Should There Even Be Roles?

[Herschel]

I think these are pretty big assumptions about play styles (5 minutes to shine, for example). My play sessions are pretty long by most standards (about 10 hours once per week), and we average about one fight per session (three is really spiking for us, and two is high).

Last session, the players spent about two hours in town, going into detail on performing, spending time in the local tavern, and otherwise pursuing in-character interests. To characters with out-of-combat skills, this was not just "5 minutes" of time to shine. Some players (like mine) really enjoy having skills outside of combat, and willingly sacrifice combat ability to pursue those abilities (it's a point-buy game) most of the time (very rarely will you see a purely combat character).

I think they are pretty big assumptions, but in some ways for opposite reasons.

For one, not all DMs can design or ad-lib those types of situations for that long. It's really cool that some can but especially new DMs would probably be really hard-pressed to do so.

I'm also not sure sacrificing combat ability for RP ability is really a viable solution either. The point buy system might work great, but you probably need to have a pool for in-combat and a separate pool for social/rp skills. This then puts us back in the area of what should teh "basic" system be, which is probably decent in combat on equal levels with base skill sets while extended skill sets and combat tactics are separate add-ons.

 

[GSHamster]

I think that classes work well when they are small and self-contained. Otherwise we end up with options scattered across a dozen books, and bloat, and the inevitable balance problem when you pair one option from source X with a different option from source Y.

Roles work well with this ideal. Giving each class a specific role gives it focus.

But I do think that there needs to be a way for a player to play the same type of character but in a different style or role.

What I would suggest is a layer above classes called "archetypes". An archetype would be a non-mechanical description of a class, and classes would belong to the archetype, but would be an expression of a given role in that class. The archetype is general, but the class is specific.

For example, an archetype could be the Warrior. A Warrior is a martial archetype, strong and hardy, with an emphasis on weapons, heavy armor and melee combat.

Concrete classes using the Warrior archetype could be the Knight (defender) and Armsmaster (striker).

This would be fairly extensible. People could easily add new self-contained classes, with appropriate purpose and balance, to the general archetype. Archetypes are non-mechanical guidelines for players to pick the type of character they want, so new ones could easily be added as new Archetypes are thought of or even created in popular culture.

 

[Umbran]

This feels like a definite system versus system conversation. 4e brought in these roles, Pathfinder and previous editions didnt have them.

As a defined game element, yes, but as a practical matter, that isn't true.

Roles in combat are not new. They are very, very old. The Greeks and Romans had warriors with roles in combat. The Fantastic Four are icons of roles in combat. The US military uses the concept of roles in combat.

Gaming groups have functionally had roles all along - the fighter, ranger, and paladin in 1e are all typically guys in heavy armor who stand between the monsters and the spellcasters, and so on. We've been using a loose role system all along. 4e only codified what was already seen widely in practice.

I think, when they design a class, they should be thinking about what role or roles a character with that class plays in combat, as combats are pretty darned common.

What I think we, as players, need to do is train ourselves out of defining our desires in terms of classes first. Don't say, "I want to play a Fighter who doesn't wear heavy armor". Say, "I want to play a character with weapons skills that doesn't generally have overt magical powers or wear heavy armor". Then, look at what classes and options are available to build to the style you want. Think of the classes as building blocks of a character, not the core definition of the character.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm okay with the idea, as long as there's no actual application. That is, there's no mechanical effect on the game. If it's pure communication, something like "you'll find that having someone dedicated to taking the hits on the front line, soaking damage, and keeping enemies off of other party members is very valuable in combat when highly engaged in team-oriented play" (but with much simpler wording), I think I'm totally fine with it. It's just commentary on a particular play style.

I meant more that in the list of abilities, some would be called out as particularly useful for a given role (or several roles, if applicable). Keywords would work here. So if you've got an ability that is good at letting you soak damage or taking hits on the front line, you don't make them go search and guess. You tell them right up front that A, B, C will help them out. There still might be some borderline stuff that will help too, but you don't need to call those out.

