ob Nixilis, the Fallen
Surrakar Marauder
Vampire Hexmage
Vampire Lacerator
Vampire Nighthawk

There seems to be a nice mix between portmanteaus, real words, and made-up words. Nothing too difficult to pronounce and everything seems to fit well together. I would prefer the D&D side of the company follow suit.


----------



## Garnfellow (Feb 25, 2010)

The Ghost said:


> I think that WotC does quite well with their naming conventions on the M:tG side of the company. Consider the creature names from their Zendikar expansion . . .



Yup, MtG has generally had very cool names, so it's not like there's something in the water supply at Renton. _Sengir vampire_: What the heck is Sengir? Probably a place. The word sounds nasty, and since it has vampires it must one bad-ass place.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 25, 2010)

I think the problem lies not in the names themselves, but in the sheer number of them.  An Owlbear is cool, but when you have Owlbears, goatpigs, cowdogs, and dragonlemmings behind every tree, it gets annoying.  Who needs that many monsters?


----------



## Garnfellow (Feb 25, 2010)

I'm afraid I'm finding these arguments of "hey, I found a stupid name once from 1e" or "hey, here's a _real-life example_ of a portmanteau" profoundly unpersuasive defenses of the bad 4e portmanteaus.

(And keep in mind, I'm not objecting to any & all portmanteaus, just the boring/uninformative/unimaginative ones which seem to be legion.)


----------



## Scribble (Feb 25, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I think the problem lies not in the names themselves, but in the sheer number of them.  An Owlbear is cool, but when you have Owlbears, goatpigs, cowdogs, and dragonlemmings behind every tree, it gets annoying.  Who needs that many monsters?




No one, and everyone. 

When I envision my D&D campaign world, I don't really envision it crammed to the brim with ALL of the available monsters. That would just be downright funny.  

It would be like a clown car full of teeth, and fireballs, and acid damage... 

But it's nice to have such a wide choice in what IS eventually included in the world.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 25, 2010)

And your argument consists of "I don't like these! They sound bad!" 

So? I don't mind them. I much prefer them to "here's a non-pronouncible word that's an alphabet soup factory explosion of letters." 

It's a matter of taste.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 25, 2010)

Rechan said:


> In the real world, things are named one of three ways:
> 
> 1) Named after someone.
> 
> ...




Not to mention that #3 is almost always #1 or #2 if you look at it in the context of the original language.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 25, 2010)

Scribble said:


> No one, and everyone.
> 
> When I envision my D&D campaign world, I don't really envision it crammed to the brim with ALL of the available monsters. That would just be downright funny.
> 
> ...



This.

Hell, I do the same with _races_. Whatever races my PCs want to play with their first PCs are the _only_ common races in the world. Other than that, everything else is rare/one of a kind, unique in some fashion, or new on the scene.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 25, 2010)

While names like Shadowfell and Feywild are a bit trite I can't help having a similar feeling with these 1E underworld oldies but goodies:

_Shallowshadow_

_Midgloom_

_Deepdark_


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 25, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I think the problem lies not in the names themselves, but in the sheer number of them.  An Owlbear is cool, but when you have Owlbears, goatpigs, cowdogs, and dragonlemmings behind every tree, it gets annoying.  Who needs that many monsters?




I think we need to make a Dragonlemming now.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2010)

boar said:


> Um, you do realize that Rivendell, Blackmoor, and Greyhawk _are all portmanteaux_?



Um, you do realize that the thread title isn't "stop the portmanteux", it's stop the *horrible* portmanteaux."


----------



## Rechan (Feb 25, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Um, you do realize that the thread title isn't "stop the portmanteux", it's stop the *horrible* portmanteaux."



Ok, so... where is the line?

What makes "Greyhawk" acceptable? 

What are the guidelines for portmanteux?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 25, 2010)

I think one important point to bring up regarding good vs bad portmanteaus (and words in general) is longevity.

Mind Flayer and Illithids are _old_ monsters, and the names have become D&D-isms.  Beholder is the same - it's an iconic monster.  And one thing that helped Mind Flayer is the fact that it had the second name of Illithid.  Now the monster can do double duty - Mind flayer is perfect for a standard dungeon crawl, but if you want to make them your main focus of a campaign or area, you switch to the much more aberration-esque "Illithid."  One name is said by adventurers, the other is said by the scholar of forgotten lore trying to warn them.  It's perfect.

The sillier ones didn't live on.  Flumphs are a sort of D&D joke.  Nobody is going to use Raggomuffins from 3e.  Yeah, earlier editions had stupid names.  That doesn't mean 4e should do the same thing, though.  It's a terrible excuse: "Look, this past edition made lame mistakes, so we should make lame mistakes too!"

When I look at _Warthorn Battlebriars_, I just don't think it's going to be something evocative and long lasting.  I think that's the issue - that many of the new names are just throwaways.  You have the party fight them, then the party moves on and forgets about them.  They aren't campaign pieces, and frankly would probably never be.

There were a lot of dumb names in earlier editions, and yet we still find ourselves fighting mind flayers and beholders.  So the question, I suppose, becomes: what will 4e's mark be on future games?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 25, 2010)

"Owlbear" certainly counts as a dumb portmanteux. It's not solely a 4e problem. But we've seen an explosion in 4e. And 4e has the ability to change, whereas 1e doesn't anymore.  "Owlbear" (which is also a pretty goofy monster) is prosiac by now. I think the current frontrunner for dumb portmanteux is "Shadowdark."

Why yes, Throg. Shadow! Dark!

Oh, that's a place?

The argument against unpronounceable fantasy names is a good one, but the alternative to "owlbear" isn't "ixixachitl." That's a false dichotomy. There's a *HUUUUUUUUUUUGE* gap within this that can be exploited. I'm lead to believe several D&D designers have creative writing or English degrees. They should be able to do better than either of those.

I'm not entirely sure it's just an IP thing, either. I would think inventing a new word would be better able to secure the IP rights to the concept than a purely descriptive combo-word. 

Though I am lead to believe that they are aware of the problem. The _Underdark_ book didn't have very many new wallbangers (though it did inhereit a few). This might be something they're trying to watch out for, now.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 25, 2010)

I think the "Shadowdark" popping up was more a symmetry issue.

If the plane is called the Shadowfell, and it has an Underdark, what do you call it to differentiate it from the NORMAL Underdark? So when you say it, you know you're talking about the Shadowfell's Underdark?


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 25, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> In English, you don't normally name someone Purity Spearthrower or Builtlikeaking Strongarms or Giftofgod Furnituremakersson....




I had a WFRP character named Philo Stronginthearm. He was friendly and muscular.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 25, 2010)

If I had a portable manatee I would take it everywhere...what?


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Feb 25, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> In English, you don't normally name someone Purity Spearthrower or Builtlikeaking Strongarms or Giftofgod Furnituremakersson, even if the name you do give to the person actually means that.



Uh.... *what?*  Where do you think super-dominant Anglican surnames like Baker, Smith, and Miller come from?  My own surname may mean something in Gaelic rather than something in English, but that's because _it's not an English name._


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 25, 2010)

> If the plane is called the Shadowfell, and it has an Underdark, what do you call it to differentiate it from the NORMAL Underdark? So when you say it, you know you're talking about the Shadowfell's Underdark?




Why does the shadowfell need an underdark?

Wasn't 4e trying to do away with pointless symmetry in the planes?

And even if it was necessary for some reason, why not consult a thesaurus or a dictionary or the wikipedia page that has a list of underworlds sorted by mythos and do some vowel/constant swaps?

I think it's also worth pointing out that "Shadowfell" is a fairly strong portmanteux, IMO. "Feywild" a little less so, but only a little. 

PS: 



Spoiler



The Shadowfell IMC tends to _be the very deep underdark_, toward the deep center of the earth, deeper than the deepest drow city, a land of the dead and dying not unlike Sheol or Hel or Hades or Xibalba. 

And my Feywild tends to actually be places where arcane magic flows into the world, along ley lines, in deep wilderness where sentient beings rarely tread.

But I'm in favor of the planes all being part of The World, usually, in my campaigns.


----------



## Allister (Feb 25, 2010)

1. It's not IP protection. Well, not soley since it actually would be better to use an entirely made up word.

2. Those names like Spuzzure (I can't even spell it much less pronounce it) are HORRIBLE. When I have trouble remembering how to spell a name and pronounce it?

3. M:TG uses "place" + smashed word.

4. I agree with others that "scientific" names actually make no sense in the context of the people living and fighting in the universe. As mentioned, you see a bow wielding demon firing shots of pure desruction at you, you're NOT going to be calling it "Arcanlothzerra" but "Doomarrow" demon.


----------



## Turtlejay (Feb 25, 2010)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> Uh.... *what?* Where do you think super-dominant Anglican surnames like Baker, Smith, and Miller come from? My own surname may mean something in Gaelic rather than something in English, but that's because _it's not an English name._




I think you're missing his point, but I'm not sure.

