PDA

View Full Version : Lost Archetypes



Anderlith
2013-01-22, 01:05 AM
I was talking to a friend the other day about how it can be difficult to play certain fantasy archetypes in games anymore. One particularly hemmed in archetype is the mage. Everyone makes a "Sage" type wizard it's gotten boring. Whatever happened to Court Wizards & the Adventurous Wizard? They've been hacked & hemmed in, till playing one is at most just picking one little feat/ability & the rest is fluff. The smart warrior has also gone the way of the dodo. The Zen warrior (think Jedi), the righteous smiting paladin that focuses on attacking rather than on defense. The holy rogue, for those that have to hide their faith lest evil find them. The knight of chivalry that doesn't worship a god but fights evil anyway.

Is there any Archetype that you miss & would like to play, that doesn't have much support in games?

Chilingsworth
2013-01-22, 02:35 AM
Well, for wizards, if you aren't hooked on the class name, you could use the Beguiler class to fulfill some archtypes, I think.

"Smart warrior": Warblade (or warblade with a fighter dip, and/or maybe a rogue dip) could be this.

The archtypes I'd like to play are the magitechnologist (which I can't because I have trouble with the Artificer class, not to mention I haven't found a dm that likes the idea of magitech much,) and I guess the nationbuilder? (I might earn myself a chance to play that one in my current campaign, but it'll be in the epilogue.)

ArcturusV
2013-01-22, 03:07 AM
I don't think these archetypes are lost, or missing, so much as that people don't really focus on it so much. It's not that the mechanics don't support it necessarily... it's just that people who seriously RPG a lot tend to be more interested in power builds, have worked out what is most effective, and want to go with that.

It's like in say... RIFTS. You always end up with characters being made who seem very narrow minded. The guy who is an expert Mech Pilot who knows 6 different martial arts and what not, but doesn't know his ABCs and such because the lure of Power is generally higher than the lure of Theme.

It doesn't mean you can't make a learned character in RIFTS... just that it doesn't have as much direct shiny "I HAVE THE POWAAAAAAR!" advantage as not doing it. It still has it's own advantages though.

I feel that is the case in a lot of games. It rewards obvious things. But that doesn't mean you have to be obvious. Nor that you are necessarily less effective unless you are obvious (Unless your DM/GM/Storyteller/Etc decides so).

Like say, 4th Edition DnD. I play it, and despite it's focus on basically pure combat numbers there are still plenty of powers and capabilities to allow my Wizard to excel in things other than "I chuck a fireball at a group of enemies" and the like. I've had trouble playing it off as such, but it was mostly just because my DMs were so focused on sheer combat potential and the like that they didn't really give me the chance to flex my theme and ideas as much as I would have liked, at all.

Vitruviansquid
2013-01-22, 05:52 AM
Despite being a common fantasy trope, I don't think I've ever seen or heard of anyone playing a Chivalrous Thief.

scurv
2013-01-22, 06:11 AM
I have played a Chivalrous Thief. Although they tend to die due to idealistic nature and tend to be somewhat swashbucklerish, or robinhoodish.

Hyena
2013-01-22, 06:32 AM
Nobody plays noble scions of always chaotic evil races, and that's pitiful. While bad role-playing of this archetype was annoying, now it seems that some races are evil to the core and nothing ain't going to change that.
Oh. And people rarely play good guys as a whole now. Paladins seem to be especially unpopular.

hamlet
2013-01-22, 10:31 AM
Well, they're not exactly "lost" per se.

Specifically, the "sage type wizard" actually still is an option . . . as long as you either 1) accept that much of it will be in how you play the character rather than mechanics or 2) you play AD&D 2e/ADD in which the Academic Wizard kit mostly fits the bill in the former and the Savant fits the bill in the later. I'm a particular fan of both, actually.

And there's nothing, as best I can tell, in 3.x stopping you from it either. You just have to work out what spell list an academic type wizard would have access to, and maybe fudge around with a few other things and then suddenly you're where you want to be.

Tengu_temp
2013-01-22, 11:03 AM
I've seen all of those characters, and more. Play games other than DND and you'll see more character archetypes than its cliches.

Anderlith
2013-01-22, 03:31 PM
Well, they're not exactly "lost" per se.

Specifically, the "sage type wizard" actually still is an option . . . as long as you either 1) accept that much of it will be in how you play the character rather than mechanics or 2) you play AD&D 2e/ADD in which the Academic Wizard kit mostly fits the bill in the former and the Savant fits the bill in the later. I'm a particular fan of both, actually.

And there's nothing, as best I can tell, in 3.x stopping you from it either. You just have to work out what spell list an academic type wizard would have access to, and maybe fudge around with a few other things and then suddenly you're where you want to be.

I think you misunderstand. "Sage" Wizards are the norm & there aren't very many other styles to play that isn't just RP & one or two feats/abilities

Sebastrd
2013-01-22, 03:37 PM
What systems do (or did) support said "lost" archetypes?

