Archetypes...Love or Hate???

[Joe]

I personally love the archetypal approach, but I am a huge fan of Jungian thought and symbology too.

Yet I notice folks wish to degrade the archetypes under the premise of ingenuity, or "originality". In other words, instead of playing the archetypes in the spirit in whuich they were designed, they seek loopholes, or narratives that somehow make them exempt. (Always under the premise of role play)

I am sure you all have seen the examples.

I want a paladin that is chaotic...

I am a knight that answers to no authority...

I'm mute, but also telepathic...

I want to turn undead but not really be good...

I'm spiritual but not religious...(how did that get in there?)

I'm a half-orc thug that wants to be a bard.

The list goes on. When asked about the many schemes we are answered with a boredom of the usual schtuff and they want to be original. hmmm
if you want an original character that challenges the status quo why don't I ever see these anti-archetypes?

An imbesilic magic user...duh de duh!

An ugly offensive paladin with body odor...

A knight that is scared of horses...

A fighter with 8 strength...

A thief with butterfingers...

A near sighted elf....

Now those would grant a player the challenge and roleplay opportunity they claim to need so badly for their own self expression.

Tell me your take on archetypes, and if your a traditionalist like myself.

Or one of those unwashed heretics with differing opinions.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Omote]

I completely agree and L-O-V-E archtypes.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

I once played a druid who had taught another the secret language they used, and for that, his tongue was removed in such as way as regeneration would not work to restore it, using some weird spell. This, of course, caused him to lose access to nearly all spellcasting. So, he stopped being a druid and became an assassin instead. Eventually, his tongue was restored, through the use of a wish spell, and he regained his druidic spellcasting to a point (around level 2-3 spells, I believe.) However, this was not the way the character was "planned" or "built," but the effects of in-game behavior and situations.

But, that said... I want the players to play what they will enjoy playing. If they don't see the fun of being a fighter, but do see themselves having a good time pretending to be Errol Flynn, then good for them. I can hang with that. If, however, what they want is not something that would readily fit in with the game, or is clearly a grab for power, then I say "think of something else."

There are those who play against type, but the games are constructed to discourage it, and this makes the game more difficult and often leads to an early grave for the character. So, smart players usually realize that and at leats give themselves a chance to play... Oh, and some games, like say, AD&D, does not allow for much cross-type characters. A fighter cannot be a fighter if he is below average Strength. This is a reinforcement of the archetype. And, it is a good thing.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Joe]

Omote wrote:
I completely agree and L-O-V-E archtypes.

~O

What...agree...err...ok...
I was hoping to spark some sort of disagreement...but i guess i can deal with agreement...sometimes. maybe...
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Dagger]

I prefer strong archetypes myself, but I have no problem if one of my players wants to play an elf who wants to be a dentist. On the other hand, I usually promote the idea of starting without a backstory and letting the course of the game form the character. So, players don't usually come to the table with a concept per se anyway.
_________________
Rusty

[Omote]

A lot of character flavor can come out through play. In a situation like Serl mentioned, that is just good stuff, regardless of archtype play or not. While I do not personally like fighters who cast spells or rangers who assassinate, as long as the content is good, than by all means break the archtypes. However, there is a lot of room for abuse when the archtypes are broken down. The Siege Mechanic makes some many things possible that it can become easy to allow players to do stuff that is not within the class description. When this becomes a problem, players can suffer.

I guess I'm the classic type of C&C/D&D player. I like clerics, fighters, M-Us and the thief. With a little roleplay, perhaps the PC thief can't be as good as a M-U, but there is always the flair of giving it a go.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Joe]

Omote wrote:
However, there is a lot of room for abuse when the archtypes are broken down.

~O

Thus my point...I am not talking about true flavor and roleplay. There is plenty opportunity for that within the rules.

i am talking about tweaking things under the premise of roleplay and flavor and lo and behold...now he is better at spells than then MU, better at stealth than the thief...wow how did that happen???? What a cowinkydink!
You want flavor, be a clumsy thief...