This discussion has gotten interesting.  Good examples like Blackmoor show that portmanteaus don't have to suck. . .that same name could be Darkswamp be pretty lame.  Conversely, made up names like Illithid and pretty much all of the names from the Cthulhu are great, but it is easy to screw up a made up name and make it sound like something Eric's Grandma doesn't wanna hear about.

The thing is, it is not edition specific, genre specific, or even hobby specific.  Sure, 4e has had some stinkers, but most of the names in the Nentir Vale pass muster with me.  And really, this whole subject is even more subjective than most, since it comes down to whether a name *sounds* good to you.  Hard to quantify that.

Jay


----------



## Xris Robin (Feb 25, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Ok, so... where is the line?



Personally, I draw the line at Fightbrain.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 25, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why does the shadowfell need an underdark?



It "Needs" an Underdark like D&D "needs" an underdark or even a plane of the dead. It Doesn't "Need" it, but they wanted it? 

And it would have been REALLY ODD if 'Hey this is the SHadowfell. And in the ground is XIBALBA". That just doesn't track.

At least the portmeox names are consistent with one another. Maybe "Common" is just the language of Adjective|Noun Noun|Adjectives.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Feb 25, 2010)

Turtlejay said:


> Hard to quantify that.




It can be hard to quantify it well, true. There are ways to quantify it. For better or worse, one way to quantify how the names sound to people (not just an individual) is to measure sales. Of course, that has a ton of other variables involved too. Another way is to count the number of threads like this. Going further, you could count the number of threads like this and compare them to similar threads for other games and editions. But yeah, hard to quantify well.

My own opinion is that portmanteaus can be good or bad. I think the overall use of language in 4e is awful, and the poor use of portmanteaus is just partandparcel of that.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 25, 2010)

Ycore Rixle said:


> It can be hard to quantify it well, true. There are ways to quantify it. For better or worse, one way to quantify how the names sound to people (not just an individual) is to measure sales. Of course, that has a ton of other variables involved too. Another way is to count the number of threads like this. Going further, you could count the number of threads like this and compare them to similar threads for other games and editions. But yeah, hard to quantify well.



Other editions? You mean the ones that were here before there were the internet? 

Here's a really simple experiment: Start a thread and ask "So what words are better?" Get a bunch of suggestions, and then put a poll asking "Which do you like the most?"

This has been done twice - with the Warlord and the Wilden. Both times, the warlord and the wilden were the winners because no one could agree which ones were worse and which better!


----------



## nightwyrm (Feb 25, 2010)

Allister said:


> 4. I agree with others that "scientific" names actually make no sense in the context of the people living and fighting in the universe. As mentioned, you see a bow wielding demon firing shots of pure desruction at you, you're NOT going to be calling it "Arcanlothzerra" but "Doomarrow" demon.




Actually, scientific names of organisms are almost always either descriptive or named after somebody. They make perfect sense if you speak latin. 

Tyrannosaurus rex means "tyrant lizard king".
Triceratops means "three-horned face"

If I see an arrow shooting demon called "Arcanlothzerra", I better find an in-game language where "arcanloth" means arrow shooting and "zerra" means demon.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 25, 2010)

> And it would have been REALLY ODD if 'Hey this is the SHadowfell. And in the ground is XIBALBA". That just doesn't track.




Makes me cringe a lot less than "shadowdark" does. 

They also could've said "This is the Shadowfell. When you go underground, it is still called the Shadowfell. When you fly in the sky, it is still the Shadowfell. If you go into a town, it is still the Shadowfell. It's all the Shadowfell." 

There's truckload of decent alternatives to "Shadowdark." "WE HAD TO CALL IT THAT!" is not a very viable defense. It's really false. They didn't have to call it that. They didn't have to call the Shadowfell the Shadowfell, either. I'm not getting paid to come up with names. They are. It ain't my job. It is theirs. And by many estimations, they haven't done that great of a job with it. 

I, for one, think they can do better (without using too much bizarre fantasy nomenclature, either).


----------



## Allister (Feb 26, 2010)

Turtlejay said:


> I think you're missing his point, but I'm not sure.
> 
> This discussion has gotten interesting.  Good examples like Blackmoor show that portmanteaus don't have to suck. . .Jay




Um, say what?

The only reason Blackmoor doesn't "suck" is because it has the grandfather clause a.k.a "it's old".


----------



## Wayside (Feb 26, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Um, you do realize that the thread title isn't "stop the portmanteux", it's stop the *horrible* portmanteaux."



Although it should be "stop the horrible *compounds*." I haven't seen any portmanteaus in this thread so far.



Turtlejay said:


> Good examples like Blackmoor show that portmanteaus don't have to suck.



But Blackmoor (besides being a compound, not a portmanteau) is a well-known toponym and surname.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 26, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> Actually, scientific names of organisms are almost always either descriptive or named after somebody. They make perfect sense if you speak latin.
> 
> Tyrannosaurus rex means "tyrant lizard king".
> Triceratops means "three-horned face"
> ...




Well said.

So why didn't they just name the ole T-Rex "Tyrant Lizard King", skip the latin, and be done with it?


BECAUSE IT IS LAME. So they translated it into "scholarly language"...if they really wanted to "Educate" they'd have named it "Tyrant Lizard King" and been more informative...but that's not what they did.


I'll admit, though, that I'd accept the argument that more scholars actually understoon this language ... as latin was language across language barriers in that scholars all learned it as the chosen language, regardless of native language.


HOWEVER, I'll also say that, in terms of coolness we call them Tyrannosaurs Rex's or T-Rex's.

_The culture of entertainment has removed the "easily understood" for the more "mysterious" or "mystifying". _


----------



## korjik (Feb 26, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> Actually, scientific names of organisms are almost always either descriptive or named after somebody. They make perfect sense if you speak latin.
> 
> Tyrannosaurus rex means "tyrant lizard king".
> Triceratops means "three-horned face"
> ...




-loth means demon, and zerra is shooting.

An Arcanalothzerra is a magic-based missile-shooting demon


----------



## Votan (Feb 26, 2010)

One option, which I am surprised is not used in 4E (where you can level up critters easily and create a diverse set of encounters based on 101 kobold variations) is to have fewer types of monsters with more depth.  

Look at Middle Earth: Orc is also called Ork, Goblin, Urco (high elven), orch (Grey Elven), rukhs (Dwarf), gorgûn (Wild Man) and Uruk.

Types of Orcs had different names (Uruk, Urak-hai, Snaga, Boldog).  

There is often a trade-off between depth and breadth when creating a fantasy world (because you need to keep so much in your mind).  This is also why well known settings (Middle Earth, Greyhawk) work so well (as players know some elements already so you can introduce new ones.  

I suspect that the 4E trade-off is towards breadth -- in which case you need to find a lot of new names that are easy to remember and difficult to get confused.  I agree that the naming convention is sup-optimal but choices are limited if you want 100's of monsters, dozens of powers and a lot of outer planes (that will be hard to confuse).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2010)

Christopher Robin said:


> Personally, I draw the line at Fightbrain.






Rechan said:


> Here's a really simple experiment: Start a thread and ask "So what words are better?" Get a bunch of suggestions, and then put a poll asking "Which do you like the most?"
> 
> This has been done twice - with the Warlord and the Wilden. Both times, the warlord and the wilden were the winners because no one could agree which ones were worse and which better!




And there you go!  A "Cool!" test.

Basically, the name needs to be spoken aloud during the design process.  Spoken over and over and over again.

If it can't pass a verbal "cool" test, then it had better fit in with some other design goals.  For instance, local flora & fauna & locations may have a name in Common that are really just the results of linguistic barriers...like "kangaroo."

For instance, what if "remorhaz" just actually meant "RUN!" in the local language, and the first outsiders saw the people pointing and running away from it thought "remorhaz" was the creature's name.  Thus, so it became in Common.

For the record, I like made up names and those that are compound words...but all should pass a "Cool!" test.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 26, 2010)

Votan said:


> One option, which I am surprised is not used in 4E (where you can level up critters easily and create a diverse set of encounters based on 101 kobold variations) is to have fewer types of monsters with more depth.



Do you know the type of FURY that would erupt from D&D players if WotC decided to exclude a lot of monsters that were in earlier editions?

There was mass anger because they chose to put FROST GIANTS in MM2 instead of the first one. 

Middle Earth gets away with it because they didn't HAVE four dozen different monstrous humanoids gathered from 3 previous editions of D&D, in addition to all the _other_ monsters acquired over the editions people want.



> I suspect that the 4E trade-off is towards breadth -- in which case you need to find a lot of new names that are easy to remember and difficult to get confused. I agree that the naming convention is sup-optimal but choices are limited if you want 100's of monsters, dozens of powers and a lot of outer planes (that will be hard to confuse).



But I think you're on to something. However, you're saying something about them having to be remembered.

No, I think they have to come up with different names so they aren't repeating the same name over and over again. 

