Recognizable vs Unrecognizable class design

[overly excitable young man]

Well it isn't an either/or question but a question about healthy mixture of both as i hope you already figured out.

Imo a healthy mixture of traditional and original ideas is something like 75%/25%.
Here i would only give the classes that have actual unique mechanics an original name.

If it feels like a warrior just call it warrior and if its basically a fireball just call it fireball.

 

[Serus]

Rogue is probably the class that deserves being renamed the most. Rogue is a description of an archetype, too broad for a class. Thief, swashbuckler, bard, assassin, etc.,

I think same can be said about fighters if you wan't to go that way. There are barbarians and paladins. But that's not enough. Pathinder has cavaliers and all the archetypes including archer or gladiator. Same with wizards/mages. What about witches? Should they go under the same name? I think that's why there was a generic name of "magic user" in early D&D, including gold box games.

Interestingly enough, thief was renamed TO rogue in D&D or Wizardry series. I think the issue with thief is that the name ssuggests a class non focused on combat. And computer rpg are combat oriented. Think of Wizardry 8 vs 7. Thief in W7 was a very weak class, one redeeming thing was high starting skulduggery, but others could replace him. Then in W8 they made him a strong melee and at the same time renamed a rogue. Could be something else - but not thief. Rogue is generic enough to fit the role.

As to your examples. Bards often already have their own class (D&D, Wizardry, Realms of Arkania's jesters, PoE had them named something, Grimoire, etc...) alongside rogues. Assassins also appear in crpgs as a class from time to time. And swashbucklers, well that's in a way... a rogue, just with specific backstory for the character. I the end, rogues imho are just fine, leave thieves to npc.

 

[M. AQVILA]

Innovation for the sake of innovation is never good. If you truly think you can come up with an interesting class then by all means, if not then don't bother.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I think same can be said about fighters if you wan't to go that way. There are barbarians and paladins.

I agree with this though. I dislike class names that are overly generic. I'm not sure if fighter would even still exist in d&d if not for it being rather iconic. They should rename it to CRUSHMASTER.
Paladins were a fighter subclass in d&d, as were barbarians.

Pathinder has cavaliers and all the archetypes including archer or gladiator.

Archetypes are just a renaming of subclasses and kits. Pathfinder 1e really has very few unique ideas, 2e is evidence as to why that was a good thing.

I think the issue with thief is that the name ssuggests a class non focused on combat. And computer rpg are combat oriented.

Well, yes, that's the implication.
A separate question is why every class in a party-based RPG must be good at fighting? Look at the most iconic example of a fantasy adventure: The Hobbit. Bilbo was a burglar, he was not particularly good at fighting, but he was extremely important for their overall success.
I disagree with the notion that cRPGs are entirely about fighting. There are typically classes whose main advantage is simply being good at dialogue in cRPGs, an example is the KotOR games(Jedi consular I believe?)
I see nothing wrong with having a class that is skilled in breaking and entering, getting you out of otherwise tough situations, and acquiring extra loot. All of these are important parts of cRPGs.

An example of a good non-combat class in an otherwise combat-only game is the antiquarian in Darkest Dungeon.

Oh, and burglar sounds a lot cooler than thief btw.

Think of Wizardry 8 vs 7. Thief in W7 was a very weak class, one redeeming thing was high starting skulduggery, but others could replace him. Then in W8 they made him a strong melee and at the same time renamed a rogue.

It would have been more interesting to make them better at non-combat roles than simply making them better at combat IMO.

As to your examples. Bards often already have their own class (D&D ... alongside rogues

Bards were a rogue before rogues were a class. They definitely are a type of rogue.

And swashbucklers, well that's in a way... a rogue

I agree, that was my argument.



I dislike overly broad classes. If you're going to use a class-based system, then they should be fairly specific. Using generic names for archetypes of classes is fine. A necromancer is more descriptive and interesting than "magic user", as is CRUSHMASTER or archer to fighter.

 

[Reality]

Fighters are allowed to get HP increases on level up - As far as I'm concerned they are your god for that reason.. If I feel like any time the Hybrid or Elite Melee charathers are better than gneric fighters in a game, 90% of the time that indicates that the game is too generous with XP or not pushing me to the wall enough

Mage - I expect to beat most RPGs with about two tiers of Magic never learned -- I'm usually hostile to slower magic learning type Elite classes for this reason. In JRPGs where the differencee between Mage / Witch / Elementalist is more likely to be (Damage guy / Buff spam / Debuff and CC ) then I guess I technically use a broader mix.

