Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[Storm Raven]

This is the most off base thing you've said yet (unless your speaking about 3E only). In 1E classes do represent the same kinds of characters we see in fantasy books.

No, they don't. They represent a handful of obscure characters in books that weren't even that well known at the time. Saying "Cugel is an archetype" is just retconning the facts to match your predetermined outcome.

And those characters in fantasy books represent basic templates...sure they are slightly different (so Merlin war armor once, big deal, but at their core they are "more" the same (gandalf and Merlin are still more similar then Merlin and Conan). Infact, dealing with the limitations of their archetype is often the theme of the story. And don't ever loose site of the fact that protecting the templates with rules are a huge part of protecting the AD&D setting the players move in.

Or, you know, the classes don't fit the prior conventions of the genre well at all, as has been pointed out repeatedly. The fact that you refuse to recognize this doesn't make it any less true. I think you are wedded to your predetermined conclusion, and neither hell nor high water will dissuade you from your Jungian silliness.

And these strict rules (which protect this setting) are a large part of why classic fantasy buffs love 1E....and likewise, why 3E is so popular with those who prefer a more retro-fantasy feel.

Actually, the strict rules were what drove this classic fantasy fan away from 1e, because the system didn't allow me to play characters that were recognizable from classic fantasy. Rather, 1e allowed me to play game constructs that had little relation to the classic characters I was familiar with from fantasy myth, legend, and literature.

 

[Storm Raven]

You can make the Grey Mouser with the 1e rules. But I agree that it's a stretch.

I think Cugel is reasonably archetypal, but you don't. To avoid further quibbles around the word "archetypes", I'll say that my own position is that 1e references certain specific literary antecedents.

Cugel is too obscure to be archetypical.

Not in Gary Gygax's opinion. And Gary was doing the writing.

But the important distinction here is that Gygax didn't claim that the classes represented some sort of archetype. Just that they were gamable classes.

Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, Gandalf, and Aragorn are characters of early-to-mid 20th Century fantasy literature. The others are ambiguous figures of myth and legend. None are the literary antecedents of the 1e archetypes.

Which illustrates that the 1e classes, as a group, are not based upon the archetypes of fantasy, myth, and legend. (By the way, the 1e ranger is clearly based on Aragorn, which is one area where the archetype meshes with the class). Attempting to claim some sort of "archetype" thematic basis for what was clearly a set of ad hoc decisions made to promote easy game play just inflates the classes to something they were not, and are not.

Having said that, it's easy to recreate Arthur (pure fighter, high wisdom, magic sword and scabbard) or Launcelot (pure fighter, high strength) in 1e terms.

And yet, the 1e DDG lists Arthur as a 20th level paladin/5th level bard (which isn't allowable under the standard rules for about four reasons I can think of off the top of my head). And Lancelot (if I remember correctly) is a paladin mixed with something else.

 

[tx7321]

Raven: "No, they don't. They represent a handful of obscure characters in books that weren't even that well known at the time. Saying "Cugel is an archetype" is just retconning the facts to match your predetermined outcome."

Writers do consciously create characters to fit certain archetypes. This is common knowledge Lit 101, not all writers use them consciously but many do. You'd have to ask each of these guys if they did, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Regardless The characters your referring to are similar enough to other characters presented in classic fairy tales and popular fiction, that "if" they were indeed used as models for 1E, they were also instantly recognizable to the "masses" as types...there was no need to have ever seen their original sources...infact its better to not have, as it allows for more ownership of your character).

The "obscure characters" you mention are not so hard wired in to the 1E system to define how each of the classes must be played (the game as you pointed out, does not assign personalities). You still have the freedom as a fighter to run around in plate (like Lancelot) or in a lion cloth (like Conan). And a good DM will allow the PC to take advantage of the advantages not wearing armor gives (for instance, not sinking like a stone when the boat flips).

As for not being willing to change my mind...the same can be said for you.

 

[charlesatan]

I think the argument was lost when you were arguing that 1E was archetypal and people didn't believe that.

A lot of things fit archetypes. I'll concede that some elements of 1E are archetypes. But so does 3E. 3E isn't less archetypal than 1E.

I think what tx7321 wants to argue more about is simplicity. And 1E gives you just that: less options for your characters. The advantage of that is character generation is easier. The disadvantage is well, it's less versatile. Most people who like 3E sacrificed a bit of the former for the latter, yet it's not as clunky as say, GURPS. I think we should leave it at that.

Roleplaying your character is up to the player, not the game system. Whether you stick to known stereptypes or multiclass like crazy (which still existed in 1E so you can't say 3E made it fester and I'm not saying multiclassing isn't a stereotype) is dependent on the gaming group. Admittedly, there are some game systems which lean more towards roleplaying than rules for example (i.e. Vampire could be said as more role-playing oriented) but for the most part, 1E and 3E are combat-system RPGs.

