Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[Desdichado]

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. :\

I'm extremely confused. What exactly am I supposed to "learn" from my characters?

Also, I find your analysis that all characters (in an archetype-less system) tend to blend together into the same thing completely contrary to my experience. Systems that use, for example, point-buy still tend to have archetypes--it just allows the player to customize and tweak the archetypes by 1) doing a few things differently for fun, or 2) to match his version of the archetype--which may or may not match the vision of the game designer.

That's my big problem with archetypes. I don't mind using characters that are somewhat archetypical, but I don't like being told what the archetypes are, and how they work. The ranger is probably my favorite example of an archetype where the class as presented comes nowhere near my vision of the archetype, and since the woodsman/hunter/guerilla warrior/special forces archetype is one of my favorites, it bothers me a lot that the ranger class doesn't do what I want it to.

Combine that with the fact that next time I touch on that archetype, I'll want a different experience; a different character that renders the archetype through a different personal lens, so to speak, and the case for more flexible options and/or more options period in terms of character class becomes extremely strong, IMO.

 

[Victim]

Really, only a few archetypes have any correlation to armor use. In a story, armor doesn't matter. If the author wants a character to die/become injured, it will happen regardless of whether or not the character has armor. So archetypically, you have your knights in shining armor who need their armor, and then maybe people who eschew protective gear (monk type people). For other characters, armor use is either irrelevant or situational - a character might wear light/no armor when sneaking around but they'll bring plate or such to an army battle if its available. There are plenty of fighting type characters who wear light or no armor too.

 

[tx7321]

J-dawg, first off, you can come up with a million and one archetypes. I was referring to the popular "types" or roles found in AD&D 1E (in this case the basic classes) and other popular literature (I was breaking it into 5, the child, the protector/provider, the teacher, and the healer. These are just 1 set though, and no biggy if you don't want to use them. They are codifications, artificial boxes inwhich attributes are thrown to make some kind of superficial since of them...nothing more.

But sure, you could have the "Hero" archetype for 3E Or anything else that floats your boat. Infact, I agree with you, the archetypes or class restrictions found in 1E aren't well suited for 3E, which is def. a more retro feeling game. As you said, it has incorporated many other current systems along with D&D (strongly tieing into Magic for instance).

So what could you learn from playing the 1E classes...well that depends on the player. I suppose nothing for some. Having to limit yourself to sneaking around vs. casting spells vs. going toe to toe all require you to think differently. Can the things you do in the game help you in some way outside of the game? Maybe...but like I said it depends on the player (some don't even get into the game...so. I hope that helps clearify my admittedly obscure statement. But I'm posting in a rush, so..

Moogle: "What it comes down to is this: the first incarnation of D&D was not a high-concept game of mythic storytelling tapping into deep-seated archetypes and based on the definitive and instantly recognizable imagery of fantasy". I agree, I don't think there was any real thought in that direction either (it just evolved, and they included what they thought was cool). That said, I think many of AD&Ds players did relate so well to AD&D because it did infact "tap into deep seated" mythical stories, and recognizable fantasy. All AD&D 1E is cowboys and Indians with rules. Except in this case its midieval based with monsters and a DM describing the world. Could AD&D have been created with fighters that casted spells and MUs that wore armor and used swords...sure. Would that have been as popular to me as a kid...no. I'd have been confused. I still might play it however.

 

[BroccoliRage]

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



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!

I actually do not allow mutli-classing in my games. MY reason is because I feel it detracts away from suspension of disbelief on the grounds that skills degenrate when neglected. The classes in D&D or d20 Fantasy are things that must be honed, in my opinion, and in the 1e and 2e DMG it's stated that the characters in most games are presumed to be spending thier down time training. If someone is busy learning the mysteries of thier god, training in the skills of thievery, studying arcane lore, or training to be a proficient warrior, they don't have the time to devote to other skills. You can draw the bicycle riding analogy, but the above examples are far more complicated and in depth than riding a bicycle.

