Do you need Archetypes, Classes, and Villains?

[Aldarc]

If classes are done well, then I will generally be in favor of them. However, if classes work against the sort of character concepts that I may want to make, then that's when they annoy me.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Maybe? I think class is a design choice. I prefer it in D&D fantasy type RPGs just out of tradition, but games can certainly work without classes. 5/10

Im a big fan of archetypes myself. PF1 is still my preferred fantasy RPG. Adding customizable bits to my character while also adding flavor that can connect to the setting is a big win. 10/10

Im good with factions and love political intrigue. So, for me its more about philosophy and opposed beliefs with characters of a setting when it comes to villainy. I dont mind alignment and planar beings of pure energy type things in D&D, but that kinda deal isnt required. 5/10

I think metaplots are fantastic as they give guidance to both GM and players. Baked in ones that are too overbearing though are not appreciated. Ideally, you have a nuanced setting that leaves room for a lot of campaign types. 7/10

How do you feel about a list of Missions/Scenarios for the players to choose from, and then the GM take each (or just one, either way is fine) and makes a campaign from it?
- Can this work over and over, to create lasting play and a series of plots chained together?

Also

What if the game is like Grand Theft Auto? Like, just a big ol sandbox of mayhem and no real goals or plots. Maybe just a bunch of one sentence triggers for mini missions or whatever. (You can play into the GMs storyline plot, but that can always be set aside for sandbox , player-driven agendas.... is that too vague? Would players who never knew this game know what to do in the sandbox? )


NOTE: these are for anyone to answer really...

 

[payn]

How do you feel about a list of Missions/Scenarios for the players to choose from, and then the GM take each (or just one, either way is fine) and makes a campaign from it?
- Can this work over and over, to create lasting play and a series of plots chained together?

I do like adventure paths, which is a metaplot series of adventures strung together. On the other hand, lots of folks do west marches style adventure of the week, so I dont see much difference between those other than execution. Yes, it works.

Also

What if the game is like Grand Theft Auto? Like, just a big ol sandbox of mayhem and no real goals or plots. Maybe just a bunch of one sentence triggers for mini missions or whatever. (You can play into the GMs storyline plot, but that can always be set aside for sandbox , player-driven agendas.... is that too vague? Would players who never knew this game know what to do in the sandbox? )

I do not like this at all. Even when I run a sandbox, it will have a meta goal for the players to work towards. Not saying its a wrong way to play, just saying its a wrong way to play for me. YMMV.

 

[Tonguez]

How do you feel about a list of Missions/Scenarios for the players to choose from, and then the GM take each (or just one, either way is fine) and makes a campaign from it?
- Can this work over and over, to create lasting play and a series of plots chained together?

Also

What if the game is like Grand Theft Auto? Like, just a big ol sandbox of mayhem and no real goals or plots. Maybe just a bunch of one sentence triggers for mini missions or whatever. (You can play into the GMs storyline plot, but that can always be set aside for sandbox , player-driven agendas.... is that too vague? Would players who never knew this game know what to do in the sandbox? )


NOTE: these are for anyone to answer really...

I dont know if the GTA approach is going to provide for long time play, but it can certainly be used for a couple of lite games. Have clear Mission Scenarios that DMs can build into a campaign is better (and the two approaches can certainly be combined)

The other thing I think is useful is Characters being built on clearly articulated Goals, Flaws and Secret Agendas etc that are worded to drive play. Secret Agendas can be really fun if players are encouraged to play them up, maybe not Paranoia levels of mayhem, but things like Star Wars obligations

 

[Umbran]

Question: What do you need to jump in and quickly find your fun in this supposed new game?

So, before any of these other things, what I really need is a clear indication of what kind of fun the game is intended/designed to provide or support. No game is actually generic - they each have strengths. Tell me what those are. They mostly have genre conceits. Tell me what those are. They have playstyle assumptions and expectations. Tell me about them. And so on.

And, be honest. I don't need marketing copy, I need accurate appraisals.

- Are Classes needed?

No. Classes are largely a D&D-ism.

- Are Archetypes needed? (these are things that highlight the theme of the game, not the actual gameplay.

These are most useful if they DO highlight the gameplay. Show me examples of the kinds of characters the game mechanically supports well, and what they look like.

- Are Villains needed?

In the same way Archetypes are useful. Highlight the kinds of villains/antagonists/opposition the game is good at supporting.

- Are metaplots needed?

If the game design is strongly informed by metaplot concerns, yes. Otherwise, they are not necessary, like classes.

 

[aramis erak]

Question: What do you need to jump in and quickly find your fun in this supposed new game?

- Are Classes needed?

No.

- Are Archetypes needed?

Needed? No. Useful? Hell yes.

