D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[BryonD]

Inless I am miss reading what people wrote, I was told that multi times in a 10 page span (about page 10-11 through 20something)

I won't claim to have read every post. And I'll readily admit that people get fired up and make extreme statements. But I think the real issue is people talking past each other. When I see roles in the context of 4E, then I will clearly state that this was not a constant for all of D&D. When I see "roles" as a generic concept, it was OF COURSE always been there. But the distinction is highly important.

wait this sounds like a good moderate statement... one I don't 100% agree with, but pretty close... I will conside that as much as roles have been around forever, 4e did "MORE DIRECTLY" use them.

Sure. But that is *your perspective*. You seem to be missing the significance of that.

yup... my first 2e game, my 3.5 campaigns, and my 4e games all ran very similar (there were some diffrences)

No doubt. But for a whole lot of people this was not remotely true.

that is pretty much true of every edition though, and every game... D&D would suck to play a WoD game in, and gurps would not handle a D&D game much better. 4e changed things (some for good some for ill) but at the end of the day so did 3e, and even though I wasn't there I bet 2e did too.

Ok, so why does your sig say "I'm with D&D... Any Edition" and not "I'm with Fantasy RPGs... any Edition"?
You said D&D would suck to play a WoD game in. I agree. This is not an insult to WoD fans. It is not an insult to D&D fans. It is simply a very common position.
Well, for a whole lot of people, 4E would suck for playing a "D&D (defined as any prior edition feel) in". At the end of the day the fact that this particular set of mechanics shares a specific brand with that particular set of mechanics is little more than coincidence. GURPS fantasy roleplaying is still fantasy roleplaying. But people don't say a dislike of one or the other is "hating" or fear of change. It is just a matter of taste.
But the 4e fan base (or more specifically, the loud portion thereof) expressed great outrage that many people see 4E to be as different as D&D before it as GURPS was, or at least near enough.

And when I see the various "all D&D" posts today, that context is still implied.
And that context is silly and counter-productive.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I won't claim to have read every post. And I'll readily admit that people get fired up and make extreme statements. But I think the real issue is people talking past each other. When I see roles in the context of 4E, then I will clearly state that this was not a constant for all of D&D. When I see "roles" as a generic concept, it was OF COURSE always been there. But the distinction is highly important.

ok, then slight change... lets go with your statement, there have always been roles... then I don't see the disconnect.

Sure. But that is *your perspective*. You seem to be missing the significance of that.

no... I;m not, the disconnect comes when I say that and am told I have FACTUALY been disproven... if it is a matter of perspective then you can't prove or disprove anything...

No doubt. But for a whole lot of people this was not remotely true.

yup just like 5e and 3e, and I bet 2e... wasn't there someone back when all the fourms where merged talking about going to play a heavy house ruled 1e game because they knew people that didn't think 2e fit there style...

Ok, so why does your sig say "I'm with D&D... Any Edition"

It was put there during the 5e playtest (well it was still called next) because it seemed every other post I was getting told my opion was colored by my edition choice... I had a post about a year ago where I had shown how in 24 hours I had been told I was BOTH a wotc apologist AND a wotc hater... and within a day or two of that had been told I must have hated 4e...even when I said that was my fav edition. There was a pic of it at one point too, I don't remember why it isn't there anymore.

I am also not with every fantasy game... if given the choice of my girlfriend making me rewatch twilight or playing pathfinder... I will get the popcorn. I also wont play long in rifts...I find it is much better in small bursts then in campaigns.

You said D&D would suck to play a WoD game in. I agree. This is not an insult to WoD fans. It is not an insult to D&D fans. It is simply a very common position.

yup right now I have 5 games I play regularly, I play every Tuesday and saterday both on a roatating game. I am in as a PC an oWoD Mage Victorian age game, and a 4e game (although it is only 1x a month and we took off dec) and I am running a oWoD Mage modern age game, a Myth and magic (2e retro clone) and we just did a character creation night for my 1st 5e game.

Well, for a whole lot of people, 4E would suck for playing a "D&D (defined as any prior edition feel) in".

yup... I don't understand it, but I do know it...

