Names of Archetypes Are Important

[aramis erak]

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!?

(1) I prefer all of them to use one scheme, and (2) I don't want to have to explain them to players.
(3) There is no better name known to me, for it's explicit as to the role but not the rank. The other terms I can think of are rank based (Ambassador, Consul, Analyst).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

(1) I prefer all of them to use one scheme, and (2) I don't want to have to explain them to players.
(3) There is no better name known to me, for it's explicit as to the role but not the rank. The other terms I can think of are rank based (Ambassador, Consul, Analyst).

1-2) fair enough. I go back and forth on both points. Like I don’t actually like it when things are all the same style in a game. Like, looking at D&D , I loved 4e but it really sang for me when it got more messy and asymmetrical with Essentials. In a similar vein, I like that D&D has the fighter and it has the Paladin, which would not feel obvious like the fighter if it weren’t super familiar.

3) Yeah, I’m toying with Arbiter, Consular, or going further afield into words that mean speaker or related ideas if I go with all “bespoke” names. I considered Bard, but tbh the D&D cloud that hangs over the Bard is difficult to pierce, much less dispel.