I've found the basis for 4e-style fantasy words

[delericho]

This is an important battleground for the future of D&D. You must take a side.

Picking a side is pretty much the worst possible thing they can do. Go take a look at the place names around you: they don't follow a single neat convention. You get places given fairly obvious, descriptive names (e.g. Newbridge). You get places given fairly obvious, descriptive names in other languages (e.g. Milwaukee). You get places named for people (e.g. Alexandria). And so on and so forth.

And the reason for this is obvious: we don't have a single, neat convention because we're not a single, neat group. Basically, we make stuff up as we go.

So, yeah, Wizards should do the same - use a bunch of different conventions, and have them all butting up against one another. Preferably with some method behind the madness (e.g. elves mostly use one convention, and humans mostly use another), but also with just enough exceptions to mess that up.

It should be noted that classic D&D names like Greyhawk, Blackmarsh, Dragonlance and Ravenloft all follow this apparently '4E' compound naming convention.

Indeed. The use of compound-word isn't itself a great ill. If nothing else, it was good enough for Tolkien (Mirkwood, Rivendell). On the other hand...

It should also be noted that, if translated from their Latin/pseudo-Latin/Latinized Greek forms into English, many of the 'proper' scientific names for dinosaurs (terriblelizards) are more of the same as well. Tyrantlizard kings, Three-hornedfaces, Roofedlizards, thunderlizards/deceptivelizards …

These, and most of WotC's 4e efforts (and Eberron's dinosaurs), are pretty strong examples of how to do it really badly. In the case of dinosaurs, it turns out that a rose by any other name does not smell as sweet.

 

[darjr]

Use the Old English style but using latin words!

 

[MJS]

MMPH, A serious answer for a sillypost ...

I think D&D books should be written in the plainest language possible, the age of 1e of game book as vocabulary, err wordstock building exercise is long past

However if I could get a group of players into it, I'd like to try and keep all in character common tongue usage in Anglish. It would make for an interesting game especially combined with some props and appropriate food and such .I draw the line at cosplay though . Too nerdy for me.

1E players had a higher reading level than their peers. This be fact. Don't ask for a link, I proved it in the 5th grade.
A higher reading level is a good thing.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

1E players had a higher reading level than their peers. This be fact. Don't ask for a link, I proved it in the 5th grade.
A higher reading level is a good thing.

To have a high reading level is a good thing, indeed. But to require it in order to be able to undertand a game? This strikes me as foolish.

 

[Balesir]

This is an important battleground for the future of D&D. You must take a side.

I agree with [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], here (but couldn't XP), and will join him on the *out*side...

I think it's a world-thing, not a game-system-thing, and should be selected/mixed/excepted from to suit the game world being conjoured, not as a "you must D&D like this" dictat. As for the rules themselves? KISS (keep it as simple as possible).

 

[MJS]

To have a high reading level is a good thing, indeed. But to require it in order to be able to undertand a game? This strikes me as foolish.

The game itself increased the reading levels, but did not require it to play, either via osmosis, or one of the Basic boxes that quickly segued into AD&D.
No doubt, there is some foolishness in those tomes - paragraphs that to this day generate a "huh?" Gygax resides on no pedestal to me.

I guess what is needed is study of reading levels of school kids learning later editions. I may put too much emphasis on Gary's writing, when the factor that increased literacy was more of just getting the kids reading on their own. Such later studies may not exist, due to the fading of the fad.

Anyway, interesting insights in this thread -

 

[Libramarian]

It should be noted that classic D&D names like Greyhawk, Blackmarsh, Dragonlance and Ravenloft all follow this apparently '4E' compound naming convention.

True, I think the classic D&D setup is to use Anglish for mundane things like place names and hyper-Latinization for some spells, magic items and character options associated with magic-using characters. I like this and I think if I were putting together a "flavor bible" for a new edition, I would include this. 4e's deprecation of hyper-Latinized science-fantasy flavor I guess is related to its general criticism of the idea that there is a basic distinction between the mundane and the arcane.

Okay. I pick the *outside*.

I think it should be in both - use the two styles to imply the existence of two mixing cultures, like the various migrations the populated Greyhawk...

Picking a side is pretty much the worst possible thing they can do. Go take a look at the place names around you: they don't follow a single neat convention. You get places given fairly obvious, descriptive names (e.g. Newbridge). You get places given fairly obvious, descriptive names in other languages (e.g. Milwaukee). You get places named for people (e.g. Alexandria). And so on and so forth.

And the reason for this is obvious: we don't have a single, neat convention because we're not a single, neat group. Basically, we make stuff up as we go.

So, yeah, Wizards should do the same - use a bunch of different conventions, and have them all butting up against one another. Preferably with some method behind the madness (e.g. elves mostly use one convention, and humans mostly use another), but also with just enough exceptions to mess that up.

I agree that a mixture of styles would be best, but the idea of using them to highlight different aspects of the rules on a metagame level rather than necessarily explaining it in terms of a game setting or culture appeals to me. But I think D&D should always have a default flavor and the urge to retire its tropes and eccentricities and make it a generic fantasy system should be resisted.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

It's neat to hear where the idea came from!

While it has some merit, I don't think it was all that well done in 4e and 3.5 naming conventions, alas. What seems to have been missing was the next step, ensuring that the resulting compound rolled off the tongue in modern english.

Magic the Gathering's creative team uses a lot of compound terms, but, probably because they have the budget for a whole creative team of professional communicators instead of creative being part of the task of the designers, theirs usually sound good when you say them aloud. "Boros Swiftblade" sounds cool in a way far too much D&D terminology doesn't. Part of that may be associating it with a made-up word. "Swiftblade" on its own only sounds okay, but it flows well from "Boros."

I'm partial to the latinized style of OD&D and early AD&D naming conventions, but that's specifically because they evoke images of a Vancian future rather than a Tolkienesque past.

 

[pemerton]

James Wyatt believes fantasy should be written in "Anglish"*, which is English that only uses Anglo-Saxon (i.e. Old English) words.

I believe that CS Lewis would never use an English word with French roots when a word derived from Old English was available.

I agree that a mixture of styles would be best, but the idea of using them to highlight different aspects of the rules on a metagame level rather than necessarily explaining it in terms of a game setting or culture appeals to me.

Interesting idea. Was classic D&D really consistent on this, though? Haste, Slow, Fireball, Lightning Bolt - not much Latin elaboration there.

 

[Libramarian]

I'm partial to the latinized style of OD&D and early AD&D naming conventions, but that's specifically because they evoke images of a Vancian future rather than a Tolkienesque past.

I agree. But I am more sympathetic to the 4e diction now after thinking that it had an aesthetic motivation, rather than just being done to "dumb down" the language of the game.

Interesting idea. Was classic D&D really consistent on this, though? Haste, Slow, Fireball, Lightning Bolt - not much Latin elaboration there.

Fair point. I said classic D&D but I was really thinking of Gygaxian D&D, especially the material that first appeared in 1e and the 1e Unearthed Arcana. Some of the core spells like fireball and lightning bolt go back to the Chainmail wargame rules, where I don't think this sensibility appeared yet. I've read that when writing 1e Gygax purposefully attempted to imbue it with the flavor of Vance's fantasy works.