Archetypes in RPGs

[D20ragon]

I've recently been dabbling in game design, (EDIT: okay, it's been pointed out that I should specify this isn't the first time in game design for me, but my first time doing a completely original system, I've only done hacks before) seeking to create an rpg that combines elements of games that I'm a fan of, while getting rid of what I and my group have little patience for. In doing so, I've run into more than a few questions that need answering, one of which is, of course, do I want to a class based or classless system. While the game designer in me says that classless is the way to go, I have no small amount of love for classes, but, in particular, the archetypes they represent. I take issue with many class based systems as I find the classes become incredibly specific, driving players to play very particular characters in a very particular way that discourages originality.

To that end, I've decided to go with some sort of Archetype based system, but before I can even get close to touching the details, I'd like to decide which Archetypes I'll actually be using. I've considered the Major Arcana of Tarot Decks, the Traditional Literary Archetypes and most recently the Jungian Archetypes, as well as of course just developing my own list. In any case, I thought I'd turn to the forums. What do you fine people think? Have you ever attempted/played or run a system that had something similar? Do you have a set of Archetypes, original or not, that you're fond of? Should I make my own list, what would I be remiss not to include? How to allow for variation within Archetypes while still giving characters the comfortable identity that comes with an Archetype/Class?

A long post what explains some stuff that I should have explained beforehand

[Lord Raziere]

I personally like:
Reluctant Monster, Rebel Leader, Loveable Rogue, The Trickster, and The Cynic, things like that. this is just what I pulled off of tvtropes, but its hard to name these archetypes when they're usually invisible.

[D20ragon]

tvtropes is an excellent place for me to go looking and I’m embarrassed I didn’t think of that on my own. Thank you.

[Max_Killjoy]

I was going to suggest classless when I started reading your opening post.

Still going to suggest that you treat archetypes as a tookbox for making a individual characters, and not as highly specialized pigeonholes that strongly control which abilities the character has access to.

[Grod_The_Giant]

My gut instinct is that trying to base archetypes off personality is not the way to go. In an ideal world, classes exist to provide mechanical structure to a game, and (perhaps) a built-in connection to the setting. What they should not do is dictate how you play your character. Why should The Leader be the only one who gets magic, or the Smart Guy the only ones who can use ranged weapons effectively? It's inherently limiting.

Rather, you should build classes around the different mechanical roles you want the game to include. Warrior, Rogue, and Mage, for instance. The Tank, the Glass Cannon, the Scout, the Face, and the Healer. That sort of thing. Broad gameplay roles, with options for mechanical customization and freedom of roleplaying.

[JeenLeen]

I'd like to decide which Archetypes I'll actually be using. I've considered the Major Arcana of Tarot Decks, the Traditional Literary Archetypes and most recently the Jungian Archetypes, as well as of course just developing my own list. In any case, I thought I'd turn to the forums. What do you fine people think? Have you ever attempted/played or run a system that had something similar? Do you have a set of Archetypes, original or not, that you're fond of? Should I make my own list, what would I be remiss not to include? How to allow for variation within Archetypes while still giving characters the comfortable identity that comes with an Archetype/Class?

Archetypes are essentially Classes, so I'll use the terms interchangeably below.
I agree with Grod the Giant that linking personality too closely to classes is badly limiting. Party roles as classes (Healer, Face, Scout, etc.) seem reasonable. However, if you go with more abstract Archetypes (tarot arcana, Jungian archetypes, tropes), you could have it be literally that the Archetype is assumed by the person, in-universe. That is, this person knows they are emulating the powers of the Tough Guy/Tower Tarot/whatever. Perhaps add something like Backgrounds from 5e to give some versatility in skill proficiency or similar things, but this at least makes sense in-universe why some folk might be limited in certain ways. (I think this would work best if most people are not 'empowered' by an Archetype, but enough are that there are still threats from other human(oids).)

Note that you could go classless with Archetypes, where each Archetype is something like a Discipline or Sphere from World of Darkness. So a military leader might have 4 ranks of Fighter and 1 of Face, or something like that.

Or you could go classes, but with some abilities tied to character level, like cantrips in D&D 5e. That way Face 1 could give some abilities that are viable, to let someone who is otherwise a good fighter/wizard/whatever also be a leader.

