Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
DRAGON #360 Art Gallery: Dryad
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Clavis" data-source="post: 3901044" data-attributes="member: 31898"><p>When I use the term "archetypal" with regard to D&D, I am referring to something similar to, but not identical with, Jung's archetypes. I wouldn't necessarily want to see the classes reduced to "Wise Old Man", "Warrior Hero", "Trickster" and "Artist-scientist". Although it might make a good game, the classes would be too abstract, and not respectful enough of D&D's origins and history to be appropriate. But I 100% support the idea that the character classes should represent the stock characters of myth and legend, which are reflective of the archetypes.</p><p></p><p>Stock characters are re-used over and over because they connect with the deep aspirations and foibles of human beings. A simple, straight-forward stock character is nothing but a cliche, of course, so there should be some degree of customization possible. But the designers of D&D should not dilute the archetypes too much.</p><p></p><p>What dilutes the archetypes? Changing classic monsters until they are unrecognizable, but still keeping the classic name. Skill and Feat rules that seem like they create well-balanced, individual characters at first, but really ensure that all high-level characters have essentially the same abilities. Reducing the class system to absurdity by introducing classes that are simply collections of kewl powerz, rather than representations of classic characters from fiction and myth.</p><p></p><p>Archetypes are not combat positions. If I tell a new player your character is a "controller", they're going to think I'm saying their character has a control-freak personality. They won't think he's a thief! The name of a character class should tell someone with a decent education 90% of what they need to know about playing it. If it doesn't, the class is not archetypal enough. And yes, that means I think the "monk" should be dropped, or re-named the "martial artist". </p><p></p><p>I don't believe previous editions of D&D were perfect by any means. I think WOTC has done a poor job of developing the game. I think they've bungled the implementation of their own great idea (d20), and created a new game (3.x edition D&D) that is barely D&D anymore. 4th edition D&D, which they have already said is <em>not compatible with any previous edition</em>, will probably no longer be D&D at all. No matter what they call it.</p><p></p><p>Damn, I can really ramble when I've had too much turkey.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Clavis, post: 3901044, member: 31898"] When I use the term "archetypal" with regard to D&D, I am referring to something similar to, but not identical with, Jung's archetypes. I wouldn't necessarily want to see the classes reduced to "Wise Old Man", "Warrior Hero", "Trickster" and "Artist-scientist". Although it might make a good game, the classes would be too abstract, and not respectful enough of D&D's origins and history to be appropriate. But I 100% support the idea that the character classes should represent the stock characters of myth and legend, which are reflective of the archetypes. Stock characters are re-used over and over because they connect with the deep aspirations and foibles of human beings. A simple, straight-forward stock character is nothing but a cliche, of course, so there should be some degree of customization possible. But the designers of D&D should not dilute the archetypes too much. What dilutes the archetypes? Changing classic monsters until they are unrecognizable, but still keeping the classic name. Skill and Feat rules that seem like they create well-balanced, individual characters at first, but really ensure that all high-level characters have essentially the same abilities. Reducing the class system to absurdity by introducing classes that are simply collections of kewl powerz, rather than representations of classic characters from fiction and myth. Archetypes are not combat positions. If I tell a new player your character is a "controller", they're going to think I'm saying their character has a control-freak personality. They won't think he's a thief! The name of a character class should tell someone with a decent education 90% of what they need to know about playing it. If it doesn't, the class is not archetypal enough. And yes, that means I think the "monk" should be dropped, or re-named the "martial artist". I don't believe previous editions of D&D were perfect by any means. I think WOTC has done a poor job of developing the game. I think they've bungled the implementation of their own great idea (d20), and created a new game (3.x edition D&D) that is barely D&D anymore. 4th edition D&D, which they have already said is [I]not compatible with any previous edition[/I], will probably no longer be D&D at all. No matter what they call it. Damn, I can really ramble when I've had too much turkey. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
DRAGON #360 Art Gallery: Dryad
Top