Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shazbot]

The randomly generated last names are an opportunity to communicate meaningful information to the player, but at present this is wasted by RNG-depth.

I hate being unable to easily identify families without digging into sub-screens, legends exports and external utilities. In the real world this was solved with last names and "son of" surnames, yet here all last names are randomly generated at birth. A package of tokens and associated behaviors could solve this.

Just spitballing here.

Caste tokens:
[GIVE_LASTNAME] Applied, for example, to the human male caste to give their last name to spouses and children.
[TAKE_SPOUSE_LASTNAME] Applied, for example, to the human female caste so that they take their husband's last name.
[INHERIT_LASTNAME] Children take their parent's name.
[NO_LASTNAME] Designates a caste which doesn't warrant a last name, or perhaps dragons all think one name is enough.
[NOTEWORTHY_LASTNAME] Individuals who accomplish some heroic historical deed can assume a new last name, possibly drawn from words associated to the deed. Thorin Oakenshield is a literary example, but we may see an artifact-maker name himself Urist Floodgateforges and passes this on to his offspring, founding a new lineage. Noteworthy lastnames may, with the [GIVE_LASTNAME] tag, go on to spouses and children with [TAKE_SPOUSE_LASTNAME] or [INHERIT_LASTNAME]. Adult children will not change names.

Additional development of family units could include families sharing room ownership beyond spouses sharing a bed to include such things as extended families sharing little complexes inside your forts, and being able to view family trees rather than abstract lines of who's-who's cousin.

Later comments added to the OP.

There are 2,325 words in [DWARF] so I presume first names are drawn from a more limited number of the total words. Otherwise GoblinCookie's concern seems be entirely moot.

Having 2,325 first names would mean any duplicate first names in a fortress of 200 isn't that much of an issue. Either way, duplicate first names are relatively uncommon and even duplicate first names and last names from whatever family relationship will still have each dwarf running the gamut of possible profession names.

I suppose it is a question of each name being one of (3x2325)12,568,078,125 nonsense strings, or 2,325 possible first names and a finite number of family names which can become familiar to the player. This is the so-and-so clan over here, that's the so-and-so clan over there, I see the mayor's office went from one family to the other, etc. Right now you have to break out a microscope to see through the clutter of nonsense last names to discover these story elements, and there is really no need for it to exist this way.

Complexity =/= Depth. If you can't see the depth for the complexity or are mired in interface and third party utilities to sort through it, that depth is functionally meaningless. For example, I didn't notice my chief medical dwarf was the wife of my dying, bed-ridden speardwarf until after he died and I got the emotional shock notice from his death, cheating me from the tension of the surgery scene and only being told how tragic it was after the fact.

Add to this the first generation of worldgen not inheriting last names and we have a formula for a lot of lineages being created in even a young world. Then add great heroes, craftsmen, kings and necromancers making their own last names. This makes storytelling easier as family relations are drawn to the forefront, being quite possibly the first detail a player or adventurer might notice. Oh look, a mercenary to hire. Urist McDragonslayer, son of Lobok McDragonslayer, son of Rovod McDragonslayer, who slew the dragon Golddevours in the year 23. I bet this guy is ready to live up to his line.

And it can add the life goal of "Make a name for oneself" among the glory-seeking.

This adds so much. What's the occasional reused name on forgettable background characters?

Starver, what I suggest allows for a lot of customization and tailoring to the individual so I think this is compatible. Notably, [TAKE_SPOUSE_LASTNAME] could just as easily be given to the male caste instead of the female caste.

I would not, however, have these systems procedurally generated when they could be defined by raw tokens, unless one raw token is to procedurally generate a system. Pleasing everyone in a game this easily modded is fairly simple; don't hard-code.

In fact, GoblinCookie really considers this a step backwards, there's always [RANDOM_LASTNAME] on his dwarf castes. There, we all get what we want.