You want a challenge, be a stupid mage...

But for some strange reason...I don't EVER see that. Yet i am the jerk when i call BS on the "deep immersive character development with a flair for the dramatic" as just a way to munchkin. You can't even give a 2 minute background, but I am supposed to believe that your telepathy is just a way for you to explore the inner struggle of the pc's personality?

We have a mute telepath in our game...of course she won't shut the f up either...hows that work?

She recently tried to use her telepathy, which does NOT EXIST in the game and use it for long range communication.

The GM looked at her and said, well maybe had it not been written on your character as a disadvantage...

So roleplay? Can't get her to shut up.

Challenge?: Have'nt seen evidence of such?

But you bet she will call it ingenuity if you ask her about why she tried to make a "disadvantage" an actual merit.

If you like skill based stuff theres a game for you.

Like archetypes theres another game.

Like to develop your pc from the ground up...theres a game for you.

But why do they play an archetype game and spend all their focus shirking the archetypes?

Thats like me playing 3.x and refusing to indulge in feats.

Archetypes are something timeless we can use to learn many profound things about ourselves, society, and how we perceive the outside world. they are there so we all have a common reference despite whether we come from inner city LA, midwest small town, or euro metropolis, yet instead of embracing them we instantly look for the exception to the rule.

I think many folks miss the gold of archetypes while they are busy looking for a silver loophole.

Perhaps if rules or laws were actually written with the premise they are to be followed...but I don't need to be banned.

I wouldn't rant (ok yes I would) if i ever saw one shred of integrity for half the times I saw, "Creative and originality".

I think what I am actually hitting on is not the like or dislike of archetypes, but actually just one word...

Integrity.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Sir Osis of Liver]

There's enough wiggle room with the SIEGE engine though that it's easy to build character concepts outside of the archetypal classes. At the end of the day, Robin Hood and Maximus (from Gladiator) are both fighters. Okay, maybe Robin Hood's a ranger, but work with me on this. Robin Hood's primes:

Human Fighter

Str

Dex

Cha

Maximus's primes:

Human Fighter

Str

Int

Cha

If you come to the table with an idea in mind, it's easy with SIEGE to work around that idea and come up with something outside the box. Conan fits into the fighter mold as well. Str, Dex and Con would be logical choices for primes there. Looking at clerics? How about Friar Tuck vs. Elrond (going solely off his power to treat wounds of undead origin)? For wizards, there's Gandalf vs. Harry Potter. Bottom line, these are different types of characters that fit within the boundaries of the same archetypes. You'd play each one very differently. To me, the argument that the archetypes are too restrictive is more a reflection on the player that makes such a claim than the system itself.

[Treebore]

Archetypes. I am fine with some variable flavor, but bottom line is a wizard is a wizard, whether he is a Necromancer, Illusionist, or some other variant.

People inherently dislike being the "same" as everyone else, so they strive to be as different as they can in the games they play because the idea that they are so similar to everyone else really bugs a lot of people. So in real life they do extreme things, like tattoos all over their body, massive piercings everywhere, extreme clothing, make up, etc.....

But underneath it all, they are still humans, an archetype, no matter what disguises they assume to pretend otherwise.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[anglefish]

Joe wrote:
What...agree...err...ok...
I was hoping to spark some sort of disagreement...but i guess i can deal with agreement...sometimes. maybe...

... You did see what message board you were posting on, right?
You have to either like archetypes in one form or another to be a fan of C&C.

Now if you want a grumble from me about archetypes is that MY concepts are that I'm a competent "X." Hence, not a fan of low levels.

If I wanted to play a putz with a sword, I'd go join a fencing group. I'm gaming for a larger than life thrill.

Sure, eventually, my PC will be that acrobatic, suave, spy, or that charismatic performer illusionist. But that's months and maybe years of frustrating gaming before that happens.

I have literally said, "When you're group get to 7th level, give me a buzz and I'll join your game." I got the call two years later, joined up and had a blast.