And then you'd have some abilities that were particularly noted as being practically necessary for fulfilling that role as envisioned. You might have several "defender" role abilities that all deal with keeping foes off your friend, not just taking hits or soaking damage, that are considered key to that role. So if you care about the role, be sure to take a few of these along.

None of that stops, say, the barbarian or cleric player in a game where no one much cares about roles, from spotting a particular "defender" role that he happens to like the looks of, and grabbing it for other reasons.

Basically, I don't think the mechanics on this kind of thing should be protecting us from ourselves, but neither do I think the communication should be obscured and watered down because people don't want to, for example feel pigeon-holed by advice. If a particular table has a problem because Joe wants to play his cleric however he sees fit, but the rest of the table wants him picking "leader" stuff instead of something else, then being explicit in "role" advice isn't going to help either side. Well, it might help by making the problem more clear, but it won't resolve the issue. Yet, being coy about it in the name of making everyone warm and fuzzy won't help either, and it will do some damage to people who don't know this stuff yet.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm also not sure sacrificing combat ability for RP ability is really a viable solution either. The point buy system might work great, but you probably need to have a pool for in-combat and a separate pool for social/rp skills. This then puts us back in the area of what should teh "basic" system be, which is probably decent in combat on equal levels with base skill sets while extended skill sets and combat tactics are separate add-ons.

I think I have to disagree with where the base level should be, if I'm reading you correctly. I think making the core level of the game look more at combat than, say, RP concerns is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Some people are much more interested in RP aspects than in combat aspects. For example, I like both, while one of my players doesn't like combat too much (he has fun still, but not as much as out-of-combat concerns).

I'd like to see the game recognize that many people see "contributing to the group" as more than just combat. And, by "more", I don't mean "in addition to". D&D has always been a strong combat game, for sure. Don't deny it that. However, I'd say it's best not to deny RP-focused players their preferences on a "core" level if you plan on making the game as inclusive as possible.

Personally, I vote for almost no "core" if they're going to really go through with this approach. Make classes, like the rogue or thief, sure, but then let the players dial the game to what they think that means. Don't set the "core" game to "everyone's decent at combat, and RP skills can be added later." That's bad presentation, in my mind.

I think that's why 4e was accused (however unjustly) as being "less RP-oriented" than past editions. That is, if the game knowingly separates combat from useful "RP" skills, people will accuse them of being mutually exclusive. Make "combat" a part of "RP" and I think you're golden. If combat is a useful "RP" skill to have, so is "crafting" or "performing" or whatever. Make them all part of the "core" game, and then let the players choose the dials of complexity they want for those skills.

Just my thoughts. I think we might need to agree to disagree on our visions of how the game should be made. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

I meant more that in the list of abilities, some would be called out as particularly useful for a given role (or several roles, if applicable). Keywords would work here. So if you've got an ability that is good at letting you soak damage or taking hits on the front line, you don't make them go search and guess. You tell them right up front that A, B, C will help them out. There still might be some borderline stuff that will help too, but you don't need to call those out.

And then you'd have some abilities that were particularly noted as being practically necessary for fulfilling that role as envisioned. You might have several "defender" role abilities that all deal with keeping foes off your friend, not just taking hits or soaking damage, that are considered key to that role. So if you care about the role, be sure to take a few of these along.

This seems to be along the same lines as my [Defender] keyword tags on powers. I think that if used just as a communication tool, it'd be decent, but I also think it'd be perceived as too heavily influencing the system design.

None of that stops, say, the barbarian or cleric player in a game where no one much cares about roles, from spotting a particular "defender" role that he happens to like the looks of, and grabbing it for other reasons.

This I think is pretty mandatory. You can always turn an option on for "when you make your character, choose a role. He can only pick powers from that role" (which should be presented as an option). I think it'd be much more inclusive-friendly if anybody could grab any ability that they qualify for.