[Tinkerer]

The first possibility that comes to mind for answering your last question ("How to allow for variation within Archetypes while still giving characters the comfortable identity that comes with an Archetype/Class?") is that the characters summon the identity to themselves and wear it as a sort of internal power armour, winding up as a fusion of themselves and the archetype.

My preferred method of approach to this problem would be to utilize a mixture of class and classless systems by having the archetype be a set of bonuses which stack onto a classless system. So while you have classes they don't really restrict you, in a similar manner to classes from Elder Scrolls 4 and earlier. Gives you all the benefits of a class and classless system.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, archetypes as a classification of personality is a non-starter. It's not a "comfortable identity", it's a straightjacket, a pigeonhole, and a gross oversimplification. Fiction and gaming would both be better off if Carl Jung, narrative roles, and character tropes cliches were all forgotten on the scrapheap of bad ideas.

[Airk]

Much as I hate to come down on the same side of the fence as Max Killjoy (For the record, I disagree with his reasoning), I agree that unless you are writing a VERY SPECIFIC kind of game, you don't want to base your archetypes on fictional roles or personality types, because that's probably not what your game is about. Unless that IS what your game is about.

You probably need to step back a little here, because asking this kind of question this way tells me that you don't really have a lot of insight into the different ways games can work. It's absolutely possible to make a game where basing your archetypes on personalities or fictional roles (Meaning: "Roles they play in the fiction", not "Made up roles", because "Wizard" is totally a "fictional role" using the latter definition) makes a ton of sense - if you are making a game where the most important thing is how a character does/doesn't perform a fictional role or how they struggle with/conform to their character type, then those are totally appropriate. But if you are framing the question as "Well, I was thinking about whether I wanted CLASSES in my game..." then I can say with a high degree of certainty that you're not thinking about those kinds of games.

If you're seriously interested in expanding your ideas of how games might work, I'd suggest maybe taking a look at MASKS, since it approaches things from a very nonstandard angle that might help broaden your thinking a bit. If you're just interested in making a reactionary game that throws away stuff you don't like and keeps what you like from the games you've already played, that's fine too, but throw away the idea of using fictional archetypes or personality classifications as the basis for your archetypes and focus on what they ACTUALLY DO in the game. (Which will probably be "How do these people work in a fight?")

[Lord Raziere]

oh come on guys, the usual classes get boring after a while, and he clearly doesn't care about people saying his way of doing things is bad or whatever. I'd actually think a roleplaying game with more flavorful archetypes other than MMO roles would sound kind of cool. you never know where something will take you unless you travel down the path and there is no time to waste dismissing paths out of hand if you don't know what lies at the end.

[Airk]

oh come on guys, the usual classes get boring after a while, and he clearly doesn't care about people saying his way of doing things is bad or whatever. I'd actually think a roleplaying game with more flavorful archetypes other than MMO roles would sound kind of cool. you never know where something will take you unless you travel down the path and there is no time to waste dismissing paths out of hand if you don't know what lies at the end.

Well:

A) He's already said that he basically doesn't want "classes" just loose archetypes, so "The usual Classes get boring" is far from a valid argument, especially since there's no guarantee of "the usual" classes.
B) All I'm really saying is "Figure out where you are trying to get to, and then pick somewhere that goes there. It sounds like you are trying to go to a simulationist traditional system, so you should probably take your cues from simulationist traditional systems." (Though I also think the world already has plenty of traditional simulationist systems, so designing another one is more of a thought exercise than anything else.)

[Grod_The_Giant]

oh come on guys, the usual classes get boring after a while, and he clearly doesn't care about people saying his way of doing things is bad or whatever. I'd actually think a roleplaying game with more flavorful archetypes other than MMO roles would sound kind of cool. you never know where something will take you unless you travel down the path and there is no time to waste dismissing paths out of hand if you don't know what lies at the end.

I mean, as with most things it's somewhat dependent on the type of game you're making. "Classes," archetypes, should be matched first to the mechanical focus of the game, then the thematics. If your game prioritizes physical combat, MMO roles make sense. If it's about exploring hostile environments, maybe you'd have something like Athlete, Scientist, Engineer, and Hunter. I could see more socially oriented classes in a game of courtly intrigue or something else with its strongest focus on conversations.