[GoblinCookie]

Everyone in the same civilization is related to everyone else very closely.  There really are not very many distinct families to actually keep track of, it only really matters in relation to artefacts in which case you just go around the government officials until you find someone of the right family, since pretty much everyone with a family is a government official. 

Randomly generated last names is actually useful because it allows us to keep track of individuals that have the same first name, of which there are a large number, since you will essentially never end up with the same combination of random words combined with the same first name.  Replacing that system with family names is actually a step backwards. 

[Shazbot]

That single concern doesn't seem terribly insurmountable.


Last name inheritance could exclude the first generation of worldgen, creating a massive number of first INITIAL FAMILY names.
A marriage could generate a new last name if the couple has low tradition values.
Larger initial civilization populations would begin with a larger pool of names.
Repeating first names in the same family means Urist McUrist may beget an Urist McUrist II.
Duplicated first names generate middle names.
The pool of first names could be expanded.


All of these produce something other than Random McRandomRandom, which as a name is as functional as a hex string. It is a unique identifier, but otherwise meaningless. Replacing randomness with meaningful systems is never a step backwards.

[KittyTac]

To expand the pool of first names, the number of language words would have to be expanded too, because all name components are language words. Urist means dagger, for example.

[Starver]

It's a subject been mentioned before. (And will be again.)

I like that there is no inherent patronymy (nor assumed matronymy, if switched the other way) as it implies an equality. Older suggestions of Mothername RandomLastname and Fathername AlsoWhatever begetting Urist MothernameFathername (or FathernameMothername, perhaps either) goes some way towards the "they all have beards, who really cares except themselves?" life as exemplified in the Discworld Dwarf model.


To develop the option given above, maybe a variation of the Icelandic system (Urist Uristson/Uristdaughter), the Russian one of Urist "Uristevich" Uristova (either already a manual option via nickname handling, but if you use nicknames like me they would get in the way of using them as job-management hints) or clannish (Urist McUrist, Urist O'Urist, Urist ap Urist) so that it might last across generations and even be taken up sideways to cover a wider familial/allied gathering under the clan-chief umbrella.  But in all cases the parental/ancestrsl Urist here is maybe not fixed to being the father (only the mother in rare exceptions), it's based off of some form of relative significance assessment.

The Roman system is another alternative. It is "Praenomen Nomen Cognomen" at its common core, added to, changed and bulked out as family and political acts of clientage (plus personal achievements) change the situation) and a version could already be adapted. Maybe little baby Urist is forevermore Urist X Y, with X mostly fixed as the significant family(/ies) featuring in their parentage at birth (master/apprentice relations could give rise to changes?) and Y being a nickname (based on personal factors that always has an option to change). To aid with uniqueness, the changable elements should purposefully avoid repeating other (known) character names. Defintely current and present, perhaps old (but since changed) and off-site too.

To aid in this, parents stsrt off by being unable to name subsequent kids the same name (to avoid the need to stsrt off with a baby cognomen equivelent to "Secundus" just to tell Urist McUrist Septus from Urist McUrist Primus, Urist McUrist Secundus, etc) and "Urist son-of-Urist, the Dagger" would probably be wise to keep away from, on thr basis that informal name use might casually omit any of the three "Urist"s that form that name and confuse with other formatiins that degrade to "Urist Urist" through similar omission.


But no single system will please everyone. I actually suggest that there should be multiple options, procedurally chosen between. Your civilisation might go with "Popularname Birthname Descendencename (player-given Nickname)" or "Birthname Mother'snameFather'sname (pgNickname)" or "pgNickname Descencencename Popularname", depending on the possible worldgen choices made available in cultural/civilisation settings. Other-civ immigrants who petition for.citizenship should perhaps readopt (or re-present, as their current but acceptibly temporry form) their new home's methodology, digging deep into their origin story if they need to add in the patronymic they never previously used (or going for the "You know nothing Urist Snow!" placeholder option).


