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: 3219859" data-attributes="member: 307">This is all true. And yet it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. You see, most people, when talking about games, use the term archetype with the following definitions:I suppose you are trying to link the current discussion to the third definition, But that doesn't work when applied to AD&D character classes. First off, because the AD&D character classes don't actually model anything close to any of the Jungian categories. Secondly (and this is why my first point is true), because the AD&D classes have nothing in them relating in any way whatsoever to personality types.The only[/i] definitions of archetype that fit this conversation are 1, and probably 2. 3, quite simply, is inapplicable to the AD&D rules. The AD&D fighter class (for example) doesn't describe anything that would resemble INTP, ESFJ, or anything like the Myers-Briggs personality types. It describes capabilities, not personality.So, what "archetype" must mean in any conversation concerning AD&D classes is "the original model" or the "ideal representative of a type". As in the answer to the question "who is the quintissential example of a warrior in myth, legend, and literature"? Or "who is the original example of a wizard upon whom others are modeled"?True, and yet this is an entirely different argument from "AD&D uses archetypes as a basis for the character classes". Ease of character creation and use of archetypes is not the same thing, nor are they even necessarily congruent with one another. One could easily create a character creation system for a game that used archetypes (Rolemaster, for example), and yet was complicated and time-consuming. It is also quite possible to create a character creation system that does not use archetypes, and yet is quite simple and quick (BESM, probably).An interesting observation, if only it were true. AD&D has this sort of mixing - the entire multiclassing system was replete with examples of "fighter mixing with thief" and "magic user being able to take elements of fighter".But the real problem with the AD&D system was that, when compared to the antecedents (the "archetypes" of fantasy as it were), comes up short. In order to emulate almost any of these types of characters, one had to cross the classes in ways not allowed under the rules as written. Take, for example, King Arthur. In the 1e DDG, he is classed as a 14th level paladin/5th level bard, a combination not permitted by about five different rules. Merlin, in many ways the quintissential wizard, is listed as a 14th level druid/15th level magic-user/10th level illusionist. If your "wizard" archetype cannot cover Merlin, you are not dealing in archetypes.Maybe 1e wasn't dealing with legendary archetypes, drawing pulp fiction for its inspiration. Let's look at th newhon entries. Fafrhd is the quintissential barbarian warrior, he should fit an AD&D class, wait, no. He's a 15th level ranger/13th level thief/5th level bard. Well, then, the Grey Mouser must fit the thief class. Oh darn, he doesn't. He's an 11th level fighter/3rd level magic-user/15th level thief.Gandalf? No, he uses a sword. Gwydion? No, he's a warrior whow is also a powerful druid. Math? No, he's a wizard, but he's also a great warrior (listed in the 1e DDG as a 6th level druid/4th level fighter/30th level magic-user/10th level illusionist). D'Artagnian? Nope, he doesn't fit any class.The classes, as written don't fit any antecedent, at all. That they were designed to improve the "get the new character rolled up and in the dungeon" speed seems to me pretty clear. The argument that they were intended to evoke archetypes seems obvious to me as a retcon, and not a very convincing one at that.</blockquote>

Verification