Descriptive vs. Thematic names

[Asmor]

I'm working on an RPG system in which you customize your own class, selecting multiple talent trees.

In brainstorming ideas, I find that I sometimes thing of talent trees based on concept (e.g. witch hunter, paladin) and sometimes based on function (e.g. necromancy, sword-and-board).

I'd like to try and keep things consistent, and in particular I want the talent trees to serve the player's character concept, not the player's character concept to serve the talent trees. So as an example, if someone took the paladin talent tree, I wouldn't want them to feel obligated to concept themselves as a paladin.

On the other hand, themes lend themselves well to esoteric concepts. "Witch hunter" is more intuitive than "Anti-magic Combat."

The one thing I know for sure is that I don't want to mix the two. I don't want someone to be a "Two-Handed Melee/Paladin/Barbarian", but I'd be ok with a "Two-Handed Melee/Holy Combat/Rage" or with a "Warrior/Paladin/Barbarian."

 

[steeldragons]

I'm working on an RPG system in which you customize your own class, selecting multiple talent trees.

In brainstorming ideas, I find that I sometimes thing of talent trees based on concept (e.g. witch hunter, paladin) and sometimes based on function (e.g. necromancy, sword-and-board).

I'd like to try and keep things consistent, and in particular I want the talent trees to serve the player's character concept, not the player's character concept to serve the talent trees. So as an example, if someone took the paladin talent tree, I wouldn't want them to feel obligated to concept themselves as a paladin.

On the other hand, themes lend themselves well to esoteric concepts. "Witch hunter" is more intuitive than "Anti-magic Combat."

The one thing I know for sure is that I don't want to mix the two. I don't want someone to be a "Two-Handed Melee/Paladin/Barbarian", but I'd be ok with a "Two-Handed Melee/Holy Combat/Rage" or with a "Warrior/Paladin/Barbarian."

I agree. You can't "mix them up." If you're devising a "system" you need one or the other.

It sounds to me like you've already decided...To use your example, if you don't want someone modeling a "paladin" as a "paladin" because they take "Paladin" then it seems, you should be using the "Descriptive" as opposed to the "Thematic"...unless I am misunderstanding your concept of each...in which case, reverse it.

The "Holy Avenger" or "Witch Hunter" can be modeled as a paladinic order...or not. This seems to be a much broader, and somewhat appealing for me, take on PC class.

I say, go with the descriptives...of course, that then creates a significantly longer list of options for players...Which is NOT to say it is a bad thing. Just that, then the system should be aimed at much more experienced players that will want/are willing to read through the options.

I might suggest....doing both? Break your Thematics: Warriors, for example (and Mages, Clerics, etc...etc...) into Descriptive "talent trees" as you say.

Off the top of my head...something like this:
Warriors
-Scouts
-Strategists
-Weapon Specialists (swordsmen, spearmen, archers, dual wielders, etc.)
-Witch Hunters
-Savage Battlers

I dunno, something like that. Give an equal number of "talent trees" to each Thematic so players don't feel they are short-changed picking one "type" over another.

Just initial thoughts.

Good luck and happy system-making.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Asmor]

The talent trees are actually already grouped up a bit; the idea was inspired by the MMO Rift. There are going to be 4 broad classes (Warrior, Mage, Cleric, Rogue) (although I may roll cleric and mage together), and each class will have its own list of talent trees to choose from.

 

[steeldragons]

WOW, that reads....um, not gramma friendly.

The above XP ought to read, "Religious organizations of mages is something I like to play with, [see that comma there? very important] myself."

lol.

But sounds cool the way you have it set up already. Follow your gut/instincts.

--SD

 

[Aberzanzorax]

In my opinion, this is a worldbuilding question.

How the game is played and what the world is like should dictate your answer.

If all mages are fairly simliar, or it is meaningful in the world to be a "mage" then go with that name. If there are witches, sorcerors, mages, warlocks, etc., those terms have specific meanings (like to be a warlock you must have utilized the demon part of the tree) then descriptions might be better.

It also depends on how closely you tie the fluff to the crunch. If I can roleplay the paladin class as getting spells from my god, and someone else can roleplay it as being one with nature, I'd say go more descriptive.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Name the classes the way the world's inhabitants would, and you're golden.

Realize, though, that inhabitants of your world may be like us: mixing and matching. Some fighting styles have their names indelibly linked to a region or a founder of a school of training...or some mythological or RW creature. Some magical methods are likewise named.

Hope that helped!