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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 3216665" data-attributes="member: 307">Personally, I think the "classes are archetypes" argument used in relation of 1e and 2e AD&D is very much overblown. The main problem with the argument (as I see it) is that the classes as written don't seem to fit any literary archetypes at all.For example, the thief class in 1e D&D was pretty clearly heavily influenced by the character of the Grey Mouser. But in play, the 1e thief didn't play like the inspiration. In point of fact, when he wanted to create a Grey Mouser like character for his use (Gord the Rogue), Gygax had to substantially modify the class to get to the archetype (see the appendix to the first Gord book). And the 'archetype" doesn't fit, for example, Bilbo Baggins very well.Some of the "archetypes" are based on a single literary character: the structure and abilities of the 1e Ranger are very obviously built upon the character of Aragorn. The paladin class and its abilities is based upon the protagonist in the book Three Hearts and Three Lions.The 1e cleric class has almost no literary antecedent. I suppose you could say that it is partially based on Bishop Odo and his participation in the Battle of Hastings, or Moses, and the abilities he displays in Exodus (including the spells sticks to snakes, part water, create food and water, and so on). But it isn't a good fit for either.Gandalf doesn't work as a 1e AD&D wizard. Legolas and Gimli would both be 1e AD&D fighters, but their skills are wildly different. Nor do the AD&D 1e fighter skills really fit Conan very well - he displays a lot of what would be designated "thiefly" abilities in the stories Howard wrote about him.And these dissatisfations resulted in a burgeoning proliferation of classes. One class for every variation. The Barbarian. The Thief-Acrobat. The Cavalier. The Sentinel. The Jester. The Bandit. The Sage. And so on, and so forth. Until you had so many classes that the "benefit" asserted for a class based system (ease of character creation) became swallowed up by the enormous number of variant classes to look through.I'm not sure how I "learn more about myself" playing a 1e fighter, as opposed to a 3e fighter. I'm not sure I really want to "learn about myself" as part of playing an RPG at all. I have other, more powerful venues to do that. At the RPG table I want to play a game and have fun. Not engage in deep self-discovery.But as to why should there be the ability to mix characters types and "dilute" the archetypes they supposedly represent?I'd say first: because they are generally too narrow or pooorly defined to actually represented the archetypes that people assert they do. The magic-user class of 1e was way too narrow to fit most versions of "wizard" that come up in myth, legend, and literature.I'd say second: because if you solve the first problem, then you end up defining the parameters of the classes so narrowly that you need literally dozens of classes to cover the relevant archetypes well.And I'd say third: because playing the archetypes, while enjoyable, is not the end all and be all of gaming. Coming up with your own idea for a character is a lot of fun, and the game should support things that are a lot of fun.I think that the 3e D&D compromise - allowing for "standard" classes, while making those classes broad enough to cover a variety of character types, and allowing mixture of classes to make those classes cover even more - is just about right. (For the record, I think that the proliferation of additional base classes is not a good development, many of those classes should be represented by making certain feat trees available combined with multiclassing).</blockquote>

Verification