The fundamental problem with making personality-based classes work, as I see it, is that classes are a mechanical thing. They're collections of game-abilities and rules, packaged together. WHAT you can do, more than WHY. Otherwise there's no real purpose.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you want simulationism, you need to avoid classes and archetypes.

If you want classes and/or archetypes, you're diverging from simulationism.


(At least as I understand the terms, emulating genre or tropes falls squarely into narrativism; and establishing separated and distinct mechanical roles falls squarely into gamism.)

[Airk]

If you want simulationism, you need to avoid classes and archetypes.

If you want classes and/or archetypes, you're diverging from simulationism.

I disagree; There is nothing that says "Dividing adventurers into broad categories doesn't accurately reflect the realities of this fantasy world." Some adventurers fit into the broad "fighter" category and kill things with weapons. Some adventurers fit into the broad "wizard" archetype and learn spells from books. As long as how well the fighter hits things is driven by "how the world works" rather than by dramatic/genre logic or game "fairness" then you have simulationism.

Classes and archetypes are simplifications, yes, but unless you are doing physics calculations at your table everytime someone fires an arrow, you are simplifying. There is nothing mutually exclusive about simplifications and simulation. Indeed, the latter pretty much REQUIRES the former, rather than being somehow exclusive of it.

(At least as I understand the terms, emulating genre or tropes falls squarely into narrativism; and establishing separated and distinct mechanical roles falls squarely into gamism.)

None of these falls "squarely" in any of these categories, because it's far more about how things are used than what you start with. Honestly, this stuff is only super tangentially related to any of these categories.

In any event, discussing this nonsense, AGAIN, is outside the scope of this thread. My original post stands on its own merits, even if you want to nitpick whether you can have classes while still being simulationist (hint: You can.)

[Max_Killjoy]

I disagree; There is nothing that says "Dividing adventurers into broad categories doesn't accurately reflect the realities of this fantasy world." Some adventurers fit into the broad "fighter" category and kill things with weapons. Some adventurers fit into the broad "wizard" archetype and learn spells from books. As long as how well the fighter hits things is driven by "how the world works" rather than by dramatic/genre logic or game "fairness" then you have simulationism.

Classes and archetypes are simplifications, yes, but unless you are doing physics calculations at your table everytime someone fires an arrow, you are simplifying. There is nothing mutually exclusive about simplifications and simulation. Indeed, the latter pretty much REQUIRES the former, rather than being somehow exclusive of it.

Which presumes that all simplifications are created equal.

None of these falls "squarely" in any of these categories, because it's far more about how things are used than what you start with. Honestly, this stuff is only super tangentially related to any of these categories.

In any event, discussing this nonsense, AGAIN, is outside the scope of this thread. My original post stands on its own merits, even if you want to nitpick whether you can have classes while still being simulationist (hint: You can.)

How? Cramming characters into artificial categories based on narrative or game concerns immediately puts strain on the verisimilitude.

[exelsisxax]

Stepping back from the meta on what games are, what do you actually want to do? I don't actually expect a simple answer - i expect that you don't actually know. You're sort of flailing at the wind here, with all of your complaints being about not liking class restrictions then asking a bunch of people on the internet to help you solidify a class-based system. It doesn't seem like you've played classless rpgs. If you check a few out, you might find something you like.

But in any case, you need to think further on what you think the problem actually is and try to convey that to us(verbosity is an asset here). Discussions stemming from that are probably going to be more worthwhile than responses to the OP, because they're trying to address the real problem they think you have(and are probably right).

[Airk]

How? Cramming characters into artificial categories based on narrative or game concerns immediately puts strain on the verisimilitude.

Just because something doesn't jive with YOUR sense of verisimilitude does not mean it is not simulationist. Remember: Your preferences do not map precisely to definitions.

Anyway. As I noted, this has nothing to do with the OP, so if you want the last word, you can have it; I'm not going to debate this "issue" with you further.

Stepping back from the meta on what games are, what do you actually want to do? I don't actually expect a simple answer - i expect that you don't actually know. You're sort of flailing at the wind here, with all of your complaints being about not liking class restrictions then asking a bunch of people on the internet to help you solidify a class-based system. It doesn't seem like you've played classless rpgs. If you check a few out, you might find something you like.

