Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Hassassin]

Maybe the classes should be named generically, like "Ranged Striker Class" and "Arcane Controller Class". Then the player could pick a class or classes and apply the label they want to their character.

Just thinking aloud here...

 

[Imaro]

Heh... perhaps I was being a little snarky. I'll rephrase.

Yeah, you kinda were... for no reason.

What is the tangible benefit of maintaining a direct correspondence between a metagame class term and its name within the game narrative?

Well for most people it easily serves as shorthand for an overarching and high level character concept... I wanna play a holy warrior in shining armor... paladin. I want to play a hunter or tracker... Ranger. A wielder of arcane spells and knowledge... Wizard. A stealthy thief and ne'er do well... rogue. And so on.

I guess my question to you is why have these names even been used and why do they have specific fiction attached to them in the game books if all they are suppose to be are packages of abilities? It seems if they are to be flavor neutral... you wouldn't attach specific narratives to the classes. As an example the narrative for a warlock is different from that of a wizard... so why do this if really all a warlock is suppose to be is a "striker" wizard? Why include the narrative of him having made a pact with some entity instead of learning from spellbooks... why include specifc beings that he can make pacts with... and so on if he's just a package of arcane striker abilities? Recent editions (at least from BECMI onward)the books have never supported the classes being just a grouping of abilities with no attached narrative or fiction.

Can a DM rename paladins "Chevaliers du Orlais" in their homebrew?

I don't see why not... though I would still tell PC's that this is an order of paladins since that in and of itself sets up on a high level what this oprder is about. Or would you just present this name and not explain what type of class they are composed of?

If so, can they use Avengers to represent (some or all) of them?

If it's all of them...then I would argue that they are an order of avengers and it's actually misleading to claim they are paladins... isn't it?

Stealthy, lightly armored, holy assasins are the picture that the narrative in the book and the class abilities of the avenger paint. I know if you told me they were an order of paladins or even holy warriors as opposed to holy assasins...I think I would be expecting one thing (expectations I would argue are backed up by the fiction in the gamebooks as well as the mechanics) and would be irritated when I finally realized that none of that applied and I should have instead been reading the avenger entry as opposed to the paladin or even cleric entry.

A mixed order, on the other hand... I would read over both and pick the archetype that most closely fit my concept, either holy warrior or holy assasin.

Of course the problem here is what we have been discussing... I'm not just picking the archetype that matches my concept best... I also have to deal with combat role being specifically attached to the archetype. So I can't enjoy the gameplay of a striker but want to play the heavily armored holy knight that strides forth and cuts down his enemies. Instead in picking that archetype I've also made the choice that my gameplay in combat will be defending, not striking.

What about swashbucklers? Should they be fighters? Rogues? Their own distinct class?

In 3.5 there was a swashbuckler class...

How much does nomenclature matter? Why does it matter?

I would say it matters as much as the game makes it matter... and the fact that specific narratives and fiction are attached to classes in D&D... has made it pretty important. Now if there was just a name and a listing of abilities I could somewhat understand your argument (and I have games that do this), but D&D has never been like that, there has always been story and narrative as well as defining mechanics attached to class. You can change that if you want, but then you are going against the baseline expectations of the game set in the PHB. Nothing wrong with that at all if that's your thing but I think you then need to inform your players on what the chnage is to the fiction and narrative (and class mechanics if you change that as well) otherwise they come to the table with the expectations that have been set by the books.

Feel free to answer any of this. But if you're going to respond with snark or wit, at least try to funny.

Don't see the point of snark.

 

[Hussar]

But, Imaro, when some people will simply ignore the stated definitions of terms in favor of whatever they feel like a word should mean, does that mean we should simply abandon any attempt to break away from particular connotations?

I mean, isn't this just the old warlord debates with a funny moustache and a new pair of glasses? "Oh noes, we can't have warlords in the game because warlord has real world meanings and people will be so confused" was essentially how the argument went. Never minding that the meanings of words like Druid and Paladin are many, MANY miles away from the D&D classes that have those names. Never mind the poor Monk. Isn't a Monk someone who lives in a cloister and copies scrolls for a living? Since when do monks become ninja's?

See, selectively picking and choosing definitions of words is fun and easy. But, at the end of the day, do we really want to cater to people who refuse to actually take the word in context and use the provided definitions?

 

[Imaro]

But, Imaro, when some people will simply ignore the stated definitions of terms in favor of whatever they feel like a word should mean, does that mean we should simply abandon any attempt to break away from particular connotations?

I mean, isn't this just the old warlord debates with a funny moustache and a new pair of glasses? "Oh noes, we can't have warlords in the game because warlord has real world meanings and people will be so confused" was essentially how the argument went. Never minding that the meanings of words like Druid and Paladin are many, MANY miles away from the D&D classes that have those names. Never mind the poor Monk. Isn't a Monk someone who lives in a cloister and copies scrolls for a living? Since when do monks become ninja's?

See, selectively picking and choosing definitions of words is fun and easy. But, at the end of the day, do we really want to cater to people who refuse to actually take the word in context and use the provided definitions?