For instance, each monster group typically has a Skirmisher, a Brute, a Controller, an Artillery, a Lurker and a Soldier. Some have more some have less.

Now, you need a NEW name for each skirmisher. Because "Orc Hunter" and "Kobold Hunter" and "Goblin Hunter" and "Gnome Hunter" is going to make the fans hunt down the guy calling them "hunters" and shoot him in the face. So you need a _new_ compound for each skirmisher/lurker on the same theme.


----------



## Elphilm (Feb 26, 2010)

boar said:


> As Elphilm's hilarious slip illustrates




What.

The OP objects to _horrible_ compound words, not compound words in general.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 26, 2010)

Elphilm said:


> What.
> 
> The OP objects to _horrible_ compound words, not compound words in general.



And what makes them _horrible_ is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see what's so awesome about "Greyhawk".


----------



## nightwyrm (Feb 26, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Well said.
> 
> So why didn't they just name the ole T-Rex "Tyrant Lizard King", skip the latin, and be done with it?
> 
> ...




They name things in latin partly because it's the language used by educated people of that time and partly because it's a dead language, nobody uses it in everyday life so it won't change over time. T. rex means the same thing 200 years ago as it will 200 years from now. They didn't name things in latin because it sounded *cool*. People name things to give information about the thing they're naming, not to create bizarre sounding words that tells you nothing.

In a D&D world, I may expect people to name things using an old language like draconic or elvish but that name would actually mean something in those language. Not that it's guaranteed to go well. I was in a dragon themed campaign where the DM named places and things using draconic. The result was not pretty.


----------



## Elphilm (Feb 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> And what makes them horrible is in the eye of the beholder.




I think that much should be obvious to everyone. My only objection was that when I gave examples of compound words _that I personally think are evocative,_ someone suggested that I didn't actually realize they were compound words.


----------



## Garnfellow (Feb 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> And what makes them _horrible_ is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see what's so awesome about "Greyhawk".



I thought you had already established you don't care much about names. I have a blind friend who doesn't really get very wound up about colors, either, which is fine. But I'm still not wearing that fuchsia shirt he bought me!


----------



## Rechan (Feb 26, 2010)

Garnfellow said:


> I thought you had already established you don't care much about names.



I may not. But since _you_ do, I want you to explain yourself.

I want some criteria for what makes a GOOD compond and what DOESN'T since it's so important to you.


----------



## Henry (Feb 26, 2010)

I much prefer one I heard on The Power Source Podcast: The Sheep on the Cattlefell. The first company to make a joke module by that title, I'll buy it.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Ok, so... where is the line?
> 
> What makes "Greyhawk" acceptable?
> 
> What are the guidelines for portmanteux?



Well, clearly everyone has their own, that the original poster has had 4e go way past his acceptable line.

I thought that was self-evident, if nothing else, based on the responses in the thread so far.  If you're going to call something "horrible" that's obviously not an objective description.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 26, 2010)

Scribe Ineti said:


> A fellow by the name of WILLIAM SHAKESMAN once wrote, "What's in a name?"
> 
> That is to say, a rose is a rose. A shardmind is a shardmind. Don't like the name, call it something else. It still is what it is.




hehehe... see my sig. ... I mean follow the link there-in


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> For the record, I like made up names and those that are compound words...but all should pass a "Cool!" test.




total agreement.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 26, 2010)

Using made-up compounds is badwrongfun.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Feb 26, 2010)

I guess I am just not okay with made up names like Platypus when Beaverducksnake works just fine.

BTW, using the phrase "in the eyes of the beholder" takes on a very hilarious aspect in reference to D&D.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> And what makes them _horrible_ is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see what's so awesome about "Greyhawk".



There's nothing awesome about Greyhawk.  Greyhawk had all kinds of really stupid names that I struggle with to this day.  The Duchy of Geoff.  Furyondy.  The Great Kingdom.  Huh?

Waterdeep's worse than Greyhawk, though.  Oddly enough, if you reversed it and called it Deepwater, it probably would sound fine.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 26, 2010)

I meant the name Greyhawk, Hobo.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 26, 2010)

Yeah, I know, I was just adding to the name-hate while I was at it.  It seemed a convenient juncture for it.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 26, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why does the shadowfell need an underdark?
> 
> Wasn't 4e trying to do away with pointless symmetry in the planes?



Well, yes, to some extent. However, as the Shadowfell is supposed to be a sort of mirror-realm of the real world, symmetry is a necessary feature for this particular plane.

That said, there's nothing wrong with simply calling the Shadowfell's version of the Underdark.... the Underdark. It's still dark. It's still under something.


----------



## Allister (Feb 26, 2010)

*Shrug*

Some People hate compound names but I personally DESPISE names I need a pronouniciation guide for.

For example, how do you pronounce Geoff and Furyondy?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2010)

Allister said:


> *Shrug*
> 
> Some People hate compound names but I personally DESPISE names I need a pronouniciation guide for.
> 
> For example, how do you pronounce Geoff and Furyondy?




Geoff I would presume is Jeff.  At least, that's how one of my HS buddies pronounced his first name that was spelled that way.

Furyondy?  Fury On Dee?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2010)

> That said, there's nothing wrong with simply calling the Shadowfell's version of the Underdark.... the Underdark. It's still dark. It's still under something.




I'd be happier with it. 

"Underdark" itself, like "Shadowfell," is another example of how not every word-word combo is total bunk. But I do imagine there is a broad consensus that 4e has plenty goofy names (even if not everyone is equally as sensitive to them). 

I mean, a quick google search for "D&D shardmind" turns up the following quotes, without even clicking on any links:



			
				The Internet said:
			
		

> What will you call the Shardmind?
> ...
> Wish they would have named it something different.
> ...
> ...




And there's this wonderful little bit:



> We could name one Kill(oops) Soul(naughty)ter, the Shardmind Battlemind from the Grimdark Darkbad.
> ...




As Usual, TVTropes is WAY AHEAD of this ENTIRE FREAKING CONVERSATION.


----------



## Oni (Feb 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> If the plane is called the Shadowfell, and it has an Underdark, what do you call it to differentiate it from the NORMAL Underdark? So when you say it, you know you're talking about the Shadowfell's Underdark?




The Underdarker?


----------



## Rechan (Feb 26, 2010)

Honestly, if all people have to complain about is the names, I think we're doing good.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2010)

You know as well as anyone that there are more complaints about 4Ed than just the names...

Its just one of the more _trivial_ complaints, given the game's overall history.

Of course, its also one of the more _amusing_ complaints as well.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2010)

> Its just one of the more trivial complaints, given the game's overall history.
> 
> Of course, its also one of the more amusing complaints as well.




I agree with both of those. 

That RPGnet thread has me rolling over here. 

"Cerebral Wartex."


----------



## tuxgeo (Feb 26, 2010)

My hardcopy of KotS includes the following acknowledgement on page 2: "Special Thanks to Brandon Daggerhart, keeper of Shadowfell." To me, this means that WotC took inspiration for the "Shadowfell" name from this B.D. guy, and therefore did not have a great deal of latitude for changing its name. 

However, we might enjoy fanciful speculation about what might have been a better name for that feature of 4E. Here's my suggestion: 
Perhaps the Shadowfell could have been named "the Ghastreach" instead.  (Not to be confused with "the Ostrich.") That way, the PCs could more readily suspect ongoing Ghastreachery. 
That immediately suggests a new name for the Shadowdark, also: the Lower Ghastreach. (Sort of like the Lower Intestine.)


----------



## arscott (Feb 26, 2010)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> Uh.... *what?*  Where do you think super-dominant Anglican surnames like Baker, Smith, and Miller come from?  My own surname may mean something in Gaelic rather than something in English, but that's because _it's not an English name._



But while it's perfectly common to see someone named Smith or Miller, try finding people named Ironhammer or Grainsmasher.

Owlbear, despite the slights it's seen on these threads, is actually a great name.  Someone who's never seen a picture of an owlbear would nevertheless imagine something pretty close, just on the strength of the name.  Similarly, a gaming group who's never heard of an owlbear is given the monster's description, but no name, will probably wind up calling the monster an owlbear (or a bear-owl) by the end of the combat.  But had the 4e team invented the owlbear, you can bet it'd be called a featherclaw rager instead.

4e has fairly distinctive naming conventions, and they consistently produce bad names.  The problem, as I see it, is threefold:

1) Focus on the game-important features of a creature.
The 4e name for a stegosaurus is "Bloodspike Behemoth".  But take a look at the stegosaurus for a moment.  Who, looking at a stegosaurus with the gigantic plates on its back, would decide to name it after the tailspikes?  Those greek-loving 19th century biologists decided to call it "armored roof lizard" instead.  But there's no "hit character with back plates" power, so a much more impressive aspect of the creature is ignored in favor of its weaponry.  The word Greyhawk betrays no creativity.  After all, there a plenty of grey hawks in the world.  The creativity comes when someone chose to name a castle, a city, and ultimately a campaign setting after a bird.  Nobody said "hey, shouldn't the name of this ruined castle emphasize the nature of the death cult that the PCs will encounter within?"  Nobody said "This city is supposed to be our player's home base.  Should the name emphasize it's safe and homey nature"?

