Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tx7321" data-source="post: 3222609" data-attributes="member: 43146">Like I said, few if any Americans (esp. not 11 year old kids) have even heard of those referrences.&nbsp; They are not part of the collective (as is Fantasia's wizard, or Gandalf in the Hobbit).&nbsp; Those are obscure sources and have almost no meaning to the majority of D&amp;D players at the time. Raven: &quot;Perhaps it is difficult to express, because it doesn't fit. Because, you know, it doesn't. The classes are game constructs. They don't represent any kind of archetype at all, no matter how much Jungian analysis you want to throw at them.&quot;This is the most off base thing you've said yet (unless your speaking about 3E only).&nbsp; In 1E classes do represent the same kinds of characters we see in fantasy books. And those characters in fantasy books&nbsp; represent basic templates...sure they are slightly different (ok, so Merlin war armor on occasion...he was still seen as an advisor, and teacher, and falls in the shoe box with Gandalf, and other &quot;classic&quot; wizards, not the shoe box that contains Conan!&nbsp; Infact, dealing with the limitations of their archetype was often the theme of the stories we grew up with (&quot;the Hobbit&quot; is a perfect example).&nbsp; And Raven, don't ever loose site of the fact that protecting the templates with rules are a huge part of protecting the AD&amp;D setting the players move in (and thus the &quot;old school&quot; feel).&nbsp; They are a large part of why &quot;classic&quot; &quot;bread and butter&quot; fantasy buffs love 1E....and likewise, why 3E is so popular with those who prefer a more retro-fantasy feel.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tx7321, post: 3222609, member: 43146"] Like I said, few if any Americans (esp. not 11 year old kids) have even heard of those referrences. They are not part of the collective (as is Fantasia's wizard, or Gandalf in the Hobbit). Those are obscure sources and have almost no meaning to the majority of D&D players at the time. Raven: "Perhaps it is difficult to express, because it doesn't fit. Because, you know, it doesn't. The classes are game constructs. They don't represent any kind of archetype at all, no matter how much Jungian analysis you want to throw at them." This is the most off base thing you've said yet (unless your speaking about 3E only). In 1E classes do represent the same kinds of characters we see in fantasy books. And those characters in fantasy books represent basic templates...sure they are slightly different (ok, so Merlin war armor on occasion...he was still seen as an advisor, and teacher, and falls in the shoe box with Gandalf, and other "classic" wizards, not the shoe box that contains Conan! Infact, dealing with the limitations of their archetype was often the theme of the stories we grew up with ("the Hobbit" is a perfect example). And Raven, don't ever loose site of the fact that protecting the templates with rules are a huge part of protecting the AD&D setting the players move in (and thus the "old school" feel). They are a large part of why "classic" "bread and butter" fantasy buffs love 1E....and likewise, why 3E is so popular with those who prefer a more retro-fantasy feel. [/QUOTE]

Verification