But in any case, you need to think further on what you think the problem actually is and try to convey that to us(verbosity is an asset here). Discussions stemming from that are probably going to be more worthwhile than responses to the OP, because they're trying to address the real problem they think you have(and are probably right).

This is kinda what I was trying to drive at; The initial question doesn't give the sense that the OP has a strong handle on what the options are, or why they would choose a particular one.

[Max_Killjoy]

Just because something doesn't jive with YOUR sense of verisimilitude does not mean it is not simulationist. Remember: Your preferences do not map precisely to definitions.

Anyway. As I noted, this has nothing to do with the OP, so if you want the last word, you can have it; I'm not going to debate this "issue" with you further.

No, this one is pretty much objective.

Actual, real people don't come in or fit into "character classes" or "narrative archetypes" or "game roles" (and Jung was a self-absorbed manchild).

Cramming characters into those straightjackets grossly oversimplifies them as fictional people, and makes them less "as if they could be real".

[Jama7301]

I had this whole thing written out, until I realized it amounted to "Remake 4th edition of D&D using the Roles (Striker/Defender/Leader/Controller) and Power Sources as a framework for deciding on archetypes using top down decision making process". Also had different class features you could take depending on your roles, but whatever, close enough.

[Grim Portent]

I would say the most sensible route is to have a classless system with Archetypes represented by starting packages. It maximises the amount of mid and lategame character customisation while still starting with an easy springboard that encourages further investment into the established set of abilities. Might be worth leaving an option for build your own starting packages as well for people who want more control than normal over their character's starting skillset.

If you start with a 'Stabby' archetype it's generally more sensible to keep investing in stabbiness as you go on, but in a classless system there's no reason you have to keep doing so rather than picking up some magic or sneakiness. It makes it less punishing than most classed systems do if the team decides to all pick up some stealth skills later on in the game, or if someone decides to snag a support magic power.

It might be worth giving starting archetypes a unique ability that can't be taken later on but otherwise leave everything available to later character customisation. It's how the later 40k RPGs did it, each Archetype got a unique ability, some bonus stats and a different starting package but was mostly replicable by any other Archetype given enough exp to spend.

[D20ragon]

My gut instinct is that trying to base archetypes off personality is not the way to go. In an ideal world, classes exist to provide mechanical structure to a game, and (perhaps) a built-in connection to the setting. What they should not do is dictate how you play your character. Why should The Leader be the only one who gets magic, or the Smart Guy the only ones who can use ranged weapons effectively? It's inherently limiting.

Rather, you should build classes around the different mechanical roles you want the game to include. Warrior, Rogue, and Mage, for instance. The Tank, the Glass Cannon, the Scout, the Face, and the Healer. That sort of thing. Broad gameplay roles, with options for mechanical customization and freedom of roleplaying.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but my main issue is that I often find personality bound up in class mechanics. Ie, the mechanics of a rogue of course encourage rogue-ish behavior. Not that that's unexpected or even bad. Dealing with that is just a little challenge I've set myself.

Archetypes are essentially Classes, so I'll use the terms interchangeably below.
I agree with Grod the Giant that linking personality too closely to classes is badly limiting. Party roles as classes (Healer, Face, Scout, etc.) seem reasonable. However, if you go with more abstract Archetypes (tarot arcana, Jungian archetypes, tropes), you could have it be literally that the Archetype is assumed by the person, in-universe. That is, this person knows they are emulating the powers of the Tough Guy/Tower Tarot/whatever. Perhaps add something like Backgrounds from 5e to give some versatility in skill proficiency or similar things, but this at least makes sense in-universe why some folk might be limited in certain ways. (I think this would work best if most people are not 'empowered' by an Archetype, but enough are that there are still threats from other human(oids).)

Note that you could go classless with Archetypes, where each Archetype is something like a Discipline or Sphere from World of Darkness. So a military leader might have 4 ranks of Fighter and 1 of Face, or something like that.

Or you could go classes, but with some abilities tied to character level, like cantrips in D&D 5e. That way Face 1 could give some abilities that are viable, to let someone who is otherwise a good fighter/wizard/whatever also be a leader.

Working with spheres is indeed something I'm considering.

Yeah, archetypes as a classification of personality is a non-starter. It's not a "comfortable identity", it's a straightjacket, a pigeonhole, and a gross oversimplification. Fiction and gaming would both be better off if Carl Jung, narrative roles, and character tropes cliches were all forgotten on the scrapheap of bad ideas.

