How many names does Wizards have in them?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on June 10, 2023, 7:15 a.m. by Niko9
I don't really mean this as a serious topic or anything, but really, character names are hard and with the sheer amount of legendary creatures that are coming out now, how long do you think before they really start to just run out of names? Maybe they'll never truly run out of names, but the amount of decent sounding character names is definitely finite, so how many sets and how many secret lairs will it be before they end up with Shluub the Mubbler or Glorplox, Barbarian Person?
Or maybe just card names in general too. There really is just only so much you can do, and we've already gotten to things like Professional Face-Breaker which is, I don't know, ironically way too on the nose : ) (not to mention just a really awkward - in a word)
What do you all think? Does Wizards have another 10 years of good names for legendary creatures and cards in general or are we in for some real word soup here pretty soon?
Realistically, never. There are hundreds of thousands of real world first names recorded - though granted a lot of these would be spelling variations (Peter vs Pytor; all the myriad spellings of Mohammed; Katherine vs. Catherine; etc.).
And they are not just limited to real world names - they can make up names as they wish.
Let’s say a pronounceable name would be either three, four, five, or six letters long, and is made of a series of pairs of vowel and consonant, with five-letter words ending in either a vowel or consonant. This is obviously not how names work, there are plenty of pronounceable names which do not involve alternating letters. That’s irrelevant - this is an illustration to show just how big the possibilities are.
There are six vowels (including Y) and twenty consonants. That means each pair of letters multiplies our pronounceable names by one hundred twenty (6 x 20 = 120).
For three letter names, we have 3,120 options. For four letter names, we get 14,400 pronounceable names (120^2). For five letter names, we get 374,000 options (120^2x26) For six letter names, we get 1,728,000 (120^3). That’s 2,119,520 total four and six letter names produced just using a very limited metric for name generation.
Wizards could make a unique legendary creature every single day of every single year, just using this metric of making names, and they would be able to name comfortably pronounceable legendary creatures for approximately 5,806 years.
What if we increase to add more letters? Seven and eight letter names are fairly common in the real world and are easy enough to pronounce. Seven adds 44,928,000 names to our list. Eight adds an additional 207,360,000. Now we are looking at 213,972,320 options, or ~586,226 years of names--daily names for longer than human existence.
Now, I am sure many of those might not be considered "decent"--but they would still be pronounceable, and anything pronounceable will sound "decent" to someone in a fantasy setting (Shluub and Glorpox, your stated examples for unacceptable names, for example, I could both see fitting in very well as MTG names).
Just for fun, what if we remove any semblance of reasonability and just go with "maybe pronounceable under this consonant and vowel formula.
The longest legendary name in Magic is thirty-one letters long - Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar. There are also two-letter names. So, let's apply our vowel alternating to every possible creature name between two and thirty-one.
Our formula is: Names = 120 + 120x26 + 120^2 + 120^2x26 + 120^3 + 120^3x26 + 120^4 + 120^4x26 + 120^5 + 120^5x26 + 120^6 + 120^6x26 + 120^7 + 120^7x26 + 120^8 + 120^8x26 + 120^9 + 120^9x26 + 120^10 + 120^10x26 + 120^11 + 120^11x26 + 120^12 + 120^12x26 + 120^13 + 120^13x26 + 120^14 + 120^14x26 + 120^15 + 120^15x26
We are looking at 4.1948529329125909512605042016804 x 10^32 names. Wizards could print cards using this naming convention for the next 1,149,274,776,140,435,877,057,672,384,022 years--1.5 Nonillion years--that's approximately 83,280,780,879,741,730,221 times longer than the current age of the universe!
June 10, 2023 12:23 p.m. Edited.
Caerwyn That's a very logical and precise argument, an I can't really fault it any : ) You're absolutely right that there is no end to possible words, and that names are especially objective, but I'd just argue that from a creative standpoint, we're probably already swimming in the bottom half of the quality of card names. Just looking at Phyrexia all will be one, there is a noticable difference (at least to me!) in old vs new names. Drivnod just doesn't sound as good as Vorinclex, same with Tekuthal and Vraska or Mondrak and Elesh Norn. If you were writing a story, some of those would be first choices and some would be second choices, for sure.
And, I'm not sure if it's a perfect analogy, but I think about it in terms of player names in an online video game. It's a much larger pool, but realistically, when's the last time you saw a really good name, or what percent of players is that? Still given an almost infinite combination of letters and sounds, we've gotten to a place where 90% of names are random or just the first thing that somebody thought of once. I mean, people are not exactly shooting for the same quality there, so it's not completely fair, but if we are saying that Wizards could explore the vast depths of possible words, remember just how many of those are unusable, gross, or if nothing else, just how many are somebody somewhere saying, whatever it's good enough.