2) Overdosing on Cool
Sorrowsworn Soulripper.  There are a lot of cool words in that name.  The problem is, these words are cool because they invoke concepts and images in our minds.  In this combination, the invoked concepts become meaningless--When I hear sorrowsworn, it invokes the concept of tragic duty.  Perhaps a sorrowsworn does terrible things for noble reasons, or toils in penance for some past wrong.  Soulripper, on the other hand, invokes something that goes past the material world to attack a creature's very soul--and with a word like 'rip' I imagine the attack is intentionally painful.  But the concept of tragic duty combines poorly with a creature that excels in psychic torture.  The words in the name become meaningless.

3) Improper adherence to form.
Deathrattle is a great and evocative name for a snake.  Calling it a deathrattle viper instead only detracts from it.  Feywild and Shadowfell are a thousand times cooler than "plane of faerie" and "plane of shadow".  But feydark and shadowdark are laughably bad.  The fact that you can combine words in a slightly different way to get the much superior underwild and underfell reveals how little thought went into those names.  The designers have established a pattern of names that doesn't always give the greatest results.  And now that the pattern is established, it's actually killing the creativity that exists.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 26, 2010)

arscott said:


> But while it's perfectly common to see someone named Smith or Miller, try finding people named Ironhammer or Grainsmasher.



Except that we're humans, not dwarves.

Ironhammer or Grainsmasher is a _traditional_ Dwarven-sounding name.

Pick ANY dwarf last name and that's what it says.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> While names like Shadowfell and Feywild are a bit trite I can't help having a similar feeling with these 1E underworld oldies but goodies:
> 
> _Shallowshadow_, _Midgloom_, _Deepdark_




That wasn't D&D, that was Epic of Aerth, for the Mythus game.

I'm just pleased somebody remembers an obscure Gygax creation though!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> > *arscott *
> > But while it's perfectly common to see someone named Smith or Miller, try finding people named Ironhammer or Grainsmasher.
> 
> 
> ...




Simply put, names like that are cultural.

I have a good friend from Oklahoma who's favorite uncle is named Whitekiller.  (No, I never did ask him how long the name had been in the family.)

And, for the record, my real-world surname means "King of the Elves"...not that I have pointy ears or anything.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 26, 2010)

It's not that they're portmanteau names. It's that they're _bad_ portmanteau names. They're all SO! DAMN! AWESOME! LOOK! HOW! AWESOME! IT! IS! LOOK! AT! ALL! THE! EXCITING! WORDS! WE! SMASHED! TOGETHER!

Also, WotC should be banned from using the words "war," "battle," "blade," and "sword" in the names of any concepts that are not (respectively) wars, battles, blades, or swords.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Feb 26, 2010)

While some names in 4E I find silly (Feywild, Shadowfell, etc), I actually really like Vicejaw Crocodiles.

Languages are a funny thing, what sounds cool to some people sounds lame to others.


----------



## Set (Feb 26, 2010)

Garnfellow said:


> Reading the PHB3 thread I was struck yet again by a number of potentially very cool concepts marred by this utterly horrendous naming convention. I can understand that when the edition started out the 4e designers probably wanted to set out in a new direction and thought that maybe these portmanteaus would be a nifty way to go.




While I'm not a fan of seeing it in 4e, I was a bit annoyed by the preponderance of it showing up in 3rd edition as well, with the Soulknife, Warmage, Soulsage, Spellthief, Duskblade, etc.

What's so 'exotic' and difficult for newbies with good, solid class names like Crusader, Scout and Warlock, or planes called 'Limbo' or 'Hell,' instead of the Fellnight and Scarybad and DarkityDark DoublePlusUnGood.  Yeesh, we're hardly hurting for words, in this language!

Then there were other later additions, like the new elven goddess, Sehanine 'Moonbow.' Yeah, that sounds like a god who belongs in a group of dieties with the last names Larethian, Enorath, Rallithil, Sashelas, Faenya, Thelandira, Ilesere and Celanil. "Hi, I'm Kirith Sotheril, and this is my goddess, Magicprincess Sparklepony!"

It reminds me of the names I used to see from children on City of Heroes like Darkblood Skulldeath or Stabbity McStabberson or whatever.

I'm sure someone in this thread has already linked to the Penny Arcade 'In search of a more robust cosmology' page, so I'll skip it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2010)

Set said:


> While I'm not a fan of seeing it in 4e, I was a bit annoyed by the preponderance of it showing up in 3rd edition as well, with the Soulknife, Warmage, Soulsage, Spellthief, Duskblade, etc.  It reminds me of the names I used to see from children on City of Heroes like Darkblood Skulldeath or Stabbity McStabberson or whatever.
> 
> I'm sure someone in this thread has already linked to the Penny Arcade 'In search of a more robust cosmology' page, so I'll skip it.




The Soulknife, Spellthief and Warmage at least have the advantage of being descriptive of the class' main schtick.  That makes sense like the flora and fauna we see in nature- scissortails, spoonbills, springbocks, razorbacks, hammerheads, saber-tooth tigers, pitcher plants, and so forth.

Not that everything in the RW passes that test- the anti-osteoporosis drug Boniva sounds ridiculous...and not just because of "bone-itis" from Futurama.

Duskblade, though...

Sounds like someone was smoking something while reading "The Great Big Book of Elves!"


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And, for the record, my real-world surname means "King of the Elves"...not that I have pointy ears or anything.




Heh, one of my ears (the left) has a rather striking point (it curves towards the back) ... its a scottish/irish trait and may be a connection to leprechaun legends.


----------



## arscott (Feb 26, 2010)

Set said:


> Then there were other later additions, like the new elven goddess, Sehanine 'Moonbow.' Yeah, that sounds like a god who belongs in a group of dieties with the last names Larethian, Enorath, Rallithil, Sashelas, Faenya, Thelandira, Ilesere and Celanil. "Hi, I'm Kirith Sotheril, and this is my goddess, Magicprincess Sparklepony!"



Didn't Sehanine show up with the rest of the Seldarine in 1992's Monster Mythology?

Heck, they're not even calling her moonbow anymore (at least, not in the core books).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2010)

To paraphrase Richard the Sorcerer...

"For Sparklepony!"

(Now _THAT_ is a battlecry!)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 26, 2010)

Honestly, no name - for anything - should sound like a terrible Horde guild from WoW.  We used to joke about *Honorable Blood Bound Fist of the Bloody Black Blade*, but I'm just wondering when that'll actually happen now.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Feb 26, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> It's a good thing there's no longer a German publisher for D&D 4e, though.




IMO that's a bad thing if you want to introduce new players to the hobby. Our Eberron group has 2 players who don't speak English at all, and 1 player with poor English skills. I've translated power cards and such for them as they're playing an artificer, a barbarian and a sorcerer; the German rulebooks only cover PH1, MM1 and DMG1. 



> Those names are usually atrocious if you translate them into German. It was my main reason for buying Diablo2 in English (well, that, and the English speakers).




I do agree on the lack of quality regarding translations into German in general, although I suspect that's also a problem of perception. If you've been using English names and terms a lot, switching to German feels kinda strange and less mysterious. YMMV.



> Does anyone else remember those Diablo2 (random) boss and item names?




_Darm-Pein_ FTW! (_Intestinal Pain_ is an awfully silly name for a boss)


----------



## bouncyhead (Feb 26, 2010)

Hey, if anyone's got a horrible compound name around here, it's yours truly . Maybe I shall become immortalized in MM5. Though on current form they are more likely to use 'Springskull'.

Right. Off to play Path-Finder...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 26, 2010)

Holzkopf Baumfaust (Woodhead Treefist) was an example I remember. Though I don't think I saw it in the game itself, since I only remember playing it in English.



> IMO that's a bad thing if you  want to introduce new players to the hobby. Our Eberron group has 2  players who don't speak English at all, and 1 player with poor English  skills. I've translated power cards and such for them as they're playing  an artificer, a barbarian and a sorcerer; the German rulebooks only  cover PH1, MM1 and DMG1.



As much as I disliked the translation quality, it certainly hurts when trying to find new players. All the people in my group have little trouble with English, but I am not convinced that can be a norm. And we could certainly use some new blood, with the lack of time plaguing even some of our long-term members...


----------



## Cyronax (Feb 26, 2010)

See the Penny Arcade strip below:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/3/20/

Its an oldy but a goody.

See you in Scary Town. 

C.I.D.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 26, 2010)

Set said:


> It reminds me of the names I used to see from children on City of Heroes like Darkblood Skulldeath or Stabbity McStabberson or whatever.




How about Stabmaster Arson? I still giggle at that one. In fact, I'm giggling a little right now.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 26, 2010)

Allister said:


> *Shrug*
> 
> Some People hate compound names but I personally DESPISE names I need a pronouniciation guide for.
> 
> For example, how do you pronounce Geoff and Furyondy?



