Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[Hussar]

Just to add a bit.

I see this is yet another, "D&D has moved away from its roots" sort of thread. The problem is, D&D in any incarnation, has always approached the genre in a kitchen sink way. Firearms have seen rules in Dragon, lazer guns and powered armor in modules, the classes are mish-mash of various sources, some very obscure. The idea that classes should conform to any sort of archetype is just silly. Why should they since none of the classes come saddled with role play notes? You can play a fighter in any sort of way you want as was rightfully pointed out by P&P. He can be a dex monkey with smaller weapons like a short sword or dagger or he can be the plate mail wearing tank. Take your pick. Both concepts work in 1e and neither fits with any sort of archetype.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

And it doesn't fit those very well.

Well, I disagree, actually. Given the constraint (through game logic, the class has to start out weak and work up to the power of the heroes of literature), I feel the literary characters are quite well translated.

These are likely very big influences on the classes, and that they are exactly proves my point. The classes are not built on archetypes. They are built on specific, in some cases, quite obscure, characters from novels. Sure, I've read Three hearts and Three Lions, so I know Holger/Ogier is the inspiration for the class. But that character is not a literary or mythological archetype. They are, in large part, specific translations of relatively unknown individual characters.

They're unknown now.

In the 21st Century, there are huge numbers of high fantasy books, series, novels, and particularly trilogies. These have arisen from a resurgence in the popularity of fantasy which was, itself, at least partly fuelled by fantasy roleplaying games. Most of these high fantasy books are in the Tolkein model, with quite a stereotypical plot in which the hero gets together with a mixed bag of characters, each with his or her own particular talents (the Seven Samurai or the Dirty Dozen) and embarks on a Quest to Save the World from a rather generic and poorly thought-out Dark Lord.

The World, of course, is usually mapped out in detail and exactly the right size and shape to fit on a double-page spread of a standard fantasy paperback and almost every place on the map will be visited en route, even if the author has to muck around with time and distance in order to make that possible (yes, David Eddings, I'm talking to you). Once the hero has retrieved the relevant Magical Thingumajigs or other plot coupons, and each of the Seven Samurai has had the chance to demonstrate his or her own unique talent or personal characteristic, the party can trade in their plot coupons to the author for a Eucatastrophe in which the Dark Lord is finally defeated and peace reigns, although there's quite often room left for a sequel.

Obviously, this huge volume of predictable rubbish that second-rate authors and publishers sell has its devotees, and it's had an influence on the archetypes. More people know about Drizzzzzzzzzzt or Garion or whoever Robert Jordan's forgettable hero is called than Cugel, so those characters are seen as more "archetypal" than Cugel or Rhialto.

But writing in the early 1970s, Gygax & co. didn't have those archetypes to draw on. They drew on the sources they had, and preferentially on authors they liked to read, which meant Anderson, Tolkein, Vance, to a certain extent Moorcock, Howard and Leiber, etc.

So I think that relative to the time of writing, AD&D is based on archetypes.

When people are asked to name a fantasy wizard, how many name Rhialto the Marvelous as opposed to Merlin, or Gandalf? Or a number of other characters?

Nowadays, very few; see above.

(By the way, who do you think the precise antecedent of the druid and bard classes are?).

The druid seems to be drawn from idealised Celtic fantasies admixed with a generous dollop of Getafix. I think the 1e bard -- fighter, thief, poet, singer and wit, speaker of many languages, etc. -- is quite clearly Fafhrd.

 

[Hussar]

Nowadays, very few; see above.

Even thenadays, Vance was practically unknown. Heck, nearly any fantasy author before 1980 was unknown by definition since fantasy as a genre was simply an add on to science fiction. An archetype needs to be known by a number of people before it becomes an archetype. A class based on a book that nearly no one had actually read is not based on an archetype. It's based on a character, but that character is hardly archetypal.

