Non-combat roles in 4E (Was Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's target...)

[Mallus]

Just eliminate class skills. Each character class gets x Trained skills. That effectively separates combat roles from non-combat roles, allowing for greater differentiation in overall character role.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Mallus

Just eliminate class skills. Each character class gets x Trained skills. That effectively separates combat roles from non-combat roles, allowing for greater differentiation in overall character role.

That doesn't go as far as we want here. The issue is not that some skills are more likely to be trained with certain classes.

It's that non-combat challenges are not handled with nearly the same depth mechanically that combat challenges are.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Frostmarrow

Negotiate with the duke.
The noble will do the talking and the clergyman will do the thinking. -You two, shut up.

This is the sort of situation we're trying to avoid. All characters should have something interesting to do in an encounter. In 4E, combat encounters have this, why shouldn't non-combat encounters?

[Frostmarrow]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

This is the sort of situation we're trying to avoid. All characters should have something interesting to do in an encounter. In 4E, combat encounters have this, why shouldn't non-combat encounters?

Yeah sorry, I just ran out of imagination. Surely there are things to do for a merchant and a serf when negotiating with the duke? The point is I rather like Kamikaze Midget's pitch above but it lacks contrast. Social class provides contrast. The ideas can be combined.

[Frostmarrow]

Guidelines:

Noble: You handle challenges by playing up diplomacy skills and reminding people of your importance.

Clergyman: You handle challenges by being mentally prepared. You have knowledge, and the means to acquire knowledge.

Merchant: You handle challenges by being well equipped and willing to buy services, any services.

Serf: You handle challenges by doing hard and dirty work.

[Janx]

I like the idea where this thread is pursuing. Here's my thoughts:

I take it as a relative truth (true enough) that WotC is trying to make all classes "not suck" during combat. Basically, it's all nice getting into your role, but it sucks if you make a sub-optimal build and the powergamer outshines you. So all the rules changes (even in 3e, with minimal character scores and stat increases) have been about improving character power.

Basically, you can roleplay a talky elf that kicks butt just as well as one that doesnt' but the kick-butt elf is probably more fun.

So in that vein, I assume that 4e's combat focus for classes is good enough, for making combat fun for everyone. (I don't have 4e, so can't verify).

A big complaint I've seen here, and got from my friends, is that it's hard to do other kinds of characters. For instance, the super sneaky doesn't fight thief. Or the wizard who never gets into combat.

I have no problem with characters having a "secondary" role that isn't combat. Just tack it on (or adjust the class where overlap occurs).

Over the years, I've seen PCs that focus on the following (which I see as ideas for roles):
recon/stealth
black ops/wet work (solo assassination against unprepared foe)
summoner (conjures things to do all work/fighting)
diplomat
lady's man
master of disguise/con man
leader (business, political, military)
non-combating aid in combat (helps, but avoids actual fighting)
Illusionist (always uses illusions)
Charmer (always uses charms)


I see the standard wizard specialist classes as examples of a play style (even in combat/avoidance of combat). I've seen some PCs avoid fighting (making attack rolls, avoiding getting hit) but doing things during the fight that help/hinder (usually while hiding). The social emphasis is also common (many folks who want to be debonair also want to kick-butt, so it's a good example).

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

That doesn't go as far as we want here.

I tried...

It's that non-combat challenges are not handled with nearly the same depth mechanically that combat challenges are.

I guess in most cases I'm happy w/that. I'm not sure how you cook up a satisfactory set of mechanics to resolve 'non-combat challenges' seeing as it's such a broad category. You'd need to either abstract things to the point you couldn't tell one task needing resolution from another, or you'd need to junk modeling skills in favor of a narrativist dramatic resolution system (where task resolution takes the form of agreeing to and then "betting" on the dramatic outcomes).

Also, if I wanted a fiddly system that handled talking to people in-game, in-character, I could always buy Burning Wheel .

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Mallus

I guess in most cases I'm happy w/that.

I am in most cases as well, I think. But enough people have complained that they're not that I thought it was worthwhile pursuing. Which lead to this thread.

Originally Posted by Mallus

I'm not sure how you cook up a satisfactory set of mechanics to resolve 'non-combat challenges' seeing as it's such a broad category.

I'm not sure either, but I'm hopeful. I'm a hack game designer at heart, so it seemed like a good challenge. This thread is to explore some ideas.

[Dausuul]

I've been thinking about this for a while, too.

My experience is that there are three types of "encounters" in a typical RPG session: combat, social, and exploration. Combat encounters revolve around fighting stuff; social encounters revolve around talking to people; exploration encounters revolve around negotiating a difficult or dangerous environment.

Ideally, each character would have something to contribute in each type of encounter. The role system ensures this is the case in combat encounters, but social and exploration encounters are much less carefully balanced.

As far as how to delineate roles for these types of encounters, I think Kamikaze Midget has hit the nail on the head. I might disagree with his proposed names, but the basic idea is right. (IMO, the biggest challenge for getting that system into the actual rules is sheer page count - there's only so much space in a PHB. But it could certainly be done as a sourcebook.)

