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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tx7321" data-source="post: 3225579" data-attributes="member: 43146">J-dawg, first off, you can  come up with a million and one archetypes.  I was referring to the popular "types" or roles found in AD&D 1E (in this case the basic classes) and other popular literature (I was breaking it into 5, the child, the protector/provider, the teacher, and the healer. These are just 1 set though, and no biggy if you don't want to use them.  They are codifications, artificial boxes inwhich attributes are thrown to make some kind of superficial since of them...nothing more.  But sure, you could have the "Hero" archetype for 3E  Or anything else that floats your boat.  Infact, I agree with you, the archetypes or class restrictions found in 1E aren't well suited for 3E, which is def. a more retro feeling game.  As you said, it has incorporated many other current systems along with D&D (strongly tieing into Magic for instance). So what could you learn from playing the 1E classes...well that depends on the player.  I suppose nothing for some.  Having to limit yourself to sneaking around vs. casting spells vs. going toe to toe all require you to think differently.  Can the things you do in the game help you in some way outside of the game?  Maybe...but like I said it depends on the player (some don't even get into the game...so.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  I hope that helps clearify my admittedly obscure statement.  But I'm posting in a rush, so.. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />Moogle: "What it comes down to is this: the first incarnation of D&D was not a high-concept game of mythic storytelling tapping into deep-seated archetypes and based on the definitive and instantly recognizable imagery of fantasy".  I agree, I don't think there was any real thought in that direction either (it just evolved, and they included what they thought  was cool).  That said, I think many of AD&Ds players did relate so well to AD&D because it did infact "tap into deep seated" mythical stories, and recognizable fantasy.  All AD&D 1E is cowboys and Indians with rules.  Except in this case its midieval based with monsters and a DM describing the world.  Could AD&D have been created with fighters that casted spells and MUs that wore armor and used swords...sure.  Would that have been as popular to me as a kid...no.  I'd have been confused.  I still might play it however.</blockquote>

Verification