I reread what I had this morning and I was thinking the same thing about the roll chart. I may also get read of the archetypes all together. I can't think of a reason why I need the actors to fill certain niches like that when I can just give them the flexibility to choose what they want to describe their characters. Plus that will eliminate a whole page right there. Hm...
Originally Posted by just_jack
You might have not have to cut out archetypes completely. If it is a special flavor, designed to make player feel
their character has a place, it will be fine. There is a reason D&D has been the best-selling and most-played role-playing game since the dawn of RPGs, and a big part is classes. Which is also the biggest complaint, lol, but that is a different conversation.
A thought would be to offer very basic options to be each Archetype, then choices to fill in the remainder, depending how big of an impact you would want them for in the game. If you want them as a minimal issue over naming a concept, they can do other cool things similar to Fate aspects. Anytime your Archetype might come into play, you can burn a drama point to boost or modify a scene, etc. Or maybe even as a specialty, a la World of Darkness, which lowers your difficulty using that specialty. Anytime a character's archetype would have significant effect on a die roll, they could just GET a bonus, even the 4+ difficulty, just for that action.
You could have a single rule to represent a +1 or -1 difficulty that you can keep mentioning, to avoid repeating what they do each time they are brought into the equation. That is another idea. You can have a universal rules area, if it comes to you wanting to add various effects to the game, that you can just keeping referencing instead of pages and pages of repeating similar/same effects.