Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[charlesatan]

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. :\

Not necessarily. From a mechanical standpoint, perhaps he's dull because he might be ineffective. But from a character standpoint, he fulfills another archetype: that of a generalist. And roleplaying wise, that could be for various reasons, whether he wants to be prepared for everything or is simply someone who doesn't have the conviction/attention span to focus on any one thing.

The problem is perhaps the fact that we might be focusing too much on the four archetypes (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue) when there are other archetypes to be explored in the game.

 

[Hussar]

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

Not really. That only follows if you assume that class is the primary motivation behind a character. There is actually no reason to think this way. That would be like saying that all thieves must steal. This is neither true nor particularly desireable. A theif character could be a petty thief, or he could be a thief taker. There are any number of roles a class could explore.

The advent of kits in 2e was a direct result of the idea that class has very little to do with motivation. If you took a given kit, your motivations were wrapped up in that archetypal package, not in the base class.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Archetypes simplify.

If you want a streamlined character creation system that lets you get into the game with a workable character with no forethought in five minutes flat, an archetype is your answer. If you want a detailed character creation system that lets you specify a precise background, ethos and modus operandi for your character and have it reflected in the game mechanics, then you need to drop the archetypes.

(You can specify a complex background, family tree, personal history etc. for an archetype. It just won't be reflected in the stats.)

To people who want detailed character creation systems, archetypes are inflexible and restrictive (and complainers often describe archetypes as "arbitrary" too, even though that's essentially meaningless in a game rules framework.)

To people who want to get on and play without having to calculate and optimise three dozen stacking modifiers, archetypes are empowering. Thus, inflexible archetypes are often a feature of "rules lite" systems.

Corollary:

If you use a detailed, flexible character creation system, then character death is a pain. The player has to spend a long time figuring out a new character before getting back into the system.

If you use an inflexible, archetype-based system, then character death is relatively less painful. There's less emotional investment and less hard work in each character.

Therefore, I think that archetype-based systems are preferable when the GM isn't scared to kill off characters.

 

[MerricB]

P&P: I think your description is too simplified. 3E is an archetypal system that then allows you to move outside the archetypes. (And, let's face it, I've killed more characters in 3E than I ever did in previous systems).

Cheers!

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

P&P: I think your description is too simplified. 3E is an archetypal system that then allows you to move outside the archetypes. (And, let's face it, I've killed more characters in 3E than I ever did in previous systems).

I think that might tell us more about your personal development as a GM than what the actual systems allow, though, Merric.

I agree that D20 fantasy shares with Rolemaster the feature that there are archetypes but it's possible to move outside them. Nevertheless, I feel that my point stands: both RM and D20 fantasy require a much greater investment of time on character creation.

I realise a lot of people enjoy spending a great deal of time on their characters, and some of them actively enjoy accruing greater stacking modifiers, and there's nothing wrong with that. Those people will very properly prefer D20.

 

[Gold Roger]

I love me my archetypes and ensure to do my best to protect them. It's the only part where I actively change the rules and set restrictions just to enforce "my vision of the game", when playing D&D

I believe in D&D the archetypes are one of the main building blocks of the world, feel and genre and like it that way.


In some other games, I don't care so much for them though.

 

[tx7321]

Another thing to consider is the "look" of the game in your imagination. When your in a party of 5, say, and you have 2 MUs one dressed in traditional clothing and with traditional weapons, the other wearing armor and carrying a great sword, this throws off the theme of the setting (or at least greatly redefines it). It creates a world image far different from what I (and I suspect most people) picture in typical fantasy (where I can identify the basic types instantly).

Don't loose site of the fact that archetypes play an important part in liturature, and story telling in general. In 1E the player teleports into a world of the DMs making. In order to know his part (some basic constraints) its helpful to have that template ("tonight I feel like dealing with things head on...hacking things up, I'll play a fighter, tomarrow I'll feel like sneaking around problems, to avoid...I'll be a thief etc."

And when everyone else is in "character" it makes your template that much more meaningful.

 

[Psion]

I think archetypes are a major reason for the enduring appeal of D&D.

They encourage team play. No one character can deal with every challenge that faces a group.

They help share the spotlight. They make characters into specialists and punish for generalizing, giving each player who chooses to specialize a clear schtick they are best at.

They help define play. Properly designed archetypes will help define the types of adventures the characters will participate in.

They provide easy to understand character types. This serves as a useful benchmark for the GM and other players who may not understand your character as well as you.

They provide believability and consistency by encouraging characters to pick up a variety of abilities that would logically be had by a character of that vocation.

They help with balance. By forcing character abilities to be dispensed in packages of related abilities instead of allowing players to cherry pick abilities they happen to think will be to their immediate benefit, they discourage the ridiculous builds that come from over-specialization.

Classes/archetypes are often downplayed in D&D bashing circles as a "sacred cow". But I think they are a strong positive feature of the game and are dispensed with at its peril.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I agree that D20 fantasy shares with Rolemaster the feature that there are archetypes but it's possible to move outside them. Nevertheless, I feel that my point stands: both RM and D20 fantasy require a much greater investment of time on character creation.

I agree. In either 3E or Rolemaster you can "stick with the archetype," but the relatively fine-grained design of the systems give up one of the main benefits of archetypes: simplicity.

When the system really leverages archetypes, you can eliminate a lot of complexity. For example, the archetype can fulfill the function of skills and feats, defining what a PC is "good" at. For example, if you're playing a strongly-archetyped system that lacks fine-grained skills, you rely on the archetype + the PC background to know what the PC is good at. Say you have a Ranger who originally came from a fishing village: the archetype defines what he's good at, even if it isn't a specific class ability. So you know he'll be good at navigation in the wilderness, spotting ambushes, finding water & food, and "nature lore," in general. Since he's from a fishing background, you can assume some knowledge of boats, nets, knots, et cetera. The players don't need a big list of specific skills to know where the PC excels, and the DM uses the information to adjudicate in-game situations.

There are obviously pros and cons. A strongly-archetyped system is simple. Since it relies on DM judgment to a greater degree, it benefits from a good DM, and can suffer from a poor one. It's less-specific, which means it's flexible. That is, if a given action sounds like something the PC should be good at, then the DM and players can go with that judgment, rather than worrying if the PC has the appropriate skill or feat listed on the character sheet. (This avoids the Fighter-without-power-attack type of situation: "What do you mean my second level Fighter doesn't know how to swing harder, trading accuracy for damage? That's the kind of thing any experienced Fighter would be able to do...." Other examples abound: Knight-without-heraldry, et cetera.)

I like strongly-archetyped systems because of the simplicity and the flexibility. Character creation is fast and play is fast. And I think they have a lot of resonance: the nature of the character is easily grasped, especially for new players. I find that all the "fiddly bits" of a fine-grained skill/feat system don't really add much: you often end up with pretty much the same result, just with a ton more complexity. YMMV.

If you're into fine-grained builds of your character, then Rolemaster or d20 are good choices.

 

[Aaron L]

I think archetypes are a major reason for the enduring appeal of D&D.

That's why I think 3E is so good. It has the archetypes, but it also allows you to combine and alter the archetypes to move beyond them and create new ones.


It's better than making a new class (which I know how much you dislike ) for every single possible archetype or character idea out there. I know that in the fantasy stories I read that ever character can't be easily defined by one simple D&D class.

3e is the best of both worlds. It has the simplicity of readily available archetypal classes, plus the ability to make a character with more than one, and mix and match to get just the character you want. Having to make every single character you ever play conform to a long established character type gets quite boring after a while, in my opinion.