P.S. Ironically, Merlin was a druid...

P.P.S. I just remembered... it's impossible to break archetype (although which archetype you're striving for is another matter). You can break stereotypes, but inevitably any character will follow a certain archetype. Most D&D characters, for example, fall under the "Hero" symbol.

P.P.P.S. tx7321: if you're arguing that mages wearing armor breaks archetype, they're not breaking archetype: they're breaking stereotype.

 

[tx7321]

Charlesatan: "I think what tx7321 wants to argue more about is simplicity. "
Yes, thats it. 1E was simpler, with ready to use well defined roles (or jobs) to step into. BUT these roles still represent popular literary archetypes (and not just specific lit. characters).

Yes, that is breaking stereo-type, but its also muddling archetype....at least my particular system of archetypes. As you say, all AD&D PCs can be seen as the archetype of "hero". If were using your devision of archetypes I'd argue there are plenty of coward players (and PCs they control) but thats another matter. The point is, the two games are different, and the freedom given by 3E in PC generation is a huge part of that. And its end results I realized over time were not positive.

I suppose my experiance in 3E is that players gravitate toward mixing feats and skills we normally associate with other classes...to the point they themselves don't know exactly what they are...just this hodgpodge mix. Every PC they role up takes the more advantagous skills and feats, and thus you don't get the extremes you did in 1E. Does that make since?

 

[Storm Raven]

Writers do consciously create characters to fit certain archetypes. This is common knowledge Lit 101, not all writers use them consciously but many do. You'd have to ask each of these guys if they did, but I wouldn't be surprised.

So, now you are in the same position as the literature professor who argued that the four fire engines in Farenheit 451 represented the four horsemen of the apocalypse. And his students called shenanigans on him. And so they got in touch with Ray Bradbury, and he told them that that theory was full of something that comes out of the hind end of a horse.

[Regardless The characters your referring to are similar enough to other characters presented in classic fairy tales and popular fiction, that "if" they were indeed used as models for 1E, they were also instantly recognizable to the "masses" as types...there was no need to have ever seen their original sources...infact its better to not have, as it allows for more ownership of your character).

Actually, they aren't very similar. Almost no prior character was like Cugel. No prior character was like Ogier. And, with the exception of game-related fiction, none that have followed have been like them. If they were archetypes, then they would have imitators, and they don't.

[The "obscure characters" you mention are not so hard wired in to the 1E system to define how each of the classes must be played (the game as you pointed out, does not assign personalities).

No, it doesn't. Which is why your Jungian analysis is full of the same stuff that the literature professor's theory on fire engines had in it.

You still have the freedom as a fighter to run around in plate (like Lancelot) or in a lion cloth (like Conan). And a good DM will allow the PC to take advantage of the advantages not wearing armor gives (for instance, not sinking like a stone when the boat flips).

Except, in the 1e D&D rules, you really don't. Wearing plate armor is pretty much the only viable option if you want to survive as a fighter. And, more to the point, the fighter class doesn't fit any antecedent. Which makes it not an archetype.

As for not being willing to change my mind...the same can be said for you.

I didn't say you were unwilling to change your mind (although you are), I said you have a predetermined outcome that you want (classes are archetypes) and are trying to massage the evidence to meet that conclusion. I am just following the evidence where it leads, and thus far, it doesn't lead anywhere near your conclusion. If the evidence led elsewhere, I would follow it to a different conclusion. But, thus far, it does not. And no amount of wishful thinking on your part will get it to go there.

 

[Storm Raven]

Charlesatan: "I think what tx7321 wants to argue more about is simplicity. "
Yes, thats it. 1E was simpler, with ready to use well defined roles (or jobs) to step into. BUT these roles still represent popular literary archetypes (and not just specific lit. characters).

You are correct about roles. You are wrong about archetypes.

Yes, that is breaking stereo-type, but its also muddling archetype....at least my particular system of archetypes. As you say, all AD&D PCs can be seen as the archetype of "hero". If were using your devision of archetypes I'd argue there are plenty of coward players (and PCs they control) but thats another matter. The point is, the two games are different, and the freedom given by 3E in PC generation is a huge part of that. And its end results I realized over time were not positive.

Except that it isn't. Players who "muddle a concept" would do so in 1e just as much. They would play the fighter/magic-user/thief, or the cleric/assassin. I have seen dozens of people make characters in 3e, and to tell the truth, they most often make more clearly defined characters than they ever did in 1e. Their skills and their character abilities usually complement each other, and drive the character to a particular end. Sure, there have been players who try to "do it all", but their efforts are almost always self-limiting, and generally short-lived.