Uh... wut?!  You need a pronunciation guide for Geoff and Furyondy?  Geoff is a common first name (although I admit that the spelling Jeff is _more_ common, I still know several Geoff's today) and Furyondy is pronounced pretty much exactly like it looks.

If you have problems with those names, I don't know what to tell you.  I might have some old Hooked on Phonics material down in my basement I can send your way.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 26, 2010)

Hobo said:


> (although I admit that the spelling Jeff is _more_ common, I still know several Geoff's today)




Heh... Even though I know it's pronounced Jeff, everytime I see the name Geoff, in my head I think "Hehe Gee Off."


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 26, 2010)

Hobo said:


> and Furyondy is pronounced pretty much exactly like it looks.



Would that be .... Fury -ondy   OR   Fur - yondy.

Y has two very different common pronunciations in this case where you put your emphasis? like whether you put your emphasis on understanding others or implying stupidity makes all the difference.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 26, 2010)

Cyronax said:


> See you in Scary Town.




Hey, that's right up the road from...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izWRKl06XEY[/ame]


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 26, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Would that be .... Fury -ondy   OR   Fur - yondy.
> 
> Y has two very different common pronunciations in this case where you put your emphasis? like whether you put your emphasis on understanding others or implying stupidity makes all the difference.



Say both of those out loud.  Wow, hear that?  They sound almost exactly the same.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 26, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Would that be .... Fury -ondy   OR   Fur - yondy.
> 
> Y has two very different common pronunciations in this case where you put your emphasis? like whether you put your emphasis on understanding others or implying stupidity makes all the difference.




Variations in vowel sounds probably fine to leave in and chalk it up to regional accents. There's plenty of that even in English that I'm not going to sweat it for names in an RPG.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 26, 2010)

Cyronax said:


> See the Penny Arcade strip below:
> 
> Penny Arcade! - In Search Of A Robust Cosmology
> C.I.D.



I think "Double Hell" sounds awesome. It's like something translated from English into Cantonese and back again by a beta web translator. 

Maybe I'm just a bit jaded. Most writing is bad. Thus the prevalence of bad writing in fantasy fiction, let alone fantasy-fiction based gaming products, let alone specific --and questionable-- naming schemes in gaming product lines with crowded release schedules --ahem, where was I, oh--- the prevalence of bad writing doesn't surprise me at all. 

And there ain't much that's going to change it. As others have pointed out, good writing is _hard_. Some writers are Jack Vance, most are not. So take whatever good you find, name-wise, and forget the rest.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 26, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Say both of those out loud.  Wow, hear that?  They sound almost exactly the same.




Furee-on-dee vs. Fur-yon-dee. Yeah, that's close, but it is different. Sort of like prog-ress and pro-gress. Close, but not quite, and not interchangeable.

I prefer foor-yo-Ən-dee myself, since that fits the Ancient Suloise better.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 26, 2010)

Y'know guys, we still have wars over how to pronounce "Drow", and threads that ask how to pronounce "Eladrin".


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Y'know guys, we still have wars over how to pronounce "Drow", and threads that ask how to pronounce "Eladrin".




Drow rhymes with row, and ee-lad-reen, right?


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 26, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Say both of those out loud.  Wow, hear that?  They sound almost exactly the same.



Really  fureee ondee ... sounds like furr yondee... only if I really squish hard like some eastern folk... and dont pronounce the y in its consonant form clearly one time and sneak it in a little the other time.  I am from "spell it like it sounds Nebraska" - have you had your ears checked recently (I know we are both pushing it in years but) <insert or delete additional silly not quite insulting things in retaliation here./> ... etc etc 

Not sure if we got the patent in but I think nebraskans invented phonics.


----------



## MrMyth (Feb 26, 2010)

fireinthedust said:


> Granted, some flavor text along the lines of "Arcanoloths, known to scholars as Raavasta" would be handy.




This sort of thing is actually what I'm all for. I've always been a fan of how the devils work - with having general names (Horned Devil) alongside the 'proper' infernal terminology (Cornugon). Having races that have both some more straightforward names that they are commonly known as, along with a more fantastical name for those who prefer such things, would seem a happy solution to many of these complaints.


----------



## Set (Feb 26, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Heh... Even though I know it's pronounced Jeff, everytime I see the name Geoff, in my head I think "Hehe Gee Off."




I've heard Geoff's pronounce their own name 'Joff,' so it's probably confusing for some.  Being a Queensryche fan, Geoff is not exactly on my list of 'exotic' names.

Drizzt, on the other hand?  Funky, and it seems to get pronounced 'Drizzit' a lot, in my experience, since Z and T aren't generally rammed up against each other in that fashion.

Heck, I still grin when I hear 'Illithid' said out loud, since it sounds like someone with a lisp trying to say illicit.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 26, 2010)

I don't usually have an opinion on things 4e related, as I know next to nothing about the game.

But the 4e monster names what pop up on the forums? Ohmigawd those are really effing awful. Pure butt gravy.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 26, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> This sort of thing is actually what I'm all for. I've always been a fan of how the devils work - with having general names (Horned Devil) alongside the 'proper' infernal terminology (Cornugon). Having races that have both some more straightforward names that they are commonly known as, along with a more fantastical name for those who prefer such things, would seem a happy solution to many of these complaints.




I am rather fond of things being called different names by people from different places, it goes beyond just the educated terminology versus not educated. When Authors mention that a certain people call this monster something and it expresses something about that people and there history... its quite cool... it might just be language but it might be things like Fey folk call him the Great Reaver


----------



## The Ghost (Feb 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Y'know guys, we still have wars over how to pronounce "Drow", and threads that ask how to pronounce "Eladrin".




So what? The word "guarantee" has *six *(!) different, acceptable pronunciations according to my dictionary.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 26, 2010)

The Ghost said:


> So what? The word "guarantee" has *six *(!) different, acceptable pronunciations according to my dictionary.



My point being that even a small simple word can be confusing on how to pronounce, not just exotic discombobulated words.


----------



## Cyronax (Feb 26, 2010)

Mallus said:


> I think "Double Hell" sounds awesome. It's like something translated from English into Cantonese and back again by a beta web translator.
> 
> Maybe I'm just a bit jaded. Most writing is bad. Thus the prevalence of bad writing in fantasy fiction, let alone fantasy-fiction based gaming products, let alone specific --and questionable-- naming schemes in gaming product lines with crowded release schedules --ahem, where was I, oh--- the prevalence of bad writing doesn't surprise me at all.
> 
> And there ain't much that's going to change it. As others have pointed out, good writing is _hard_. Some writers are Jack Vance, most are not. So take whatever good you find, name-wise, and forget the rest.




Double hell is kind of cool for certain campaigns. 

I have a few dystopic and cynical 'elseworlds' or demiplanes in my cosmology (on top of a fairly serious Norse-themed cosmology) and I am seriously thinking of making a mischievous implike entity who named his realm tongue-and-cheek -- 'Scarytown.' 

It wouldn't be a big part of the campaign, but it might be a side comment from some merchant in Sigil's Grand Bazaar -- "oh yeah .... this statue .... it comes from Scarytown." And then the NPC can roll his eyes and say "oh you know those queer folk from blah blah and their silliness."

Looking over the system's names as a whole I don't really mind most of the portmanteaus. In fact I really like the terms Shadowfell and Feywild -- just not Shadowdark or Feydark. I term them Niflheim and Alfheim IMC, but also use the game terms as colloquialisms of adventurers. 

/earmuffs for Eric's Grandma

The ones that really annoy me are the shardminds and others like the Fell Taint monsters are very poor names. When I first saw the monsters in MM2 I thought it was similar to the ubiquity of calling Tea Party protesters by a certain nickname. OR --  the use of 'shard' as a verb in slang nowadays. 

/end earmuffs

Maybe game designers should check urban dictionary against all future monster names?   

I don't mind crude humor at the table sometimes, but only when its most intentional. 


C.I.D.


----------



## fireinthedust (Feb 26, 2010)

Garnfellow said:


> Yup, MtG has generally had very cool names, so it's not like there's something in the water supply at Renton. _Sengir vampire_: What the heck is Sengir? Probably a place. The word sounds nasty, and since it has vampires it must one bad-ass place.




As opposed to Sunnydale, which sounds like a happy place (and, sadly, wasn't... except that musical episode)


----------



## fireinthedust (Feb 26, 2010)

SkidAce said:


> If I had a portable manatee I would take it everywhere...what?




Not me, those things are heavy.  I wouldn't mind a flying Manatee, though, who could take me places.   ...




Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why does the shadowfell need an underdark?
> 
> Wasn't 4e trying to do away with pointless symmetry in the planes?




Yeah, that does bug me.  I think the "feywild underdark" or Feydark is pretty lame.  I mean, I get it: they're supposed to be opposite ends of the material realm.  Still, Fomorians can be all over the place.  Ogres aren't limited to the Fey realms, neither are Trolls.  Drow are "fey", technically.  




			
				skidace said:
			
		

> PS:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nice!