Thief - Always take a thief. I feel like the classic thief IS worthless in combat, but all Early RPGs are built on literal minefields, and the price for setting off said traps is also far higher - single charather getting killed is a generous result - full party stoning or losing your ability to teleport out is the high end. I've grown mentally used to the idea of 5 real PCs + our deadweight boy - Of coruse on the rare occasions when they do make a contribution it is really memorable and a story in itself..... On paper, I really really want to be an advocate for BG 2 / TOEE Rogues who can also be useful in combat ... but in practice, the combat rogue makes me think of JRPGs with Breadth over Depth problems that compensate for player stupidity in party building - I can find games where Rogues are useful in combat.. but these same games tend to be ones where the difficulty is so low and the devs are so worried about player not understanding free choice that they make sure that even the 6 Thief party can still beat the game.

Cleric - Real D&D Clerics with heavy armor access, big Hammer/Maces and somewhat limited access to actual direct healing until level 9~ I associate any Healer types forced to use Robes as armor + low HP growth with the White Mage heresy of JRPGs. On the other end of the spectrum ... One of the highlights of TRPGs for me is that those kind of games usually limit direct healing even more with Medic (multiple AP/turn Bandage action) or don't have combat healing at all (battles representing shorter conflicts or forcing healing to be in the strategy/management layer of game post battle)

My class preferences are mostly due to how I prefer RPGs to be a challenge of attrition rather than indiviual tactical combat encounters

I do LIKE tactical combat... but I feel like most of the time I judge games attempting it as Puzzle-Tactics games rather than RPGs. I can't pin it on class design as much as enemy encounter design, but typically fancy tools will either A: get me excited and then be underwhelmed because the game works with Beatsticks and Healbot so I only touch variant classes because I want too not because I need them B: Represent stuff the AI cannot comprehend and lead to me bulldozing them even faster

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Ysaye]

I think the PDF is more likely to be log-normal than a reciprocal function - no new words would also be pretty poor. Whilst Shakespeare used a lot of language that was common at the time he also invented a lot of new words as well (according to open source Shakespeare, around 28K of the almost 900K word forms that he used are "uniquely new").

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Most good fantasy and sci-fi literature is full of words "made up" by the author. How many words considered to be bog-standard in fantasy were either created or revived by Tolkien?
I hate xkcd.

 

[Lurker47]

Same kind of dilemma with races.

I'm of the exact opposite opinion.

 

[Serus]

I think same can be said about fighters if you wan't to go that way. There are barbarians and paladins.

I agree with this though. I dislike class names that are overly generic. I'm not sure if fighter would even still exist in d&d if not for it being rather iconic. They should rename it to CRUSHMASTER.
Paladins were a fighter subclass in d&d, as were barbarians.

Pathinder has cavaliers and all the archetypes including archer or gladiator.

Archetypes are just a renaming of subclasses and kits. Pathfinder 1e really has very few unique ideas, 2e is evidence as to why that was a good thing.

I think the issue with thief is that the name ssuggests a class non focused on combat. And computer rpg are combat oriented.

Well, yes, that's the implication.
A separate question is why every class in a party-based RPG must be good at fighting? Look at the most iconic example of a fantasy adventure: The Hobbit. Bilbo was a burglar, he was not particularly good at fighting, but he was extremely important for their overall success.
I disagree with the notion that cRPGs are entirely about fighting. There are typically classes whose main advantage is simply being good at dialogue in cRPGs, an example is the KotOR games(Jedi consular I believe?)
I see nothing wrong with having a class that is skilled in breaking and entering, getting you out of otherwise tough situations, and acquiring extra loot. All of these are important parts of cRPGs.

An example of a good non-combat class in an otherwise combat-only game is the antiquarian in Darkest Dungeon.

Oh, and burglar sounds a lot cooler than thief btw.

Think of Wizardry 8 vs 7. Thief in W7 was a very weak class, one redeeming thing was high starting skulduggery, but others could replace him. Then in W8 they made him a strong melee and at the same time renamed a rogue.

It would have been more interesting to make them better at non-combat roles than simply making them better at combat IMO.

As to your examples. Bards often already have their own class (D&D ... alongside rogues

Bards were a rogue before rogues were a class. They definitely are a type of rogue.

And swashbucklers, well that's in a way... a rogue

I agree, that was my argument.



