Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Correct, you added a multiclass to "break" out of your role.

If you said you're a Fighter 3 in 4e, you would have to look at build/feats/power selection to determine what aspects of the "defender" role the fighter decided to "specialize" in. Not only that there are certain build that are not defenders. If he had multiclassed then you have the same issue as in 3e, because there are multiple ways to multiclass. Is he a hybrid, is he a multiclass, is he a swordmage, is he a bladesinger, what feats did he take, what powers? All of those different factors allow you to "break" the role, or play to it.

I guess the point is that when you take Fighter in 4E, you are expected by the rest of the party to be the Defender. It's what the class says on the can. In earlier editions, the only class that really had that expectation was cleric (you are expected to heal, it's a violation of the social contract of the game if you refuse to).

By hardcoding the combat roles into each class, the game system is creating a social contract to do what the role says you should be doing. I disagree with that being part of the social contract of any class (except cleric ) .

That's why I wouldn't mind you doing a generic Power Source / Combat Role system, removing class labels. But when the game rules start applying roles to classes and saying this is the way every X should be, I balk.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

If you're playing a 3e Fighter and refuse to "fight" you are also violating the social contract of the class and it's role at the table. Stupid decisions at how to run a character do not a point of data make.

Agreed, it says "Fight" on the Figher can

4th Edition adds a new layer to that social contract saying you must also be a defender. I disagree with this additional role. Let the player decide if he wants his character to have this role, don't force it upon the class.

 

[pemerton]

Absolutely incorrect. If you are playing a Swordmage and refuse to mark anything or a Warlord who refuses to heal, you are violating the social contract of the class and it's role at the table.

If you're playing a 3e Fighter and refuse to "fight" you are also violating the social contract of the class and it's role at the table. Stupid decisions at how to run a character do not a point of data make.

I agree with D'karr here. Why would you build a Swordmage and not mark? Or build a Warlord and not heal? In general, why would you not use your class features?

But I thought the question here was not about whether or not players will use their class features, but about whether or not they are obliged to play to role in any constraining sense. A swordmage might use his/her mark, for example, but not defend - perhaps s/he stays in the second rank, marking and attacking at range, and using the shielding aegis to reduce damage. This swordmage would play more like a leader/ranged striker. Or a warlord might heal, but from the front line, leading attacks and engaging foes in one-on-one combat - not sticky enough to be a defender, but again playing something like a melee striker/leader, and certainly quite different from (for example) a WIS cleric.

 

[D'karr]

That's why I wouldn't mind you doing a generic Power Source / Combat Role system, removing class labels. But when the game rules start applying roles to classes and saying this is the way every X should be, I balk.

A label is just that a label. In your example about a fighter 3/wizard 3 you mentioned that you couldn't tell by that "label" what the character's role was. This has a tendency to become a dead-end trap for players. If I want to play a character that "defends" but casts spells I have certain choices. If I want a character that mostly casts spells and still fights, there are other choices. The roles make it easier for the player to make the right choice for what concept they want, rather than the nebulous class labels.

The roles allow the players to choose "labels" for their characters that will fit the way they want to play. Instead of providing "loaded" labels that end up not fitting what they want to play.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

In 3rd, if you are a Fighter 3 / Wizard 3, what are you? What's your role? You don't have enough information with that description to know what that Character's combat role is.

A warrior that fights like a priest and casts spells like a bard? A sub-optimal character? I don't know the answer to your riddle.

In 4th, if you say are a Figther with a wizard multiclass, you know exactly the role that the character performs in combat. The system defined it for you.

And you chose that class most likely because you wanted to fill that role.

Absolutely incorrect. If you are playing a Swordmage and refuse to mark anything or a Warlord who refuses to heal, you are violating the social contract of the class and it's role at the table.

And why did you choose that class if you don't like its function? It really would be like choosing Fighting Man in OD&D and then hanging back trying to cast spells.

I'm going to disagree here, I feel like in earlier editions "da rulz" gave you much more freedom to decide what role in combat you wanted to take on within the archetype of the class you picked.

All 4E did was take a different approach to the same end. Determine your concept first, pick what class suits that concept best. Some of us did that in 3E already instead of choose class then force concept.

See now you're talking about expectations of the players. The rules don't force a cleric to be a healer, there are plenty of useful spells pre-4e that allow a cleric to take on a multitude of roles... From defender to controller. Choosing to focus on healing was just one facet.

