[Martial Classes] To Anime, or Not to Anime? That is My Question.

[Tequila Sunrise]

SNIPPED -- In retrospect, my first paragraph was too distracting, so forget it. What I really want to talk about is what to call classes and class organizations in-game:

EDIT: 'Kay, clearly I mangled my question. I'm not asking how to describe powers; I'm asking how best to categorize classes in in-game terms. Like instead of "I'm a fighter," would a PC or NPC say "I'm a protector adept" or "I'm a great bear adept" to identify his skill type and training to other characters in-game? Which sounds better to you?

I also don't like using class titles in-game to describe characters; a 'warlord' is someone who commands a horde of warriors, not someone who can swing a sword and heal; a 'fighter' could be anyone from a farmer with a pitchfork to a famous gladiator, not necessarily someone who can literally pin an enemy down; a 'rogue' is merely an unsavory fellow. With me so far? 'Kay, here comes the question...

As a player, would you rather describe chi adepts with specific and animistic style-traditions that are reminiscent of Lot5R and Saturday morning anime? (Great weapon fighters = bear adepts; archer warlords = eagle adepts; etc.) Or would you prefer more directly descriptive terms? (Fighters = protector adepts; warlords = healer adepts; etc.) Or something else entirely?

(The thread title is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's my way of saying "I'm not trying to create an asian/anime type setting, but I don't have a problem with descriptions reminiscent of those themes.")

 

[Tallifer]

I would prefer "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," "The Promise," "Hero" or "The House of the Flying Daggers." Fantastical but fewer gigantic swords, school girls and panty shots.

 

[Nyronus]

I tend to describe my nearly all Martial epic party in terms of cinematic action, drawing inspiration from swashbuckling and wuxia mostly, and describing their fighting in terms of their character's fighting style. When the Shifter Tempest Fighter lays into an enemy with Rain of Blows he begins hacking into them with an onslaught of slashes, ripping his enemies to pieces, while the Elf Rogue tends to get his "Knockout" and "Stunning Strike" described in terms of a cheap shot of some kind, very often a sucker punch to the throat. The Drow Daggermaster Rogue on the other hand tends to have his manuvers, particularly Path of the Blade, described in terms of weaving and lightning fast bleeding cuts.

I suppouse the Chi-Warrior thing could work, but I figured that was the Monk's schtict.

 

[S'mon]

I'm a bit puzzled by the question, but I think my answer would be that the players should describe their powers however they like.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

'Kay, clearly I mangled my question. I'm not asking how to describe powers; I'm asking how best to categorize classes in in-game terms. Like instead of "I'm a fighter," would a PC or NPC say "I'm a protector adept" or "I'm a great bear adept" to identify his skill type and training to other characters in-game? Which sounds better to you?

 

[OnlineDM]

I don't think characters would label themselves in these ways at all - they would be more likely to talk about what they can do.

"Pleased to meet you - I'm Sven. You'll find that I'm quite handy with a blade or hammer, and I pride myself in protecting my fellow travelers. If we have any trouble, it will have to get through me first. There was this one time..."

"Greetings - yes, I am indeed Melneth the Wise. Oh, you haven't heard of me? Well, I'm not surprised; you don't seem the type to have traveled in the mystic circles where I generally move. Yes, I am indeed a wizard - master of wind and fire."

"Hail and well-met! Annalise at your service. You look like you could use some leadership, and if you're looking for someone to get your troops into shape and keep the folks fighting, you've come to the right elf."

And so on. I do think of a class as "what this character does" but I don't exactly think of it as a "job" like "I'm an architect" or "I'm a web designer" or "I'm a mechanic". Wizards and clerics would probably describe themselves as such, albeit with specific modifiers like "Wizard of the Undying Flame" or "Cleric of Pelor". Same goes for paladins. I could see a bard identifying him or herself as a bard.

Fighters, rogues, rangers... I see them describing the activities they're good at rather than labeling them. I don't see a fighter describing him or herself as a "fighter" a "protector adept" or a "great bear adept" - those all sound rather stilted to my ear.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I don't think characters would label themselves in these ways at all - they would be more likely to talk about what they can do.

Talking descriptively about what you can do is alright for fireside boasting, but IME it really helps to have words for 'professional' situations. If you're talking to an experienced adventurer who's in town to talk business, he doesn't want a wordy explanation of your skill set -- he wants a brief and generally understood term for your skill set. Similarly, in a time-sensitive situation where you need to express what you can do, it really ruins the tension to suddenly start talking about yourself as if you're on an interview.

And I don't think it's unreasonable by RL standards to have generally understood terms for various skill sets. All professions have labels, including 'soldier.' (And then there's all kinds of different types of soldiers...)

Also IME, some role players aren't into the professional monologues -- if they have a choice between "Hi I'm Bob, let me describe my last adventure and what I can do..." and "Hi I'm Bob the Warlord," they'll go with the second one every time. Which is what I want to avoid.

 

[Quickleaf]

Fighter: I am a warrior. I am a knight.
Rogue: I am a man of the world. I am a problem-solver for hire. I represent the Guild.
Ranger: I am a ranger. I am a scout. I am an archer.
Warlord: I am the sheriff here. I am the Kings Marshal in this realm. I am a warrior. I am a knight baronet.
Barbarian: I am X of the Y tribe. I am a warrior.
Druid: I am X of the Y lodge. I am the last Druid of Y.
Shaman: I am a medicine man/woman.
Cleric: I am Father/Mother/Sister/Brother X. I am a monk/friar. I am a humble servant of Y.
Paladin: I am sworn to the Paladins of Y. I am an aspirant of Y. I am a knight. I am a crusader. I am a cavalier/chevalier.
Monk: I am a student of Kung-Fu. I am but a monk.
Mage/Wizard: I am a Mage/Wizard.
Sorcerer: I am a sister/brother of the Northern Flame. I am a pyromancer. I am a geomancer.
Warlock: I am a Mage/Wizard.
Assassin: I am (insert convenient lie).

 

[S'mon]

I concur with OnlineDM and agree with Quickleaf.

"I'm a protector adept" or "I'm a great bear adept" both sound really confusing to me, unless those are recognised institutions in-game. "Great Bear Adept" is fine if it means something like "Adept of the Great Bear fighting style". As generic terms I think they're really poor. Personally I'd cut to the chase: "I'm a Defender!" Or if you like 'adept', how about "I'm a Guardian adept" vs "I'm a Greatweapon adept". Again, personally I would cut out the word 'adept', which I don't think adds any information and has unwelcome connotations in a Western-fantasy game. It makes me think of either sorcery or kung fu.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are only a few classes IMC that call themselves what they are ingame. Invokers - and often the other Divine classes. Vampires. Warlocks (well, they usually don't...) Wizards often do. But Bards, Sorcerors, and Warlocks also call themselves wizards. Or sometimes sorcerors. Or are called witches.