At the end of the day the fact that this particular set of mechanics shares a specific brand with that particular set of mechanics is little more than coincidence. GURPS fantasy roleplaying is still fantasy roleplaying. But people don't say a dislike of one or the other is "hating" or fear of change. It is just a matter of taste.

well yes and no. There is of course a matter of taste... there are also some people who just hate for no reason...and there are people who fear change. The only reason we can play our 2 oWoD games on saterday nights is because one of our players had to bow out (family things) because he refused to try the system... he would not even read the rules, he already knew he hated it...

now I know well what it is like to be labled a hater... I get told all the time pathfinder is just D&D, and if I tried it I would like it...disregaruding that I have listed exactly what I don't like, and why... and still have tried it many times.

But the 4e fan base (or more specifically, the loud portion thereof) expressed great outrage that many people see 4E to be as different as D&D before it as GURPS was, or at least near enough.

yep...I;m one of those loud people. let me tell you what I both DO and DON'T DO...

I don't ever tell anyone what edition they should play (inless responding to a question like witch should I play)
I do tell people that they don't get to decide 4e isn't D&D
I don't go into the pathfinder threads and say "THis SUCKS"
I do tell people in 4e threads that they are wrong if they say 4e sucks
I don't expect people to always be on the same page, or even agree on what is good or not
I do expect people to always be honest and not dismissive of my or others thoughts and opionons

You know when I get loud, I get loud when people try to say untrue hurtful and/or antagonizing things about my so far fav edition...


so "I didn't like the way 4e did the roles" leads to a discussion on improveing it
but "4e is the only edition to have roles and they need to die in a fire" gets me first trying to engage and then eventually arguing...

And when I see the various "all D&D" posts today, that context is still implied.
And that context is silly and counter-productive.

see here is the thing... we are all here talking about 5e. We all want the best 5e game we can have... telling people there edition of choice (any edition, basic, pathfinder, or 4e) doesn't count, or was a bad edition or should be forgotten is in no way productive...

 

[BryonD]

ok, then slight change... lets go with your statement, there have always been roles... then I don't see the disconnect.

And that's the problem. Fans of the "4E way" seem completely incapable of seeing the disconnect. And being incapable of seeing it, they are the incapable of accepting that anyone else sees it.

In short "roles" in the modern 4e enhanced vernacular are not the same thing as the generic concept of roles which have always existed.

no... I;m not, the disconnect comes when I say that and am told I have FACTUALY been disproven... if it is a matter of perspective then you can't prove or disprove anything...

Do you want to understand the other side? Or do you just want to argue wording now?

yup just like 5e and 3e, and I bet 2e... wasn't there someone back when all the fourms where merged talking about going to play a heavy house ruled 1e game because they knew people that didn't think 2e fit there style...

And yet no one every called the people who stuck with 2E "Haters". A key difference.

It was put there during the 5e playtest (well it was still called next) because it seemed every other post I was getting told my opion was colored by my edition choice... I had a post about a year ago where I had shown how in 24 hours I had been told I was BOTH a wotc apologist AND a wotc hater... and within a day or two of that had been told I must have hated 4e...even when I said that was my fav edition. There was a pic of it at one point too, I don't remember why it isn't there anymore.

I am also not with every fantasy game... if given the choice of my girlfriend making me rewatch twilight or playing pathfinder... I will get the popcorn. I also wont play long in rifts...I find it is much better in small bursts then in campaigns.



yup right now I have 5 games I play regularly, I play every Tuesday and saterday both on a roatating game. I am in as a PC an oWoD Mage Victorian age game, and a 4e game (although it is only 1x a month and we took off dec) and I am running a oWoD Mage modern age game, a Myth and magic (2e retro clone) and we just did a character creation night for my 1st 5e game.


yup... I don't understand it, but I do know it...



well yes and no. There is of course a matter of taste... there are also some people who just hate for no reason...and there are people who fear change. The only reason we can play our 2 oWoD games on saterday nights is because one of our players had to bow out (family things) because he refused to try the system... he would not even read the rules, he already knew he hated it...

now I know well what it is like to be labled a hater... I get told all the time pathfinder is just D&D, and if I tried it I would like it...disregaruding that I have listed exactly what I don't like, and why... and still have tried it many times.

yep...I;m one of those loud people. let me tell you what I both DO and DON'T DO...

I don't ever tell anyone what edition they should play (inless responding to a question like witch should I play)
I do tell people that they don't get to decide 4e isn't D&D
I don't go into the pathfinder threads and say "THis SUCKS"
I do tell people in 4e threads that they are wrong if they say 4e sucks
I don't expect people to always be on the same page, or even agree on what is good or not
I do expect people to always be honest and not dismissive of my or others thoughts and opionons

You know when I get loud, I get loud when people try to say untrue hurtful and/or antagonizing things about my so far fav edition...