I dislike overly broad classes. If you're going to use a class-based system, then they should be fairly specific. Using generic names for archetypes of classes is fine. A necromancer is more descriptive and interesting than "magic user", as is CRUSHMASTER or archer to fighter.

Some archetypes in pathfinder have more distinctive features than classes in some crpgs. Just saying. Not that I care much about Pathinder, Those were only examples of what you can do to "divide" fighter case.

The hobbit Bilbo was a character in a book, not a crpg. A book that wasn't "combat oriented". Trolls - Gandalf outsmarts them. Gollum - no fight. Elves - a prison escape, thanks to Bilbo. Dragon - outsmarted by Bilbo, the killing wasn't made by the party. Preventing war between dwarfs and elves/humans - thievery i suppose. Most of the problems encountered had a non-combat solution. However if this was was a crpg his character would suck. Because in most typical crpgs there wouldn't be an option to outsmart the trolls or not fight the elves and the party would need to face the dragon in combat. And if there were such solutions, those encounters would be among dozens others - purely combat ones. If a game has any difficulty level to speak of, then taking a character that cannot fight (happens all the time) because maybe he can do something else of importance (a couple of times per game if at all) is a no choice at all. Except for challenging yourself on purpose. The point is, CRPGs are usually not similar to The Hobbit. Whether it would be better if they were, is another matter. But they are not. Even if there are a few crpgs that are not mostly about combat they are exceptions rather than the rule.. There are also games so easy that you can play with any party you like because it doesn't matter. But in general, there is no place for Bilbos in crpgs. Unless he was as good as fighter as when fighting the spiders. Or if you had a crpg with a party of 14, then sure you could squeeze anyone, even someone's aunt.

On another note, Kotor 1 sucked very badly and I don't remember any important options opened by dialog, let alone by dialog using a specific character. The conversations were of the fake choices kind iirc. Haven't played Kotor 2 but apparently it's more choices and (real) consequences oriented game so possibly it is the case there. However crpgs where there are whole gameplays based on non-combatd skills, are very few. Here on the Codex the perspective is a bit skewed with all the c&c-centered games being very popular. But there are only a couple of those.

In Wizardy 7 or 8 You couldn't make the thief "better at non-combat roles". This this the part you seem not to grasp. There are no non-combat roles that are important enough in those games. You'd have to redesign whole series of games to that create them. Again, whether You or I think it would result in better games or not is irrelevant. Wizardries are extremely combat oriented (that and exploration), and this is simply and undeniable a fact. I might add that people who like(ed) them, usually like(ed) them as they are.
Wizardy is of curse an example but the principle applies to most crpgs, old or new.


TL;DR: Bilbo would suck as a character in a typical crpg.

 

[MpuMngwana]

In Wizardy 7 or 8 You couldn't make the thief "better at non-combat roles". This this the part you seem not to grasp. There are no non-combat roles that are important enough in those games. You'd have to redesign whole series of games to that create them. Again, whether You or I think it would result in better games or not is irrelevant. Wizardries are extremely combat oriented (that and exploration), and this is simply and undeniable a fact. I might add that people who like(ed) them, usually like(ed) them as they are.

Funny that you say that, given that THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THIEVES WERE LIKE IN THE FIRST FIVE (well except 4) WIZARDRIES - they sucked at combat and were pretty much dead weight there (too squishy and inferior to fighters for front row, literally unable to do anything from back row until bows were introduced in five). However thieves were still extremely useful because trapped chests were just as dangerous as monster encounters, and not having a thief greatly increased the chances of getting your party turned to stone or worse.
As you see, making a useful utility class is neither forbidden eldritch knowledge nor rocket science, since it was implemented pretty damn well in a pure dungeon crawler from 1981.

 

[Syme]

Both. Have a set of classes that are recognizable so players have an easy way to start out with your ruleset and then have a set of more unique classes for when they want to try things other than simply swinging swords and throwing fireballs. That way you also cater to both the casual gamer who may be overwhelmed when he sees nothing but weird shit and the hardcore game who may be uninterested if he just sees the same dozen or so archetypical classes that every other game also has.

When it comes to names I'd follow the same guidelines. Everyone has a rough idea what a Necromancer is and what a fireball spell does, but there's no reason not to have more esoteric stuff that's unique to your setting, otherwise it wouldn't really stand out from the rest. You should also consider tying some of it to your worldbuilding (i.e. Mordenkainen's Disjunction or Shadow Thief of Amn).

