A Wilder World: Evolving Archetypes

[alexandraerin]

The Archetype I'm currently calling Brute has gone through an interesting progression. The basic idea was "Barbarian", but stripped of a lot of baggage. "Berserker" and "Rage Warrior" were interim names that I didn't want to stick with because I didn't plan on having any mechanics to represent mindless aggression that can spiral out of the player's control. I settled on Brute, to evoke a brute force approach to fighting, with the positive result of realizing how the same Archetype I'd envisioned for people charging around with battleaxes could also work for wizards heedlessly tossing fireballs and such.

Similarly, when I started out with an Archetype called "Tank" I knew that was a placeholder name, both because it sounded too modern and because it brought to mind concepts that I thought would better be handled as separate Archetypes... I was using it for the "damage soaking" portion of the MMO-style Tank role.

My second stab at naming that Archetype was Juggernaut, which I still wasn't in love with. It's evocative, yes, but it evokes the unstoppable force much more than the immovable object. The damage-soaking Archetype plus the Brute Archetype might yield a Juggernaut, in the same way that the Archetype plus Challenger and/or Defender might yield something more like a Tank.

I came up with what I think will be its final name when I was considering how many Archetype names seemed to be evocative of negative character traits (Coward. Fool. Brute.)... I thought, "Well, why not have an Archetype exemplified by bravery?"

And when I started to brainstorm names for that, it didn't take long before I hit on a winner: Stalwart.

But I have enough Archetype ideas that a placeholder name isn't worth holding a place for, so I immediately started brainstorming ideas for what the Stalwart would be able to do, what it would look like.

And I realized right away: it would look an awful lot like the Juggernaut. Standing unmoving in the face of danger, keeping calm and steady as wave after wave of enemy thunders across the battlefield, shrugging off blows that would fell lesser beings... that was the Juggernaut. That's the Stalwart.

I didn't just paste the Stalwart label over the Juggernaut Archetype, of course. Calling the Archetype "Stalwart" helped me refine what it is actually about. It gave me an Archetype that uses the concept of Resolve to better effect than anything else has so far, which solved some balance problems I was having with the Juggernaut basically being an HP-recovery factory.

The vaguely defined abilities of the Juggernaut gave way to solid ideas for the Stalwart, along with a bunch of Techniques that are ultimately more interesting than variations on "gets hit, doesn't fall over". Now I have an Archetype that works not just for the big beefy barbarian who's too stupid to die, but the rebel who's too stubborn, the knight, the zealot, the plucky kid...

Yes, Stalwart is way better than Juggernaut.

(I could make a whole other post about the possibilities you get when you combine Coward and Stalwart. I call it "Stubborn Survivor". Give that character any offensive capabilities at all and you are officially the headache that won't go away.)

I hope to post more concrete info and less rambly rambles in the near future, because I know the concrete info gives a much better sense of the shape of things. I've just got to bear down and regain some focus. For now, it's time for sleep... or to be more precise, it was time for sleep half an hour ago, but then I started thinking about the Archetypes.

Comments

[imaginedechoes.livejournal.com]

I do love the archetype idea muchly. Classes don't really sit well with me as I feel like I'm being shoehorned into playing a particular stereotype, and that a certain amount of creative control over my character has been taken away from me. Hybrid classing is a work around to this problem in 4e, but it's too complicated for newcomers, and you're penalized, mechanically, for playing a hybrid class. Combining archetypes seems a much more intuitive approach to creating a character.

And yes, Stalwart is a way better name. For one thing, adventures will be less likely to be derailed by bad X-men jokes.

[stormcaller3801.livejournal.com]

I think I'd have to disagree with the idea that you're stuck in a particular stereotype, as well as the idea that hybrids penalize you. But that may just be my take on things.

I've had a great deal of success putting together vastly different styles of character even using the same class, and that becomes even more easy to do with hybridization. Granted, I tend to favor using the character generator, so that may be making it easier than it is otherwise, but it certainly is possible to do some interesting and effective things using it.

[imaginedechoes.livejournal.com]

No, I agree– it's certainly possible to craft highly creative and distinct characters within 4th edition. Carrog is a great example of this.

It's possible to be inspired by the character class and come up with a unique character. Spectre was a character inspired by D&D, not a character I had in mind beforehand.

However, it's more difficult to take a character you already have in mind and then create that character using 4e. For example, pick a character from fiction, then try to make them a D&D character. You are likely to find that you end up running against the grain of the character classes. At least, that's been my experience when I've tried that exercise. Some fictional characters will slot neatly into a particular class, whereas others have skills and abilities from a variety of different classes that don't necessarily hybridize easily.

Generally, when trying to take a character and stat them in D&D, I find that I end up decomposing the character into defining characteristics– archetypes if you will– then decomposing the D&D classes into defining characteristics– then trying to see how I can mix and match the existent classes and builds to get the set of characteristics that I want. This process would be impossible for someone unfamiliar with 4th ed., and is a bit tricky even for someone who is. It would be much easier and much more intuitive if the classes were decomposed into the basic components to begin with, which is why I like the archetype idea so much.

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

I pretty much agree with you. I've had some awesome characters who were inspired by a facet of a class, or a potential between hybrids, or even a feat, and I think a lot of people will be able to have similar fun with AWW... looking at one Archetype's write-up or a particular ability and saying "You know, I could build a character around that."

But it will also hopefully be easier to start with a character concept, break it down into several facets, and then find the character Archetypes that best fulfill those. It's not quite a la carte... you're still picking packages, but the packages are smaller and you have more of them, so hopefully you end up with less pounding of squares into circular holes.

The other way it can work out nicely is if you want a particular "character class" rather than a specific character. Like, you want to make "a Ranger". Or "a Barbarian". Or "a Knight".

You don't have a personality or really highly specific sets of abilities in mind, but you do have an idea of what "a Ranger" looks like, and it may or may not have anything to do with any character class that's available in D&D or a similar roleplaying game.

I actually first started working on A Wilder World (as A Wider World, initially) after thinking about the different ways Rangers and Paladins have been "packaged" just in D&D, and all the different facets that people might see as essential to the class.

[stormcaller3801.livejournal.com]

So far I've not had any trouble converting characters over, although that may simply be due to a lack of breadth in my source material.

The only thing I can think of offhand that's really been out of the norm was when a player of mine explained that she wanted to play a pyrokinetic- specifically a Psion with a specialization in fire. Being as Psions don't have fire-based powers, I ended up declaring that she'd effectively be a pyrokinetic, but in game mechanics terms she'd be playing a Wizard. That way she'd be able to get lots of fire-based powers and so on, but we'd manipulate the effects so that it fit her concept. Which is kind of ironic given that I recall one of the first stories about 4th edition being how a playtester wanted to play a Psion but with even the original PHB not yet out, they ended up just crossing out Wizard and writing in Psion on the sheet.

I agree that it does help a great deal to know the nuances of what each class is capable of, and knowing the relative limits of things in 4th edition in terms of power and style. But that's going to be true of just about anything.It's also one of the reasons I try to get players to stop thinking in terms of class, and instead think in terms of concept: I can help them make something far more to their liking if their description is something less like, "I want to play a Fighter" and more like, "I want to play a master swordsman who's able to exploit the slightest drop in an opponent's guard to launch a devastating attack."

Because in the first case, you end up with a guy with a sword who's likely going to end up in heavy armor. In the second you end up with a rogue whose powers consistently have a duellist theme, boosting defense and allowing a riposte every time you're attacked.

[phantomcranefly.livejournal.com]

Sounds nice!