As the only class that could keep your party alive reliably in prior editions (although Druid became slightly better in 3.5) you're really claiming that peer pressure didn't force one into the healer role? So all those times my group diced off for who was "forced" to be the healer were just my imagination?

Unless you focused on being a ranged fighter or sacrificed defense for damage output.

A ranged Fighter that sacrificed defense for damage output? That sounds REALLY familiar....oh yeah, the 4E Ranger. I know, how evil of them to make it woodlands themed and give you Nature or Dungeoneering as a bonus skill plus another bonus skill of your choice. I know, you're dead set on playing a "Ranger Fighter that sacrificed defense for damage output" and no one will ever talk you into playing another class, nuh-uh!

No, most people in this thread are sticking to combat... As in the archetype I want has been pigeonholed into a specific role in combat, and all that doing that entails.

There are two reasons for that. One, no one has ever presented a limited list of non-combat roles. The only common ones seem to be Face, Trapfinder, and Tracker. I believe there are so many more that it would be difficult to codify them into the limited list that 4E combat roles have been. Second, the smaller skill list and folded skills allow you to make your character fit whatever non-combat role synergizes with your characters abilities.

Total strawman here... What people are saying is why does my selection of the holy warrior archetype auto-regulate me to taking hits and being a blockade... When really I want to be doing damage and striking down my gods enemies like a hot knife through butter.

But why must you play a Paladin to be the holy warrior archetype?!? That's the same thinking that says every time you enter a chapel in any town that the priest leading the flock is a Cleric. In every edition I've had the equivalent of Commoners, Experts, Nobles, Fighters, Rogues, etc, etc, etc leading a congregation. Cleric is a description that shorthands the ability package you are choosing for your character. It need not limit the concept of what your character actually is.

Agreed, it says "Fight" on the Figher can

4th Edition adds a new layer to that social contract saying you must also be a defender. I disagree with this additional role. Let the player decide if he wants his character to have this role, don't force it upon the class.

If you want to be a Fighter that doesn't defend, choose a melee class that isn't a Fighter. How hard is that? To me it's like complaining that my 1E Fighter can't enter a Rage. If you wanted to rage you played a Barbarian.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The whole thing has been going downhill ever since "Thief" and "Cleric" made an entrance.

Uh, Cleric made an entrance in the very first edition of OD&D... If you think it has been going downhill since before RPGs appeared...

 

[Umbran]

4th Edition adds a new layer to that social contract saying you must also be a defender. I disagree with this additional role. Let the player decide if he wants his character to have this role, don't force it upon the class.

If the role is baked into the class, then the player picks the role with the class.

If the role is an option of the class, then the player picks the role when he picks the role-appropriate options of the class.

Either way, the player gets to pick what role they play. Ultimately, exactly where that choice is made doesn't really matter all that much. One design has a whole lot of classes, each with a few choices, the other has a few classes, with a whole lot of choices.

In the end, the difference is mostly in how things are organized, not in their functional end results.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Roles are useful when building a party. Just think of all those movies with the dramatic phrase "I've been forming a team"

You need someone to take the bulk of melee
Someone to heal
Someone to do crowd control
Someone to hit hard at one foe
And someone to have the 'skills' side covered

I disagree. Back in the old days a party was just a collection of whatever characters the party wanted to play, and the DM tailored adventures (on the rare occasions it was necessary) so that it matched the party capabilities. It could still be a sandbox, while allowing for flexibility in how the game was played.

Itn that mode of play there was never a NEED to have specific party 'roles' covered - and was all the better for it.

 

[D'karr]

I disagree. Back in the old days a party was just a collection of whatever characters the party wanted to play, and the DM tailored adventures (on the rare occasions it was necessary) so that it matched the party capabilities. It could still be a sandbox, while allowing for flexibility in how the game was played.

Itn that mode of play there was never a NEED to have specific party 'roles' covered - and was all the better for it.

In that respect nothing prevents a current DM from doing the exact same thing, and creating tailored adventures for the characters at the table.

I have seen many games without specific roles at the table and they still went well when tailored by the DM.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I agree with D'karr here. Why would you build a Swordmage and not mark? Or build a Warlord and not heal? In general, why would you not use your class features?

And you chose that class most likely because you wanted to fill that role.

Both of these statements seem to be absolutely missing the point.