Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[Desdichado]

OK, that makes more sense then.

I guess--and maybe this is buried in the bowels of the thread, and I apologize if it is, because I'm not going to find it--to what are you comparing the target demographic for 1e then? I assumed it was 3e, but if not, then what?

 

[MerricB]

I think the word I was striving for was "popular", not "accepted". The Sword in the Stone is an excellent book, divergent from historical versimilitude, but entertaining for all that - and entertaining beats dry and accurate any day.

Cheers!

 

[charlesatan]

What I was saying was that the creators went with a typcial fantasy setting and corresponding characters (or if they did use particular models (as P&P suggested) they used ones that did not break the archeytpical molds). In otherwords they didn't use armor wearing wizards as the MU template. Thats the only point I was trying to make. I had no interest in discussing 3E at that point.

And I think the point we're making is that D&D isn't exactly the most typical of settings, or at least its elements. Race-wise, he borrowed a lot from Tolkien. As far as "typical fantasy" goes, arguably, I'll let it pass. Mages not wearing armor, less so than Tolkien being typical fantasy. I can make points for either side (both wearing and not wearing armor), but in the end, Gygax made a choice. It happened to be they didn't wear armor. Whether that's relevant to your archetype concept is another matter (I don't see a "can't wear armor clause" in the elder).

Actually, your five archetypes don't fit. Nearly everyone in the party fits the father. You'll probably claim that the thief plays the child, but honestly I see that more of a role of the player rather than the character, much less the class. If you want the elder, they're called NPCs as their lack of a pro-active role in the scheme of things but are integral to the story nonetheless. There's also the fact that you had to combine the shaman and the elder. If they're really archetypes, why combine? And using your logic, I could easily claim that a basketball team fits the archetypal mold: the coach is the elder, the players are the fathers/child, and the trainers are the shamans.

 

[tx7321]

Charelsatan: "So now we're approximating? But either way, that still exists in 3E. "

Wait, I think your getting me confused with P&P who had specific characters from books he thought were used as the primary templates for classes.
I have always been approximating. My point is, however, even those approximations have limitations that define what they are. Go beyond those boarders and you loose site of the type. Sure 3E has those classic types (or archetypes) but they get mixed together a bit...and some of those boarders that shouldn't get crossed do get crossed.
Of course, I'm using my archetypes (see above) rather then something else (like Hero, Villian, Coward) etc.

In 3E your taking fighters (one archetype) and mixing them with say Rouges (another archetype), and then...hmmm...throw in a level or 2 of spell casting (a 3rd archetype). Sure this is a cool character...but I can't place it in any fairy tale I know of.

Another example would be this: imagine "Old Yeller" with its characters. You had the innocent child, the child growing up into a man, the man, and the nurturer (mother). Each character type (or archetype) has value based on how they complement and contrast the other. Working together they make the whole family work. Thats 1E. The team of players work together to reach an objective (not always, but usually).

In 3E were suddenly asked to combine all 4 characters into 1. Sure you can do that, but you loose the need for a team (or in the above example, you loose the need for all the characters, one is plenty with all those skills). And your character looses its ability to contrast with the others...like white against black...its now some new funky color.

Why is this important? Because, fundamentally, AD&D 1E is a story being told. Its a novel being written as it is played. And thus, it has the same basic needs that any story has...and one of those needs is interesting definable characters. I realize this is all somewhat esoteric. But I feel there is some truth to it. The purpose of 1E was indeed to get a group of players together and have them work toward a goal, each doing there own thing. This was called "character balance" (the thief gets past the deadly trap, the fighter the deadly monster etc.). 3E has a different definition of character balance. In this game, each class is made to be equally powerful. And each class is made to be customizable (perhaps to facilitate solo or 2 person games)?

 

[charlesatan]

In 3E your taking fighters (one archetype) and mixing them with say Rouges (another archetype), and then...hmmm...throw in a level or 2 of spell casting (a 3rd archetype). Sure this is a cool character...but I can't place it in any fairy tale I know of.

Greek Gods. Norse Gods. I'm from the Philippines so I can say Philippine myths and legends.

Another example would be this: imagine "Old Yeller" with its characters. You had the innocent child, the child growing up into a man, the man, and the nurturer (mother). Each character type (or archetype) has value based on how they complement and contrast the other. Working together they make the whole family work. Thats 1E. The team of players work together to reach an objective (not always, but usually).

I like to highlight the not always, but usually part. The same goes for 3E.