As for my own games, the campaign starts off 3 or 4th level immediately and has a quick rise.

Some say they love those "building years" for the story and the life or death odds. I prefer to make up an elaborate backstory and skip the failures.

[ssfsx17]

Archetypes, as strict game-mechanics limitations, work best when there are as few of them as possible. It's when you start throwing in Knights, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Acrobats, Assassins, Druids, Illusionists, etc. that the archetypes break down.

Archetypes also work best for when character creation needs to be as fast as possible, and characters themselves need to be as replaceable as possible. If your characters need to have backstories, motivations, etc., then a system of archetypes is not going to work no matter how many different classes, powers, skills, etc. you throw in - it's a pointless rat-race that ultimately culminates in things like D&D 3.

I agree with all the people who are saying that the SIEGE system is great for differentiation. The only real house-rule you need is to say that class abilities are always prime, and then the rules will work just fine for most peoples' D&D-clone needs. StarSIEGE is a good example of how well the SIEGE system can work, and help you keep things simple, when there are no classes at all.
_________________
http://www.eclipsephase.com/online-game-friday-nights

[Joe]

Joe wrote:
What...agree...err...ok...
I was hoping to spark some sort of disagreement...but i guess i can deal with agreement...sometimes. maybe...

... You did see what message board you were posting on, right?
You have to either like archetypes in one form or another to be a fan of C&C.

quote]

Good point, but seeing i don't even remember how to log onto those others...
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Ogre]

Joe wrote:
I'm a half-orc thug that wants to be a bard.

I don't think that's a bad character concept.

[Joe]

I like pie!
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[alcyone]

I just ask that you play all of the archetypes before you say you are bored of them.
_________________
Sir Aergraith Aethelmar of Cyrswud, CaCS,OotF

[Joe]

Aergraith wrote:
I just ask that you play all of the archetypes before you say you are bored of them.

EGGZactly!

I am 42, have played since 6th grade and I have yet to play them all out. Then there are spins on the archetypes like we have already mentioned with the Erol Flynn fighters etc.

Maybe we can get an rpg book about archetypes?

I would be interested in a book that was pretty much all "fluff" with rp ideas and articles on the archetypes and different ways to portray them.

Anyone know of such a book?
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[serleran]

Complete Guide to This and That, AD&D 2nd Edition. However, to encourage the taking of the archetypal role, benefits and hindrances, and the catchy phrase, kit, was introduced.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Joe]

You talking about a particular book or the line of books?

Isn't that when munckining started?

I rememeber buying a complete druid book or something...it was green if I remember. It had all kinds of "kits" I guess. I picked a totemic mountain druid. I figured an eagle would be a perfect fit to the mountain setting. Someone told me how I screwed up by not picking th bear as a totem. The bear i guess had all the crunchy bits. When I told him I picture bears at a lower elevation than standing on high peaks above the timber line he just harumphed at me.

I want to get away from mechanicial mins and maxes and explore other aspects without it becoming a power game approach.

But your right serl, that addressesd the archetypes but at the same time opened up the cheese spread.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[serleran]

A line of products, all of which had brown covers, actually, called the Players Handbook Resources/Reference (Complete Book of XXX or The XXX's Handbook, for example.) The green books were "historical reference" works and included things like Celts, Vikings, and The Crusades. But, I would say "munchkinning" has been part of the game since it was played, just not seemingly officially supported.

There was an early d20 book as well, the Hero's Guidebook I believe, that was similar in concept but did not provide modifiers. It basically just said how to play the character based on race/class. The most interesting thing about it, to me, was the alignment quiz. Oh, this was a WotC book, one of the few a third party did not do first.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Joe]

Ahh...ok thanks. Yeah, I bought the celts books along with it...cool stuff!

Perhaps somebody just needs to write one!

Not me of course, somebody else...but whom?

