Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[tx7321]

The 1E discussion has gotten me thinking about the importance of archetypes in FRPGs. I don't just mean AD&D but all FRPGs (even scifi). They seem to have been widdled downed and combined as flexibility has become all important. But is there a cost for loosing these strict devisions. These types are few, and date back many 1000s of years (certainly they are older then Greek Mythology), and they seem to be somewhat cross-cultural (showing up in New and Old world civilzaitons far from Europe).

So what are they (which types do the cleric, fighter and magician represent, what about the thief), why are they important, and what do we loose or gain by mixing them (through things like skill and feat systems)? I assume the enjoyment is the novelty, and perhaps the realization of each personality type within yourself resulting in a more challanging personal experiance. But, at a point, the PC becomes a non-entity, an equal mix of fighter and rouge and Magician results in a less stodgy and powerful character perhaps, but IMO a duller one as well. And onne you can't really learn about yourself from. Yet this is the direction FRPGs have gone. :\


From Wikipedia,
An archetype is a generic, idealized model of a person, object or concept from which similar instances are derived, copied, patterned or emulated. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality or behavior. This article is about personality archetypes, as described in literature analysis and the study of the psyche.

In the analysis of personality, the term archetype is often broadly used to refer to

a stereotype—personality type observed multiple times, especially an oversimplification of such a type; or
an epitome—personality type exemplifed, especially the "greatest" such example.
In a strict linguistic sense, however, an archetype is merely a defining example of a personality type. The accepted use of archetype is to refer to a generic version of a personality type. In this sense "mother figure" can be considered an archetype and instances can be found in various female characters with distinct (non-generic) personalities.

Archetypes have been present in mythology and literature for hundreds of years. The use of archetypes to analyse personality was advanced by Carl Jung early in the 20th century. The value in using archetypal characters in fiction derives from the fact that a large group of people are able to unconsciously recognize the archetype, and thus the motivations, behind the character's behavior.



Wikipedia describes the archetype as:

"a generic, idealized model of a person, object or concept from which similar instances are derived, copied, patterned or emulated. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality or behavior. This article is about personality archetypes, as described in literature analysis and the study of the psyche.

In the analysis of personality, the term archetype is often broadly used to refer to

a stereotype—personality type observed multiple times, especially an oversimplification of such a type; or
an epitome—personality type exemplifed, especially the "greatest" such example.

Archetypes have been present in mythology and literature for hundreds of years. The use of archetypes to analyse personality was advanced by Carl Jung early in the 20th century. The value in using archetypal characters in fiction derives from the fact that a large group of people are able to unconsciously recognize the archetype, and thus the motivations, behind the character's behavior."

 

[MerricB]

Certainly they are useful! However, there's a difference between them being useful and the game being restricted to just allowing the archetypes.

But, at a point, the PC becomes a non-entity, an equal mix of fighter and rouge and Magician results in a less stodgy character perhaps, but perhaps a duller one as well. One you can't really learn from.

Rogue. Not rouge.

There was a criticism by a respected game designer a few years ago that multiclassing (per 3e) diluted the archetypes and meant that everyone ended up playing the same uber-character. That is, to put it bluntly, poppycock.

3e rewards specialisation in archetypes. Although it is possible to build versatile "jack-of-all-trades" characters, rarely do they actually perform well in play. Building the best archer possible is far more rewarding to power-gamers rather than building a cleric/fighter/mage/rogue. The latter doesn't work.

However, what isn't as obvious is that this archetypal archer character is quite possibly attained by multiclassing! The character sheet may say "fighter/rogue/ranger/order of the bow initiate" and give the appearance of a muddy mess with no relationship to any archetype, but in fact, the character is a very strong archetypal character. It just uses a non-standard path to get there.

3e does allow blending of classes, but that isn't anything new to the game. (Consider the Cleric/Fighter/Mage and other variants of 1e, which were generally preferable to pure classes).

Now, moving back to pure classes as archetypes. Are they now useless, replaced by these archetypes created through multiclassing? By no means! Although not every class is well-designed, most do actually work for their full 20 levels, allowing those who want to play them purely can do so.

Furthermore, classes are a brilliant entry point for new players. It's easy to grasp their concepts (as opposed to the diversity of point-buy systems), and it's very quick to get going with them.

I submit that both archetypes and the class system are alive and well in D&D, and their retention is an important part of 3e's success - as is the ability to move outside them if needed.

Cheers!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yes.

 

[tx7321]

I wasn't considering "power" rather "purpose". Sure, there are multi class PCs in AD&D, but they are the oddballs not the norm. I'm sure AD&D 1Es creators (particularly Gygax) chose to stick with a set of strict archetypes...so why? I suspect it was to keep a certain continuity with mythology. But I wonder if it goes beyond that?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I assume you mean by archtype=class. I think it is impossible to loose archtypes. Even if you have a classless system (such as GURPS, Shadowrun) you still will have archtypes.

On the equal mix of fighter/rogue/mage, it doesn't necessarily result in a duller character, just a weaker one.
Archtype doesn't necessarily equal class (see 3rd sentence). Badass, intellectual and trickster are all examples of archtypes that can be combined with most classes (all of the above).