I'm thinking that while there is a fair amount of drek out there in fantasy literature, you are perhaps letting nostalgia color your judgement P&P. There are a huge number of fantasy authors that I'll stand up beside Vance any day of the week - China Mieville, Tad Williams, Steven Brust, Steven Ericson, Steven R Donaldson, Neil Gaimon; just to name a few. The idea that dead authors are somehow superior to current ones is just not true.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Even thenadays, Vance was practically unknown.

Do you really think so?

Anyway, regardless of the truth of that, the point is that he wasn't unknown to Gary Gygax. Truth is that Gary copied a whole lot of Vance, not least Vance's prose style... although he couldn't do Vance like Vance. I mean, I love Gygaxian prose, but Vance has an undeniable gift.

I'm thinking that while there is a fair amount of drek out there in fantasy literature, you are perhaps letting nostalgia color your judgement P&P. There are a huge number of fantasy authors that I'll stand up beside Vance any day of the week - China Mieville, Tad Williams, Steven Brust, Steven Ericson, Steven R Donaldson, Neil Gaimon; just to name a few. The idea that dead authors are somehow superior to current ones is just not true.

Oh, certainly -- there are definitely some excellent post-D&D fantasy authors. I'll see your China Mieville and raise you a Gene Wolfe. Besides which, they're not all dead -- Michael Moorcock is still alive (and still writing largely the same book again and again and selling it to us. You'd think that after 60+ novels featuring the same character doing the same things, we might have caught on? But I still buy his stuff. )

There were also some crap pre-D&D fantasy authors. Yes, Lin Carter, I'm talking to you. You should never have sullied Howard's beautifully pulpy Conan with your stilted hack-ness!

What I'm saying is that the post-D&D era has produced reams and reams of trite, formulaic high fantasy that have had a big impact on our perception of the archetypes. That isn't the same as saying that all earlier writers are good, nor is it the same as saying all modern writers are rubbish.

 

[Hussar]

I think it has just a lot more to do with volume. In 1975, you'd be lucky to find a dozen fantasy books in a given store. At least a dozen that you hadn't read before. There have been more genre books written in 2004 (which I have stats for) than were written in the entire of the 70's. Some 200 per year and that doesn't count licensed novels like D&D books or whatnot.

Of course the archetypes have changed.

I would say that the percentages are roughly the same, just that the genre is a hundred times larger now than it was then. And this generally means that most of the authors which inspired Gygax and co were virtually unknown other than perhaps Tolkein, outside of genre fans. The point was made that grandma who is not a genre fan will somehow "get" the archetype portrayed by 1e classes. I'm thinking that grandma who's exposure to fantasy is limited to the Mouse and others, is more likely to think wizards should be using wands - oh, but that archetype is too Harry Potter now I guess.

 

[tx7321]

HUSSAR: " see this is yet another, "D&D has moved away from its roots" sort of thread. The problem is, D&D in any incarnation, has always approached the genre in a kitchen sink way. Firearms have seen rules in Dragon, lazer guns and powered armor in modules, the classes are mish-mash of various sources, some very obscure. The idea that classes should conform to any sort of archetype is just silly. Why should they since none of the classes come saddled with role play notes? You can play a fighter in any sort of way you want as was rightfully pointed out by P&P. He can be a dex monkey with smaller weapons like a short sword or dagger or he can be the plate mail wearing tank. Take your pick. Both concepts work in 1e and neither fits with any sort of archetype."


Well Hussar, all I can say is that AD&D 1E is a game designed with specific behavior in mind for each class. This behavior is reinforced (almost defined) by the rules. A fighter can indeed run around in a satin shirt with a foil like sword, but they'll be cut to pieces by the first enemy fighter in plate with long sword, they encounter. If you want to act like such a hero, its possible, but you have to attain some levels first (after all, heroes in fiction are rare and are above the average).