June 12, 2023 8:27 a.m.
Niko9 - That noticeable difference in quality between Old and New is due to familiarity and nostalgia. I would be willing to bet that, had the naming been reversed, your post would have read “Vorinclex just doesn't sound as good as Drivnod.” Recall, we have been familiar with the name Vorinclex for a decade now - it is something we are familiar with and know quite well.
Further, Vorinclex benefited from his station - he was one of the primary antagonists, instead of merely a secondary legendary creature in a set. That gives him an instant boost to his familiarity and acceptance of his name - it is a name you try to remember due to its plot relevance, a name you’ll hear people talk about, a name you associate with power and thus accept must have a powerful name.
But time, familiarity, and our subconscious desire to accept important characters as having important, good names are all outside factors. Let’s look just at the names, with a level of objectivity:
- Vorinclex sits at three syllables - that’s on the high end of comfortably pronounceable names, but still within the margins. Each syllable is clearly spelled out in the word, so Vor-In-Clex is easy enough to read and say. It also has an X in it - studies have shown the rarity and novelty of the letter X cause individuals to ascribe greater value to words which successfully utilise it.
Drivnod comes in at a comfortable, easy to remember two syllables, both of which are also easily defined by the spelling. It does not have the linguistically exotic X as Vorinclex, but it has something arguably better - “nod” is a throwback to the popular character Ashnod, helping to create the idea of a shared linguistic universe within the world.
When external factors are removed, I think it is fair to say both are comparably equal names, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. We might believe one is better than others, but that is coming more from our other preconceived notions, not a “Wizards is running out of good names” problem.
June 12, 2023 9:29 a.m.
This might just me imposing patterns where there isn't any, but as far as names go, they seem to have less implied meaning. For Drivnod vs. Vorinclex, Vorinclex starts off with the -vor- "eater" root, suggesting a destructive force--voracious, omnivore, etc. Drivnod doesn't have that linguistic connection, instead suggesting something like drip or drivel, with the harsher -nod just kind of there to be harsh.
To go into Ravnica, Rakdos is a harsher variation of the word rictus, Golgari can be seen as Golgotha + Calvary, Azorius is a Latin variant of azure. The names there are inspired by Slavic languages, heavy on Vs and Ks.
Names like Mondrak and Tekuthal are simply collections of harsh syllables. They're appropriately dissonant, but not really evocative. Mondrak could be based off mundus "world", but that doesn't carry through to the others.
As far as non-legendary cards, there are lots of names they haven't used yet. Personally, I was surprised that the name Reprieve hadn't been used in Stronghold or Weatherlight or something. The words "disguise," "lambent," "accident," and "regret" have not appeared on any paper cards (Geist of Regret is an Alchemy card, and Guise of Fire and Auramancer's Guise come close), and I'll bet you can come up with at least a color and basic effect for a card with each of those words. Also, tone is important. Professional Face-Breaker comes from a plane inspired by a slang-heavy culture with a "work hard and play hard" ethos, so the name's going to be a little more casual and direct than a card from a more ceremonial plane where formality is important.
June 12, 2023 12:43 p.m.
legendofa That's a great explanation, and I think it's so true that names being evocative of character traits paints a maybe small part of things, but a part none the less. If you showed someone art of Vorinclex, Rakdos, and Slimefoot (which, slimes aren't fungi but that's a whole other can of worms maybe), and said these are their first names, which is which, most people would go 3/3. If you did the same with Drivnod, Mondrak, and Tekuthal you'd get nothing.
Is it really a big deal, nope : ) But is it just nostalgia creating a subconscious bias? I think also kinda nope.
And that's really true on professional face-breaker. It's really not that bad, and I can see it just being more of a personal dislike on my part. To me it just feels rough drafty, and that's not the worst thing ever.
DrukenReaps says... #2
I don't think there's an "end" really to names and such that fit into mtg in one way or another. Then again I don't find Face-Breaker awkward, different folks will differ on what's "acceptable" in mtg. Fblthp, the Lost is arguably word soup but through lore and creativity he fits.
There is going to be cringe printed, Maro is also the nickname of Mark Rosewater.... Tell me he didn't print himself lol. Which maybe he didn't but it's still there.
June 10, 2023 10:20 a.m.