Spoiler



I tend towards another world that's reached through the earth, like Hades; but still on another plane, like you jump through a crack in the earth near a graveyard or battlefield.  Then again, the Elemental Chaos tends to be deep under the surface, but locked away by magic (until the PCs break through for whatever reason, TBD); so it *is* part f the world, as is the Astral Sea (ie: outer space, but magical), while the other two are other planes (like Alba for the feywild, and Hades for the shadowdark).


----------



## bouncyhead (Feb 26, 2010)

SkidAce said:


> If I had a portable manatee I would take it everywhere...what?




By Manatee do you mean Seacow?


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 26, 2010)

Glad you caught it.

(of course so did everyone else but it was so awfull they just ignored it)


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 26, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Really  fureee ondee ... sounds like furr yondee... only if I really squish hard like some eastern folk... and dont pronounce the y in its consonant form clearly one time and sneak it in a little the other time.  I am from "spell it like it sounds Nebraska" - have you had your ears checked recently (I know we are both pushing it in years but) <insert or delete additional silly not quite insulting things in retaliation here./> ... etc etc
> 
> Not sure if we got the patent in but I think nebraskans invented phonics.



OOOOhhh K.  Now, try not to super enunciate and say them normally.  They're practically identical and to a casual listener, you can't actually distinguish the sutble difference between them.

And even if they weren't, it's not like it's difficult to read that word and pronounce it sensibly.  And it's hardly like there's anyone actually _from_ Furyondy who's going to come and correct such a sutble mispronunciation.

For example, someone just said that they chuckled over the word ilithid because it sounded like someone with a lisp saying illicit.  Well, not to me; I stress the first syllable.

But rather than worrying about whether that is "right" or not, the point is, it's not a difficult word to read or say.  It's one thing if we called all D&D monsters stuff like ixitxachitl.  If we did, then yeah, I might sing a different tune about battle-spike behemoth, or whatever it is.  But we don't, so battle-spike behemoths sounds stupid, and I wonder why we couldn't just say stegosaur like the original MM did.


----------



## Votan (Feb 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Do you know the type of FURY that would erupt from D&D players if WotC decided to exclude a lot of monsters that were in earlier editions?
> 
> There was mass anger because they chose to put FROST GIANTS in MM2 instead of the first one.
> 
> Middle Earth gets away with it because they didn't HAVE four dozen different monstrous humanoids gathered from 3 previous editions of D&D, in addition to all the _other_ monsters acquired over the editions people want.




Oh, I agree that the reasons for Breadth make sense.  It's just worth noting that there really is a trade-off here when it comes to names.  You can put out creatures with exotic names and get players to memorize them for only so many creatures.  The single time that an Arrow Demon appears, if it worth noting that it's real name is (as a random example) Callicantzaros but it is also known to the people of the shining seas as Yog-Nephry and to the plains men as . . .  

It's worth reading an AD&D monster manual to see the critters that no longer make the grade in modern editions and how what looks (to modern eyes) as a limited set of monsters could be so impressive at the time.  

So I understand (and even agree) with the WotC strategy.  My thinking is that if you want cool and interesting names, reducing the number of possible opponents will really help to make each one a deeper and more interesting creature.  

That being said, there is a reason why vampires and werewolves are popular (even Tolkien used them as forms for Sauron to shift into) -- people intuitively know what they are and don't need it explained in painful detail.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 26, 2010)

Hobo said:


> It's one thing if we called all D&D monsters stuff like ixitxachitl.



Ixitxachitl isn't a difficult word to say. No matter how you say it, it's not going to sound any different to a casual listener. Anyway, it's not like a sahuagin is going to rise up out of the sea and slap you if you don't put the accent on the right syllable.



> If we did, then yeah, I might sing a different tune about battle-spike behemoth, or whatever it is.  But we don't, so battle-spike behemoths sounds stupid, and I wonder why we couldn't just say stegosaur like the original MM did.



If I were a paleontologist and found a new species of Stegosaur with a big spiky tail, I would SOOOO name it _Stegosaurus pugnaspiculum_.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 27, 2010)

Paradox said:


> It may look fantastic on paper, and the author may love the pattern of typing it out, but Xtzj'vvrekkaa Nagaaloiousious doesn't roll off the tongue very well.




Wasn't Xtzj'vvrekkaa Nagaaloiousious an ixitxachitl foe of Drizzt Do'Urden formerly of Menzoberranzan?

DS


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Feb 27, 2010)

Rechan said:


> This has been done twice - with the Warlord and the Wilden. Both times, the warlord and the wilden were the winners because no one could agree which ones were worse and which better!




Possibly because none of the alternatives posted were worse or better.

It's hard to quantify, all right. Absent near-universal acclaim, skyrocketing sales, widespread use, and scores of imitators and adapters, it's tough to say "this is the best, or close to the best, that it could have been."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 27, 2010)

> Possibly because none of the alternatives posted were worse or better.




Well, it's a bit of a catch 22, because people are trying to anticipate an audience reaction that is pretty impossible to anticipate. Trying to create "the perfect name" is destined for failure.

All you can really do is have better or worse names, and that's something of a subjective call.

I mean, look at the defense _Shadowdark_ has gotten in this thread. If people can voiceiferously defend THAT, then clearly there's a lot of people out there who aren't very sensitive to horrible names, and who would vote for the default name, just because it is the default, and they don't care that much to change it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 27, 2010)

Sabathius42 said:


> Wasn't Xtzj'vvrekkaa Nagaaloiousious an ixitxachitl foe of Drizzt Do'Urden formerly of Menzoberranzan?
> 
> DS




Ziggy Nacogdoches?  Say it ain't so!!!


----------



## Derulbaskul (Feb 27, 2010)

I don't mind a lot of the new portmanteaus. They're easy enough to change but at least they are simple to pronounce. I actually prefer them for the names of dinosaurs but I can understand others not liking that.



Sabathius42 said:


> Wasn't Xtzj'vvrekkaa Nagaaloiousious an ixitxachitl foe of Drizzt Do'Urden formerly of Menzoberranzan?
> 
> DS




R A Salvatore is the worst person to be quoting, IMO.

He's the George Lucas of fantasy fiction and his naming conventions and the verbal tics and dialogue choices of some of his characters make even Jar-Jar Binks seem like a work of genius.

However, I still think his worst names were reserved for use in his sole 1E credit that I know about about, FR's _The Bloodstone Lands_. When a mountain range seems to be named "(expletive) you", you know you're dealing with a guy who doesn't have a lot of respect for the IP.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 27, 2010)

Derulbaskul said:


> He's the George Lucas of fantasy fiction



Well-loved and etched in the memories of young and old as wonderful, a touchstone to all comers of fantasy? 



> However, I still think his worst names were reserved for use in his sole 1E credit that I know about about, FR's _The Bloodstone Lands_. When a mountain range seems to be named "(expletive) you", you know you're dealing with a guy who doesn't have a lot of respect for the IP.



Heh. In my campaign, in a mountainy area there's a pass called the "Goat(expletive) Pass". Because the trail leads to a community of outcasts, and it reflects what the locals think of said community.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I mean, look at the defense _Shadowdark_ has gotten in this thread. If people can voiceiferously defend THAT, then clearly there's a lot of people out there who aren't very sensitive to horrible names, and who would vote for the default name, just because it is the default, and they don't care that much to change it.




I love the implication that people who do not agree with you about what a horrible name is just don´t get it, don´t care much and just vote for the default because they have no clue. Not that this isn´t a widespread approach to internet discussion, mind you.


----------



## tuxgeo (Feb 28, 2010)

Keefe the Thief said:


> I love the implication that people who do not agree with you about what a horrible name is just don´t get it, don´t care much and just vote for the default because they have no clue. Not that this isn´t a widespread approach to internet discussion, mind you.



Is it an issue of agreeing with him, or is it an issue with the name "Shadowdark" itself? 

All shadows are dark -- that is part of what makes them shadows -- so every shadow in existence is "The Shadowdark." 
That being the case, what's special about giving the name "Shadowdark" to the portion of the Underdark beneath the Shadowfell? How does that name serve to distinguish that dangerous place from every other shadow in existence, whether they be dangerous or safe?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2010)

Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> I love the implication that people who do not agree with you about what a horrible name is just don´t get it, don´t care much and just vote for the default because they have no clue. Not that this isn´t a widespread approach to internet discussion, mind you.




Not quite the impression I intended to give. More like, "I find Shadowdark to be _exceptionally_ ridiculous, but clearly, there are people out there who don't have a problem with it, so they don't see any problem with the way things are already." 

The idea was that how sensitive one is to names is probably not a constant across all players. 