Okay, I'm lost. I am talking about the definitions, narratives, and fiction in the D&D game books. This isn't the same as the Warlord argument you are talking about. These are the descriptions and fiction that the designers and developers attached to the classes in the 4e books.

I thinK I'm having a disconnect here... there are posters like pemerton, who claim that this narrative fiction is important and what makes D&D 4e such a great narrative game... and then there are posters like you claiming these same fiction and story bits attached to classes are meaningless wastes of words and have nothing to do with the class and what it represents. Which one is it?

EDIT: You see the problem that most are arguing is that combat role as a gameplay element shouldn't be hardcoded into these classes since they do in fact come with fiction, narrative and story in the game (along with specific class mechanics).

 

[Imaro]

To further clarify what I mean...

Description of Warlock...

Warlocks channel arcane might wrested from primeval
entities. They commune with infernal intelligences
and fey spirits, scour enemies with potent blasts of
eldritch power, and bedevil foes with hexing curses.
Armed with esoteric secrets and dangerous lore, warlocks
are clever and resourceful foes.
However you came to your arcane knowledge, you
need not accept the poor reputation warlocks sometimes
endure. You could be a libram-toting scholar
captivated by ominous lore, a foot-loose wanderer
searching for elusive ultimate truths, a devil-touched
hunter using infernal spells to eliminate evil, or even
a black-clad mercenary who uses sinister trappings to
discourage prying strangers and unwanted attention.
On the other hand, you could be a true diabolist using
your gifts to tyrannize the weak—some warlocks unfortunately
are exactly that.
The pacts are complete. The rites have concluded.
The signs are drawn in blood, and the seals are
broken. Your destiny beckons.

Now the description of a Wizard...

Wizards are scions of arcane magic. Wizards tap the
true power that permeates the cosmos, research esoteric
rituals that can alter time and space, and hurl
balls of fire that incinerate massed foes. Wizards wield
spells the way warriors brandish swords.
Magic lured you into its grasp, and now you seek
to master it in turn. You could be a bespectacled sage
searching for dusty tomes in forgotten sepulchers, a
scarred war mage plying foes with fireballs and foul
language in equal measure, a disgruntled apprentice
who absconded with your master’s spellbooks, an
eladrin upholding the magical tradition of your race,
or even a power-hungry student of magic who might
do anything to learn a new spell.
A cloak of spells enfolds you, ancient rituals bolster
your senses, and runed implements of your craft
hang from your belt. Effervescing arcane lore pulses
through your consciousness, a constant pressure
craving release. When will you know enough magic to
storm the ramparts of reality itself.

These appear, in my mind at least, to be totally different archetypes. Reading this a warlock doesn't seem like a "striker wizard", it appears to be a totally different archetype. The question is... from the description of a warlock or wizard, why should one be confined to the striker role and the other be confined to the controller role? Nothing in these archetypes seems specifically geared towards combat role and in fact I could see arguments that these archetypes could encompass all of the combat roles. So why is it that because I want to play a pact-damned, magic wielding, repentant... I also have to be a striker? This is the fundamental argument being discussed here.

Now again, I readily admit that 4e is finally moving away from this and I personally think it's...

1. Something that should have never been hardcoded to class in the first place, and...

2. A good thing.

 

[LurkAway]

Okay, I'm lost. I am talking about the definitions, narratives, and fiction in the D&D game books. This isn't the same as the Warlord argument you are talking about. These are the descriptions and fiction that the designers and developers attached to the classes in the 4e books.
<snip>
EDIT: You see the problem that most are arguing is that combat role as a gameplay element shouldn't be hardcoded into these classes since they do in fact come with fiction, narrative and story in the game (along with specific class mechanics).

Help! I'm confused too.

There are Warlords (class) who aren't warlords (military commanders).

There are warlords (military commanders) who aren't Warlords (class).

You could have a divine warlord (cleric commander) or a martial warlord (martial commander) but you can only have a Martial Warlord.

You can have a charismatic fighter roleplayed as leader of the party, but he's a Fighter (defender) and not a Warlord (leader).

For me, a Warlord class = fighter + leader combat role IS one example of hardwiring and conflating fictional training/background with metagame combat role, isn't it?

I think the "true" class is just a Fighter, based on fictional positioning of martial/combat training. Then warlords, brawlers, knights, etc. are just sub-classes/builds/themes based on ficitional background, fighting style and specialized abilities.

 

[LurkAway]

Never mind the poor Monk. Isn't a Monk someone who lives in a cloister and copies scrolls for a living? Since when do monks become ninja's?

I think you're confusing something.

Merging the Shaolin monk with the medieval western monk and coining the fantasy concept a "monk" in the fiction is one thing.

It has already been decided what a monk is in D&D fiction. That's not the relevant issue, I don't think.

Deciding how to model the fictional monk as a class in the rules, and hardwiring a Monk class to have a certain combat role, is another thing.

Because then, if you have a Monk striker class and a *separate* Monk defender class, then one is called a Monk class and the other is called something else (Iron Body Monk or something?) even though they're both monks. Whereas they could have both been put under a single class (Monk) with 2 possible combat roles based on whatever martial arts style the character was trained in.