I make up for the lack of multiclassing by allowing a wide range of classes. Classes from AD&D 1e and 2e, B/X D&D, Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, Hackmaster, Dragonsfoot Manual of Professions, and Bard Games' Arcanum. Finding a 1st level dwarf, Battlemage, Samurai, fighter, Bravo, and Knight Errant is a possibility in my games.

The only classes I have done away with are the Bard and Pscionicist.

 

[charlesatan]

Isn't the same true in many novels, movies, television shows etc.?
I agree though, that the main purpose was to create the need for group partisipation.

In a way, yes. The main characters should usually serve a purpose. But then again, some heroes go solo (i.e. Conan, Elric, Corwin, etc. -- yes, I know they hook up with parties but they spend about as much time adventuring alone as with a group), some just a pair (Fafrd and the Gray Mouser). And sometimes, fiction characters hook up with characters with the same classes: an all-"Fighter" group, an all-"thief" group, or even an all-"spellcaster" group. Heck, even in Lord of the Rings, the party was only a D&D party in the beginning. Later on, it's just Frodo and Sam and Gollum on one area (all thieves?), and the rest in another.

From a gameplay standpoint, I understand the need to have specialized roles but comparing it to fiction just doesn't stand up. Heck, a lot of the Robert E. Howard era characters had protagonists fighting against sorcery and the like.

And honestly, the four Gygax main classes are stretching the concept a bit thinly. Fighter passes. The thief is somewhere in the middle. I mean if it weren't for the existence of dungeons, you don't really need him. The spellcaster is so-so. He's iconic in fantasy (the fact that he can cast spells mind you, and not the fact that he has/doesn't have armor, or the Vancian spellcasting system), definitely, but as pointed out before, spellcasters are usually advising more than adventuring, or at as evil protagonists. The cleric is a tactical/strategic role -- everyone needs healing QUICKLY or else the adventure stops right there. However fiction-wise, he's a deus ex machina device hence few writers actually have healers in the group that can outright mend near-fatal wounds or resurrect people from the dead short of a quest or a powerful one-shot talisman/artifact.

The classes are, for the most part, arbritrary choices designed for game play to suit the needs and vision of Gygax.

 

[charlesatan]

Raven "Merlin, in The Once and Future King, published in 1958. best selling book. Gwydion from The Book of Three (and sequels), published in 1964, Newberry Award winning book. Several of the wizards in A Wizard of Earthsea (and sequels), published in 1968, including, notably, Erreth-Akbe. I could go on."

Honestly, I haven't seen one of these. I'm not saying these weren't popular books for a group of people. What I'm saying is these books were not known by many of TSRs primary demographic (when compared to other sources like Grimms, Disney, The Hobbit etc.)...and surely you can see that even if they were, the characters in these books would not fit in with the stereo typical fairy tale/Tolkien feel OD&D/1E had.
Oh, BTW do you have any links to pictures..would be interesting to see.

Uh, when you're denying that the likes of T.H. White and le Guin aren't popular, I think your argument starts falling apart.

I'll be honest: I haven't heard of Book of Three. But as pointed out, just because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean it wasn't popular.

T.H. White and le Guin I've read recently (recently being the past four years) but even before that, I've heard of them.

Once and Future King is yes, an Arthurian fantasy. It's perhaps not the definitive Arthurian tale (Le Mort de Arthur is) as is the case when you have an entire fantasy sub-genre, but it comes close. It's required reading for some lit classes, and the only other Arthurian fantasy that comes close to it is probably Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley. But feel free to disregard that fact as as you've said, Merlin has had many incarnations and variations (and for God's sakes, you have an entire sub-genre). But Once and Future King IS a popular novel, irregardless if we're just talking about fantasy or fiction in general.

A Wizard of Earthsea and Ursula le Guin is one of mainstream fantasy's best-known titles and authors. Sure, you have Tolkien, but le Guin is probably next in line along with the likes of Moorcock and Leiber and Howard for example (although of course, Leiber and Howard precede her and Tolkien even). She's definitely more well-read than Vance and A LOT of people have cited her as influence, in the RPG industry or otherwise.

