Names of Archetypes Are Important

[doctorbadwolf]

In the game I’m building, there are archetypes, which are level one ability packages that set you on a path.

If you’re a slayer, you have signature skills and traits, attribute bonuses, and skill and trait lists, that lend themselves to playing a hunter and ganker of monsters. If you choose Alchemist, those features will make it very easy to be good at making, performing certain types of rituals, and doing other Alchemist stuff.

The Slayer’s Arsenal doesn’t mean you have to keep taking slayer stuff, it just means you will always be a competent slayer, no matter what you lean into later.


Now, those two archetypes have very easily understood names. That is Name Type One.

Name Type Two is the evocative and mysterious name.

Playing a Benedante means playing someone who has ties to witchcraft, spirits, Night Battles, and Shifters, but whose purpose is to help folks whether they’re Human or Hidden Folk, to keep the balance of the Nine Realms intact, keep the Crossroads safe, and sometimes act as extra-legal arbiters and well, Rangers in the old west sense.

Playing a Bridger means playing something like a witch, a shaman, or a seer. A person who has gone into the spirit world and found a kindred spirit called a Fetch that acts as Familiar and companion. Bridgers are looked to for remedies social and mystical and even medical in some communities, and often wield significant social power.

Anathemir are similar to a D&D warlock without the patron. They’ve sought out or stumbled upon power of a dangerous nature, that others are wise enough to leave alone, and bound it to themselves. What makes a warlock into an Anathemir is the choice to use that power to fight the Anathema that others use the same power to summon and control.

So the questions I have for you, fellow forumers, are these:

1. Do you think it works to have a mix of name types, like above, or do you think a game should name all classes/archetypes in the same general style?
2. Do you prefer one style over the other? Curious both about when you’re reading someone else’s work and about what you prefer when creating.
3. What’s a better name for a diplomat class than Diplomat!?

 

[Tutara]

1. I think you need to commit to one style or the other. I personally like the sense of unity if there is an overall naming asthetic that makes me feel that all these different classes are part of the same setting/system. Having a 'fighter' as an option next to a 'godseeker' seems incongruous. One or the other, please!
2. I prefer evocative names in the games I play, but probably because I prefer games that are tied to a specific world or mythos rather than more generic fantasy fare. In Heart, for example, you play as Hounds, Junk Mages and Deep Apiarists - in Blades in the Dark, you are Leeches, Cutters and Lurks. It works because the system is the setting, in many ways. You aren't playing a generic Alchemist, you're playing a sleazy backstreets saboteur/poisoner/dabbler-in-the-occult. My own Blades hacks have veered more generic (The Heavy, The Mystic, The Sleuth) but this is because I was using a (slightly) more realistic 1930's setting than Doskvol, and even then all the names are things that crop up in pulp noir - so I suppose I do still have evocative names, in a sense.
3. Diplomat is an excellent name for a diplomat! I feel you could grab a thesaurus and find a synonym, but if the name makes sense, the name makes sense. If this is to blend with your existing examples, then you might want to make up some sort of faux-latin title so it fits with the others, though. Is it a diplomat in the traditional sense of a government or organisational representative, or is it just someone who talks good?
   

 

[payn]

So the questions I have for you, fellow forumers, are these:

1. Do you think it works to have a mix of name types, like above, or do you think a game should name all classes/archetypes in the same general style?

For the style guide lover in me, I like them both, but not mixed.

1. Do you prefer one style over the other? Curious both about when you’re reading someone else’s work and about what you prefer when creating.

I dont have a preference, but I dont like the mix as stated. Thinking further on it, I wouldnt mind a simple begining level one category like mage, preist, martial, expert. Then, having prestige classes or specificities that you move into later on in the game that have the more exotic and evocative titles like Benedante. If I was going to mix, thats how I would do it.

1. What’s a better name for a diplomat class than Diplomat!?

Ambassador, Envoy, Emissary

 

[Panzeh]

Personally, I find weird "evocative" names for archetypes to just muddle the issue a lot and make it difficult for someone not immersed in the world already. I can see the appeal for someone who is, though.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

1. I think you need to commit to one style or the other. I personally like the sense of unity if there is an overall naming asthetic that makes me feel that all these different classes are part of the same setting/system. Having a 'fighter' as an option next to a 'godseeker' seems incongruous. One or the other, please!

Yeah I’m seeing this sentiment a lot.

1. I prefer evocative names in the games I play, but probably because I prefer games that are tied to a specific world or mythos rather than more generic fantasy fare. In Heart, for example, you play as Hounds, Junk Mages and Deep Apiarists - in Blades in the Dark, you are Leeches, Cutters and Lurks. It works because the system is the setting, in many ways. You aren't playing a generic Alchemist, you're playing a sleazy backstreets saboteur/poisoner/dabbler-in-the-occult. My own Blades hacks have veered more generic (The Heavy, The Mystic, The Sleuth) but this is because I was using a (slightly) more realistic 1930's setting than Doskvol, and even then all the names are things that crop up in pulp noir - so I suppose I do still have evocative names, in a sense.
2. Diplomat is an excellent name for a diplomat! I feel you could grab a thesaurus and find a synonym, but if the name makes sense, the name makes sense. If this is to blend with your existing examples, then you might want to make up some sort of faux-latin title so it fits with the others, though. Is it a diplomat in the traditional sense of a government or organisational representative, or is it just someone who talks good?

Neither, actually. It’s a diplomat in the sense of being someone who can be called upon within a community to help multiple parties navigate a complicated situation, figure out how to get the Troll King to patrol his reach of the Wooded Lands without demanding undue tribute, de-escalate a heated situation, etc. Something like a historical

I originally called them Bards, leaning on especially Brithonic Celtic history where Bards were sometimes law keepers and solicitors, in addition to everything else.

I think I want every archetype in my game to have a little more identity than “the face”, because the game does assume the PCs are “rangers”, which are simply the good guy “get stuff done” fixers of the hidden world. I’ll probably change Alchemist to Hermeticist to reflect that it isn’t just a magical scientist but is also a ritual mystic and philosopher, for instance.

 

[GMMichael]

Do you think it works to have a mix of name types, like above, or do you think a game should name all classes/archetypes in the same general style?

Name Type Two implies in-game usage, which is fine if those are acceptable or encouraged for in-game use.

What’s a better name for a diplomat class than Diplomat!?

Liar? Envoy. Big Man. Shaman. Sage.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I prefer the more evocative names, even if they require a little more explanation after to really understand their purpose.

As for the Diplomat, I'd go for Herald for a simple name, or for the more complex names:

• Forthcaller
• Bannertongue
• Peacespinner

 

[aco175]

I find descriptive names better to play the game and evocative names better for the flavor of the game. I'm reminded of some of the old Forgotten Realm (FR) stuff on gods. They all had clerics, but each god had a name for their cleric. I find that the player would be best to have the cool name and the DM stick to the vanilla.

 

[Autumnal]

I find descriptive names better to play the game and evocative names better for the flavor of the game. I'm reminded of some of the old Forgotten Realm (FR) stuff on gods. They all had clerics, but each god had a name for their cleric. I find that the player would be best to have the cool name and the DM stick to the vanilla.

I hadn’t thought about it, but I like this two-level usage too. And I would prefer the names on each level to all be of the same type.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think I prefer evocative names, but I haven’t tried yet to switch every archetype in a project into such names.

There is a point where it’s better to have a boring name than a crappy one that can’t even pronounce!