Working in the Game Mine

Fifth Element · Jul 12, 2012

Mark CMG said:
You're getting warmer.

It would probably be better if you'd just say what you mean instead of implying things. It's better than making people guess what you're trying to say.

Are you saying that if you have them, monster roles should be more than just combat roles? I'd be up for that.

Mark CMG · Jul 12, 2012

Fifth Element said:
It would probably be better if you'd just say what you mean (. . .)

Been there, done that, up thread.

JamesonCourage · Jul 12, 2012

Mark CMG said:
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.

Please stop saying things like "don't go there" or "don't kid yourself." Let's discuss things, not have you tell me what not to do this discussion.

If you want to continue to talk about class roles, talk it over with someone else. I'm not engaging in it right now. This isn't the thread for it.

Mark CMG said:
You're getting warmer.

Again, let's discuss things. You're not, currently. What are you driving at that I haven't replied to?

Right now, the ogre in the 3.5 MM is good (in combat) at hitting things. Labeling him as "good at hitting things" isn't bad. If I wanted an ogre with new abilities, I'd need to make a new one in 3.5; if I did, labeling him as "good at using ranged weapons" wouldn't be a negative if that's what he's good at.

I'm missing how this is somehow unacceptable. It's purely descriptive. Saying "he is good at this" applies to every edition. Should it be prescriptive? No. I do think it was used that way to large extent in 4e, and it shouldn't be, in my opinion. Does it need to be prescriptive? No. It can be just descriptive.

So, use it that way. Include it for people that like it. As always, play what you like

Fifth Element · Jul 12, 2012

Mark CMG said:
Been there, done that, up thread.

I've read the posts leading up to this one and what you seem to be saying is that monster roles are bad because they necessarily create very narrow restrictions on the design of said monsters.

I don't think that's true. They can be used in a purely descriptive way, even if 4E didn't always use them that way, because this is a new edition and they can be used any way the designers choose to.

You seem to be denying that they could be used that way.

This assumes I'm reading you correctly, of course, which hasn't always been easy in this thread.

Mark CMG · Jul 12, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
I'm not engaging in it right now.

I realize that.

Fifth Element said:
I've read the posts leading up to this one and what you seem to be saying is that monster roles are bad because they necessarily create very narrow restrictions on the design of said monsters.

Indeed.

JamesonCourage · Jul 12, 2012

Mark CMG said:
I realize that.

I'm going to have to stop this discussion as of this point; you're not giving me content to have a discussion with. If you wish to discuss this with me later on, feel free to chime in and reply to one of my posts, but please give me more than just three words that don't let me know what you think or feel, or why you think that's the case or feel that way.

I really just can't have a discussion based on "I realize that" or "you're getting warmer." There's just not enough there. So, you can have the last word (or three) on the matter, if you'd like. As always, play what you like

Mark CMG · Jul 12, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
I'm going to have to stop this discussion as of this point; (. . .)

The conversation stopped a number of posts ago. You keep quoting me and I'm just acknowledging that I've seen that you have done so but I feel no need to restate my opinions or reasoning. There's no need to quote me going forward and hasn't been for several posts. You aren't saying anything new that I wish to debate and aren't addressing anything I have previously posting in a manner that I feel isn't already covered in our previous exchanges.

Umbran · Jul 12, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
I'm going to have to stop this discussion as of this point;

Mark CMG said:
The conversation stopped a number of posts ago.

Gents,

At the moment, the two of you seem, for whatever reasons, to be unwilling to let the other guy have the last word. I don't know why each of you continues to post in what you both seem to admit is a pointless manner, but I'm sorry to say neither of you winds up looking terribly grand here.

So, please, allow me to give you both a reason to disengage with honor - please drop it, already. Thanks.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 12, 2012

I've yet to see a coherent objection to monster roles, here or anywhere else, that would apply to a game where players make characters using classes, as D&D has traditionally used them. (I suppose some other game could call something else "class" where this wouldn't be true.)

Fifth Element · Jul 12, 2012

Crazy Jerome said:
I've yet to see a coherent objection to monster roles, here or anywhere else, that would apply to a game where players make characters using classes, as D&D has traditionally used them. (I suppose some other game could call something else "class" where this wouldn't be true.)

That's a point I was trying to get at. Now, character classes tend to be broader in definition than monster roles were in 4E, so if someone were to argue that monster roles should be broadened somehow, I could see that. But presumably if monster roles as a concept are too restrictive, then so too are classes?