As others have commented, there is no single technique for this. Personally, I favor the time period “tools” for objects that the participant can equip (reminiscent of armor and weapons), not for consumables (reminiscent of potions). However, you need to take your in-game terminology into consideration. It’s usually a good suggestion to make developer terminology moderately per in-game terminology in order that your crew members do not get confused.

Here’s an instance of a irritating situation: you’ve gotten a base class Item, and a number of other baby lessons reminiscent of Weapon, Armor, Consumable, Key, Ammo. Then your boss/shopper/UX crew decides that throughout the recreation UI, “Equipment” will probably be a time period for weapons and armor, and “Item” will probably be a blanket time period for all different issues that may go into your stock, reminiscent of consumables, keys, and ammo. Now, each time somebody talks about an “merchandise”, you must ask for clarification – are they referring to the Item class or the “Item” class within the recreation?

Another method you’ll be able to keep away from confusion is to make use of developer terminology that will by no means seem in an precise recreation. For instance, within the Unity engine, any object that may be positioned on this planet is a GameObject. If I recall appropriately, within the Source engine, any object that may be positioned on this planet is an Entity. In some engines and frameworks, any sort of character is an Actor. Because these phrases are by no means utilized in precise video games, they assist to keep away from ambiguity in developer conversations.

With that in thoughts, you would think about base class names like Equipable, Holdable, ParticipantItem that will undoubtedly by no means seem as in-game terminology.

It’s not at all times sensible, however when doable you need to attempt to work out your entire terminology early on and attempt to make it constant between the code and in-game UI to keep away from confusion/ambiguity.