Complex though. If it's not already hidden somewhere in there as a development goal then I'm sure it could be, as a major part of flavour development that coud takr some time. (And something tells me that it's something that Threetoe might be more important in the envisaging than Toady, to avoid distracting from some of the current goal developments that are already in the coding pipeline.)

[Shazbot]

There are 2,325 words in [DWARF] so I presume first names are drawn from a more limited number of the total words. Otherwise GoblinCookie's concern seems be entirely moot.

Having 2,325 first names would mean any duplicate first names in a fortress of 200 isn't that much of an issue. Either way, duplicate first names are relatively uncommon and even duplicate first names and last names from whatever family relationship will still have each dwarf running the gamut of possible profession names.

I suppose it is a question of each name being one of (3x2325)12,568,078,125 nonsense strings, or 2,325 possible first names and a finite number of family names which can become familiar to the player. This is the so-and-so clan over here, that's the so-and-so clan over there, I see the mayor's office went from one family to the other, etc. Right now you have to break out a microscope to see through the clutter of nonsense last names to discover these story elements, and there is really no need for it to exist this way.

Complexity =/= Depth. If you can't see the depth for the complexity or are mired in interface and third party utilities to sort through it, that depth is functionally meaningless. For example, I didn't notice my chief medical dwarf was the wife of my dying, bed-ridden speardwarf until after he died and I got the emotional shock notice from his death, cheating me from the tension of the surgery scene and only being told how tragic it was after the fact.

Add to this the first generation of worldgen not inheriting last names and we have a formula for a lot of lineages being created in even a young world. Then add great heroes, craftsmen, kings and necromancers making their own last names. This makes storytelling easier as family relations are drawn to the forefront, being quite possibly the first detail a player or adventurer might notice. Oh look, a mercenary to hire. Urist McDragonslayer, son of Lobok McDragonslayer, son of Rovod McDragonslayer, who slew the dragon Golddevours in the year 23. I bet this guy is ready to live up to his line.

And it can add the life goal of "Make a name for oneself" among the glory-seeking.

This adds so much. What's the occasional reused name on forgettable background characters?

[Shazbot]

Starver, what I suggest allows for a lot of customization and tailoring to the individual so I think this is compatible. Notably, [TAKE_SPOUSE_LASTNAME] could just as easily be given to the male caste instead of the female caste.

I would not, however, have these systems procedurally generated when they could be defined by raw tokens, unless one raw token is to procedurally generate a system. Pleasing everyone in a game this easily modded is fairly simple; don't hard-code.

In fact, GoblinCookie really considers this a step backwards, there's always [RANDOM_LASTNAME] on his dwarf castes. There, we all get what we want.

[Starver]

Having 2,325 first names would mean any duplicate first names in a fortress of 200 isn't that much of an issue. Either way, duplicate first names are relatively uncommon and even duplicate first names and last names from whatever family relationship will still have each dwarf running the gamut of possible profession names.

A mere 56 dwarves with a random choice of 2325 first names have better than evens chance of at least two sharing a first name, it seems.  (Twice-)random second names squish that chance astronomically.  Less random follow-ons (familial names, shared, even with additional profession names from a smaller pool) might not be quite so insulating from the Birthday Paradox as it applies here.

(Missed your next post, momentarily. Editing in a reply to that...)
I was thinking of raw-guided options for procedural generation. Maybe even with an INIT setting to ignore this flavour or always default to a given formatting (like the nickname-use setting currently there).

That way, if you feel very strongly that there should be matrilineal naming you can enforce it by init editing, if you're wanting a  gender-line nominative (but either gender, no preference) or something that specifically reflects the reason for fame of the most notable ancestor or mentor then remove the options that don't support this from the raws. If you're happy to be surprised, it consfructs any one of the various multitude of options for each group-entity it coallesces.


But I think this "don't hard code" option is too flexible a system for your liking, as you put it. Which is why it'll need a saner design hand than mine to work out how far we should go with this.

[Shazbot]

Fifty-six real world people from the same culture are likely to have a duplicate name as well, but a few duplicate names aren't enough to be a serious problem in fortress mode. Making their last names more noteworthy and less random may help some users like me.

