Yeah, the more I think about it, the more the classes are really just the skills/powers/feats that are only available if you choose that starting class.  And that works best if it's a core niche in the game.

In a modern or Sci-Fi game, the "Scientist" might be a class.  Sure, other classes (Space Marine, etc) could learn some science skills -- but only the Scientist is going to be able to do the super-science things (build a robot, create a vaccine, etc).

I think my point is if the classes are strong and archetypical enough, they won't need artificial protection. Cross-class penalties are fine - that's natural - but forbidding altogether is wonky.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI think my point is if the classes are strong and archetypical enough, they won't need artificial protection. Cross-class penalties are fine - that's natural - but forbidding altogether is wonky.

Oh ... see, I'm a big fan of rules that forbid you from doing the things that (if you really thought about it) you wouldn't want to do anyway.  They free up my mental energies to think about the stuff that I would want to do, rather than worrying about avoiding mistakes.

I agree that classes are at their best when they are archetypal.

"Thief" is an archetype.
"shadowdancer" is not.

So unless you're playing a very archetypal kind of campaign, the best possible setup is for the classes to be open enough with their options that you don't need 40 classes, you just need 3 or 4 classes that can be directed in 40 different ways.

Oh, and both multiclassing and prestige classes as they stand should be abolished.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI agree that classes are at their best when they are archetypal.

"Thief" is an archetype.
"shadowdancer" is not.

So unless you're playing a very archetypal kind of campaign, the best possible setup is for the classes to be open enough with their options that you don't need 40 classes, you just need 3 or 4 classes that can be directed in 40 different ways.

Oh, and both multiclassing and prestige classes as they stand should be abolished.

RPGPundit

Agreed completely.

-clash

Quote from: TonyLBBut that's not objective, right?

Like, if I play a sentai game, and you tell me "You can be one of the following classes:  Paragon, Loner, Big Guy, Kid, Girl" then I am good to go.  I immediately recognize all of those archetypes.

But I imagine that for lots of people, those classes wouldn't really work.  They aren't recognizable.

So when I, personally, have put in the effort to construct a set of archetypes around something ... well then, they become useful to me, right?

Or am I misreading you?

Well, an archetype can't help if nobody knows the genre, they're genre enforcing tools after all.

But the point of a class isn't just to help you, it's to help the whole group.  Everybody knows if Bob is playing a fighter the kind of character Bob is playing, not just Bob.  That's part of the power, it's an abbreviation and the more we can shortcut exposition the better I think our games will tend to be.

Bob is a Shadowdancer, which means he is ... and can ... is exposition that doesn't really add much to play.  Bob is a fighter tells me immediately what Bob's role is and we can get on to more interesting stuff.

I also agree by the way that if you need to build in niche protection it's not really an archetype, archetypes by their nature are clear roles that make sense in their own right.  Any decent class will be niche protected by virtue of its artificial nature, artificial constraints aren't relevant or necessary.

Quote from: BalbinusBut the point of a class isn't just to help you, it's to help the whole group.

Natch.  Sometimes you have a set of archetypes that everybody in your group knows.  For instance, this often happens in super-hero roleplaying games.  The people who choose to join up in the group have often read enough comics to have a sense of the archetypes of the genre that's missing in the outside culture.

An archetype is a stereotype for pseuds.

The term is an intellectual justification for lazy characterisation unsurprisingly most frequently deployed by the type of hack fantasy writers that gamers adore. "Oh he's not a stereotypical knight... he's an archetype".

The only reason for buying into such terminology is if you believe in Jungian ideas such as the collection unconscious or race memory.  In the real world, an archetype is just a piece of characterisation that's been so utterly overused that you can no longer even remember where it came from.

"But it's an archetype" is no different than saying "But everyone else does it that way".  It's the mating cry of the dull and the lazy.

As such I have no time for classes whatsoever because hack fantasy is something to be avoided like a case of the clap, not emulated.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAs such I have no time for classes whatsoever because hack fantasy is something to be avoided like a case of the clap, not emulated.

Ah, you hippy!     Ain't nothin' wrong with taking on the persona of a grim barbarian with thews like iron cables, and gettin' down and dirty with a serpent god in his dark dungeon.  That's good clean fun, that is.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAn archetype is a stereotype for pseuds.

The term is an intellectual justification for lazy characterisation unsurprisingly most frequently deployed by the type of hack fantasy writers that gamers adore. "Oh he's not a stereotypical knight... he's an archetype".

The only reason for buying into such terminology is if you believe in Jungian ideas such as the collection unconscious or race memory.  In the real world, an archetype is just a piece of characterisation that's been so utterly overused that you can no longer even remember where it came from.

"But it's an archetype" is no different than saying "But everyone else does it that way".  It's the mating cry of the dull and the lazy.

As such I have no time for classes whatsoever because hack fantasy is something to be avoided like a case of the clap, not emulated.

Nah, it's shorthand.

Besides, if it's good enough for Fritz Lieber it's good enough for me.  

The point is to get down to play, to get down to play fast, and to get down to play in a way that works.

No more, no less.

The trick to avoiding hack fantasy is never to read any, I certainly don't, but I don't see classes as particularly related.

But what is it shorthand for?

Lieber's stuff isn't archetypal.  The Grey Mouser, for example, is quite a complex character who definitely doesn't fit into any class system.  There's no such thing as archetypes... there's just stuff you've seen before.

If there's any truth in all of this then it's the truth that MMORPGs have discovered, namely that different "classes" have different skill sets and therefore have different tactical roles to play.

Quote from: TonyLBAh, you hippy!     Ain't nothin' wrong with taking on the persona of a grim barbarian with thews like iron cables, and gettin' down and dirty with a serpent god in his dark dungeon.  That's good clean fun, that is.

  Actually it strikes me as quite dull.  One of the things I like about roleplaying is the process of characterisation whether it emerges during creation or in play.  I like finding an angle and getting a feel for who my character is.

  Start dealing in cliches and instantly that fun is removed.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAn archetype is a stereotype for pseuds.

The term is an intellectual justification for lazy characterisation unsurprisingly most frequently deployed by the type of hack fantasy writers that gamers adore. "Oh he's not a stereotypical knight... he's an archetype".

The only reason for buying into such terminology is if you believe in Jungian ideas such as the collection unconscious or race memory.  In the real world, an archetype is just a piece of characterisation that's been so utterly overused that you can no longer even remember where it came from.

"But it's an archetype" is no different than saying "But everyone else does it that way".  It's the mating cry of the dull and the lazy.

As such I have no time for classes whatsoever because hack fantasy is something to be avoided like a case of the clap, not emulated.

How absurdly foolishly neo-marxist of you.

RPGPundit

Neo-Marxist?!

By Christ I've been called a lot in my time but never anything like that.

If anything my view's the opposite of Marxist-style historicism.  The Marxist argues that there's a pattern and an underlying current to history and hope that by appealing to the common man and declare a communist state then all the nasty capitalist impulses that we have will drift away in the blissful embrace of the unfettered expansion of class consciousness.

Similarly, the idea of there being archetypes is that idea that if you appeal to the lowest common denominator in your characterisation then suddenly, by magic, all the rules of drama and creativity will just drift away and cease to apply to you because you've tapped into an archetype.

Both Marxism and the appeal to archetypes are founded in a belief in spooky magiic stuff that runs counter to common sense and somehow makes really bland and pointless stuff noble.

You're the commie here bub!

Pshaw.

The pulp classes are:

Man Of Action
Man of Science
Intrepid Investigator
Feisty Dame
Scrappy Kid

Nothing else need be used.