Basically, I don't think the mechanics on this kind of thing should be protecting us from ourselves, but neither do I think the communication should be obscured and watered down because people don't want to, for example feel pigeon-holed by advice. If a particular table has a problem because Joe wants to play his cleric however he sees fit, but the rest of the table wants him picking "leader" stuff instead of something else, then being explicit in "role" advice isn't going to help either side. Well, it might help by making the problem more clear, but it won't resolve the issue. Yet, being coy about it in the name of making everyone warm and fuzzy won't help either, and it will do some damage to people who don't know this stuff yet.

I think the problem arises when people see abilities as created with a combat role in mind. This will bug a section of players. I know that seeing every feat tagged with "[Role]" next to it would be a turn off for me if I didn't subscribe to that idea. I think, for inclusiveness' sake, that roles would be better either as a subsection of play style where it's talked about in-depth, or as a dial that you can turn on (like the pools of powers with tags I mentioned earlier). Potentially as both.

I do think, however, that tagging each feat, power, spell, etc. with a "[Role]" tag is probably going to step on a lot of toes. I'd suggest against it if you're aiming for inclusiveness. As always, play what you like

 

[Greg K]

"What sort of character do I want to be?" is kind of individualistic and narcissistic. I won't say individualism is bad or wrong per se. But it leads to players wanting to be werewolves and dhampires and other angsty archetypes.

That is when the DM says, "No, werewolves and vampires are not appropriate as PCs in the campaign that I am running".

Those are good characters if you're talking about a novel, or a one-player-one-GM game session. Not so good for a group that wants to accomplish stuff.

This is the stuff that should be decide by the group. Not every group is after accomplishing the same stuff.

I'm a big fan of The Hobbit, and one of the main reasons they brought Bilbo along to begin with was they needed a burglar to round out their party. Apparently they didn't get the memo that they also needed a cleric. Fortunately Gandalf had a rank or two in the Heal skill.

That is fine if the it is what the group wants. In my opinion, it should not be enforced by the rules. Some groups play all Fighter campaigns. Some groups play all thieves or all wizards. Some people want to play non-combat oriented characters that contribute in other ways.
The game, in my opinion, should support all of these groups and let the DM and/or group determine what is acceptable at a given table.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think the problem arises when people see abilities as created with a combat role in mind. This will bug a section of players. I know that seeing every feat tagged with "[Role]" next to it would be a turn off for me if I didn't subscribe to that idea. I think, for inclusiveness' sake, that roles would be better either as a subsection of play style where it's talked about in-depth, or as a dial that you can turn on (like the pools of powers with tags I mentioned earlier). Potentially as both.

I do think, however, that tagging each feat, power, spell, etc. with a "[Role]" tag is probably going to step on a lot of toes. I'd suggest against it if you're aiming for inclusiveness. As always, play what you like

Flatly, when people see something created with a combat role as a problem, the problem is with them, and one they need to fix. The ability is either good, bad, or indifferent, and should be judged on those terms.

But, I did say that not every power would be so tagged. The point after all is that the designer want to communicate, "if you care about X, take some of these." There would quite naturally be plenty of choices that the role doesn't affect directly, even for the people playing the roles to the hilt. And if you think about it, this is even more important for them. Tagging everything with a role deletes the message about the truly important choices for that role.

Not that I have any say, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to go. If having some key powers with a role keyword is going to step on toes, I'd say that people better put their shoes on. That's too much like, "don't corrupt my game with your icky roles--they can be there, as long as they use the back door and don't make any noise," which as far as being inclusive goes sounds extremely one-sided.

In practical terms, the "dial" is not separate from the keywords. The keywords, or something very much like them, is critical for the dial to work properly. You turn the dial to make roles matter or not to a certain degree. Then the keywords are the practical means of telling you what this does, without consulting a bunch of unwieldly (and impossible to maintain correctly) lists.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Flatly, when people see something created with a combat role as a problem, the problem is with them, and one they need to fix. The ability is either good, bad, or indifferent, and should be judged on those terms.