Because I honestly can't conceive of someone thinking that "Shadowdark" really is the best name for...anything. Suitable, or inoffensive, sure, but ideal, no. But maybe that's just me being narrowminded.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 28, 2010)

tuxgeo said:


> Is it an issue of agreeing with him, or is it an issue with the name "Shadowdark" itself?
> 
> All shadows are dark -- that is part of what makes them shadows -- so every shadow in existence is "The Shadowdark."
> That being the case, what's special about giving the name "Shadowdark" to the portion of the Underdark beneath the Shadowfell? How does that name serve to distinguish that dangerous place from every other shadow in existence, whether they be dangerous or safe?




For me, it's both.  I constantly get annoyed on these boards (I don't really frequent any others) when posters get "incredulous" that others hold differing opinions.

"What?!?!  I just can't believe _anyone_ would ever believe that?!?!"

And, I also don't really have a problem with Shadowdark.  It doesn't mean simply that the shadows are dark there, like everywhere else . . . but rather that the shadows are somehow _darker_ there . . .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 1, 2010)

Can someone please point the way to the Deep Dark Shadowdarkest?


----------



## tuxgeo (Mar 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Can someone please point the way to the Deep Dark Shadowdarkest?



Can't help you with that, but I could suggest some alternate names that might fit the concept of the Underdark beneath the Shadowfell in a way that would appeal to me more than "Shadowdark." These names all end in "-fell" as their connection to the Shadowfell: 

Bottomfell (or not, with its similarity to "The Bottom Fell out of the Market")
Cavernfell
Cavityfell 
Cryptfell
Darkestfell (Thanks for the hint, Danny!) 
Despairfell
Dissolufell (where the Bards all play Dissolutes, of course!)
Grottofell (home of grotesques and garrotes) 
Hollowfell (not to be confused with "hollow shell") 
Subterfell (the Subterranean Subterfuge) 
Underfell (or not, with its similarity to "underrotated" and "undersubscribed" -- it might hint of something that didn't fall far enough) 
Wankerfell (or not -- that's actually meant to be taken as a joke)


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Can someone please point the way to the Deep Dark Shadowdarkest?




Head to Erelhei-Cinlu, take a left, and follow the blackest spiral down. 

Remember: when journeying in the Underdark, bring a blindfold, and don't forget to take a spork, and enjoy the brunch. But watch out for the driders.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 1, 2010)

tuxgeo said:


> Can't help you with that, but I could suggest some alternate names that might fit the concept of the Underdark beneath the Shadowfell in a way that would appeal to me more than "Shadowdark." These names all end in "-fell" as their connection to the Shadowfell:
> 
> Bottomfell (or not, with its similarity to "The Bottom Fell out of the Market")
> Cavernfell
> ...




To contemplate the Shadowdark, I can but quote Nigel Tufnel:

 "It's like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black. "


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 1, 2010)

For myself, as silly as the Shadowdark name is out of context, it works in universe. It is the Underdark in the Shadowfell - blending the two names seems reasonable. It works entirely because those two other names exist, and it is a natural combination of the two. I honestly haven't heard any other suggested name that would seem as appropriate for it. And, as usual, it is relatively tiring having others explain that the sole reason I can accept this as the name is because I am "not sensitive to names", or because I don't care about words, or anything else along those lines. 

Sorry, but no - people are allowed to have differing opinions than yours without it being the result of some failing of their character, or lesser enthusiasm about language, or whatever ever reason you want to assign to the other side of the argument. It is entirely acceptable to explain your own reasons, but it would be nice if folks tried to refrain from providing them for everyone else...


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 1, 2010)

Um...why wouldn't the place where the Shadowfell and Underdark bleed into each other NOT be named the Shadowdark?

It's that or Underfell.

I honestly would be more annoyed if it had an entirely different name such as Eltruic or something like that which has no connection to either parts...


----------



## tuxgeo (Mar 1, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Um...why wouldn't the place where the Shadowfell and Underdark bleed into each other NOT be named the Shadowdark?
> 
> It's that or Underfell.
> 
> I honestly would be more annoyed if it had an entirely different name such as Eltruic or something like that which has no connection to either parts...



I believe that the main reason that some people have for wanting the place of overlap NOT to be named the "Shadowdark" it that that name is both redundant and nonspecific, because all shadows are dark.

Would you also be more annoyed if it had a name that was merely a little bit different, such as "Utterfell?" 
Wouldn't that work as well in-game as "Shadowdark" does?


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't want to go down there. I'm likely to be eaten by a grue.

-The Gneech


----------



## knifie_sp00nie (Mar 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Can someone please point the way to the Deep Dark Shadowdarkest?




This reminds me of a video clip- Adult Swim Video : The Xtacles : Rapier Ape


----------



## Rechan (Mar 1, 2010)

tuxgeo said:


> Would you also be more annoyed if it had a name that was merely a little bit different, such as "Utterfell?"



Y'know. I want to take that and spin it juuuust a little more:

Utterdark. 

Most darkness is the absence of light. The Underdark is dark simply because there's something in the way (the ground) from preventing the sun from shining into it.

In the Utterdark is _true_ darkness, utter darkness. It is not the absence of light; light is the absence of Darkness in the Utterdark. The Utterdark is in truth the source of Shadowy magic (such as the Assassin's shadowy powers), for here darkness has actual Power; the Darkness is quasi-sentient, hunting down and snuffing sources of light. It's consuming, a thing that seeps into the very being of everything that lives there.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 1, 2010)

tuxgeo said:


> I believe that the main reason that some people have for wanting the place of overlap NOT to be named the "Shadowdark" it that that name is both redundant and nonspecific, because all shadows are dark.
> 
> Would you also be more annoyed if it had a name that was merely a little bit different, such as "Utterfell?"
> Wouldn't that work as well in-game as "Shadowdark" does?




I can imagine some words that would be close enough to fit without having the potential redundancy of Shadowdark - though Utterfell doesn't really work for me. Something like the Shadowdeep, perhaps? But it's hard to say - while I agree that symmetry isn't needed everywhere in the cosmology, it is the basis of the Feywild and Shadowfell, and thus drawing on that for naming mirror elements within them just seems to fit. 

Yes, out of context, the word is meaningless. Shadow and Dark are nigh-identical words, and merging together to make them sound 'darker' would be rather silly. But it isn't the merging of the words themselves, it is the merging of the names of specific locations - and in reference to those names, it has meaning. 

I can certainly understand why it still sounds ridiculous to some people. But it seems logical to me, and not because I am unable to recognize the objections being made against it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 1, 2010)

FWIW, "Shadowdeep" and "Feydeep" would be better.



> I can certainly understand why it still sounds ridiculous to some people. But it seems logical to me, and not because I am unable to recognize the objections being made against it.




For me, that logical meaning (which I certainly recognize) doesn't trump all the objections I personally have against it. To forgive it on the basis of making a little bit of sense is kind of like, to put it in patently ridiculous hyperbole, a man who has killed hundreds of innocent children by putting them in a sack and dragging them behind his Ford Truck then being forgiven because he helped and old lady cross the street once as a boy scout.

Doing a little something right doesn't invalidate all that wrong.

Perhaps that is because I am hyper-sensitive to it, rather than because you are under-sensitive to it, but regardless, it is petty and deeply subjective.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 2, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> FWIW, "Shadowdeep" and "Feydeep" would be better.




Out of all the alternate suggestions I've heard, I like these two the best.



> For me, that logical meaning (which I certainly recognize) doesn't trump all the objections I personally have against it. To forgive it on the basis of making a little bit of sense is kind of like, to put it in patently ridiculous hyperbole, a man who has killed hundreds of innocent children by putting them in a sack and dragging them behind his Ford Truck then being forgiven because he helped and old lady cross the street once as a boy scout.




Uh, wow . . . . you weren't kidding with the ridiculous hyperbole . . .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 2, 2010)

Utterdark has a _nice _flavor to it.  Definitely sounds like someplace that angels would fear to tread.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 2, 2010)

Slap an umlaut on that U and you got yourself a deal. 

As someone born in the Dairy State, however, "Utterdark" just conjures up images of low-hanging cow mammary glands. 

Which, given how often things with T&A get commented on 'round these parts, might serve WotC just fine.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 2, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Ixitxachitl isn't a difficult word to say. No matter how you say it, it's not going to sound any different to a casual listener. Anyway, it's not like a sahuagin is going to rise up out of the sea and slap you if you don't put the accent on the right syllable.




No, but one might if you do.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!


----------



## MoxieFu (Mar 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not that everything in the RW passes that test- the anti-osteoporosis drug Boniva sounds ridiculous...and not just because of "bone-itis" from Futurama.




I have to wonder what happened with the makers of ACIPHEX?

Did they never say this word out loud before deciding on the name? It comes out as...

ASS EFFECTS

Then again, it's a drug used for treating ulcers of the stomach and duodenum, gastroesophageal reflux disease!

I can't believe I am not making this up!