I suppose my experiance in 3E is that players gravitate toward mixing feats and skills we normally associate with other classes...to the point they themselves don't know exactly what they are...just this hodgpodge mix. Every PC they role up takes the more advantagous skills and feats, and thus you don't get the extremes you did in 1E. Does that make since?

Except that feats and skills, in archetypes, are not exclusive to one class or another. Gandalf used a sword. Cugel could read scrolls. Merlin wore armor. Gwydion cast spells. And so on and so forth. The 1e classes didn't fit archetypes because they were not flexible enough, so you ended up with characters who couldn't do the things their archetypical forebears could do.

 

[tx7321]

Charlesatan: "I think the argument was lost when you were arguing that 1E was archetypal and people didn't believe that."

I think your right.

Raven, I think you need to chill out.

 

[Aaron L]

I think the point of contention here is not that 1E was archetypal, but that the 1E classes were somehow based on Jungian archetypes that everyone will instinctively understand, and that 3E somehow "dilutes" these "pure" archetypal classes into some sort of debased game designed for collectible card game players.

It's reading quite a bit further into the game than I believe Mr. Gygax ever intended.

As a simple way to resolve the matter we can ask the good Col Pladoh when he recovers and returns here.

 

[charlesatan]

Yes, thats it. 1E was simpler, with ready to use well defined roles (or jobs) to step into. BUT these roles still represent popular literary archetypes (and not just specific lit. characters).

Yes, 1E was simpler to create characters and to play. It's like comparing a NES game with a PS2 game. However, that doesn't extend to roles or representing "literary archetypes". 3E does that as well. Storm Raven's point is that there are a lot more literary characters that fit better in 3E than 1E. Which is as it should be considering 3E has more options (and similarly, a system like GURPS will be able to represent a wider spectrum of characters but at the expense of game play and a more arduous character generation process).

And the point I'm making is that we should distinguish ease/simplicity of play from archetypes. The latter applies to a lot of things, whether it be 3E or 1E. The former can be more quantifiable.

Yes, that is breaking stereo-type, but its also muddling archetype....at least my particular system of archetypes. As you say, all AD&D PCs can be seen as the archetype of "hero". If were using your devision of archetypes I'd argue there are plenty of coward players (and PCs they control) but thats another matter. The point is, the two games are different, and the freedom given by 3E in PC generation is a huge part of that. And its end results I realized over time were not positive.

Technically, you cannot break archetypes. And let's stop talking about archetypes since we're clearly not talking about them. We're really talking about stereotypes. And if you want people not to muddle your stereotypes, simply avoid the splatbooks, whether it be 3E or 1E. 1E had the four classes. 3E has eleven classes in the PHB. Simply stick to the core books in either system. Because honestly, all these multiclassing and dual classing arises from the supplementary material. Which in a way it should be because it adds more complexity to the game (which isn't a bad thing... I like complexity).

As for the hero "archetype", whether they're reluctant (i.e. Bilbo) or confident (i.e. Don Quixote), cowardly or brave doesn't break the archetype. They're still heroes, out to save something or someone. Now the stereotype of a hero is being brave. That's what "cowardly" characters are breaking. Or maybe you're thinking more of the trickster archetype, which outwits his opponents rather than through sheer force or skill (at arms).

At least you're willing to concede that 3E has "more freedom". The problem that typically arises from freedom is that it complicates things (in the same way that a video game is easier to flow-chart rather than an entire RPG campaign). There is no absolute or universal position when it comes to more/less freedom. Some players/GMs benefit from either side. What's bests for you and your gaming group is up to you to decide. But take note, the problem that arises stems from simplicity/complexity, of having less/more options, not because of archetypes. Stereotypes, perhaps, but not archetypes.

I suppose my experiance in 3E is that players gravitate toward mixing feats and skills we normally associate with other classes...to the point they themselves don't know exactly what they are...just this hodgpodge mix. Every PC they role up takes the more advantagous skills and feats, and thus you don't get the extremes you did in 1E. Does that make since?

In a way, that's leaning more towards realism. Not everyone who can draw for example must become an artist or a painter or an illustrator. Or just because you can play the piano doesn't mean you'll be a musician. And quite frankly, there are some skills which everyone has the opportunity to hone, such as spot/listen.

I understand what you're trying to say. It's a more difficult learning process. A 3E character is harder to "optimize" than a 1E character simply because the former has more options, and you might end up making sub-optimal choices for your character. And there's this big chasm of power levels between a newbie-generated character and a cheesed-out character in 3E. But that is the price a game with wider options has unless it was designed by an omniscient game designer. And my point is, that's what you're really arguing about--a game play issue, not an archetype issue. And my answer will be, it depends on the gaming group. Some are fine with the options 3E gives. Some aren't. Go play the respective games you want to play.