But, I did say that not every power would be so tagged. The point after all is that the designer want to communicate, "if you care about X, take some of these." There would quite naturally be plenty of choices that the role doesn't affect directly, even for the people playing the roles to the hilt. And if you think about it, this is even more important for them. Tagging everything with a role deletes the message about the truly important choices for that role.

Not that I have any say, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to go. If having some key powers with a role keyword is going to step on toes, I'd say that people better put their shoes on. That's too much like, "don't corrupt my game with your icky roles--they can be there, as long as they use the back door and don't make any noise," which as far as being inclusive goes sounds extremely one-sided.

In practical terms, the "dial" is not separate from the keywords. The keywords, or something very much like them, is critical for the dial to work properly. You turn the dial to make roles matter or not to a certain degree. Then the keywords are the practical means of telling you what this does, without consulting a bunch of unwieldly (and impossible to maintain correctly) lists.

Agreed. What you're pointing out here is pretty much exactly what I was saying upthread about people being dismissive and being fine with other options existing, as long as they're "not core" - while insisting that their preferred option IS core. That's just not going to work. That's not pleasing all parties, that's not even a compromise, it's just "my way or the highway."

I'd have XP'd every post you made here CJ (anyone wanna cover it?), but I already have too recently, but suffice to say, I agree with almost all of it, especially in that you're nearly the only one seemingly proposing any kind of compromise here.

The only way this undertaking will work is if there is some compromise, and options to satisfy everyone. I mean OPTIONS and I mean EVERYONE (except those who had no intention of buying in the first place). Right now, the designers are talking a pretty good game, here. We'll see how that materializes.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Flatly, when people see something created with a combat role as a problem, the problem is with them, and one they need to fix. The ability is either good, bad, or indifferent, and should be judged on those terms.

No, the problem is not with them. I'd greatly appreciate you not suggesting things like this in the future if we continue to have this or other discussions.

When you're tagging abilities that were designed specifically with something in mind (combat roles), people that don't think they have any place are not wrong to dislike their inclusion. It's just a play style preference.

But, I did say that not every power would be so tagged. The point after all is that the designer want to communicate, "if you care about X, take some of these."

I think it's a good idea to limit these choices if they're going to be included. I also, personally, don't think it's very "inclusive" to tag abilities in the "core" rules by default, since so many people have objections to combat roles.

Not that I have any say, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to go. If having some key powers with a role keyword is going to step on toes, I'd say that people better put their shoes on. That's too much like, "don't corrupt my game with your icky roles--they can be there, as long as they use the back door and don't make any noise," which as far as being inclusive goes sounds extremely one-sided.

I have absolutely no problem putting advice in the "core" game for a play style with which roles are important. I have absolutely no problem with some options that let you "turn on" roles with in the game rules. I do have a problem with roles being "on" in any mechanical sense (including tags or keywords) in the "core" rules, because it would keep people from playing.

If WotC wants to make an inclusive gaming system, why include something that many people strongly dislike as a "core" rule? Give advice on it when it's clear it's for a specific gaming style? Sure. Give an option to "turn on" roles and associated keywords or tags? Absolutely. Try to make an inclusive game that includes a divisive issue in the "core" rules? Probably a bad idea.

In practical terms, the "dial" is not separate from the keywords. The keywords, or something very much like them, is critical for the dial to work properly. You turn the dial to make roles matter or not to a certain degree. Then the keywords are the practical means of telling you what this does, without consulting a bunch of unwieldly (and impossible to maintain correctly) lists.

And you alienate everyone who doesn't turn that dial on. And, with this approach, you'd probably tag other rules and abilities with keywords so that you can turn on those dials and options at will. I see this easily becoming unwieldy, and the "core" rules and abilities would be filled with tags you'd have to ignore. Not ideal, in my mind. Again, it goes to presentation.

Looks like the fog got thicker. Agree to disagree? As always, play what you like