That said, I'd strongly advice you to have a firm set of rules concerning magic (and its limits)/time/death/planes of existance etc. before you design any super unique classes or spells. So for your Thanatonaut you'd need to have your afterlife fully fleshed out and be able to answer any questions that may come up. Where exactly do souls go after death and what prevents or enables them to come back? What happens to them there? Do they keep their memories of life? Do all races go there? Do animals go there? What do the spirits gain from making pacts with mortals? How exactly are they able to empower them with magic? What do the gods think of this? etc. etc.

 

[DraQ]

Original and unique ideas - including classes - are generally good and refreshing, with some caveats:

• they must be genuinely interesting and tie into whatever worldbuilding is present, rather than reeking of tryhard "muh originality" (the latter has been showcased adequately in the OP).
• typical classes exist for a reason - they are tried and true solutions to actual problems. If you want to be original by including something different, you must make a convincing case. If you want to be original by excluding the archetypes you must make an even better case, because chances are someone will think "if only I could make X instead of all this contrived shit".

OTOH there are very few cases of original wording bringing anything to the table so familiar wording is almost universally better. Only use invented words if you have a good reason:

• Futuristic themes and you want to reflect coinage of new terms
  
• You really need to convey to the player they are a stranger in a strange land "annoying n'wahs, don't even know what a foyada is, daedroth fuck them."
• You genuinely have a cool new concept you have no preexisting word for - yeah, sure you do, but if you genuinely have one, you might need a new word - coin carefully.

And of course...

Spoiler

Classless master race!

 

[DraQ]

A separate question is why every class in a party-based RPG must be good at fighting? Look at the most iconic example of a fantasy adventure: The Hobbit. Bilbo was a burglar, he was not particularly good at fighting, but he was extremely important for their overall success.
I disagree with the notion that cRPGs are entirely about fighting. There are typically classes whose main advantage is simply being good at dialogue in cRPGs, an example is the KotOR games(Jedi consular I believe?)
I see nothing wrong with having a class that is skilled in breaking and entering, getting you out of otherwise tough situations, and acquiring extra loot. All of these are important parts of cRPGs.

The reason why party based cRPGs default to combat is rather simple. While dedicated thief/burglar might be a dead weight in battle, the rest of the party is not just dead weight in stealth, worse they are making stealth approach non-viable by interfering with sneaky guy/gal's stealth.
So the general assumption is for pretty much any scenario to default to combat.
Of course this sucks, but until someone figures out a good way to split party without having player switch contexts all the time, this is probably going to remain the case.

It would have been more interesting to make them better at non-combat roles than simply making them better at combat IMO.

Improved.

 

[Darkzone]

I cannot agree or disagree with this. While everything in fiction was invented at some point, most of the things are constantly introduced and build up upon each other. And therefore this things are recognisable and given a certain context and archetype. So in this matter, if you introduce a lot of new things that lack context, archetypes and are not recognisable you got only a lot of stupid mess.
Tolkien hasn't introduced a lot of new things, because most of the things he used was already folklore and had it's literature tradition (mostly germanic and celtic source). Therefore the Tolkien Estate can only claim Hobbit as a name trademark, which derives either from the 1920 Bobbit or from the old english word Hol-bytia ("Hole builder"). What makes Tolkien good is the fact that he worked very meticulously, he knew the folklore and put it good in context and not the invention of new words. The same applies to good sci-fi authors.
And that is why i think that new names should be chosen carefully and with restraint and only then if other older words do not grasp the set of necessary attributes. The class concept of Pathfinder and DnD is very flawed, but that is a topic for an other essay.

 

[wahrk]

Most good fantasy and sci-fi literature is full of words "made up" by the author.

There’s a big difference between an actual linguist creating languages for the background of his world and races, versus an author making up words for mundane real world objects and shoving them into every sentence (ekera!) just to make sure you know it’s fantasy.


Using archaic terminology or combinations of words to describe things that don’t have an analogue in the world is different.

 

[Darkzone]

an actual linguist creating languages for the background of his world and races,

And even this is mostly an unnecessary exercise. Names are sufficent for this task as is shown by Frank Herbert in oppostiion to Tolkien's Elvish (1910-1973) or the Klingon language (1984).

Using archaic terminology or combinations of words to describe things that don’t have an analogue in the world is different.

Is often better than to invent words that tell the reader or player nothing about the thing or topic.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Oh, and burglar sounds a lot cooler than thief btw.