I pay half up front and the rest upon approval.
Not interested in the wotc product but maybe theres other books out there?
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[ArgoForg]

I like the archetypes, a lot. But as both a player with a lot of ideas and not a lot of time to put them to paper (and a GM that likes to offer my players at least some means of choice), I like the idea of giving players a few options beyond the base archetypes, if they're well thought out.

I know that when I come up with a character, I work from the concept out... that is, I figure out an idea that I think would be fun to play and then look at the rules to decide how best to make that concept into a workable character. So several of my own personal characters are hard to categorize into the (even multi-classed) archetypes.

But that doesn't mean I think they're bunk or not worth using. I actually like the archetypes, myself.
_________________
- "Sorry, I just happen to prefer games where the GM is an actual arbitrator and not the wall to roll dice off to decide what happens."

[zarathustra]

I like the archetypes.

As a kid they gave me something to lean on ("oh, dwarves are like this, ok") and made it easier to imagine and envisaage a strange world.

Now decades later I have a guy in my group playing a stereotypical (in many ways) dwarven fighter, expert in masonry and mining, no bells and whistles.

And you know what, he has made him an interesting PC, probably the best played of the group by just giving life to a seemingly standard archetype and REALLY getting deep into an archetype dwarf worldview and just not deviating, no metagaming, consequence and advantage be damned. It has been great to DM and makes me think that a good player will make an archetype OR something new and original shine.

So yeah I like 'em, they can be great, but I have nothing against a player wanting to try something different, especially if they bring the same kind of consistency and can really make it work as something more than just a gimmick.

[Secret Skeleton]

I agree with Treebore. You can play a character in a lot of ways, but much of the time there is no reason to make you mechanically different. Decisions are what make the difference.

[Go0gleplex]

[quote="Secret Skeleton"]I agree with Treebore. You can play a character in a lot of ways, but much of the time there is no reason to make you mechanically different. Decisions are what make the difference.[/quote]

+1
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Ogre]

zarathustra wrote:
dwarven fighter

[Tadhg]

Joe wrote:
I personally love the archetypal approach, but I am a huge fan of Jungian thought and symbology too.

Yet I notice folks wish to degrade the archetypes under the premise of ingenuity, or "originality". In other words, instead of playing the archetypes in the spirit in whuich they were designed, they seek loopholes, or narratives that somehow make them exempt. (Always under the premise of role play)

I am sure you all have seen the examples.

I want a paladin that is chaotic...

I am a knight that answers to no authority...

I'm mute, but also telepathic...

I want to turn undead but not really be good...

I'm spiritual but not religious...(how did that get in there?)

I'm a half-orc thug that wants to be a bard.

The list goes on. When asked about the many schemes we are answered with a boredom of the usual schtuff and they want to be original. hmmm
if you want an original character that challenges the status quo why don't I ever see these anti-archetypes?

An imbesilic magic user...duh de duh!

An ugly offensive paladin with body odor...

A knight that is scared of horses...

A fighter with 8 strength...

A thief with butterfingers...

A near sighted elf....

Now those would grant a player the challenge and roleplay opportunity they claim to need so badly for their own self expression.

Tell me your take on archetypes, and if your a traditionalist like myself.

Or one of those unwashed heretics with differing opinions.

Indeed . . perhaps you might like the "knacks and quirks" in Lejendary Adventures. The LM gets to role them and could end up with characters having some of those tendencies.

Gary rolled a quirk for my elegant, proud elf . . of an ancient and well respected linage ~ twas -> clumsiness!!
I very much like the archetypes, but am glad to see any/and/or all variations (not that I would accept anything presented, but . . )!!

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Deogolf]

I don't love or hate...I've played the archtypes for many years and never got bored of it. I had fun playing in Gary's LA campaign and tried the less restricted type PC as well - both are fun, both have their pluses and minuses.
_________________
Eulaliaaa!!! Give those rapscallions blood and vinegar, wot?!

Be sure to check out Jim's artwork for sale:
http://jimhollowayart.com/id5.html