ScionoftheVoid
2013-01-22, 03:48 PM
What systems do (or did) support said "lost" archetypes?

I think Legend has support for most of these.
Definitely non-Sage wizards, righteous zeal smiting paladins, "zen" and smart warriors, to one extent or other. And that's without significant multiclassing. Devout rogues could probably be done with very little difficulty, I'm just not sure which tracks I'd use for it myself.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-01-22, 04:18 PM
I have played a Chivalrous Thief. Although they tend to die due to idealistic nature and tend to be somewhat swashbucklerish, or robinhoodish.
See the Artful Dodger rogue in 4th Edition.

Odin the Ignoble
2013-01-22, 04:21 PM
I think it depends on the system and the party. Some systems make it difficult of impossible to fit a functional character to an unusual or non-standard character concept. For other's it's allot easier.


My party from the HERO system has had unusual wizards:

Prof Farnsworth- Senile old mage complete with fuzzy bonny slippers of speed and magical bathrobe.

Meraz- Alchemist. Preferred method of attack is to grow into a 24ft tall giant and hit things with a hammer.

Anderlith
2013-01-22, 05:19 PM
I'm mostly talking about D&D & those that are similar. Class based games in general, stuff like that

Odin the Ignoble
2013-01-22, 05:58 PM
In that case it's probably at least partially system related. If it forces you to pick from a list of classes then you're sort of pigeonholed into what exactly your character is capable of.

You could always try out a different system. (I never miss a chance to plug Hero System)

Alternatively you could look at the bare mechanics of the classes and try and re-fluff anything you need so it fits with your character concept.

For example if you wanted to play a Paladin that focuses more on offense then defense, you could use the Barbarian Class. Instead of entering a berserk rage, he's filled with the holy wrath of his god.

If you want to play something that doesn't fit the available classes, try and talk to your GM about it. A Smart Fighter should be able to apply Int as a to hit bonus. Strength never made sense anyways.

Grinner
2013-01-22, 06:18 PM
I too think that the game system is at least partially to blame.

It's all about psychology. We tend focus on what the characters mechanically will be able to do and won't be able to do, because that's what will affect the game the most. Unless you're a really good at conceptualizing a character, you're going to focus on the meat of the game first, and so many games spend most of their word count on quantitative mechanics. So in cases like this, the mechanical aspects of the character will come first, the build. After that, it's just a matter of dressing the character, but only so many descriptions will fit a particular build.

If a game, like FATE or Wushu, provides a way to turn qualitative descriptions into mechanics, then it becomes that much easier to play your missing archetype.

shadow_archmagi
2013-01-24, 11:12 AM
Wait, what? Every wizard in D&D is an adventuring wizard, barring very specific campaigns.

The LOBster
2013-01-24, 07:41 PM
Oh. And people rarely play good guys as a whole now.

I guess I'm a dying breed, considering all my characters are of various Good alignments :P

ArcturusV
2013-01-24, 07:53 PM
I switch up between alignments a lot myself. Considering I was Lawful Evil last campaign I finished I'll probably go something like Neutral Good next time. Might even go that extra step to insure my character qualifies for Exalted feats/abilities.

DontEatRawHagis
2013-01-24, 08:56 PM
I always felt that the Alignment system restricted player creativity when it came to classes.

That's why whenever someone asked me what alignment the campaign was I told them to leave it blank and come up with a character yourself. Most of the time I've played Drunken Dwarf fighters. Though I did play an Ex-Paladin who turned into a Monk. Not because he had a falling out with his god. He just felt he could do more as a Monk than a Paladin, kept his deity.

When I brought it to the table a lot of the players considered me a fallen paladin and wanted to kill me right away, until I explained.

Many players I know stick to the tried and true character archetypes and its not their fault. Especially when the description in the DnD books specifically state Thief for Rogues. Why can't a rogue just be a seedy guy who uses light weapons and armor?

I like Class less systems a lot more now when it comes to player creativity. Though watch out for everyone trying to make the quiet stoic bounty hunter.

shadow_archmagi
2013-01-24, 09:06 PM
I sometimes get frustrated with myself when I write a character archetype that I can't actually play. Case in point: Badass gunslinger man of few words.

In films, the long silences make the few words he does say have a lot more impact. At the gaming table, everyone is talking all the time, so "man of few words" and "playing his DS under the table" are indistinguishable and equally unimpressive.

PersonMan
2013-01-25, 04:47 AM
In PbP, the quiet types are often in an odd position. Sometimes you can just describe their thought process, etc. and get good posts, but often you end up being unable to really keep a conversation going and/or lacking something to add to one if the game is stalling.

White_Drake
2013-01-26, 06:05 PM
See the Artful Dodger rogue in 4th Edition.

Ummm... The artful dodger was a bit of a douche... Did the person who came up with that name even read Oliver Twist?