Nigga the hamburglar was never cool.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Tolkien hasn't introduced a lot of new things, because most of the things he used was already folklore and had it's literature tradition (mostly germanic and celtic source). Therefore the Tolkien Estate can only claim Hobbit as a name trademark, which derives either from the 1920 Bobbit or from the old english word Hol-bytia ("Hole builder").

Huh?
Plenty of words and phrases in Tolkien's work are untranslated Sindarin, Quenya, Khuzdul, or Black Speech and were entirely new words created by him. Remember what the comic actually said: this is supposed to be bad.
Mithril(Grey Glitter), Nazgûl(Ring Wraith), Rohan(Horse Country), Balrog(Mighty Demon), Mordor(Black Land), Moria/Khazad-dûm(Black Pit), Angband(Iron Prison, also the name of a very good roguelike), basically any of the locations starting with Dol *(Dol Guldur, Dol Amroth, ...), so on and so forth. His work was absolutely filled with these.
According to the comic, he should have just used the translations.

Oh, and yes, most of these are trademarked. The Tolkien Estate does not have the rights -- Middle Earth Enterprises does. Go ahead and try to sell a line of coats called mithril coats, see what happens.

[edit]
worth noting that in USA you cannot "own" a word and trademarks are limited in scope. I'm sure it's different in other countries.

 

[Funposter]

Unrecognizable design, examples:
- Gold mage, draws power from the amount of hoarded gold he's got in his vault. Crippling gold addiction: he must constantly increase hoarded gold or lose powers.

 

[Darth Canoli]

I'm at a stage on my project where I'm thinking about class design. This is what I'm struggling with:

Question 1: Should classes be stereotypical, or should they jump at you out of nowhere?

Stereotypical design, examples:
- arcane/elementalist mage
- generalist mage with utility spells

Unrecognizable design, examples:
- Gold mage, draws power from the amount of hoarded gold he's got in his vault. Crippling gold addiction: he must constantly increase hoarded gold or lose powers.
- Tattoo mage, prepares spells by tattooing them on his skin, and can materialize his tattoos. E.g. he tattooed a dagger on his hand, then a this dagger flies out at will, consuming the tattoo.
- Revision mage, can rewind time on self or allies. When dealt a non-lethal blow, can make in unhappen. Can only be killed by poison or an annihilating explosion. Has weak offense. Constantly rewinds time until enemy critically misses. Sounds exasperating? It's just an idea, don't worry about it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Unrecognizable:
- Thanatonauts have to voluntarily die to "prepare spells". While dead, make pacts with ghosts/spirits that provide him powers. If body is destroyed while dead, there's no coming back. Can also be robbed while dead. Has to hide himself to commit suicide.

These ideas are just examples, but they could be iterated on until they become playable and interesting to play. Maybe.
Or would you rather play stuff you already know?
Or would you rather modify recognizable classes to make them fresh and original?


Question 2: If stereotypical is better, should they have familiar names?

Some interesting ideas, i like the gold mage, your Thanatonaut might be interesting too but it seems most of the gameplay would have to revolve around him.

Mostly, if you know what you're doind, original is good and it calls for original names if there's is no equivalent.

As everyone said, don't rename a class if it's the same thing as a classic.

Mostly, i'd rather play a game with an original setting and original ideas and classes, as long as it's well implemented.
Some things can ruin a game like sawyer balance, cooldowns or a shitty itemization diablo/MMO-like.

 

[thesecret1]

No original classes because it's bound to end up being gimmicky bullshit that's just there to "be different". I have zero faith in that whoever attempted something like revision mage wouldn't either make a completely broken class or nerfed his powers so much that he may as well be a regular wizard with a couple special spells. Feel free to name your classes however you want though, as muh lore demands it, but take it as "I can name shit differently if I need to" rather than "I HAVE TO name this fucking fighter something like 'Master of the swirling shadowrazor'".

 

[Darkzone]

Tolkien hasn't introduced a lot of new things, because most of the things he used was already folklore and had it's literature tradition (mostly germanic and celtic source). Therefore the Tolkien Estate can only claim Hobbit as a name trademark, which derives either from the 1920 Bobbit or from the old english word Hol-bytia ("Hole builder").

Huh?
Plenty of words and phrases in Tolkien's work are untranslated Sindarin, Quenya, Khuzdul, or Black Speech and were entirely new words created by him. Remember what the comic actually said: this is supposed to be bad.
Mithril(Grey Glitter), Nazgûl(Ring Wraith), Rohan(Horse Country), Balrog(Mighty Demon), Mordor(Black Land), Moria/Khazad-dûm(Black Pit), Angband(Iron Prison, also the name of a very good roguelike), basically any of the locations starting with Dol *(Dol Guldur, Dol Amroth, ...), so on and so forth. His work was absolutely filled with these.

