Archetypal vs. Menu-style characters

[PJ-Mason]

I just thought of a huge advantage about a menu system (or the AU generic classes), IMO.
With a system like this a GM can say "Build what you want, but since all the characters are part of a special forces stealth unit, all characters must have sneak attack and X ranks of hide and move silent."

Thats easier to manage with the menu system than core D&D classes/archetypes. Any of the generic classes could pick sneak attack at least once and choose the hide and move silent skills as class skills. Thats easier than multiclassing (especially for spellcasters) and hoping that that multiclassing isn't watering down your original characters class conception.

So not only is menu-creation superior to archetype/class-creation, but its a superior mechanic for campaign creation and management. You know, up until today, i thought that multiclassing was the greatest add-on in 3E...now i am beginning to think it was nothing more than a clever patch onto an antiquated and buggy character creation system.

 

[PJ-Mason]

1. I'm not saying they will be exactly the same.

2 Menu-based systems (particularly ones with no randomness) have a tendancy to lead to min/maxing, and that leads to a lot of sameness. In a menue based system, you only have one class to min/max. (So to speak, I realize the point is that there are no classes.) With an archetypical system, you have several classes to min/max.

LOL. Min-maxing is a problem that ALL character creation systems will have until the end of time.

It definitely appears that one man's menu system is another man's point system. You are targeting the extreme version of what i am talking about. A classless system is either a point system, or a point system masquerading as something else. I'm talking about a menu creation system that already exists in the UA and similiar systems to it. It has the 3 core class philosophies: Warrior, Expert, and Spellcaster. Then each class chooses their class skills, and then feats and /or whatever class abilities you need to model whatever character idea you have. No points, no calculators. Which also includes some mutliclassing if truly needs be. It has no more or less randomness than your archetypical class system. It just allows for more freedom in character creation. Rather than choosing one class that may come close to your concept, or multiclassing into a bunch of classes that may or may not bring you closer to your idea...just build your concept from up the beginning and skip all the inaccurate creation restraints the core system puts on you.

 

[Gez]

[META]

Testing

In the very likely event this doesn't work, how do you post the image inline?

The reason this didn't worked is that you didn't put (for whatever reason) the attachmentid in the URL. Just after you upload something, you'll see your attachment's name listed. This is a link. Right-click on it, and in the pop-up menu, choose "copy link destination" or whatever they call it in your browser.

Then, in your message box, just type the opening IMG tag, Ctrl-V to paste your attachment's full address, and close your IMG tag.

Look:

I think you can safely delete the "&stc=1" part, I don't know what his purpose is, but it doesn't seem essential. But do not forget to fill the attachmentid= field! In the case of that pic, it is 18206.
[/META]

 

[PJ-Mason]

Wow...thats a big smilin bald guy!!

 

[sjmiller]

If I could vote in this poll, and for some reason I cannot, I would vote Menu-Driven. Why? Well, the reasons are rather complex and personal, but I think I can boil it down to a few simple things.

First, I find that character creation in a menu-driven system tends to be more flexible within the core system without the necessity of drawing in outside material. In my mind at least, archetypal can (in this instance) just as easily be substituted with stereotypical, and not lose any meaning. Every character in an archetypal game is like those Christmas sugar cookies. There are a few cookie shapes, a couple of kinds of frosting, and a couple kinds of sprinkles and candy for decoration. When all is said and done, the cookies pretty much look the same, just with a few variations. That's one aspect of archetypal games I am not particularly fond of using.

In a menu-driven system there are more possibilities to start with, and the flexibility expands the more the character is developed. I find it easier to replicate a character from fiction in a menu-driven game than in an archetypal game, as those fictional characters rarely fit into the boxes necessary in an archetypal system.

Secondly, I find that the archetypal systems tend to lead players into playing stereotypes of characters. The character classes in D&D, for example, carry a great deal of emotional baggage with them. Rogues are wirey, nervous, "mysterious" figures. Barbarians are fur loincloth wearing musclemen (often with an odd germanic accent). Wizards are older, bearded men dressed in flowing clothes with an air of mystery and power about them. You get the picture. Menu-driven systems, by their very nature, require you to paint your own picture of a character. There are no set powers and abilities for beginning characters. A blank slate means you can draw whatever your heart desires.

I guess what I am saying is I often find archetypal systems too restrictive. Not that they do not have their place. Sometimes, I admit, I like the ease of creating and playing characters in an archetypal system. I find there's less thought required to make them, as many decisions are already made for you.

 

[Asmor]

I think you can safely delete the "&stc=1" part, I don't know what his purpose is, but it doesn't seem essential. But do not forget to fill the attachmentid= field! In the case of that pic, it is 18206.
[/META]

Hmm. My problem was that the attachmentid was blank. :/ Didn't realize I had to fill that in manually. Thanks!

 

[redkobold]

I think DnD should always have the core classes. I find that as the rules become more templates and components the more flavorless things can become. I am a big fan of additional core classes and multiclassing while not so fond of templates and Prestige Classes. At the same time, I like the menu driven stuff available to tinker if I want. I am happy with the mix the rules has now and would be really upset to see core classes taken away or broken down in to generic component packages as the official primary rules for character creation in a future edition.

 

[beeber]

i want to vote, too!

but it says i can't, either. oh well

i'm for menu-driven. it provides the maximum flexibility in creating characters. if you want archetypes, then include a template for the basics.

 

[der_kluge]

How's this?

 

[johnsemlak]

D&D without archetypes is not D&D. 'nuff said.