Fewer deeper archetypes or the kitchen sink

[Frostmarrow]

I was thinking that D&D has always had a few well defined archetypes in the game and yet at the same time always but slowly trying to encompass more and more archetypes. In 3E there were twelve (?) classes which grew to hundreds of classes and prestige classes. I'm not really equating class with archetype though. Dwarven Fighter is a well defined archetype but Dwarven Illusionist is not.

Now, maybe trying to allow any conceivable character in the game is a mistake. Does it not risk diluting D&D? I can't think of any popcultural expression that does not prune and weed out concepts that does not fit in. Yet D&D tries very hard to allow stranger and stranger avatars.

The Gauntlet-characters from the olden days are still in the game but many groups lack all of those archetypes. It is not uncommon that a group consists of totally different archetypes such as mecha inventors, hellborn metalheads, and scaly napoleons. (Not that there is anything wrong with being a scaly napoleon).

My question is: Are the new archetypes of newer D&D a cause of the fan base being splintered? Do you find it a bit disappointing when you get into a game of D&D (yay!) but realize that you are now part of a Lilo and Stitch/Sailormoon-crossover game?

[Me: I don't mind, as long as I can keep playing Pointy Hat Wizard or Emblazoned Knight]

 

[theredrobedwizard]

The world changes, so too must the game. By marketing to everyone, we may lose a few. But by marketing to those few, we will lose more; some of them before they even start playing.

 

[Boarstorm]

Role-playing in general, and D&D in particular, is big enough to handle a wide range of archetypes.

I think "breaking out of the mold" of Gauntlet-type PCs is a good thing, because it means we're truly creating our own characters instead of stiffly adhering to stereotypes.

That said, a Lilo & Stitch/Sailor Moon crossover game doesn't sound like something I'd have much interest in.

 

[Scribble]

One thing I DO think is important is where the inspiration for the achetype comes from.

I'd much rather have a class/concept based on actual mythology/stories then completely designed just to fill some sort of game purpose.

 

[the Jester]

I've yet to play or run a game where playing a "classic" archetype is verboten, so I think it's fine.

I really don't mind if another player wants to stretch his barbarian character outside of the Conan mold, or to play a thief who isn't anything like the Mouser.

 

[Scribble]

I've yet to play or run a game where playing a "classic" archetype is verboten, so I think it's fine.

I really don't mind if another player wants to stretch his barbarian character outside of the Conan mold, or to play a thief who isn't anything like the Mouser.

That's not what I mean though- I don't care how people want to play their character.

But when designing a class, design based on the "essentialness" of something. You don't have to base a barbarian on conan, but base it on the essential common traits of "the barbarians" of our legends.

 

[Minigiant]

I appreciate the classic archetype. They exhibit the core foundations behind the D&D world.

The introduction of the new archetypes to me rose from the fact that the classics don't encompass the whole world.

Elves are great archers and spellcasters.... but who fights for them in melee? They need melee warriors. And clerics for healer. Enter elven heavy melee warriors, duelists, and clerics.

Halflings have religions and deities too. Don't they have access to the divine? Enter halfling clerics and paladins.
I know orcs and drow are evil. But isn't that mostly culture? Couldn't a group of heroes delve into the Underestimate or Wilderness, slaughter the aggressive adults, but take pity on the crying baby? They take her to the closest good church that will take her and raise her under the culture of the good deities. The orc/drow instincts never fully leave. Enter the drow cleric/wizard and orc barbarian.

Elf princess chased by goblins. Saved bg a passing fighter who leaves his escort mission to save her. The elf heals the wounded savior. Blah blah blah. Doesn't fit in blah blah bullied by the other kids. Blah blah Apprentices under a wizard but wants to be like warrior dad and healer mom. Blah blah Enter Half Elf fighter/cleric of Corellon/wizard/arcane archer.

 

[Essenti]

One thing I DO think is important is where the inspiration for the achetype comes from.

I'd much rather have a class/concept based on actual mythology/stories then completely designed just to fill some sort of game purpose.

Hmmm, so clerics are out?

 

[dkyle]

Hmmm, so clerics are out?

It's not just clerics, either.

DnD Wizards only slightly resemble Vance's wizards, and work basically nothing like any other wizards anywhere else in mythology or fantasy literature (outside of specifically DnD inspired stuff, of course).

Under the principle of "base DnD on actual stories", Harry Potter magic is a lot more justified than traditional DnD magic.

 

[Scribble]

Hmmm, so clerics are out?

No, clerics have a basis in real world legends.

Like above I don't want a 1 to 1 match, just a basis. I personally feel it makes a much stronger feeling class since we can tap into all of the stories and legends.