 

[MerricB]

I wasn't considering "power" rather "purpose"

See my previous comment:
"...classes are a brilliant entry point for new players. It's easy to grasp their concepts (as opposed to the diversity of point-buy systems), and it's very quick to get going with them."

Added to that, race/class restrictions model a particular world-view (one particularly tolkienesque in AD&D). This is good when introducing the concept of a RPG to new players, as you can say, "Hey, this is like LotR and Leiber". (Although I think D&D characters are not much like Leiber).

Sure, there are multi class PCs in AD&D, but they are the oddballs not the norm.

Any non-human player character in AD&D is likely to be multiclass. The exceptions to that would be few and far between.

Cheers!

 

[charlesatan]

I wasn't considering "power" rather "purpose". Sure, there are multi class PCs in AD&D, but they are the oddballs not the norm. I'm sure AD&D 1Es creators (particularly Gygax) chose to stick with a set of strict archetypes...so why? I suspect it was to keep a certain continuity with mythology. But I wonder if it goes beyond that?

Probably to keep the game more "simplified"? (And I don't mean simplified in a bad way, but rather it's easier for people to get into.) In fact, it's something followed by video games. Look at the classic game Gauntlet. Not exactly much variety tied into the "classes" you could pick, and they were similarly tied to race.

Of course the thing with archetypes is that they aren't necessarily classes. Look at a Ftr/Bar/Rog multiclass character. He could still be filling the "warrior niche". Or even a Wiz/Ftr/Eldritch Knight; sure, he's casting spells, but an optimized gish is one that usually casts buffs on himself then wading into melee rather than hurling fireballs. Or even look at a pure Cleric. On one hand, a role he could pick being the party healer. On the other hand, he can just load up on offensive spells and just be a blaster. A wizard or sorcerer specializing in certain schools could also wind up filling different niches (and classes like the Warmage, Dread Necromancer, or Beguiler fills this pretty well).

 

[tx7321]

Sure Merric, but those are magical races, and multi-classing with magic only reinfoces that mythical spritely quality (they might fit the forever youthful Peter Pan Eternal Child archetype...infact that could explain level limits as well). AD&D is a human-centric game remember, so most players are expected to be human (the 2 classed human very rare). Anyhow, I'm talking about the general trend (from archetypes with set abilities to archetypes with kits) and am not suggesting 3E doesn't have them.

You guys, I see what your saying. 3E PCs can still fit into archetypes even if they don't share the class. But consider this cut from above:

"In a strict linguistic sense, however, an archetype is merely a defining example of a personality type. The accepted use of archetype is to refer to a generic version of a personality type. In this sense "mother figure" can be considered an archetype and instances can be found in various female characters with distinct (non-generic) personalities.

Archetypes have been present in mythology and literature for hundreds of years. The use of archetypes to analyse personality was advanced by Carl Jung early in the 20th century. The value in using archetypal characters in fiction derives from the fact that a large group of people are able to unconsciously recognize the archetype, and thus the motivations, behind the character's behavior."

-so, By mixing the classes we dilute the "motivations behind the character".

 

[charlesatan]

The value in using archetypal characters in fiction derives from the fact that a large group of people are able to unconsciously recognize the archetype, and thus the motivations, behind the character's behavior.

By mixing the classes we dilute the "motivations behind the character". It just, to me anyway, results in an unsatisfying experiance (over time...at first I thought it was cool as well.)

But the primary purpose of archetypes is to generally categorize something. If you take it to a certain extreme, it can degenerate into a stereotype.

"Motivations beind the character" to me is an ambiguous statement. Ambiguous in what sense? Game rules? In roleplaying the character? In the character's backstory? Or his/her role in the party? I don't think we're dilutting the character more than expanding on him/her, fleshing him/her out. On one hand, you can keep the character simple but on the other, you can make him/her complex. As for an "unsatisfying experience", that depends on what the gaming group (or even the lone player or GM) is expecting. D&D for the most part is a game of expectations (that's why some people lean more towards roleplaying and might feel unsatisfied in a power-gamer heavy atmosphere and vice versa).

I forgot to mention that the original D&D mainly use four archetypes: fighter (tank), spellcaster (general magic user and mass enemy control), thief (finding traps), and the cleric (healer). Even in 3.5, a lot of campaigns are based upon this assumption but they don't need to be so. Lately most of our games are usually urban/forest and less of the traditional dungeon, so there's little incentive (or little need) for anyone in the party to play the rogue since trapfinding isn't a necessity. Also look at the d20 system Iron Heroes -- it's a campaign designed with primarily fighters in mind. A GM could also make an espionage/infiltration campaign and most of the party could be taking rogue-ish classes such as rogue, ninja, ranger, bard, etc.

 

[Aaron L]

The game hasn't "lost" anything, because, if you want to, you can still stick strictly to a classic archetype. But now you can make you're character however you want without being stuck to the predetermined archetypes, and you can made a character based on an archetype that hasn't had a class made or it.

I certainly don't base a characters actions entirely on their professions. To an extant I do, it is D&D after all, but using profession as the sole definition of a character is... limited and limiting.

I like the way 3E does it, keeping classes and archetypes, and allowing people to m archetypes to create unique characters. I really think its the best of both worlds.