Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="charlesatan" data-source="post: 3213641" data-attributes="member: 20870">But the primary purpose of archetypes is to generally categorize something. If you take it to a certain extreme, it can degenerate into a stereotype."Motivations beind the character" to me is an ambiguous statement. Ambiguous in what sense? Game rules? In roleplaying the character? In the character's backstory? Or his/her role in the party? I don't think we're dilutting the character more than expanding on him/her, fleshing him/her out. On one hand, you can keep the character simple but on the other, you can make him/her complex. As for an "unsatisfying experience", that depends on what the gaming group (or even the lone player or GM) is expecting. D&D for the most part is a game of expectations (that's why some people lean more towards roleplaying and might feel unsatisfied in a power-gamer heavy atmosphere and vice versa).I forgot to mention that the original D&D mainly use four archetypes: fighter (tank), spellcaster (general magic user and mass enemy control), thief (finding traps), and the cleric (healer). Even in 3.5, a lot of campaigns are based upon this assumption but they don't need to be so. Lately most of our games are usually urban/forest and less of the traditional dungeon, so there's little incentive (or little need) for anyone in the party to play the rogue since trapfinding isn't a necessity. Also look at the d20 system Iron Heroes -- it's a campaign designed with primarily fighters in mind. A GM could also make an espionage/infiltration campaign and most of the party could be taking rogue-ish classes such as rogue, ninja, ranger, bard, etc.</blockquote>

Verification