Most of this are names based upon his development of his own languages, but this are not new concepts that required new names.
Mithril is an example (as a concept) of different metals that were believed to exist, like adamantium. (greek: adamas. The sickle of Kronos was made out of adamantium.)
Horse countries existed in reality (from Scythia to the Khanats) and just naming it based upon a imagined language, brings nothing new to the table. Btw.: Fictional countries has been invented and named throughout the literature.
Nazgul as you stated is a wraith (old scottish ghost) with the appearance of the grim reaper. Oh yes a new name makes it something new and therefore it needs a new name.
Mordor (Dark Land). Niflheimr means Dark World / Home / Land or Mist World / Home / Land. Midgard itself means middle fortress or garden, but can be read as Middle Earth (where humans dwell) that is seated between the worlds and places.
Moria was the name in the Torah where Abraham should sacrifice Isaac to God. I wonder what was sacrificed in Tokien's Moria? Also it is a name of a Nymph (Oil Tree) or a place in Lesbos.
Balrog. Try to figure out what Baal means and where it comes from. Also i recommend to you to read something of real worth, like Divina Commedia.
Other things are just different fictional names for fictional places and as i already stated this is nothing new. If you want to invent a story about a fictional or unknown parts of the world you need also names for the fictional places and this has been done be virtually everyone, therefore it is nothing specific to Tolkien.
Dol is used by Tolkien, like Dunon/ Dun /Duro in celtic, Gard / Gaard in scandinavian and Grod / Grad in slavic languages. Oh that makes Tolkien much more better!
Hobbits were something new and different from the folklore in the Orkneys and the Edda dwarves. Therefore the Tolkien Estate made the claim to this name like in the case of Homo "Hobbit" Floresiensis.

According to the comic, he should have just used the translations. Oh, and yes, most of these are trademarked. The Tolkien Estate does not have the rights -- Middle Earth Enterprises does. Go ahead and try to sell a line of coats called mithril coats, see what happens.
Worth noting that in USA you cannot "own" a word and trademarks are limited in scope. I'm sure it's different in other countries.

No, because according to the comics he should have not named Men - Wichts or Kinds and Swords - Steelbitter, which he didn't. Read exactly the comics and try to figure it out.
I know only of the "Hobbit" case where the Tolkien Estate and Middle Earth Enterprise has prohibited the use of the "Hobbit" Name, but yes the Tolkien Enterprise (who owned the rights to the film, stage and its merchandise of "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit") was renamed in 2010 to Middle-earth Enterprise. But the Middle-Earth Enterprise does not own the rights to the characters and places names and events in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit.
Mtihril coats, like this: Mitril Jacket ? Or do you mean i should open a Black Metal band like: Nazgul.

Tolkien knew the folklore and its literary traditions and he was also meticulous. But he didn't invented many new things, that required a new name.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Mithril is an example (as a concept) of different metals that were believed to exist, like adamantium. (greek: adamas. The sickle of Kronos was made out of adamantium.)

Well gee, why didn't he just call it adamantium then?

Horse countries existed in reality (from Scythia to the Khanats) and just naming it based upon a imagined language, brings nothing new to the table. Btw.: Fictional countries has been invented and named throughout the literature.

Did you even read the comic or are you arguing just to argue?
Because this was precisely what the comic was arguing against.
Rest of your post is just a repeat of this so I won't bother quoting it.

Mtihril coats, like this: Mitril Jacket ?

They're not going to go after obscure companies in non-english speaking countries. You're being disingenuous here and you know it. MEE owns the trademark for Mithril clothing in USA, I'm sure it's a similar situation in the UK.
https://trademarks.justia.com/865/19/mithril-86519909.html
They also own a trademark for mithril coins, mithril figurines, mithril linens, mithril paints,...
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=mithril

Nearly everything there is owned by MEE.

Or do you mean i should open a Black Metal band like: Nazgul.

This was addressed specifically in my edit. That is not how trademarks work in USA and UK, you cannot own a word in these countries. Simply using a trademarked word is not enough.

 

[Gregz]

"this is like when Sawyer changed vampire to fampyr"

Be very careful about this.

Focus on how recent technological advances will allow you to make a better game, not reinvent the wheel.