In 3E were suddenly asked to combine all 4 characters into 1. Sure you can do that, but you loose the need for a team (or in the above example, you loose the need for all the characters, one is plenty with all those skills). And your character looses its ability to contrast with the others...like white against black...its now some new funky color.

That's not necessarily true. Duplicate roles (especially the healer aspect and the fighter aspect) can be helpful. And personally, I don't know about you, but if I had a choice of an extra Fighter back-up instead of being the only Fighter in the group, I'd take the former option.

Why is this important? Because, fundamentally, AD&D 1E is a story being told. Its a novel being written as it is played. And thus, it has the same basic needs that any story has...and one of those needs is interesting definable characters. I realize this is all somewhat esoteric. But I feel there is some truth to it. The purpose of 1E was indeed to get a group of players together and have them work toward a goal, each doing there own thing. This was called "character balance" (the thief gets past the deadly trap, the fighter the deadly monster etc.). 3E has a different definition of character balance. In this game, each class is made to be equally powerful. And each class is made to be customizable (perhaps to facilitate solo or 2 person games)?

And again, in that sense, 1E is no different frm 3E. There's still a story being told. A group of characters still need to cooperate to fully make use of their capabilities. And no, they're not equally powerful. Four Fighters does not necessarily make up for the skills of one Rogue. Or the firepower or magic of a Wizard. Or the healing magic of a Cleric. I wish it were easier to facilitate solo or 2 person games in 3E but while possible, difficult. That's why you either have to resort to using multiple characters, gestalt characters, or simply tone down the threat level. And in the end, these have nothing to do with the archetypes (child, father, etc.) you mentioned.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

D&D is not fundamentally a story being told. It is fundamentally a game, a game that grew out of a tactical wargame, which itself grew out of strategic wargames.

Even if it were a story being told, the division of labor you propose has, once again, essentially no relation to the literary canon of any genre, including - if not particularly - fantasy. It *definitely* doesn't have any relation to fairy tales, which almost universally feature a single protagonist. Same with sword and sorcery.

 

[Storm Raven]

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).

At this point, I have to say that you really have no idea what you are talking about. The primary inspiration for D&D, stated directly by Gygax, were the stories of Vance, Lieber, Burroughs, and Howard. Heck, you can go into those stories and see specific elements he lifted directly out of them. And that means that your "fairy tale" marketing theory is just so much hokum. He focused on the fantasy he did because it was the fantasy he liked. Nothing more.

He even says that the handful of Tolkienesque elements he incorporated came much later, and that was a deliberate attempt to market the game. But even he said that the Tolkienesque veneer was so thin that anyone expecting Tolkien would be disappoineted, and that he hoped that once they played the game they would see how good it was and not need that any more.

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.

Except they aren't. Your theory doesn't match the evidence. You keep trying to claim it, but everyone, even people well-versed in anthropology and Jungian archetypes, thinks your theory is just way off-base.

 

[Storm Raven]

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...

I think the most amusing thing (to me) is that tx7321 is hung up on the ability to create "mixed" characters in 3e, and how that dilutes the "roles" each party member should play. But 1e was much, much worse in this regard. In 1e, multiclass characters rocked, giving up almost nothing for a lot of other powers.

A multiclass fighter/magic-user, fighter/thief, or fighter/cleric (or cleric/magic-user, or whatever two classes you wanted to jam together) lost about one (!) level in effectiveness in each class, and gained all the abilities of the other class. So, Bob the single class 8th level fighter, and Jim the single class 8th level magic-user would be traveling with Jimbob, the multiclass 7th/7th level fighter/magic-user.

How about that for dilution of roles?

On the other hand, if you multiclass in 3e, you are often going to be far worse at stuff than you would have been in 1e. Jimbob is now a 4th/4th level multiclass fighter/wizard (if he splits evenly), or a much worse fighter than wizard or vice versa. You cannot create a "do it all" character who is as effective as a focused character.

In other words, 3e does a better job at rewarding players who fill specific roles than 1e did.

 

[tx7321]

Raven: "Except they aren't."

Whatever dude. Just please don't cry.

 

[Desdichado]

Raven: "Except they aren't."

Whatever dude. Just please don't cry.

And here I was about to QFT him.

Keep in mind, Tex--or however I should say your username--it's not like a good many of us are d20 heathens who are Johnny Come Lately's to the game who don't know anything about older editions. We started playing in the days of 1e and the RC--or before--and yet choose to play 3.5 today for a variety of reasons. I know enough that a "Whatever" response isn't good enough to convince me that your point suddenly has some validity.