Anyway, hard-coding seems to have gone away over the years in favor of increasingly detailed raw files and tokens. Even basic name inheritance in one release, added via caste raws, can be just the start of increasing complexity rolled out over successive versions.

[Starver]

I wrote something about reality being less than random¹ (and randomness being less than real) but the post got eaten by a combination of browser/user idiocy whilst putting it together. This is a mini version of it.

In a small group of people I meet with IRL (maybe a dozen regular attendees, mostly male some female) there are three Johns and two Daves, because there's not much social variation. There's even surname-matches (one pair of siblings, for which we can be glad of their parents not naming them identically, but all the rest are not obviously related, they're just culturally common surnames), but chance (and those wise parents!) dodged full-name collisions. In a very small group of people, some of whom already had much less chance of being called John than Jane.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I also found via browsing a Google summary that the US census identified 5,163 first names in common(?) use, while a different report says ~650,000 first names cover 90% of people across the worldwide Anglosphere. No idea if they each accounted for "Stephen"/"Steven" duplication (and "Steve") and and that'd be two distinct groups mashed together, male names and female ones (with "Stevie" sitting astride, as it might also arise for an original "Stephanie").

And yet IRL confusions potentially abound. The third guy aboard Apollo 11 (who didn't even get to go down to the Moon) is famously unfamous to the extent that he isn't even considered the most famous person with his name. You go around the Moon, being the most significant single person in space at that point (and only having one single handful of people repeat this feat, after you, most of whom most poeple would similarly struggle to recall) and yet he's ended up the Zeppo (or Gummo) Marx, that one of the seven Dwarfs who you always forget (you remembered Doc, right? So it's an adjective you're looking for...) or one or other of the David Mitchells you might have mistaken as being someone else before better context makes clear where the current conversation is actually going.

I'm not averse to helping "users like you", though I'm not entirely sure I found out what the problem was that you can't easily solve by using the editable part of Firstname "Nickname" LastName format already available. (If there's not already a DFHack plugin able to autopopulate nicknames on arbitrarily configurable details such as parentage, I'm sure someone could rustle one up to your specs as a trial basis.) I'm just saying that distinguishing between dorfs is easier without restricting the randomness, and grouping the dorfs by sub-clan is already feasible without adding too much difficulty or unanticipated confusion.

More noteworthiness and less randomness would promote duplication, without coding additionally coded protections against chance collisions. Which is where I'm not sure I know what your aim actually is.

I'm happy to suggest a wide range of ideas, some (probably not all) might be usefully integrated. Consider it like the shelves of a Bric-A-Brac shop, loads of junk all over the place with maybe a gem of an item in there, somewhere, if you have time to rummage. And if you don't... no worries.



¹ https://www.name-generator.org.uk/quick/

Spoiler: 56 male names (the sorted version, thankfully still in my paste buffer) (click to show/hide)

Abul Huber
Alasdair Tran
Aled Snider
Alexandru Perez
Amos Wilkerson
Ansh Clements
Artur Duggan
Azaan Rose
Bo Mathis
Bodhi Huff
Buddy Walker
Carlos Senior
Carson Reyna
Cassandra Vincent
Corey Crawford
Dara Lynn
Edison Morin
Eesa Santana
Elias Howell
Fallon Gutierrez
Fergus Chapman
Frank Kearns
Harun Clarkson
Hughie Bernard
Idrees Ahmad
Ishaaq Bloom
Jai Stone
John-Paul Vo
Jon Weeks
Jonathan Morton
Kasey Mcdonnell
Kofi Pike
Lewis Cannon
Lochlan Mack
Maddy Bonilla
Magnus Archer
Marissa Lang
Nathanial Wu
Ned Wagstaff
Orion Hopkins
Pablo Rogers
Reginald Lacey
Reis Lennon
Reiss Tanner
Roman Beach
Tahmid Rasmussen
Theodore Travis
Thomas Chan
Trinity Goldsmith
Tye Irvine
Tyrese Allan
Usmaan Caldwell
Vivian Leblanc
Waqas Landry
Xander Wyatt
Zavier Farrow

