Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[tx7321]

Aaron wrote: "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."

Well, I think thats where it comes down to a matter of taste. It took me a few years of playing 3E to understand if I wanted to play in a particular "classic" fantasy setting with easily identifiable "types" all around me, then 3E just wasn't the way to go. That and a few other things brought me back to 1E. Of course others love the fantasy setting of 3E,and thats fine.

 

[Psion]

Well, I think thats where it comes down to a matter of taste. It took me a few years of playing 3E to understand if I wanted to play in a particular "classic" fantasy setting with easily identifiable "types" all around me, then 3E just wasn't the way to go. That and a few other things brought me back to 1E. Of course others love the fantasy setting of 3E,and thats fine.

This view is just... alien to me.

My standard character in 1e & 2e was a fighter/magic-user/thief. Such a character in 3e would be, well, watered down and much less appealing by way of comparison.

Further, human dual classing rules were eminently abusable, and I saw some hideous combos made thereby.

Class level limits were not much of a deterrent as we soon learned that most games didn't last long into levels where they were capped.

In 3e, the fact that you split your LEVELS between classes instead of splitting XP was a major nixing of the omnicompotent character type in D&D. It was a shock to me at first, because that was pretty much my main character type and it got socked in the testes.

There's a few blends that still work, but it's much more difficult to make true archetype mixers as beneficial. You are usually just as effective a character by sticking to single class. So the main motivation for making multiclass characters moved from being a jack of all trades that could cover every base and take a bit of every spotlight, to one of personal preference.

So I'm not seeing that 3e is less archetyped than 1e and 2e. Quite the opposite.

 

[tx7321]

Psion, I guess I just like to picture a Tolkienish/Excalibur world where the fighters walk around in plate or chain and swing big swords, the MUs cast spells and carry staves, the thieves stay hidden as long as possible. If you "look around" in your imagination in 3E you see a very different world (everyone seems to be dressed the same, carry the same stuff etc.). Its not bad (I've heard it called dungeon punk...but don't like that term), its just not for me.

 

[RFisher]

You can have generalist characters in class-based systems: 1e's Cleric/Fighter/MU.

You can have archetype characters in skill-based systems.

My experience is that, in general, even in purely skill-based games, you'll have more fun if you specialize.

In the long run, many skill-based games--unfortunately--encourage generalism. Plus, you can have "broken" mechanics like the Gurps "put a high score in DX or IQ & be good at everything physical/mental." (Just an example...I wouldn't want to get into a discussion about that again.) & occasionally the jack-of-all-trades character is fun. But, in general, playing to type ends up being more fun.

I've come to see classes & skills as two extremes of the same continuum. Classes are nothing more than really broad skills. I could say that Bob has training in sword-fighting, hand-to-hand combat, riding, jousting, courtesy, &c. Or I can just say that he's been trained as a knight. Each has advantages & disadvantages.

In any case, are archetypes still useful? Of course. Do game mechanics need to be built around them? Mostly no.

My caveats are that a skill-based system needs to consider two things:

1. Do you reward specialization or generalism?
2. Are different types of characters modelled at the same level of granularity? Do you need 20 skills to build a knight but only 5 to build a mage--or the other way around?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

So I'm not seeing that 3e is less archetyped than 1e and 2e.

It's not that 3E characters can't conform to an archetype; they can. It's that the system doesn't leverage the main advantage of archetypes: simplicity.

That's not a condemnation of 3E. It's just a different style and approach. Edit -- As RFisher points out, it's just different points on the class vs. skill, or coarse-grained vs. fine-grained, continuum. Where you like to be on that continuum is a matter of taste.

 

[Psion]

Psion, I guess I just like to picture a Tolkienish/Excalibur world where the fighters where plate or chain and swing big swords, the MUs cast spells and carry staves, the thieves stay hidden as long as possible. If you "look around" in your imagination in 3E you see a very different world.

"tx", when I take a look around in my imagination, I DO very much see fighters in armor with big swords, spellcasters with staves, and lurking thieves. In fact, I think you just described the three main characters in my last long running 3e game very well.

 

[RFisher]

So I'm not seeing that 3e is less archetyped than 1e and 2e. Quite the opposite.

Incidentally, this has been my experience as well. (With the caveat that most of the 3e I've played has stuck pretty close to just the core rules.) "Watering down of the archetypes" has never been a complaint of mine with 3e.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

"Watering down of the archetypes" has never been a complaint of mine with 3e.

I agree. Most PCs in my 3E games did conform to the classic archetypes. That's why I mentioned in my earlier post that even with a fine-grained system you often end up at the same basic character, anyway, just with added complexity.

 

[diaglo]

coming from the OD&D(1974) side... the rules before 1edADnD...

i've got to say... archetyping has been one of the things i find humorous about D&D.

 

[diaglo]

player: I want to play a fighting man that more resembles the Arthurian knights or those in Bullfinch's Mythology
referee: okay. write it up.


bam...Supplement I Greyhawk Paladin (1975)

player: i want to play a woodsman. with ranger like abilities like Aragorn
referee: okay. write it up.

bam... The Strategic Review Ranger (1976)


player: i want to play a magic user that specializes in illusions
referee: okay. write it up

bam... The Strategic Review Illusionist (1976)


etc...

until... 1978 1edADnD PHB is released.