 

[billd91]

Because it's not?

A ranger's role in combat is striker. That's what role means in 4e. Combat only. However, everything that you could do with a ranger outside of combat, you can still do in 4e. All the nature bunny stuff and woodsy stuff is still there.

However, as this thread shows, people equate combat role with character archtype, which is simply a misreading of how 4e actually defines role.

.

I think the 'misreading' you're seeing is one of the problems we have with 4e. You've got over-defined and limiting combat roles bundled with skill and setting role archetypes when a looser connection would be more satisfying.

 

[Hussar]

To further clarify what I mean...

Description of Warlock...




Now the description of a Wizard...


These appear, in my mind at least, to be totally different archetypes. Reading this a warlock doesn't seem like a "striker wizard", it appears to be a totally different archetype. The question is... from the description of a warlock or wizard, why should one be confined to the striker role and the other be confined to the controller role? Nothing in these archetypes seems specifically geared towards combat role and in fact I could see arguments that these archetypes could encompass all of the combat roles. So why is it that because I want to play a pact-damned, magic wielding, repentant... I also have to be a striker? This is the fundamental argument being discussed here.

Now again, I readily admit that 4e is finally moving away from this and I personally think it's...

1. Something that should have never been hardcoded to class in the first place, and...

2. A good thing.

You are 100% right. Because combat role =/= archetype. They are two completely different things. 100% divorced from each other. Striker is SOLELY AND PURELY what a character does best in combat. Nothing more. You and others are the ones trying to tie the combat role with archetype and ignoring the fact that role is actually specifically defined and that definition DOES NOT INCLUDE ARCHETYPE.

So, you have a warlock that is a scholarly type. But, when the gloves come off, his best options are to deal lots of damage to a single target. You can have a wizard with a scholarly bent. When the gloves come off, he blasts lots of things for a little bit of damage.

The problem here is that you keep conflating two completely separate things. Thus, everyone wants a "monk" that is two different things, instead of simply picking the class that best fits your character concept, regardless of whatever the name is (because the name doesn't actually mean anything and never really did) and go from there.

But, sure, if you insist that role=archetype, then 4e will constantly have problems for you. Not surprising considering that you are misreading what roles actually are.

 

[Imaro]

You are 100% right. Because combat role =/= archetype. They are two completely different things. 100% divorced from each other. Striker is SOLELY AND PURELY what a character does best in combat. Nothing more. You and others are the ones trying to tie the combat role with archetype and ignoring the fact that role is actually specifically defined and that definition DOES NOT INCLUDE ARCHETYPE.

No one is claiming combat role includes archetype, in fact the hard coding of combat role to an archetype is the very thing we are arguing against. I feel like you really are misreading the entire argument being placed forth.

So, you have a warlock that is a scholarly type. But, when the gloves come off, his best options are to deal lots of damage to a single target. You can have a wizard with a scholarly bent. When the gloves come off, he blasts lots of things for a little bit of damage.

Yep, and yet by the fluff and class abilities wizard and warlock are not interchangeable as archetypes. They encompass different fiction, different skills, different proficiencies, different class abilities, etc.

As an example... any wizard I create will be a scholar as pertains to arcane lore. It is presented that way in the fiction of the class (how the wizard learns and casts magic) and it is presented that way through the mechanics ( if you are a Wizard you will always have Arcana trained, you will have a spell book with spells, etc.).

The Warlock on the other hand accomodates the practitioner who gained his power through a pact with a powerful being. This is presented that way in the fiction and in the mechanics...He has a pact, has no actual spells in a spellbook, and he may or may not have learned anything about arcane lore (Arcana is an optional skill for him).

This is just a very simple example of a pretty big difference in the two archetypes these classes represent, there are alot more when you get into skills available, weapon/armor proficiencies/implements/etc. I don't really understand how you see them as the same archetype with just a differing combat role... they clearly aren't... and after reading that Rule-of-3 article, I would say the developer/designers of 4e agree... at least to a certain point with my argument.

The problem here is that you keep conflating two completely separate things. Thus, everyone wants a "monk" that is two different things, instead of simply picking the class that best fits your character concept, regardless of whatever the name is (because the name doesn't actually mean anything and never really did) and go from there.

No what we want is for our combat role not to be dependant upon the archetype/class we choose. What I am saying is that I want the archetype of a monk as presented in the fiction and non-combat rules of the game and be able to pick the combat role I want for said archetype. There's no reason a monk should be a striker only... A monk could be a controller, a defender, or even a leader if combat role wasn't so explicitely tied to the monk archetype/class in 4e.

But, sure, if you insist that role=archetype, then 4e will constantly have problems for you. Not surprising considering that you are misreading what roles actually are.

What are you talking about by role? If you mean combat role, then I will contend that I have never claimed combat role = archetype... So I would argue that you have been misreading the argument being placed forth from the beginning and that maybe you should re-read what has been posted so far to get a better grasp of what is being discussed.