Working in the Game Mine

Fifth Element · Jul 12, 2012

Mark CMG said:
With inherently restrictive aspects like combat roles it doesn't matter how much ketchup you slather on them. That's why I didn't bothering leaving in any of the qualifiers in the quote.

You're assuming that monsters are designed to fit only narrow parameters, rather than descriptive terms being applied after the monster has been designed.

Even in 4E this is rarely true. The monster that has characteristics of one and only one role are fairly rare, I think (except for minions, which of course are designed to be extremely simple).

I'm still not sure why monster roles are all that different than character classes.

Mark CMG · Jul 12, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
Not necessarily. It really depends on what those parameters are. If it's merely a tactical approach to combat, it's not really restrictive if they are willing to list more than one role, and the roles don't lock them into anything.

But, that's what restrictive means. They are designed to do things in a particular limited range of ways that do not generally overlap with other combat roles.

JamesonCourage said:
As always, play what you like

The slogan of combat roles should be something like, "This is how we designed these to work, but play it anyway you like.

"

Mark CMG · Jul 12, 2012

Fifth Element said:
You're assuming that monsters are designed to fit only narrow parameters, (. . .)

Assuming? I would call it "stating."

Fifth Element said:
(. . .) rather than descriptive terms being applied after the monster has been designed.

My point exactly, regarding the polishing of certain things not making them not those certain things anymore.

Fifth Element said:
Even in 4E this is rarely true. The monster that has characteristics of one and only one role are fairly rare, I think (except for minions, which of course are designed to be extremely simple).

On the sliding scale of recognizing what is restrictive, I see you are way over in that area that can only see it in minions. Going forward, we're just going to be repeating ourselves so we should agree to disagree.

Fifth Element said:
I'm still not sure why monster roles are all that different than character classes.

We should probably keep this on topic but this should have all sorts of irony alarms going off in your head.

JamesonCourage · Jul 12, 2012

Mark CMG said:
But, that's what restrictive means. They are designed to do things in a particular limited range of ways that do not generally overlap with other combat roles.

No, you're describing prescriptive, and not descriptive. I can describe myself as intelligent, handsome, charming, articulate, and always right, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing else to me; I'm just pointing out my strengths

When I describe an ogre, if I describe it as a "brute", we know that it's good at hitting things and taking hits. It doesn't mean it can't throw or shoot things at people. It doesn't mean it can't try to sneak. It's just talking to the strength of the creature in that particular role.

Thus, make the creature, then describe it with roles, using multiple roles if appropriate. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

Mark CMG said:
The slogan of combat roles should be something like, "This is how we designed these to work, but play it anyway you like. "

I think this is incorrect, honestly. You don't have to assign a role before designing a creature. I could go through the 3.5 MM right now and describe them via a "role" if I wanted to, and many would be one role, some would be two, some would be more. But, here's the thing; it's just easy shorthand. And, for people that want to make their own monsters, they can still give guidelines on how to use them in a prescriptive manner, but it's not necessary. They can be just description. As always, play what you like

Mark CMG · Jul 12, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
No, you're describing prescriptive, and not descriptive. I can describe myself as intelligent, handsome, charming, articulate, and always right, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing else to me; I'm just pointing out my strengths

Are you also a "Striker" that fights by . . .X, Y, Z? Then the rest of what you've added is tacked on rather than being at the restrictive core of what you are.

JamesonCourage said:
When I describe an ogre, if I describe it as a "brute", we know that it's good at hitting things and taking hits. It doesn't mean it can't throw or shoot things at people. It doesn't mean it can't try to sneak. It's just talking to the strength of the creature in that particular role.

Right. That's the point. And the one that is a brute does brute things in a brute way and when trying to anything un-brute-like finds that it can only do them brutishly. And if I want an ogre that isn't a brute I create a separate ogre and call it by the combat role I design for it to be best at.

JamesonCourage said:
I could go through the 3.5 MM right now and (. . .)

Nope, don't go there.

Fifth Element · Jul 12, 2012

Mark CMG said:
Assuming? I would call it "stating."

I thought we were discussing 5E design. We can't just state things about that, because it's not done yet.

You left off the qualifier because you assumed the qualifier would not apply.

Mark CMG said:
We should probably keep this on topic but this should have all sorts of irony alarms going off in your head.

Should I now? We are discussing a game in which characters are largely defined by their class. That should be considered when discussing whether monsters could be largely defined by something similar, their role.

JamesonCourage · Jul 12, 2012

Mark CMG said:
Are you also a "Striker" that fights by . . .X, Y, Z? Then the rest of what you've added is tacked on rather than being at the restrictive core of what you are.

Do I carry a gun that I'm good with, and have I neglected to learn any strong hand-to-hand style? I might be artillery then. If I'm good with a gun that I carry, and I also good at hand-to-hand combat and defending myself, then sure, go ahead and throw soldier on there as well.

(Aside: Your example is a class role, which is something I'm not talking about (nor was the article, to my knowledge); continued use of such examples won't be much use to me in this discussion.)

Mark CMG said:
Right. That's the point. And the one that is a brute does brute things in a brute way and when trying to anything un-brute-like finds that it can only do them brutishly. And if I want an ogre that isn't a brute I create a separate ogre and call it by the combat role I design for it to be best at.

Well, if the first ogre is good at other things, describe it that way by giving it that role as well. If it's not... yes, expect it to be bad at things not listed.

And, if you want an ogre who is good at other things, you can always make one. I know that the ogre in 3.5 isn't much good at things other than hitting things and taking a few hits (he sucks at attacking with his javelin, but does decent damage). Should I list artillery because of it? I'd say no (he does suck at attacking), but because it says "brute" is doesn't mean I wouldn't have him throw his javelin if it makes sense for him to.

Mark CMG said:
Nope, don't go there.

Why not?

Mark CMG · Jul 12, 2012

Fifth Element said:
I thought we were discussing 5E design.

Specifically about combat roles.

Fifth Element said:
Should I now?

Yup.

Mark CMG · Jul 12, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
(Aside: Your example is a class role, which is something I'm not talking about (. . .)

Don't kid yourself, it is a combat role used as a class role and it's very much part of what we're discussing.

JamesonCourage said:
And, if you want an ogre who is good at other things, you can always make one.

You're getting warmer.

JamesonCourage said:
Why not?

Because you'll be going alone?

Fifth Element · Jul 12, 2012

Mark CMG said:
Specifically about combat roles.

Yup.

Thanks very much for clarifying. Neither of these actually provide any additional information nor address my comments in the post you're quoting.

I suppose we are done if this is all you can give me.