It seems to me you'd like a game with no starting class types what so ever. That might be interesting, just a list of skills and feats to choose from, and some rules to determine how many you can pick (perhaps points?) (and BTW thats pretty much the direction 3E moved toward). Never mind that this makes no since (why, for instance, would a fighter be taught how to pick a lock like a thief) it would lead to mixes that were undefinable as to profession (and each would represent a mix of archeytpes). Now this has a certain novelty about it thats refreshing...but in the long run, it lost MY interest as a game because of it.

So anyhow, clearly Hussar (from what you stated above), archetypes (or strictly defined classes created and reinforced by rules) are not of much use to you (in 3E). And I suspect, most in the 3E camp would agree with you. As several of you have stated, if you want to play a straight up fighter you can...or if you want to play a part fighter/MU/thief in any mix you ike, thats fine as well.

I don't have a beef with you, and respect those who have disagreed with me (mostly 3E players) opinions. At least I better understand what you guys think, which was the point of the thread.

I think it could be argued that 3E might be a better game if they did away with the starting archetypes altogether, and went to just starting with skills and feats (the mix of 2 extremes has caused problems and confusion I think). Everyone should be able to be what ever they want to be. So what if it doesn't correspond with reality (a professional doctor/archetect/plummer) its a fantasy game, right?

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, I disagree, actually. Given the constraint (through game logic, the class has to start out weak and work up to the power of the heroes of literature), I feel the literary characters are quite well translated.

Then, if the classes were truly based on archetypes, one would expect that the classes and rules pertaining to classes would allow one to make a broad range of literary characters without routinely breaking them. But you can't. You cannot make the Grey Mouser with the rules. You can make Cugel. You cannot make Merlin, but you can make Rhialto.

They're unknown now.

They were relatively unknown then too.

Vance, at the time, was clearly a second tier fantasy writer. Toklien, LeGuinn, Lieber, Howard, and even Burroughs all ranked clearly ahead of him in the genre at the time. Several other writers were in the same category as Vance. I knew lots of people who had read a fair amount of the available fantasy fiction, and none of them had read Vance before looking at the "list of books" in the back of the 1e DMG.

For Anderson, he was well known, and probably in that upper tier group, but Three Hearts and Three Lions is not one of his signature works. Sure, it is a good read, but if you were deciding to read some Anderson, you would start with about a dozen other books first, well before you ever got to that one.

In the 21st Century, there are huge numbers of high fantasy books, series, novels, and particularly trilogies. These have arisen from a resurgence in the popularity of fantasy which was, itself, at least partly fuelled by fantasy roleplaying games. Most of these high fantasy books are in the Tolkein model, with quite a stereotypical plot in which the hero gets together with a mixed bag of characters, each with his or her own particular talents (the Seven Samurai or the Dirty Dozen) and embarks on a Quest to Save the World from a rather generic and poorly thought-out Dark Lord.

Yes. That seems to me to be an indication of which books the fantasy archetypes that inspired this collection of imitator fantasy would be best drawn from.

Obviously, this huge volume of predictable rubbish that second-rate authors and publishers sell has its devotees, and it's had an influence on the archetypes. More people know about Drizzzzzzzzzzt or Garion or whoever Robert Jordan's forgettable hero is called than Cugel, so those characters are seen as more "archetypal" than Cugel or Rhialto.

And I'm not talking about these types of novels as the sources for archetypes. You may notice the characters I am looking at - Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, Gandalf, Merlin, Arthur, Lancelot, Robin Hood, Aragorn, and so on.

But writing in the early 1970s, Gygax & co. didn't have those archetypes to draw on. They drew on the sources they had, and preferentially on authors they liked to read, which meant Anderson, Tolkein, Vance, to a certain extent Moorcock, Howard and Leiber, etc.

So I think that relative to the time of writing, AD&D is based on archetypes.

I still think not, because the examples used to describe the basis for the classes were obscure in the genre of fantasy even then.

The druid seems to be drawn from idealised Celtic fantasies admixed with a generous dollop of Getafix. I think the 1e bard -- fighter, thief, poet, singer and wit, speaker of many languages, etc. -- is quite clearly Fafhrd.

