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: 3223934" data-attributes="member: 20870">Yes, 1E was simpler to create characters and to play. It's like comparing a NES game with a PS2 game. However, that doesn't extend to roles or representing "literary archetypes". 3E does that as well. Storm Raven's point is that there are a lot more literary characters that fit better in 3E than 1E. Which is as it should be considering 3E has more options (and similarly, a system like GURPS will be able to represent a wider spectrum of characters but at the expense of game play and a more arduous character generation process).And the point I'm making is that we should distinguish ease/simplicity of play from archetypes. The latter applies to a lot of things, whether it be 3E or 1E. The former can be more quantifiable.Technically, you cannot break archetypes. And let's stop talking about archetypes since we're clearly not talking about them. We're really talking about stereotypes. And if you want people not to muddle your stereotypes, simply avoid the splatbooks, whether it be 3E or 1E. 1E had the four classes. 3E has eleven classes in the PHB. Simply stick to the core books in either system. Because honestly, all these multiclassing and dual classing arises from the supplementary material. Which in a way it should be because it adds more complexity to the game (which isn't a bad thing... I like complexity).As for the hero "archetype", whether they're reluctant (i.e. Bilbo) or confident (i.e. Don Quixote), cowardly or brave doesn't break the archetype. They're still heroes, out to save something or someone. Now the stereotype of a hero is being brave. That's what "cowardly" characters are breaking. Or maybe you're thinking more of the trickster archetype, which outwits his opponents rather than through sheer force or skill (at arms).At least you're willing to concede that 3E has "more freedom". The problem that typically arises from freedom is that it complicates things (in the same way that a video game is easier to flow-chart rather than an entire RPG campaign). There is no absolute or universal position when it comes to more/less freedom. Some players/GMs benefit from either side. What's bests for you and your gaming group is up to you to decide. But take note, the problem that arises stems from simplicity/complexity, of having less/more options, not because of archetypes. Stereotypes, perhaps, but not archetypes. In a way, that's leaning more towards realism. Not everyone who can draw for example must become an artist or a painter or an illustrator. Or just because you can play the piano doesn't mean you'll be a musician. And quite frankly, there are some skills which everyone has the opportunity to hone, such as spot/listen.I understand what you're trying to say. It's a more difficult learning process. A 3E character is harder to "optimize" than a 1E character simply because the former has more options, and you might end up making sub-optimal choices for your character. And there's this big chasm of power levels between a newbie-generated character and a cheesed-out character in 3E. But that is the price a game with wider options has unless it was designed by an omniscient game designer. And my point is, that's what you're really arguing about--a game play issue, not an archetype issue. And my answer will be, it depends on the gaming group. Some are fine with the options 3E gives. Some aren't. Go play the respective games you want to play.</blockquote>

Verification