I disagree strongly with the sweeping strokes used here, but I definitely agree with archetypes dictating personality is a no go.

Much as I hate to come down on the same side of the fence as Max Killjoy (For the record, I disagree with his reasoning), I agree that unless you are writing a VERY SPECIFIC kind of game, you don't want to base your archetypes on fictional roles or personality types, because that's probably not what your game is about. Unless that IS what your game is about.

You probably need to step back a little here, because asking this kind of question this way tells me that you don't really have a lot of insight into the different ways games can work. It's absolutely possible to make a game where basing your archetypes on personalities or fictional roles (Meaning: "Roles they play in the fiction", not "Made up roles", because "Wizard" is totally a "fictional role" using the latter definition) makes a ton of sense - if you are making a game where the most important thing is how a character does/doesn't perform a fictional role or how they struggle with/conform to their character type, then those are totally appropriate. But if you are framing the question as "Well, I was thinking about whether I wanted CLASSES in my game..." then I can say with a high degree of certainty that you're not thinking about those kinds of games.

If you're seriously interested in expanding your ideas of how games might work, I'd suggest maybe taking a look at MASKS, since it approaches things from a very nonstandard angle that might help broaden your thinking a bit. If you're just interested in making a reactionary game that throws away stuff you don't like and keeps what you like from the games you've already played, that's fine too, but throw away the idea of using fictional archetypes or personality classifications as the basis for your archetypes and focus on what they ACTUALLY DO in the game. (Which will probably be "How do these people work in a fight?")

Emphasis mine. This is in fact mostly the kind of game that I intend this to be, and I expect I'll be making a few more threads discussing exactly that. However I also want people to point out fundamental issues with that, which is why criticism like yours is really welcomed. I get that's kind of unfair not to disclose the entirety of the context for my question in the OP, but I wanted suggestions that could prompt me to reconsider my premise entirely.
To be perfectly honest, I've actually worked a fair amount in rpg development, but doing hacks, never with an entirely original system. I asked this question in this way specifically to get these sorts of suggestions though, because I'm prone to overlooking the basics, and I'd love to start with a strong foundation for this project.

oh come on guys, the usual classes get boring after a while, and he clearly doesn't care about people saying his way of doing things is bad or whatever. I'd actually think a roleplaying game with more flavorful archetypes other than MMO roles would sound kind of cool. you never know where something will take you unless you travel down the path and there is no time to waste dismissing paths out of hand if you don't know what lies at the end.

Thanks for this, I agree entirely. This whole project is a bit of a thought experiment more than anything. I would have put that in the OP but I wanted to get responses that didn't take the experimental nature of the project into account, as like I said, I want strong fundamentals.

Well:

A) He's already said that he basically doesn't want "classes" just loose archetypes, so "The usual Classes get boring" is far from a valid argument, especially since there's no guarantee of "the usual" classes.
B) All I'm really saying is "Figure out where you are trying to get to, and then pick somewhere that goes there. It sounds like you are trying to go to a simulationist traditional system, so you should probably take your cues from simulationist traditional systems." (Though I also think the world already has plenty of traditional simulationist systems, so designing another one is more of a thought exercise than anything else.)

If you want simulationism, you need to avoid classes and archetypes.

If you want classes and/or archetypes, you're diverging from simulationism.


(At least as I understand the terms, emulating genre or tropes falls squarely into narrativism; and establishing separated and distinct mechanical roles falls squarely into gamism.)

What I'm doing falls more into narrativism, which I'm fine with, while trying to present an believable simulation of that narrative. I don't think that really explains my point well, but it's all I can think of right now. I want to be focused on narrative and in fact narrative roles, but at the same time, prevent player disbelief from ripping everything to shreds. If I read a work of fiction, I do not in fact take a particularly beautiful metaphor as truth, but I understand that, in the context of the world, it is entirely believable for me to interpret reality through this metaphor, and in fact that metaphor likely informs me somewhat on the nature of the reality I'm dealing with in the narrative. Does that make things clearer or did I just horribly muddle everything?