----------



## BryonD (Mar 3, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Actually, I think what you're calling "placeholder names" often sound more authentic than made up fantasy names.
> 
> People don't go around calling Dogwood trees _Cornaceae Cornus_ trees. They use the common (portmanteau) name because it's easy to remember and say.
> 
> Likewise, in a fantasy world, it would make perfect sense for common folk and adventurers to call a bow-wielding demon an Arrow Demon. If a horrible creature rose out of the Abyss and started firing arrows into my face, the last thing I would be worried about is inserting a cool, creative, interesting name into the phrase "Run for your lives it's a ...........". In that situation, I think Arrow Demon would be perfectly satisfactory.



I disagree.
Calling it an arrow demon is the same as calling a dogwood a "white flower tree".  _Cornaceae Cornus_ would be the same as some technical name that sounds like fake abyssal.  

Placeholder names are purely descriptive, such as "arrow demon" or "white flower tree".  Real world names tend to a bit more folksy, like dogwood.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

MoxieFu said:


> I have to wonder what happened with the makers of ACIPHEX?
> 
> Did they never say this word out loud before deciding on the name? It comes out as...
> 
> ...




I've been thinking the exact same thing for months.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> /snip
> 
> There were a lot of dumb names in earlier editions, and yet we still find ourselves fighting mind flayers and beholders.  So the question, I suppose, becomes: what will 4e's mark be on future games?




Off topic but, I am somewhat ashamed to admit that in the almost thirty years of playing D&D, the number of times I've fought as a player or used as a DM, beholders or mindflayers could likely be counted on fingers.

Do people really use these monsters all the time?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Off topic but, I am somewhat ashamed to admit that in the almost thirty years of playing D&D, the number of times I've fought as a player or used as a DM, beholders or mindflayers could likely be counted on fingers.
> 
> Do people really use these monsters all the time?




I think that they are VERY popular mastermind/BBEG villains, like Liches, Dragons or Drow.

So they do tend to pop up frequently...if you look at the set of all possible campaigns.

In a given campaign, you'll probably only find one or 2 of those critter types.

From my own 30+ year history w/D&D, I can say that I've used each one more than once as a DM.  And I've encountered each one in campaigns as a player.

I'd say that they're among the few _repeat_ powerful critters I've used or encountered in D&D.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2010)

DannyA - totally.  I know they keep coming up as the big bads in published stuff- buckets of supplements stretching back for years on both of them.

I've just personally almost never seen them used.  I was wondering how common they are in other people's experiences.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> DannyA - totally.  I know they keep coming up as the big bads in published stuff- buckets of supplements stretching back for years on both of them.
> 
> I've just personally almost never seen them used.  I was wondering how common they are in other people's experiences.




Consider yourself lucky!

As a matter of fact, we're in a campaign right now that has beholders AND drow AND desmodu AND salamanders.

If it weren't for a lucky shot that really dinged a Beholder slave-master, we'd have been toast- it dropped the party's lone single-classed caster (a Wizard) with its first or second attack.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2010)

Desmodu - aren't those those bat-people?


----------



## Votan (Mar 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> DannyA - totally.  I know they keep coming up as the big bads in published stuff- buckets of supplements stretching back for years on both of them.
> 
> I've just personally almost never seen them used.  I was wondering how common they are in other people's experiences.




I used both extremely frequently as monsters when I DMed in 3.5E D&D. The low save DCs for the 3.5 Beholder made them a bit of a paper tiger.  

Back in AD&D I encountered a lot of Mind Flayers (even losing a character to one) but few (maybe one?) Beholders.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Desmodu - aren't those those bat-people?




Yep.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

BTW, in case y'all missed it, this thread contains some nice re-christenings that fit nicely with this thread as well.


----------



## Pierson_Lowgal (Mar 3, 2010)

> Originally Posted by Hussar
> I was wondering how common they are in other people's experiences.



Playing for 15 years off and on, never used or faced a true beholder, only used or faced mind flayers once.  Too high level, aberrants aren't everyone's cup of tea.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Mar 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I've just personally almost never seen them used.  I was wondering how common they are in other people's experiences.




Back in 2E, at least 2 of our groups were TPK'ed by mind flayers, one group ran away from a mind flayer, and my beloved 9th level priest of Tempus had his brain eaten by a mind flayer while he was unconscious (the group brought him to a "healer" and waited outside ). Actually, I can't remember ever being able to kill one in any of our campaigns.
As for beholders, we once encountered one and my fighter just slaughtered it with a streak of very lucky dice rolls. My DM was quite shocked . Gas spores were far more common, though. 

In 4E we've fought a (very annoying) gauth beholder in our Eberron group. In the PoL group that I'm DMing they've just reached 3rd level, so they're safe... for now. 

I'd describe mind flayers and beholders as _Rare_ and _Very Rare_, respectively.

/end off-topic


----------



## Rechan (Mar 3, 2010)

The highest level D&D game I ever played/DMed in for more than a session only made it to level 9, so I've just never been in the level range for beholders/mindflayers to enter the game. I'd _love_ to use some illithids. 

Although the game I'm in, we're only level 5 and we've fought *3* beholders. (Granted, they were vastly leveled down, the highest one a 10th level elite). Even so, it was very awesome to at least battle them.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 3, 2010)

Mindflayers are psionic pre-creation of the world monsters with ties to Cthulhu mythos..duh look at the heads!

I had one rising out of an empty pit a thousand feet under an ice cap and fighting the party.  They had developed an extreme intoleralance for them so they unloaded on it.  Once it's programmed image was defeated the real one floated up.  They still beat it (barely) and it was one of their favorite scenes.

Never used beholders...don't like them for some reason...


----------



## Stoat (Mar 3, 2010)

FWIW, I like a Mind Flayers  a lot and use them in my games regularly.  They're smart, organized, powerful, alien and by nature cannot peacefully coexist with humans.  In my opinion, this makes them perfect villains.

Beholders, I don't care for so much.  They don't make a lot of sense to me.  Where do they come from?  What do they want?  I've never seen answers to these questions that do it for me.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Consider yourself lucky!
> 
> As a matter of fact, we're in a campaign right now that has beholders AND drow AND desmodu AND salamanders.




Smells like Deep Horizon. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> If it weren't for a lucky shot that really dinged a Beholder slave-master, we'd have been toast- it dropped the party's lone single-classed caster (a Wizard) with its first or second attack.




If it is Deep Horizon, that's amusing, because when I ran it, the second beholder the PCs ran into disintegrated the party sorcerer in the first or second round. Fortunately, the cleric had a _scroll of true resurrection_.


----------



## Nonei (Mar 4, 2010)

Stoat said:


> Beholders, I don't care for so much. They don't make a lot of sense to me. Where do they come from? What do they want? I've never seen answers to these questions that do it for me.




[sblock=off topic]
There was a series of Spelljammer books that I read ages ago, I don't recall the names. At least one of the books had, as a semi-main character, a beholder that somehow used illusions to make itself look like a man. It had found work on a ship... it was basically NG and had left its beholder colony b/c of ideological differences. The captain of the ship (the main character of the series) found out, and it was accepted as a member of the crew.

IIRC, the books didn't go into where the beholders came from, but it did have some fascinating commentary on beholder ideology. For example, each type of beholder thinking their type is the perfect creature and considering all other intelligent forms of life (_especially_ other types of beholders) as deserving to be destroyed. The different types were constantly warring. Granted it isn't cannon but it was very interesting.

I can't comment on the quality of the books... I enjoyed them very much in high school but that doesn't mean much LOL. Now I want to find them and read them again![/sblock]

On topic: As far as portmanteaus, I think I must have a pretty high tolerance as most of the words mentioned in this thread don't bother me at all. Then again, I haven't played 4e so I haven't seen the quantity that perhaps others have seen. 

I personally like feywild and shadowfell; I don't really care for feydark and shadowdark but then again I have always thought underdark was a bit silly as well. But I don't think they're horrible... just ok, instead of great. 

There are plenty of good portmanteaus that, like shadowdark, have essentially the same word twice - for emphasis. Keep in mind too that many languages instead of saying "more dark" or "many rivers" would just say "dark dark" or "river river". So that alone I don't think would qualify a word/name as "bad".

Of course, I am a bit biased. I come from a town that, when translated into English, is called Water Water (there are a lot of creeks and rivers).


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 4, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> Smells like Deep Horizon.



Just what I thought 
Which is interesting since we're currently playing a largely modified and stripped-down version of the module. The first thing I did was replace the Desmodu with Duergar...

It was the first time I have used beholders in any edition. I think they worked well enough, even with a level 15 Marshall in the party granting massive saving throw bonuses and allowing action points.

Now mindflayers have always been a staple in my campaigns in all editions. I'm a big psionics and Mythos fun.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Mar 10, 2010)

This thread has clearly been going on for a while, but I would like to point out that the redear sunfish, yellowbar basslet, and eyestripe surgeonfish would like a word with those who think portmanteaus aren't "realistic".

(The real key to a poor-sounding portmanteau, in my opinion, is overly long or obscure words - people don't generally try to intentionally create long names for real-world creatures)


----------