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

I'm not sure either, but I'm hopeful. I'm a hack game designer at heart, so it seemed like a good challenge. This thread is to explore some ideas.

Thinking about this a little more... while I'm resistant to the idea of adding new subsystems to handle non-combat encounters, I'm all for more and better guidelines for using the existing rules, or tips for extending the existing rules in novel ways.

[Frostmarrow]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

I am in most cases as well, I think. But enough people have complained that they're not that I thought it was worthwhile pursuing. Which lead to this thread.

Noble:
1. Affect any living thing with whom you can communicate.
2. Boast morale of your comrades.
Clergyman
1. Know information about any situation at hand.
2. Teach better techniques to your comrades.
Merchant
1. Buy services in exchange for gold (with a discount).
2. Provide better tools for your comrades.
Serf
1. Affect any non-living thing with hard work.
2. Gossip with other serfs.


All NC-roles need at least two areas to apply themselves in order to be able to contribute in all encounters. The areas should be distinctly different yet remain themed.

The areas of expertise is not revealed outside of the design process. Instead, NC-powers are designed with the areas of expertise in mind.

Let's look at the noble. His primary function is to win by talking. If there is no one to talk to at least he can raise the spirit of his friends.

DISPLAY TRUE AUTHORITY
once per day
Slam your fist on the desk and state your terms. Any sapient being must (DM willing) heed your words without interrupting.

MAKE HASTE
once per encounter
Urge your friends to work faster. Time spent on the last challenge is halved.

Is this what you are looking for?

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Frostmarrow

Let's look at the noble. His primary function is to win by talking. If there is no one to talk to at least he can raise the spirit of his friends.

DISPLAY TRUE AUTHORITY
once per day
Slam your fist on the desk and state your terms. Any sapient being must (DM willing) heed your words without interrupting.

MAKE HASTE
once per encounter
Urge your friends to work faster. Time spent on the last challenge is halved.

Is this what you are looking for?

That's getting close, I think, yes.

I was thinking in terms of personality types, so "noble" wouldn't be a good term to use. I think characters that are not nobility should be able to do these types of things.

The name I would choose for such a person is probably "leader", but I think that one's been taken...

[Ed_Laprade]

Originally Posted by Thasmodious

I would say the simplest way to do this if you really feel such things need some rules weight would be to have each character, at creation, pick a background skill or two. Make a short list, allow the PCs to make up some of their own. About anything can be a skill here. Assign it a primary ability, give the player a trained bonus, as long as its applicable, and add it to the character sheet. So they all have and improve in the adventuring skills through adventuring, but these secondary skills can improve through use, which encourages their use in the game. You could combine this with the idea of crafting professions above.

LOL, this is what we did in 1E, and where Non-weapon Proficiencies came from in 2E. The more things change...

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

*snip because a quote can only be so long and awesome*

A good write-up.
I think you've nailed down the idea of "roles" and the way to handle "non-combat combat" very well.

I note that skill challenges basically introduce a kind of "hit point" system for non-combat stuff, but what the system lacks are the finer points of the roles.

I want to add one thought about how I believe "class" and "role" interact - basically a class defines your role in different encounter types. (Combat, Social, Mystery, Exploration), and provides a certain "theme" and "flavor" to it. You are not just a Athletic Defender Hassling Intimidator (or whatever), you're a Fighter (hmm, doesn't really sound better, but you get my point? )

There are games that don't "force feed" you these connections, and sometimes even allow you create your own flavor (all those point based and superhero systems I always hear about ). I think not providing the flavor is not the D&D thing" to do - but its appeal might be that it gives you an instant idea of what your character is all about and how he might look like.


Before KMs post on the "point based challenges" my ideas more went along the line of having one combat role and one non-combat role. But the non-combat roles I had in mind (Guide, Sage, Face) seem to map to certain non-combat encounter types (Exploration, Mystery, Social), which might not really be a the best idea - though it might work, if you manage to keep a healthy mix, but it creates a dangerous imbalance or instability in the system. If you want to run a lot of Social Encounters, it will probably suck to be the Guide. That is something I might be willing to work with, but KMs idea of ht definitely identifying the core encounter types and narrowing down roles for each of them might be a far better approach. At least, it seems more consistent in the design goals.

Of course,this isn't neccessarily the "best" way to do things. But it would be consistent with the 4E design goals and I think it's a logical conclusion of them.

[apoptosis]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

This is a LOOOOOOOOONG post, but I think the payoff is worth it.

Yes it was worth it.

That is kind of the essence of many indie games where conflict is conflict though not necessarily combat.

I think your ideas were really good. I think even crafting could fit into this as long as you can turn it into a challenge, it just takes a little more morphing than more straightforward challenges. But I am not sure that you would get a lot of drama from a crafting conflict like the others that you mentioned so I am not sure it would be worth it so much.