Dear 4e, Please Stop with the Horrible Portmanteaus!

[Garnfellow]

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]

Very ardently stated. I dub thee, the Namerager. Whaddaya think?

 

[Paradox]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Elphilm]

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]

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]

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]

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.