Stepping back from the meta on what games are, what do you actually want to do? I don't actually expect a simple answer - i expect that you don't actually know. You're sort of flailing at the wind here, with all of your complaints being about not liking class restrictions then asking a bunch of people on the internet to help you solidify a class-based system. It doesn't seem like you've played classless rpgs. If you check a few out, you might find something you like.

But in any case, you need to think further on what you think the problem actually is and try to convey that to us(verbosity is an asset here). Discussions stemming from that are probably going to be more worthwhile than responses to the OP, because they're trying to address the real problem they think you have(and are probably right).

I already answered this earlier, but yeah, this sort of response was actually really helpful to me in terms of inspiring me to consider a few things about my game. I'm hoping to continue the conversation, now that things have been clarified slightly.

Just because something doesn't jive with YOUR sense of verisimilitude does not mean it is not simulationist. Remember: Your preferences do not map precisely to definitions.

Anyway. As I noted, this has nothing to do with the OP, so if you want the last word, you can have it; I'm not going to debate this "issue" with you further.



This is kinda what I was trying to drive at; The initial question doesn't give the sense that the OP has a strong handle on what the options are, or why they would choose a particular one.

Yeah, I'm sorry about that, but as I've said quite a few times now, this sort of discussion, while a little unfair to those involved, and not painting me in the most flattering light, was really helpful to me.



Now, to recap, and hopefully prompt further discussion:

The game I intend to make is a game which I rather pretentiously intend to enable "literary fantasy roleplaying." I want a game that can allow players to create games that reflect not only the rather tired tolkienesque fantasy that inspired D&D, but far weirder works of fantasy and magical realism. Because I aim to tackle such a broad and unruly subject, while still maintaining a cohesive "feel" across each game, I want "classes" of some some kind. Even as a writer who has built their career on original fiction, I feel that archetypes are to some degree unavoidable. The struggle of an author to vest in a fictional character life outside of the archetype they play, is in my opinion something that drives a great deal of very interesting writing, and something I'd like to incorporate into this game. Personality being separate from archetype is something very important to that. I want to encourage players to work with/within archetypes to create entirely unexpected characters. I actually plan on a mouse-guard/torchbearer style nature stat, reflecting how closely the character cleaves to their archetypal fate, and to what degree they struggle against it.
My main issue then, is what archetypes. TVtropes borders on overly specific, Jungian archetypes interest me but of course are intrinsically tied to personality, and a few interpretations of tarot are proving perhaps my best route so far outside of creating my own, which I've been a little too drained to make a proper go at this week.
Something I've been considering is having classes represent the way the character will be remembered, should they die and centuries pass. Obviously, people will not remember crucial things about them, but when it comes down to it, what kind of role will they play in the stories told about them years after they are gone. A sphere style system might work well with that, with players simply choosing one as their highest upon starting play, and having that starting score represent the limited deeds they've done so far. Then, as the game goes on, different deeds lead to fluctuations in scores, and the character who began as a scoundrel ends up being remembered as a valiant knight, when all is said and done. That might be entirely bad game design for all sorts of reasons, but after so much time spent hacking other peoples systems, I'm really looking to try some stuff that, I personally think is cool.
However, I still want the game to be playable, and good at that, so these fundamental criticisms I received due to my vague OP and other criticisms like them, are welcomed and encouraged in addition criticisms or questions about my strange and somewhat silly idea.


EDIT: I noticed some posts were made while I was writing this, sorry that I couldn't address them in this long post. Also, I'm going to link this post in the OP, so people can get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

[Knaight]

For the OP:
Fundamentally what classes are appropriate for your game is highly dependent on how the game is structured. A party focused game built around task resolution mechanics about overcoming challenges suggests a very different way to build classes than a scene focused game about character personality conflicts and personality changes that hops from character conflict to character conflict.

Fortunately, you suggested that you have a specific list of games you like and mechanics you don't like that you're working from. If this list were made available to the thread it would vastly improve our ability to make useful suggestions.

EDIT: That last post was posted while I was writing this one, and it changes things a bit. Namely, it suggests that it would absolutely be worth your time to dig into folklore a bit. More specifically, you want to look at some of the broader categories in various motif-indices. It's dry reading, but worthwhile.

On the tangent:

Actual, real people don't come in or fit into "character classes" or "narrative archetypes" or "game roles" (and Jung was a self-absorbed manchild).

