Should There Even Be Roles?

[DonTadow]

The thing is that pre-4e there was never anything that could effectively substitute for a Cleric. And nothing that could do the job well for a rogue or a wizard. Explicit combat roles (and a less restrictive skill system for non-combat stuff) went a long way to not making certain classes necessary (or at least extremely desirable) because the game designers knew what had to go into them for them to work in combat.

I don't know, i thought druids and a pair of paladins were fairly effective. Not to mention a dozen or so prestige classes. Same with rogue.

HOwever, in pathfinder, there's no real neccessity to have a particular class, as there are more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[scruffygrognard]

You mean a Fighter (Slayer) with Melee Training (Charisma) and a Fighter (Slayer) with training is Stealth and Thievery?

Did I mention I love Fighter (slayer)?

I know that 4th edition can handle class diverse archetypes within each class. I just think adding role descriptors to various classes/builds adds a needless level of complexity to the game.
D&D players have made it through 30+ years without roles so, to my mind, doesn't need them. Leave roles to player imagination and their sense of teamwork (which should be fostered by a good DM).

 

[Spatula]

Regardless of whether or not the combat roles are printed in the books, I would hope that the designers have them in mind when making the classes. While the 4e classes were maybe a little too focused - it shouldn't be necessary to split the fighter into two classes to fulfill two different combat roles - I really liked how each class was able to contribute to the party's success, and contribute in varied and different ways. Regardless of whether your game is combat-oriented or not, it can only benefit from a well designed, balanced combat system in which everyone can participate if they want to. Just as long as the combat system is not cumbersome and time-consuming.

What's more interesting to me is the idea of roles, or at least specialties, for other facets of the game. [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]'s ideas posted back on page 5 are probably too radical for D&D but I definitely like the concept. Everyone gets to pitch in and have fun, and everyone gets their chance to shine.

 

[billd91]

D&D, however, is not a story. It is a game. And the major "pieces" of a game always have roles. After all, D&D is ultimately is derived from wargames, where the concept of roles (such as infantry, cavalry, and artillery) is extremely transparent and important. These roles were actually derived from the very real different roles seen in actual military warfare, after all. Even modern armies still make very heavy use of the idea of roles in battle (like the idea of a designated marksman in a group of riflemen).

I would say this is a highly controversial statement and, I think, one of the reasons we're already looking at a new edition of D&D and a very short 4e shelf life. This view of D&D, I think, has clearly not been universally adopted. It has game elements, but it also has ambition. Specifically, it is also trying to be a story, one with no single author's voice.

If 5e has a prayer of reconciling the many strains of players and styles of play, it is going to have to jettison the view that it is just a game and not also a story.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I would say this is a highly controversial statement and, I think, one of the reasons we're already looking at a new edition of D&D and a very short 4e shelf life. This view of D&D, I think, has clearly not been universally adopted. It has game elements, but it also has ambition. Specifically, it is also trying to be a story, one with no single author's voice.

If 5e has a prayer of reconciling the many strains of players and styles of play, it is going to have to jettison the view that it is just a game and not also a story.

I'm not really sure what is so controversial about it. D&D is a game. It is a game where story is a very, very important part, but that does not erode its status as a game one bit. Certainly, almost anything to do with roles is far more concerned with the critical game concepts rather than story concepts. After all, the story role of different characters is not something that's really going to connect to game mechanics unless D&D undergoes such a dramatic shift that it becomes unrecognizable. Especially since I see no reason for a PC to have any story role other than "main character", and no reason for BBEG to be a game rule term with associated mechanics.

D&D is a game, and campaigns are stories. I'm not quite sure what is wrong with that perspective.

 

[phloog]

To me this thread is interesting because it reminds me of a large argument I got into on these very forums about combat/roles and the emphasis of 4E on the grid and tactics.

The point I made back then was that on occasion I have wanted to play a character that is (readying myself for horrified gasps) completely incompetent in combat. So when I saw that I really couldn't create a spindly little cowardly wizard who really only shined in certain key situation, I was bummed by 4E.

Note that like many have said here this is entirely a style thing - I get that some people wouldn't get why you would play someone who's no good at the "important part" of D&D.

The 4e answer back then took two forms, basically either "You are stupid for wanting to do that" or "you can do that, just ignore all your character's powers"

Roles will always exist in any group of people, whether real people or fictional people. For me the problem with roles in 4e was that they weren't really roles in the general or dramatic sense...they were the COMBAT roles.