- Are Villains needed?

No, but a range of sample adversaries of some kind are.

- Are metaplots needed?

No, but I like them.

WHat I need more than anything is 2-4 good starter sample adventures in core.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

No, but a range of sample adversaries of some kind are.

How detailed should adversaries / monsters / etc be?

Can they have a "short list" of attributes (like 3 to 5 things) that define what they can do, instead of full character sheet?

"Just the important bits" maybe?

 

[Kannik]

- Are Classes needed? (these are things that the game designer assumed were the most common activities in game, kinda like how D&D has fighter, wizard, rogue as its core since those are very common activities

Our group has lots of experience with classless systems, so not necessary for us in the least.

- Are Archetypes needed? (these are things that highlight the theme of the game, not the actual gameplay. Like vampire clans, where they have a theme to them 'Brujah anarch poet", but the player gets to truly customize their skills and powers, so could end up being "Brujah leader manipulator".

Yes, they are very helpful to illustrate the type/style of game this is and the activities the PCs are expected to be pursuing and how. And thus this provides another layer of world building. This doesn't need to be tied into the mechanics of creating a character, it could be just a list or a number of sample characters to give the flavour. So while character classes are a zero, this ranks high.

- Are Villains needed? (These are really obvious enemies that you pretty much are aware of from the get go. And they are always in opposition to your character, maybe can be bargained with, but usually just want to kill your character. Kinda like evil Liches, necromancer lords, demon dukes of hell, general hunters of your character types, etc etc etc)

Yes/no, in that specific villains don't necessarily need to be provided, but I prefer some indication of the what this game's intended opposition is supposed to be. In many ways this is effectively the mirror of character Archetypes in being opposition Archetypes, be it specific individuals, monsters, organizations, environmental forces, thematic elements, and etc. And, again, this provides another layer of world building. So while villains ranks low, opposition archetypes rank as high as character archetypes.

- Are metaplots needed? (These are events or general situations in a game that force the group and GM to play into the game's own plots. Kinda like Lord of the Rings get rid of the ring, or wrath of the lich king invasions, or vampire's Camarilla and their masquerade rules, etc etc)

Not entirely. Following the bit above, some ideas of potential campaign directions (ie, Mission/Scenarios as you later note) is welcome and could nicely dovetail with the villainous archetypes. But an all-encompassing direction isn't required.

(That said, specific modules or books or etc that do create a full metaplot are a nice add.)

How do you feel about a list of Missions/Scenarios for the players to choose from, and then the GM take each (or just one, either way is fine) and makes a campaign from it?

As noted above, I find these helpful as part of a greater archetype and campaign seed ideas portion of the book. Tell us what's so about the setting, what's neat about the setting, and then what the pressures/call to action are (or could be) in the setting, which then would include a starting seed, opposition, thematic elements, and possible scenarios and pathways to lead the campaign. Broaden this like that and I rank this high.

What if the game is like Grand Theft Auto? Like, just a big ol sandbox of mayhem and no real goals or plots. Maybe just a bunch of one sentence triggers for mini missions or whatever. (You can play into the GMs storyline plot, but that can always be set aside for sandbox , player-driven agendas.... is that too vague? Would players who never knew this game know what to do in the sandbox? )

There's a few games that I've read in the past where they present a raft of character stuff, gear stuff, combat option stuff, more gear stuff, still more gear stuff, a basic description of the world/universe and then... that's it. And that's not my cup of tea. Pure sandbox seems great in theory, but then what's the driver for me to pick this vs some other system/game? What is this optimized for? I very much want the Opposition Archetypes + Example Scenarios/Campaigns/Plots.

 

[Emberashh]

Question: What do you need to jump in and quickly find your fun in this supposed new game?

For me I think the biggest thing is that I should be able to read the game and feel inspired by the possibilities, which I'd peg is something I'm intuitively picking up as the cross section of the games ludomechanical and ludonarrative depth.

Its why I've found PF2E to be soulless much of the time, and 4e DND largely boring, while I find that games like DCC, COC, or Fellowship fully capture the imagination in a way the other two don't.

Are Classes needed?

Depends on the game and what sort of experience you're going for. Classes aren't something you should be tacking on after the fact.

 

[aramis erak]

How detailed should adversaries / monsters / etc be?

Can they have a "short list" of attributes (like 3 to 5 things) that define what they can do, instead of full character sheet?

"Just the important bits" maybe?

Depends upon genre...
In T&T/M!M!, sure, Monster rating and a spite triggered special or two is fine, provided a good description is also provided.

I prefer the approach used in Star Trek Adventures, Dune, L5r 5th, and FFG Star Wars: full attributes, only the relevant skills, and the combat data just in case. Certain big bads get nearly full PC levels of detail