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

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't understand this...what does skill resolution (and making it a more detailed or interesting part of the game) have to do with telling someone how to roleplay?

Because its unnecessary. I started DMing and playing 2E, which basically had zero mechanics for skill and noncombat resolution(aside from Thief skills, as nonweapon proficiencies did little beyond collecting dust). Playing and running 2E, we had lots of social situations, skill-like problems to solve, and exploration. This was resolved solely through roleplaying and DM discretion, and it worked just fine. After playing nothing but Vampire for a few years after the death of 2E, I started on 3E and all its systems. I found the 3E mechanics to be less interesting than just making stuff up like we did playing 2E.

In other words, in the absence of mechanics, skill resolution becomes pure roleplaying.

For 4E, while there are still some mechanics(including skill challenges which I still don't have a feel for), a large amount of resolving these things falls on pure roleplaying.

 

[Fifth Element]

The way I look at things is this:

I want the game to tell me how to run combat. I don't want the game to tell me how to roleplay. The less the game tells me how to roleplay(as opposed to giving examples as well as tools that can be either used or ignored), the more I like this game.

That's fine if that's how you like it. But the point here is that perhaps non-combat encounters can be as detailed mechanically as combat encounter have traditionally been.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Why does a game have to lead you around by a leash with regard to combat resolution and let you have the run of an unfenced yard for everything else? I prefer a reasonable degree of freedom for everything.

Because freeform combat sucks hardcore.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

That's fine if that's how you like it. But the point here is that perhaps non-combat encounters can be as detailed mechanically as combat encounter have traditionally been.

I answered this just before your reply. Because non-combat can be resolved through roleplaying and DM discretion, and often it is resolved better that way.

 

[Imaro]

Because its unnecessary. I started DMing and playing 2E, which basically had zero mechanics for skill and noncombat resolution(aside from Thief skills, as nonweapon proficiencies did little beyond collecting dust). Playing and running 2E, we had lots of social situations, skill-like problems to solve, and exploration. This was resolved solely through roleplaying and DM discretion, and it worked just fine. After playing nothing but Vampire for a few years after the death of 2E, I started on 3E and all its systems. I found the 3E mechanics to be less interesting than just making stuff up like we did playing 2E.

In other words, in the absence of mechanics, skill resolution becomes pure roleplaying.

For 4E, while there are still some mechanics(including skill challenges which I still don't have a feel for), a large amount of resolving these things falls on pure roleplaying.

Uhm...so if you feel it's unnecessary...why are you commenting in a thread focused around exploring it? You can just "make stuff up", all you want, nothing we come up with or that's put in a book can stop that...but 4e does have skill resolution mechanics that some would like to use, improve, modify, etc.

QUICK QUESTION: How is picking a lock (which all editions of D&D since the thief appeared had resolution mechanics for), climbing a cliff, doing a cartwheel, etc. pure roleplaying without mechanics to resolve it? I don't think skills create roleplaying or vice versa...skill mechanics can inform roleplaying, even direct it (and some players actually enjoy this aspect)...but they don't stop or create it. This seems like a casualoblivion limitation more than anything else.

 

[The_Gneech]

Here's an interesting concept: what if you could select both a combat role and a non-combat role for your character? Non-combat roles would have selections of powers available to them that would be useful outside of combat. It would certainly allow characters to be less combat-focused, if you want them to be.

I think my first question would be: okay, can we agree on what basic types of non-combat roles exist? The four combat roles are pretty well-established. What are the non-combat roles?

I like it, at least in theory. As for what roles there would be, look at some of the classics...

BARD/SAGE -- Knowledge/lore, history (i.e., the context of the current situation), intelligence about items or potential threats; also social skills and information gathering, diplomacy, et al.

ROGUE/SCOUT -- Spy, scout ahead to gather information about upcoming threats, infiltrate and either disrupt the enemy's plans, or perhaps sneak in, grab the MacGuffin, and get back out, without once rolling initiative

3E SORCERER/WIZARD -- Creating custom party resources in the form of potions, scrolls, magic items; not every group did this, but I have seen it done to great effect. Fighter keeps getting screwed up by hold person? Time to craft that periapt of wisdom!

So in all, I'd say there are probably four major non-combat "roles" --

1. Lore
2. Diplomacy
3. Scouting/Infiltration
4. Creating resources

-The Gneech

 

[Fifth Element]

Because freeform combat sucks hardcore.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion at hand. We have been enlightened.

 

[Thasmodious]

No, we're not talking about skill subsystems. We're talking about how different character types can interact with different types of non-combat encounters. It's much broader that just having some background skills available.

Yeah, I started off to head in that direction, but then kind of lost the point as my mind started wandering about a game of PC magic item merchants.

I think you and cadfan are on the right point though, that non combat roles are tenuous to define and not really valid. The traditional roles have melded with the system -

The Face is not one character, its situational based on the skills of the PCs. Several could have nice diplomacy or bluff, a different character could be very streetwise, and the go to guy for that.

The Skill Monkey is not as needed, as skill use is spread well across the board, while still leaving the rogue with the most skill options.

The Fighter-who-can't-do-anything-but-fight is a dead concept, thankfully.

The wizard who knows things is still quite valid. Any knowledge areas he has are likely higher than anyone elses due to his Int. But other characters, including the fighter, know things as well. I make ample use of the circumstance bonus here. In my tabletop group, the cleric of Kord, the Eladrin wizard, and the dragonborn paladin all have history. I give circumstance bonuses to checks that fit into areas of their character background or class/race, with the wizard collecting these more than most, as he's well traveled, educated, and studious.

The trouble with non combat roles is actually defining them and differentiating them. D&Ds never really had this outside of the basic face/knowledge/skill monkey thing, which isn't really some rigidly define system of roles, as some have been claiming.

If you could go about it, you could do define the roles by feats. A character that wanted to be the guy in an urban environment could take a feat like this -

"The Guy" prereqs: trained in streetwise and bluff or diplomacy, cha 12.
The Guy knows his way around a town. He knows where and how to see and be seen, he's comfortable dealing with local magistrates, trademen, shady characters, all the variety the fantasy city has to offer. He understands the workings of a city, has an intuitive grasp of how cities are often laid out, how the commerce of a city functions, what wheels to grease, how to approach the locals, and speak their language. He's a social chameleon, equally at home among dockside sailors or a banquet in the Duke's manse.
The Guy gets a +2 feat bonus to streetwise and social skill use in an urban environment. Alternatively, the bonus could be 1+Cha mod. This could apply to other skill checks made in an urban environment at the DMs discretion (such as applying the bonus to a acrobatics check while dancing with a Lady and attempting to pick up the local dances on the fly).

Might be difficult to come up with a whole series of these, but it's a start.

 

[Fifth Element]

Oh, ok...I think I get what you're saying now...well here's a few power effects I think could be worked into the type of system I suggested above that are general enough to work for all skills, and could probably combine or be used in interesting ways during a skill challenge. Note however these are off the top of my head and I am not a game designer.

Reroll take second result
Substitute a roll by a different player
allow two rolls choose best
negation of a failure(s)
reduction of number of necessary succeses
increase necessary failures
Allow player to roll twice, must take both results

I agree there are the mechanical foundations to build some powers on. I just worry the powers will be too bland, and there will be too few of them, to really be worth the bother.

Certainly worth thinking about though.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion at hand. We have been enlightened.

It does kind of answer the question in a way. Without further explanation it tells me that combat takes the vast majority of playtime and with powergamers to boot. Cannot say how typical this is for everyone though.