Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalTrue, but there's no evidence for the existence of archetypes.  The collective unconscious and race memory once provided a pseudo-scientific whitewash of respectability to the idea of archetypes (besides which, Jung's archetypes didn't feature barbarians or thieves) but since those days both the collective unconscious AND race memory have been shown to be largely bullshit.

"bitched about by feminist-marxist academics who hate the idea" does NOT, the last time I checked, equal "shown to be bullshit".

QuoteTheir continued existence within the literary establishment is on a par with people still deploying psychoanalysis as a tool for interpreting the actions of writers or historical figures; it produces interesting papers and sounds impressive but there's no scientific basis for any of it.  It's postmodernism gone mad I tells ya.

No, postmodernism gone mad would be a gang of fucking feminist-communists trying to claim that a novel about black lesbians dealing with issues of their poverty is a superior work to Lord of The Rings, and trying to blackball any discussion of the latter from Academia, because its clearly "drivel for the masses" or "a tool of the patriarchy", because it, you know, deals with stuff that actually appeals to normal human beings. And worst of all, the criminal sin in western marxist-feminist academia, because it inspires people.

Because it has archetypes.

RPGPundit

If the poor, black lesbians deal with their status by elisting in the Terran Space Authority's Exo-Defense Forces to defend the Earth from the growing Xantikri menace, while being poor, black lesbians...

...

...well, It'd be a little like "Give Me Liberty" in space.

I like classes for fantasy RPGs.

How would one classify the WFRP career system?  I suppose it's a kind of class system.

For modern or future games, whether classes are appropriate depends on the genre.  Pulp or space opera?  Yeah, classes are good.

Quote from: RPGPundit"bitched about by feminist-marxist academics who hate the idea" does NOT, the last time I checked, equal "shown to be bullshit".



No, postmodernism gone mad would be a gang of fucking feminist-communists trying to claim that a novel about black lesbians dealing with issues of their poverty is a superior work to Lord of The Rings, and trying to blackball any discussion of the latter from Academia, because its clearly "drivel for the masses" or "a tool of the patriarchy", because it, you know, deals with stuff that actually appeals to normal human beings. And worst of all, the criminal sin in western marxist-feminist academia, because it inspires people.

Because it has archetypes.

RPGPundit

For, the record, I'm not on board with the Jung thing, but it's not because of my orthodox Marxist views.  (I'm almost as Marxist as Adam Smith.)  Anyway, some of us recognize the power of symbols and recognizable types without selling the whole farm to Jung.

Even if I take the concept of an "archtype" at face value, I still think the idea is overused (and usually improperly) in RPG discussion.  I'd never really bumped into the Jung-hating Marxist thing before, though.  That's a riot.

Pretty much all post-modern marxists have, in western europe and north america, at least.

Its what has also led them to be so fantastically unsuccessful, IMO.

I mean, you look at marxism in South America and its all about archetypes.  You see, you can't have "utopias" if you don't have Archetypes, and Marxisms whole appeal is about inspiring the human spirit with utopias and archetypes.  When western academia decided to oh-so cleverly divest themselves of that it was like shooting their own balls off.

You could say the same thing about the American Left in general, for that matter.

RPGPundit

First time on this forum, hi all. (emigree' from elseweb)

My semi-serious assertion is that I like classes for fantasy because it reinforces the vaguely medieval culture most fantasy is based in. That is, who you are IS what you are -- John Baker, John Smith, John Wright... you ARE a baker, smith, or wright, and it is an indelible part of who you are.

The humanist/socialist free-form social theories overthrowing feudal hold-overs proclaim the point buy system... we are all equal, on equal footing, and it is to each of us to decide where and when to put our points.

Seriously, in a modern day game a pointish non-class system feels right more often, and in a medievalish game a class system feels right more often.