 

[charlesatan]

The classes in D&D or d20 Fantasy are things that must be honed, in my opinion, and in the 1e and 2e DMG it's stated that the characters in most games are presumed to be spending thier down time training.

Funny that. That's also mentioned in the 3E DMG (at the very least I remember it in the 3.0 one if not the 3.5 version). Even suggests you finding a tutor, paying fees, etc. =)

 

[charlesatan]

3E lost that setting somewhat. Partly its evident in the new artwork, but also its in the rules, as the old roles no longer exist as clearly as the once did. As if suddenly you went to your lawyer and he not only gave legal advice, but set a sprain.

Everything, inevitably evolves. Even Gygax's setting, Greyhawk, evolved. Naturally, you can expect some things to change in 3E (heck, it already changed in 2E...). But with regards to archetypes and the like, it's different, certainly, but in no way diminished.

Artwork also evolves. Whether 3E came out or not it would have evolved anyway. And in the end, artwork is a matter of taste. Some people loved the original Dragonlance Chronicles covers for example. I didn't. I liked the 2nd incarnation of its covers. Right now I think there's a third (didn't like it). But that's just my taste. Heck, the first Conan covers had him caucasian. It wasn't until Boris Vallejo that had the current "image" of Conan as this barely dressed, muscular, tan-skinned barbarian.

If my lawyer did that, he/she's great. Am I expecting it? No. But having added features would seem great to me. =)

Also, this would explain what might be going on in 3E (the creation of a single hero that can do it all (part, fighter, part spell caster, part thief).

Is it possible in 3E? Yes. Was it possible in versions before that? Yes. But the casual gamer hardly does it. The quadruple-threat (Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric) is the stuff of muchkinness. Can I make such a character in 3E? Yes, but with difficulty and using a wide variety of books. Most likely I'll stick to one of the basic "archetypes". I can probably do a double-threat class such as an Eldritch Knight for example, but the Eldritch Knight (most of the time) doesn't have the hit points of a pure Fighter, or the spellcasting firepower/versatility of a straight-out caster. The only exception to this rule are Clerics and Druids but that's another topic entirely...

Don't get me wrong, I know this is really a "which version is better" thread. And while I see the pros and cons of 1E and 3E, I just think that you're going about your argument wrong with citing archetypes and popular image as the reason for 1E being superior.

 

[tx7321]

Charelsatan:

"Uh, when you're denying that the likes of T.H. White and le Guin aren't popular, I think your argument starts falling apart.

I'll be honest: I haven't heard of Book of Three. But as pointed out, just because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean it wasn't popular.

T.H. White and le Guin I've read recently (recently being the past four years) but even before that, I've heard of them."

I get the feeling these books were at least 90% classic fantasy (sword and sorcerer stuff) with just a little bit of odd-ball stuff (wizards donning armor etc.). Is that correct?

Secondly, lets say all these books were as popular as "The Hobbit" and LOTR series. There still chump change compared to the classic story book fairy tales which reach back 100s of years, the ones we were introduced to in our childhood. And thats why Gygax focused on a more "classic fantasy" setting (with MUs not wearing armor, and fighters not casting spells).

BTW, I wasn't denying that books have solo archetypes or like teams as the heroes in books...far from it. Whats interesting to me however, is that for what ever reason, all of the classic anthropological Archetypes are present in 1E, if you really look. Of course, this oddity is of no interest to anyone here but me. And no, I don't think this was intentionally done by Gygax.

 

[MerricB]

Once and Future King is yes, an Arthurian fantasy. It's perhaps not the definitive Arthurian tale (Le Mort de Arthur is) as is the case when you have an entire fantasy sub-genre, but it comes close.

To be more precise, the first part of the Once and Future King, The Sword in the Stone, is the well known and pretty much most accepted telling of the early life of Arthur. (I have the original edition; White changed it later, and not for the better). The later books aren't as great, though still interesting to read.

Cheers!