Archetypal vs. Menu-style characters

[MerricB]

There seems to be quite a bit of tension between the traditional D&D style of using archetypal classes and those who want a game like GURPS or HERO - without classes, just using a menu of options that they throw together to create their character.

In fact, D&D 3E uses a blend of the two approaches, but it is based on the archetypal approach.

So, my question to you: would you prefer D&D to use the archetypal approach of classes, or to go with a system that doesn't use classes but instead a "menu" of character options you can choose from?

There is no middle option, because I believe that either version will take elements from the other (as I understand it, Gygax's Lejendary Adventures uses a menu-system and then moves towards a archetypal system through various "orders" or something similar). However, the base of the system will greatly influence everything else - so, your preferences, please!

Cheers!

 

[Mouseferatu]

Archetypal, definitely. I like "menu-driven" characters (I love that turn of phrase, BTW), and I wouldn't even mind seeing D20 fantasy games or optional D&D rules that allow them. But core D&D should always have classes, IMO.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm with the blood-sucking rodent on this one.

 

[MerricB]

Archetypal, definitely. I like "menu-driven" characters (I love that turn of phrase, BTW), and I wouldn't even mind seeing D20 fantasy games or optional D&D rules that allow them. But core D&D should always have classes, IMO.

I agree. (I came up with menu-based/menu-driven because I didn't want to use "classless" )

Feats, Spells and Skills are a type of menu-based system that 3e uses, but the basis of the system is definitely archetypal.

Cheers!

 

[Vanguard]

Kill the sacred cows and make holy burgers! Menu-based for me.

It's easy enough to put the archetypes in the book for people that want them, but have the archetypes built from the standard menu system.

Some sort of archetype-overlay is nice to help give characters direction, I think something similar to the nWoD clans and covenants works well for that.

 

[Ranger REG]

There seems to be quite a bit of tension between the traditional D&D style of using archetypal classes and those who want a game like GURPS or HERO - without classes, just using a menu of options that they throw together to create their character.

In fact, D&D 3E uses a blend of the two approaches, but it is based on the archetypal approach.

So, my question to you: would you prefer D&D to use the archetypal approach of classes, or to go with a system that doesn't use classes but instead a "menu" of character options you can choose from?

There is no middle option, because I believe that either version will take elements from the other (as I understand it, Gygax's Lejendary Adventures uses a menu-system and then moves towards a archetypal system through various "orders" or something similar). However, the base of the system will greatly influence everything else - so, your preferences, please!

In a closed-type setting, I'd go with archetypal.

In an open-type setting or toolkit format ruleset, I'd go with freeform menu-driven.

It depends on the game being played.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I voted for menu-based, but the more I read what you wrote, the more I think my vote isn't correctly placed.

There is a clear divide in the d20 community, but I don't think it lies between those who want archetypal classes and those who want a classless system.

True, d20 classless roleplaying does exist, for example in BESM d20 and Mutants and Masterminds, but it's rare and not many people support it for fantasy d20 (or even general modern d20). Both BESM and M&M cater to what is essentially a comic-book genre (Japanese anime and American supers, respectively), and characters in comics of both types often adopt extremely unique (and difficult to model with a class progression) abilities.

The real divide, in my view, is between those who view a class as an archetype (or a job, a life calling or even a personality) and those who view a class as a suite of reasonably balanced abilities.

I fall into the latter camp.

I don't like classless roleplaying, because I'm a classy guy. But seriously, the potential to munchkin the heck out of a GURPS character is just beyond the pale (or was; maybe the new version solves this point-buy conumdrum?). It can be done almost by accident, and that, in my view, is a problem. It also makes a GM's job harder because every NPC needs to be essentially completely built.

A class system that presents its classes as suites of balanced abilities is much more convenient. Yes, if I want to play a character with magical potential who learns to mesh it with swordplay, I have to multiclass or be pitiful (sorcerer with a sword) - or use an Arcana Unearthed class, in this case - but I'll get the result I want. Let's say Swashbuckler 3/Wizard 6/Spellsword 1/Eldritch Knight 10. Four classes, but the character never experiences the transition from one to the other; to him, he's a... let's borrow an FFT term and call our boy a Mystic Fencer. Ask him at level 3 (Sws1/Wiz2) and he'll tell you he's training to become a Mystic Fencer; ask him at level 6 (Sws3/Wiz3) and he'll tell you he is one; ask him at level 10 (Sws3/Wiz6/Sps1) and he'll say the same. He'll never know that in a metagame sense he has four classes.

 

[JoeBlank]

Archetypal, definitely. I like "menu-driven" characters (I love that turn of phrase, BTW), and I wouldn't even mind seeing D20 fantasy games or optional D&D rules that allow them. But core D&D should always have classes, IMO.

My sentiments precisely. Options are great, but core D&D should always be a class-based game.

I don't mind some sacred cow burgers myself, but without classes it is not D&D.

 

[nopantsyet]

Well if Merric says there can't be a middle ground, then I guess it must be so.

I actually don't think he's too far off on that. Any so-called middle ground is influenced far more by the primary mechanic. I would prefer a menu-based system with archetypes implemented as pre-built paths.

That said, I also agree that the menu approach is problematic in it's own way, and relies very much on the willingness of the players to create cohesive concepts and of the DM to enforce the downsides of abusive builds. (Wait--did I just use a "banned" word or three? )

I am fortunate enough to have such players, and have in fact ruled to allow But the Numbers in my game. Only one player is using it, and we have yet to see how it will play out in the long term. I'm not completely convinced that D&D is compatible with a fully menu-based system, but I think it's definitely worth finding out.

Afterthought: I don't disagree with the assertion that without classes it would not be D&D. Of course 3E/3.5 isn't D&D in the strictest sense either. It maintains some of the sacred cows, but is a very different game than earlier versions. But I'm all right with that. I play D&D because it's a flexible system that's widespread enough that it's possible to keep a game going in spite of real life, not because of the game it used to be.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I'm with Mouseferatu on this one. D&D is all about the achetypes, and has been from day one. IMO, if a person really wants a classless fantasy system, they shouldn't be playing D&D, since it's not what they want.

Now, a set of optional rules that allows such play would be fine IMO, just don't waste space in the Core Rules for it. I'd even give them a try, but removing classes from the game would be a very bad idea IMO.

No classes = not D&D.

Kane