Quote from: BalbinusClasses work because of their simple power, if Bob is playing a warrior, Rita a wizard and Sue a rogue we know pretty much what kinds of characters they are playing.  If Bob is playing an Elemental Swordsmith, Rita a Star Mage and Sue a Dreaming Blade Dancer prestige class who knows what the hell they're playing.

Damn right. Add in the ability to make limitless multiclass combinations of these non-archetypal classes, and the whole mechanic becomes not only useless, but a liability.

KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) is the maxim for designing a class-based game.

Note on Yamo and my previous comment... I really dislike D20 Modern, and I think it comes from the way classes are turned into something rather hard to grab onto. I'm Tough. Er. 'k...

Quote from: WillNote on Yamo and my previous comment... I really dislike D20 Modern, and I think it comes from the way classes are turned into something rather hard to grab onto. I'm Tough. Er. 'k...

That was my key issue with it actually, strong hero just doesn't mean much to me.  Whether we're talking archetypes or stereotypes I don't much care, but they're only useful if they're instantly recognisable and those just weren't.

Welcome aboard, Will!

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit"bitched about by feminist-marxist academics who hate the idea" does NOT, the last time I checked, equal "shown to be bullshit".

  No but the fact that the psychological theories upon which talk of archetypes once relied for their substance have been largely discredited DOES suggest that the concept is bullshit.

  Look.  Archetypes are supposedly symbolic images and roles that et re-invented but ultimately stay the same because they have some level of psychological resonance.  They're not just icons, they're the stuff icons are made of.  So where do archetypes exist?  According to Jung in race memory and the collective unconscious.  So the reason why these symbols keep popping up in different configurations is because they're hard-wored into the human mind.

  The problem is that the theory that allows for that kind of hardworing and explains it has been essentially shown to be nonsense and without any scientific basis to it whatsoever.  So given that there's no such thing as a collective subconscious or race memory... where do archetypes come from?

  Answer: Um....

  Archetypes are stereotypes on stilts.  Stereotypes are just images that have been re-used so many times they're instantly recognisable.  Remove the stilts of an archetype and that's what you're left with: a stereotype.

  Marxism and feminism don't enter into it.  These is psychology.

QuoteBecause it has archetypes.

  The book became popular because it had characters that had been used before in various myths.  It had familiar stereotypes.  The success of the books have now made these stereotypes unavoidable in the fantasy genre... clogging it.

  The LOTR doesn't need pseudo-magical mental objects to justify its popularity.  It's popular for the same reason that today's fantasy is popular: it's nice escapist fiction that's different enough to make things interesting, but not so unfamiliar that it's in any way challenging.

Sometimes stereotypes are useful, sometimes they are even true.  Archetypes, stereotypes, that I don't much care about.  My point was that classes can be a useful shorthand that can save time to allow you to get to the more interesting bits of the game.  My secondary point was that when classes fail to be shorthand because they are unintuitive or complex then I see little point to them.

Yeah, as I said earlier, I think that MMORPGs are onto something when they realised that classes are all about filling a certain fucntional niche in a group.  A halfling thief isn't easy to fit into a group because he's a fragment of our race memory, he's easy to fit into a group because he's the sneaking about and picking locks guy.

Once you get into the more ornate classes that the current D&D throws up it's just ridiculous, you might as well have a point-buy system.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYeah, as I said earlier, I think that MMORPGs are onto something when they realised that classes are all about filling a certain fucntional niche in a group.  A halfling thief isn't easy to fit into a group because he's a fragment of our race memory, he's easy to fit into a group because he's the sneaking about and picking locks guy.

Once you get into the more ornate classes that the current D&D throws up it's just ridiculous, you might as well have a point-buy system.

That's the essence of my point, archetypes are just middle class stereotypes, that distinction is an accident of my original phrasing.

Classes work when they are recognisable, they don't IMO when they're not.

Absolutely.  They're stereotypes because they're familiar and because they're familiar, everyone immediately knows what that kind of character does.