Dear 4e, Please Stop with the Horrible Portmanteaus!

Garnfellow

Explorer
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!
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Henry

Autoexreginated
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. :)
 

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

Arcadian Knight
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
 
Last edited:



CasvalRemDeikun

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

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

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.
 


Remove ads

Top