They do however have specific training, perform specific jobs, and potentially come from specific and highly regimented social groups depending on how their society is structured (various hard caste systems, military ranks, and systems of nobility during periods where the nobility actually has a good hold on power come to mind).

This is particularly true for a military campaign. Sticking to fiction here, a Starfleet Officer has gone to a particular academy, and undergone specific training. A class based (but probably not level based) system that has classes like Starfleet Command, Starfleet Engineering, Starfleet Medical, Starfleet Security, and possibly a few for enlisted crew would work just fine for a Star Trek game. Other classes would work for other military structures.

[D20ragon]

For the OP:
Fundamentally what classes are appropriate for your game is highly dependent on how the game is structured. A party focused game built around task resolution mechanics about overcoming challenges suggests a very different way to build classes than a scene focused game about character personality conflicts and personality changes that hops from character conflict to character conflict.

Fortunately, you suggested that you have a specific list of games you like and mechanics you don't like that you're working from. If this list were made available to the thread it would vastly improve our ability to make useful suggestions.

On the tangent:


They do however have specific training, perform specific jobs, and potentially come from specific and highly regimented social groups depending on how their society is structured (various hard caste systems, military ranks, and systems of nobility during periods where the nobility actually has a good hold on power come to mind).

This is particularly true for a military campaign. Sticking to fiction here, a Starfleet Officer has gone to a particular academy, and undergone specific training. A class based (but probably not level based) system that has classes like Starfleet Command, Starfleet Engineering, Starfleet Medical, Starfleet Security, and possibly a few for enlisted crew would work just fine for a Star Trek game. Other classes would work for other military structures.

As far as I go, yes, I do plan to list those games. I'm pressed for time right now, but either in this thread or a more comprehensive thread that more fully presents the system, I do plan on listing those for reference.
As far as the tangent goes, no comment? I'd just ask that people be respectful-ish and not completely take over the thread. Discourse is fine, but I would also like some help, now that I've explained myself a bit.

[Knaight]

As far as I go, yes, I do plan to list those games. I'm pressed for time right now, but either in this thread or a more comprehensive thread that more fully presents the system, I do plan on listing those for reference.
As far as the tangent goes, no comment? I'd just ask that people be respectful-ish and not completely take over the thread. Discourse is fine, but I would also like some help, now that I've explained myself a bit.

Like I said in the edit, the post above gives a better idea of what to offer as advice - and folklore as an academic field is basically exactly what you're looking for, with motif-indices in particular potentially having value. With that said, there's also always the outdated textbook method; going back an edition or two can take textbooks from overpriced to downright cheap. The Dynamics of Folklore will run you less than ten dollars.

[the_david]

It might help to look at things like race, class, archetype and backgrounds (In 5e D&D, just an example.) as templates. They're mandatory so everybody must have one of each and they add something to the way your character interacts with the world/rules. Templates can be as big and complicated as a class (In Pathfinder, another example.) or as small as a trait. (Still Pathfinder, for comparison)

So what you basically want is a template. There are multiple ways to do this, and it doesn't really matter what you call them. If you want to call them archetypes that's okay, but you might as well go with personality traits or poopyfarts. Well, maybe not poopyfarts. Remember that your templates can be as complex or as simple as you want them to be.

Am I making any sense? I'm not sure if template would be the correct word to use. How about poopyfarts?

[Max_Killjoy]

On the tangent:


They do however have specific training, perform specific jobs, and potentially come from specific and highly regimented social groups depending on how their society is structured (various hard caste systems, military ranks, and systems of nobility during periods where the nobility actually has a good hold on power come to mind).

This is particularly true for a military campaign. Sticking to fiction here, a Starfleet Officer has gone to a particular academy, and undergone specific training. A class based (but probably not level based) system that has classes like Starfleet Command, Starfleet Engineering, Starfleet Medical, Starfleet Security, and possibly a few for enlisted crew would work just fine for a Star Trek game. Other classes would work for other military structures.

I'd suggest that those sorts of things are training or education packages, not classes or archetypes.

[JBPuffin]

I'd suggest that those sorts of things are training or education packages, not classes or archetypes.

What’s the difference? Different terms for the same thing, although I can understand wanting to avoid the baggage associated with the term and wanting to make having multiple more explicitly okay.

OP, color me interested; a lot of RPGs try various ways to make their renditions of archetypes different. Seeing an authentically different set of archetypes would be cool.