Bo/Bodhi clash a bit. Jean-Paul/Jon/Jonathan do too, as do Reis and Reiss. (This was my first list produced, the next three had barely any collisions, but that was just for my curiosity and could be considered to be cherry-picking by ignoring the first. All the versions sorted by surname revealed no significant collisions, and all full names miss completely because of that.
The first "56 unisex names" attempt popped up "Tegan" and "Teegan" (and a "Regan"), which also ended up being an anomoly (probably a smaller set to choose from, yet still what are the chances?), but I'm not even sure how accurate their actual gender-classifications actually are in this case given some of the 'male' names it sent me. Or maybe there are some weird "Boy named Sue" parents out there.

[Dorsidwarf]

I think this suggestion is really neat, but just a few points:

Wouldn’t it make more sense for civilisations to have some influence on naming schemes, rather than being solely species - based?

And a sub suggestion: Perhaps if a creatures parents have a very low Traditionalist attribute, there’s a chance they might get a first name  from a different language list?

[GoblinCookie]

That single concern doesn't seem terribly insurmountable.


Last name inheritance could exclude the first generation of worldgen, creating a massive number of first names.
A marriage could generate a new last name if the couple has low tradition values.
Larger initial civilization populations would begin with a larger pool of names.
Repeating first names in the same family means Urist McUrist may beget an Urist McUrist II.
Duplicated first names generate middle names.
The pool of first names could be expanded.


All of these produce something other than Random McRandomRandom, which as a name is as functional as a hex string. It is a unique identifier, but otherwise meaningless. Replacing randomness with meaningful systems is never a step backwards.

I don't think you understand the problem.  There are only a small number of starting historical characters per civilization and all other historical characters are descended from those few people.  That means we will end up with everyone having one of about four surnames, which in turn means that the surnames no longer reveal anything about what family anyone actually belongs too.

If the surnames do not reveal anything about the family relationships of the character, then why bother with surnames at all?  It is better to use a second random string combination to identify the family relationships, after the first random string that reliably identifies the individual.  Your kind of ideas, while historically grounded are greatly inferior to this system, since any surname system leads to constant duplication given the realities of DF historical figure scarcity.

Yes you could increase the number of first names to a vast number.  That however is just creating a solution to a problem that you did not need to introduce in the first place. 

[Bumber]

Having 2,325 first names would mean any duplicate first names in a fortress of 200 isn't that much of an issue. Either way, duplicate first names are relatively uncommon and even duplicate first names and last names from whatever family relationship will still have each dwarf running the gamut of possible profession names.

It sounds fine until you realize all the historical figures outside of your fort are actually relevant. Child kidnapped? Good luck locating the right dwarf. Want to commission a statue of Urist Bravehammer? He's got dozens of relatives (living and dead) sharing his name.

[Shazbot]

That single concern doesn't seem terribly insurmountable.


Last name inheritance could exclude the first generation of worldgen, creating a massive number of first names.
A marriage could generate a new last name if the couple has low tradition values.
Larger initial civilization populations would begin with a larger pool of names.
Repeating first names in the same family means Urist McUrist may beget an Urist McUrist II.
Duplicated first names generate middle names.
The pool of first names could be expanded.


All of these produce something other than Random McRandomRandom, which as a name is as functional as a hex string. It is a unique identifier, but otherwise meaningless. Replacing randomness with meaningful systems is never a step backwards.

I don't think you understand the problem.  There are only a small number of starting historical characters per civilization and all other historical characters are descended from those few people.  That means we will end up with everyone having one of about four surnames, which in turn means that the surnames no longer reveal anything about what family anyone actually belongs too.