They didn't have a role called "Con Artist", because it didn't apply to combat. I am not saying you couldn't roleplay a con artist, but the role system was essentially based around combat.

Again going back to style, I think that one of the things many groups don't do anymore is a schoolyard thing...they don't know how to take turns.

Raised on AD&D, I was more than happy to watch as the fighters did their thing, knowing that they would be happy to sit back when it was my turn to shine as my thief snuck about....I can't tell you how weird it was to read earlier in the thread when someone basically said it would be terrible to have a rogue that wasn't in there stabby stabbing all the time. I'm old, and I remember a time when you might get a couple backstabs in, but the rest of the time you'd better be hiding.

It takes a great DM to make taking turns work, but we had great DMs.

The design assumption in 4E (and possibly other editions) was that no one would ever want to be idle and observe...which again, I get and it's a noble idea, but once you make the assumption that everyone MUST be active at ALL TIMES, then you're going to need to turn everyone into a combat contributor and have tons of combats, or have that ghastly (opinion) skill challenge system where everyone can find SOMETHING on their list to shoehorn into a way of getting through.

In combat, you could paraphrase The Incredibles: When everyone is great in combat, no one is.

I understand the dangers in terms of boredom or one-player hogging the game, but I want to get away from what I saw in my attempts at 4e, which was everyone looking at their cards to figure out the way that THEIR CHARACTER did Xd6+Y damage and moved someone two squares.

 

[nnms]

I think the biggest problem with combat roles is that it encourages people to look at their character as a playing piece rather than a fictional persona.

 

[TrippyHippy]

D&D, however, is not a story. It is a game. And the major "pieces" of a game always have roles. After all, D&D is ultimately is derived from wargames, where the concept of roles (such as infantry, cavalry, and artillery) is extremely transparent and important. These roles were actually derived from the very real different roles seen in actual military warfare, after all. Even modern armies still make very heavy use of the idea of roles in battle (like the idea of a designated marksman in a group of riflemen).

I don't accept that. I believe that D&D evolved from wargaming, and has continued to evolve as part of a broader roleplaying hobby that is seperate from wargaming. D&D4 was a regression in this regard, and evidently a very polarising one.

I think the problem with D&D was that, at the very beginning, the ideas of "roles" and "classes" were inseparable. They really were the same thing, even if they were never balanced properly.

At the very beginning there was no such thing as 'Roles', only Classes. It's purely a 4th Edition thing.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

They aren't wrong to dislike the inclusion. You can like or dislike anything you please, and its no skin of anyone else's nose. But if they start insisting that anything that they dislike not be included or even referenced on the grounds of "inclusiveness" they ... are ... flat ... wrong. This isn't even a case of "being dismissive" but of logic and the practical ways in which real compromise works.

I follow Winston Churchill on compromise, BTW. He said that real, lasting compromise only becomes possible when all the parties truly understand what they want and communicate that clearly and honestly to everyone else involved. At that point, people can start giving up things that they want a little in return for things they want more. Anything else is mere debating tactics, gaming the system, or confusion. Of course, it can work the other way, too. People not understanding this is how you occasionally get a group of well-meaning individuals that "compromise" everything all of them want straight out of the picture.


If there is a version of the game that you and I can both mainly enjoy, then by definition there are going to be some elements that we both dislike heartily. It is inevitable. It can be kept to a minimum (in scope and degree) with good design, but not eliminated entirely. But if you are going to stake out the ground that references to things you don't like need to be heavily quarantined, then no meaningful compromise with you is possible for large numbers of other potential players.

Again, you are of course free to stake out any position you want. I'm not suggesting that you do or not do anything. Compromise is not a necessity for any of us. We can always not play the game, if it doesn't satisfy us. But to the extent that one agrees with the stated design goals thus far, then practically one has to acknowledge some degree of real compromise will take place.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Except it's not dismissive. The simple fact is they (WotC) want to have a system that caters to as many playstyles as possible. If you want combat-heavy, he wants story-heavy and I want puzzle-heavy our individual playstyle wants aren't what's important, it's that we can ALL play the same game in any style we want. Catering to one style or another is a recipe for failure.

IOW making a system where the rogue sits around and is nigh useless in combat doesn't fill the game need. A rogue could choose to not do things in combat if the player doesn't want that kind of role but having all rogues be weak in combat won't cater to the needs of the system/game/community/market.

Talk about what you think wotc should or shouldn't do. Don't try and tell other people what they should think. Thanks.