[Floret]

For Narrative roles, and how the character is remembered... Maybe try looking at specifically the Trope of the Five-man Band (See TvTropes for that one), how it is implemented/transposed onto different kinds of media, what additional roles there are surrounding it (Sixth ranger; or the extension to the Seven Samurai Setup, for example), etc.
There is quite an amount of freedom in each role, but they also carry quite clear meaning - most people familiar with the trope, will sort the same five-man group the same way; but a character might work in different roles in different teams, even without changing themselves.

I have noticed that even though I tend to play with 5-player groups, RPG groups tend to fit the pattern much more vaguely than groups from other media (But that might just be my games); but maybe that is a reason FOR implementing a system "enforcing" sticking to it, rather than a reason against.
(It would have the added bonus of not straining simulationist concerns that much - it is, after all, an outside projection onto your group of heroes, not the truth of them. That projection might well give them certain abilites - either to interact with the world (Being know as a Smart guy might get you into libraries faster than being know as a Tough guy, no matter your actual intelligence); or by having people's belief about you shape your powers in some bit (Which would have to be represented setting-wise, of course), in a lower-powered mirror of the "Gods get powers from belief" trope.

[D20ragon]

Like I said in the edit, the post above gives a better idea of what to offer as advice - and folklore as an academic field is basically exactly what you're looking for, with motif-indices in particular potentially having value. With that said, there's also always the outdated textbook method; going back an edition or two can take textbooks from overpriced to downright cheap. The Dynamics of Folklore will run you less than ten dollars.

That's a really excellent suggestion, I'll pick up the ebook.

What’s the difference? Different terms for the same thing, although I can understand wanting to avoid the baggage associated with the term and wanting to make having multiple more explicitly okay.

OP, color me interested; a lot of RPGs try various ways to make their renditions of archetypes different. Seeing an authentically different set of archetypes would be cool.

Glad to hear you're interested, hopefully the final product warrants it.

For Narrative roles, and how the character is remembered... Maybe try looking at specifically the Trope of the Five-man Band (See TvTropes for that one), how it is implemented/transposed onto different kinds of media, what additional roles there are surrounding it (Sixth ranger; or the extension to the Seven Samurai Setup, for example), etc.
There is quite an amount of freedom in each role, but they also carry quite clear meaning - most people familiar with the trope, will sort the same five-man group the same way; but a character might work in different roles in different teams, even without changing themselves.

I have noticed that even though I tend to play with 5-player groups, RPG groups tend to fit the pattern much more vaguely than groups from other media (But that might just be my games); but maybe that is a reason FOR implementing a system "enforcing" sticking to it, rather than a reason against.
(It would have the added bonus of not straining simulationist concerns that much - it is, after all, an outside projection onto your group of heroes, not the truth of them. That projection might well give them certain abilites - either to interact with the world (Being know as a Smart guy might get you into libraries faster than being know as a Tough guy, no matter your actual intelligence); or by having people's belief about you shape your powers in some bit (Which would have to be represented setting-wise, of course), in a lower-powered mirror of the "Gods get powers from belief" trope.

I'm a little resistant to Five-Man Band due to the fact that it quickly falls apart if there's fewer than five players, and ideally the system could support 1-6ish. I definitely have been toying with the idea of abilities based on projection or even just inherent to the archetypes, working with a sort of apocalypse world style question thing (players can ask GM certain number of questions about specific subjects based on a stat) but that's all still very much in the air.

[NovenFromTheSun]

Things to consider are what's possible in your world and how character advancement works. If, for instance you want a world where people can learn both fighting and spellcasting: 1) if archetype is a big one time decision then there'll need to be one for that but 2) if there smaller packets of skills that players pick multiple times then they can be more separated.

Other than that, one possibility for classes is how they approach problems. Do they try to go through obstacles, around them, or change them to no longer be obstacles? Now, no one does one of them in all situations, but bear with me; I'll figure out what my point is in a moment.

Out of those three possibilities, one could probably think of different types of characters and how their approach affects different aspects of them. And for these characters there are different kinds of players that would like them. So if I have a point it's that when designing a class or archetype think of what kind of person those characters would appeal to and why; especially seeing how you seem to be going for something that mixes class archetypes with those from stories.