If the surnames do not reveal anything about the family relationships of the character, then why bother with surnames at all?  It is better to use a second random string combination to identify the family relationships, after the first random string that reliably identifies the individual.  Your kind of ideas, while historically grounded are greatly inferior to this system, since any surname system leads to constant duplication given the realities of DF historical figure scarcity.

Yes you could increase the number of first names to a vast number.  That however is just creating a solution to a problem that you did not need to introduce in the first place. 

You raised a concern, I put forward six adaptations to the proposal, and you have made no reference to my ideas save to say they are greatly inferior.

The initial site population yields four last names due to four surviving married couples? Fine. Accepting this premise, how many children will each lineage have? 2,325? If last names cull from pre-existing names you have some nine-thousand unique names of living dwarves in a given civilization. This presumes no new last names are generated through heroic deeds, artifact generation, or becoming a noble. If we say one in one hundred dwarves make a new name for themselves, we have every generation in a 10,000 dwarf civilization opening 100 new clan names and open slots for another 2,325 unique names.

Furthermore, the primary fix for your concern, which I put in boldface, was that the first generation of worldgen children generate their own random names. This could be extended to the entire first age of the world if needed, but considering that each married couple can generate over a dozen children any given civilization from year one until the death of the initial pairs would have new names generated for the initial century or two. This is enough time in worldgen to form whole civilizations of children from the first few entities.

Combine this with some portion of entities generating names throughout worldgen and there is really no shortage of identifiers for adventure or fortress mode.

Caste tokens seem better for granting certain naming rules based on gender. The civ entity tokens seem too broad-brushed.

[SixOfSpades]

I think it's time to give my own name proposal another mention.
1. Every newborn's first name is randomly chosen, from the pool of names NOT being used by other people in the fort (or, during worldgen, by other historical figures in the civ).
2. Every newborn's second name (that is, the 1st half of their last name) is the first name of their elder parent. Those who are born without parents (i.e., those who were the first of their kind) have no second name.
3. Every newborn's third name (the 2nd half of their last name) depends on gender: Boys take the third name of their paternal grandfather, girls take the third name of their maternal grandmother. Those who are born without grandparents (those who were the first of their kind, and their 1st generation of descendants) have no third name. The 2nd generation of descendants take their grandparents' first (only) names as their third names.

Benefits of this system:
1. Duplicate 1st names would be far more rare
2. Siblings would all have the same 2nd name, which would also identify one of their parents
3. The number of 3rd (ancestral) names would be doubled, as both the male and female lineages are traced equally
4. The first of their kind are honored for as long as their line continues unbroken
5. Duplicate last (combined 2nd & 3rd) names would be far more rare, as the 2nd name changes with every generation
6. It's very easy for the game to calculate.

Drawbacks of the system:
1. Ancestral lineages will break if a father has only daughters, or a mother only sons.

Of course, I am also a firm proponent of the idea that dwarves who accomplish great deeds (exceptional success in battle, constructing an artifact, etc.) should be able to change their names, especially if their lineage is already well-represented, and/or they have an ancestor whose broken lineage they wish to revive.

You raised a concern, I put forward six adaptations to the proposal, and you have made no reference to my ideas save to say they are greatly inferior.

Be cautious when arguing with GoblinCookie. In my dealings with him, I find he tends to go off on long-winded tangents that are only obliquely related to the actual topic.

. . . even duplicate first names and last names from whatever family relationship will still have each dwarf running the gamut of possible profession names.

It sounds fine until you realize all the historical figures outside of your fort are actually relevant. Child kidnapped? Good luck locating the right dwarf. Want to commission a statue of Urist Bravehammer? He's got dozens of relatives (living and dead) sharing his name.

Any dwarf worth making a statue of will be almost certain to have a combat nickname, "maker of" moniker, and/or noble title. Combined with the profession name, that reduces the chances of identity match to close to 0%. As for kidnapped dwarves, their names should be unknown anyway--it's not like the goblins publish lists of who they've taken, and those stolen as babies should never even have learned their birth names at all.