And yet, when trying to translate Fafhrd into 1e AD&D stats, they didn't make him a high level bard.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yep, my aunt likely read the generic Grimms and watched Disney cartoon magicians (like that on Fantasia etc.)...that sort of thing (like the rest of us living in the USA) so it would be unusual for us to hear of Merlin running around in armor. Infact, this is the first I've heard of it. I suppose if my aunt read books and watched movies with magicians charging with lances in full plate she'd be disappointed by AD&Ds presentation.[/i]

Let's see, in the Once and Future King Melin wears armor and wields a halberd. In Mary Stewart's books, Merlin wears armor. In Merlin's Ring, several spell casters wear armor and carry swords. Wizards wearing armor and carrying swords was more common prior to D&Ds publication than it has been after D&Ds publication. It seems more like the D&D version of what a wizard is has shaped our current perception, not that the then current perception shaped how the D&D wizard was created.

The psychological element I focus on is more difficult to understand and more difficult to express...thats the only reason I'm bringing it up (for example, "why do authors use tried and true archetypes anyway?" "Because the reader knows the character instantly and what they represent *their strengths and weaknesses*) .

Perhaps it is difficult to express, because it doesn't fit. Because, you know, it doesn't. The classes are game constructs. They don't represent any kind of archetype at all, no matter how much Jungian analysis you want to throw at them.

 

[tx7321]

Like I said, few if any Americans (esp. not 11 year old kids) have even heard of those referrences. They are not part of the collective (as is Fantasia's wizard, or Gandalf in the Hobbit). Those are obscure sources and have almost no meaning to the majority of D&D players at the time.


Raven: "Perhaps it is difficult to express, because it doesn't fit. Because, you know, it doesn't. The classes are game constructs. They don't represent any kind of archetype at all, no matter how much Jungian analysis you want to throw at them."

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. And those characters in fantasy books represent basic templates...sure they are slightly different (ok, so Merlin war armor on occasion...he was still seen as an advisor, and teacher, and falls in the shoe box with Gandalf, and other "classic" wizards, not the shoe box that contains Conan! Infact, dealing with the limitations of their archetype was often the theme of the stories we grew up with ("the Hobbit" is a perfect example).

And Raven, 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 (and thus the "old school" feel). They are a large part of why "classic" "bread and butter" fantasy buffs love 1E....and likewise, why 3E is so popular with those who prefer a more retro-fantasy feel.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Then, if the classes were truly based on archetypes, one would expect that the classes and rules pertaining to classes would allow one to make a broad range of literary characters without routinely breaking them. But you can't. You cannot make the Grey Mouser with the rules.

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.

They were relatively unknown then too.

Vance, at the time, was clearly a second tier fantasy writer. Toklien, LeGuinn, Lieber, Howard, and even Burroughs all ranked clearly ahead of him in the genre at the time.

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

For Anderson, he was well known, and probably in that upper tier group, but Three Hearts and Three Lions is not one of his signature works. Sure, it is a good read, but if you were deciding to read some Anderson, you would start with about a dozen other books first, well before you ever got to that one.

Repeat of same answer.

And I'm not talking about these types of novels as the sources for archetypes. You may notice the characters I am looking at - Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, Gandalf, Merlin, Arthur, Lancelot, Robin Hood, Aragorn, and so on.

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.

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, when trying to translate Fafhrd into 1e AD&D stats, they didn't make him a high level bard.

Or specifically, Jim Ward didn't make him a pure high level bard when writing Deities & Demigods. And whoever wrote the 1e Nehwon campaign supplement had a different interpretation of Fafhrd to Jim Ward's, iirc.

Personally I'm not thrilled with any of the 1e interpretations of Fafhrd, and I certainly don't think the bard is a perfect job -- in fact, I think it's a horrible abortion of a class which is seriously out of balance with the remainder of the system.

But I do recognise that it's supposed to be Fafhrd.