What's in a name? Cyphers in fantasy

[Jack7]

stupid slashdot interrupted and corrupted double posting.

 

[MrMyth]

Next edition, if there is one, I'd like to see D&D move away from the overt (e.g. Shadowfell, Feywild, Warmage etc.) and the trademarkable-yet-contrived (e.g. eladrin, wilden etc.) back to the resonant and unconciously suggestive cyphers and dusty old words in the core implied setting. Your thoughts?

I think the best answer is just to have a decent mix of the various sorts. I like Shadowfell, Feywild, I like switching the dinosaurs names to 'Behemoths'... it can get overkill, but many of them do work well. And I do like some classic names, but those can also get overused - I don't want to be confronted by a ton of words that are largely gibberish. On their own, they stand at well - too many together, and it can actually pull me out of the game.

 

[CubeKnight]

One thing: at least in Spanish those types of names (Macetail Behemoth) sound horrible when translated.

/agrees

Most of my books are in english because, honestly, the spanish translations are just awful.

 

[CubeKnight]

One thing: at least in Spanish those types of names (Macetail Behemoth) sound horrible when translated.

/agrees

Most of my books are in english because, honestly, the spanish translations are just awful.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

While I'm not sure your examples are the best, I think 2e had some rather cool names for the settings.

Take Dark Sun. Compare Wilden - a name that was universally "Wat. Seriously? Wilden?" with Thrikreen - alien and insectoid sounding, without being stupidly over the top. And it's a huge improvement over the adjectivenouns of 4e. Look at the planes. You have The Grey, The Black, and The Hollow. Simple, easy, and damn threatening sounding. Do you want to mess with something that's simply called "The Black" given the chance? How many people would be eagre to venture into "The Hollow?"

Now we have the Shadowfell. Penny Arcade said it better then I could.
Penny Arcade! - In Search Of A Robust Cosmology

I think 4e naming conventions really, really need to be taken behind the barn. Adjectivenoun (or adjectiveprofession for non-monsters!) is one of the dumbest naming conventions ever. Nor does it stop there; no longer do we have elven mithril chainmail or adamantine plate. Make way for "Darkleaf Armor: Darkleaves from the gravetrees of the Shadowfell give this armor its protective properties."

I'm going to type that out again just we can bask in how utterly horrible that was.

Darkleaf Armor: Darkleaves from the gravetrees of the Shadowfell give this armor its protective properties.

 

[Ariosto]

[joke] It could be worse; new D&D names could be invented in German. [/joke]

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

[joke] It could be worse; new D&D names could be invented in German. [/joke]

This ain't Warhammer.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I'm somewhat torn on evocative names in non-setting specific books. Yes, they are neat and all. But... There are downsides, from a mechanical/rules side it can get in the way of easy understanding of the rules and concepts. You see fireball you get a fair idea of what it is, if it is something bizarre you may not. It also plants a setting tone on the mechanics, which can sometimes be harder to scrape off for your own setting then simply basic ones.

If the names are for setting-specific ones, hell yeah go crazy.

 

[Jack7]

It could be worse; new D&D names could be invented in German.

Heiligdeutschenphantasieaufverlorenempostenkampfennamenproblem!!!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thats a nice bit of funny!