And, we go back to GO.

Get over it.

A lot of people REALLY don't like 4E. Saying so is not "hurtful or antagonizing".
I was there from the beginning. From my confirmation bias perspective, there was a TON of "hurtful and antagonizing" things said against anyone who was critical of 4E in any way. I'll even say that this statement is true without my perspective, it is just my perspective that makes those comments seems to so overwhelmingly drown out everything else. So, yeah people get pissed off and start poking at each other.

But you know what? Your side is the side that NEEDS to be extra nice if you want to persuade anyone. (too late now of course)

At the end of the day 4E sucks rather badly at delivering the kind of game experience I want. I can say all kinds of things about it. I HAVE said all kinds of things about it. And I've acknowledged over and over again for years that I completely accept that 4E is the best game EVER for a section of the community. I have no slight issue with this. When you say "this is an awesome thing", I don't say that is a slanderous lie. I simply say "I'm glad it fits your taste. It does not fit mine." It is very hard to find any 4E fan (then or holdouts now) who are willing to accept this mutual allowance for taste. [A very civil resolution in the past couple days not withstanding] If you dislike something in 4E then you are a hater and you are expressing hurtful and antagonizing things.

The ways roles work in 4E brings major changes to the table and I really dislike it. I reject 4E for many reasons and this is on the list. There were characters with roles in my 3E and PF games. There are characters with roles in my 5E game happening tonight. These "roles" do not have the gamist feel of 4E by any remote stretch.

None of that is the slightest slam against the awesomeness of the fun you have playing 4E. Nor is a slam again the people playing Settlers of Catan down the street or actually getting exercise playing Ultimate Frisbee at the park.

so "I didn't like the way 4e did the roles" leads to a discussion on improveing it
but "4e is the only edition to have roles and they need to die in a fire" gets me first trying to engage and then eventually arguing...

Again this is talking past each other. 4E is the only edition to have roles in the strict gamist manner of that context. My game tonight will have roles. My game to night will most absolutely not have "4e roles".

see here is the thing... we are all here talking about 5e. We all want the best 5e game we can have... telling people there edition of choice (any edition, basic, pathfinder, or 4e) doesn't count, or was a bad edition or should be forgotten is in no way productive...

I disagree. Being clear why one group of people avoided a system because of something is every bit as productive as being clear why another group of people flocked to it. Expressing dislike is still productive. Telling people they should not tell you their opinion is not productive.

 

[Umbran]

The guys I played with never felt like they were playing "controller" fighters or "striker" fighters.

But, as you said, you could probably largely figure out what roles they were playing, if you watched them.

So, for the most part, doing the same thing, but now we make it clear, and this is a problem.

It gets back to the who gamist / narrative thing.

I think a case about gamism and narrativism might be made on 4e, but *not* because of the roles. As you said, the roles were already there. And, despite your statements, I think folks did think in terms of, "I'm the big guy in the armor, I'll take the front line." - so, they were really thinking about their combat roles. So, ultimately, I don't think it is an issue of gaming agendas.

If you are already playing the role, and thinking about the role, but having that made clear in the rules is an issue - I have a hard time thinking the issue is actually the game. There is a point where, "They failed to bury it so I don't see it," ceases to be a solid critique you can make of the game, and you may have to consider whether how you, the player, are thinking about the game is what is getting in the way.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But, as you said, you could probably largely figure out what roles they were playing, if you watched them.

So, for the most part, doing the same thing, but now we make it clear, and this is a problem.

Only because they were fighters. Other PCs, if you watched them, would turn out not to have a 4E role at all (thieves), so clearly they were not "doing the same thing."

This whole discussion is very Kuhnian (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Kuhn says that a paradigm defines, for its practicioners, which questions are valid to ask and are assumed to have answers, and which data is worth paying attention to. So within the 4E paradigm, the valid question is, "What role is Bob the Magus?" The idea that he might not act as a striker/controller/defender/leader never occurs (maybe he's a scout), or that he might fit one of those labels now and another in ten minutes and another tomorrow, or that he might fit two or more simultaneously (5E fighters are strikers + defenders simultaneously). In theory it's possible for individuals to shift paradigms, but in practice the only event which ever leads to community-wide paradigm shift is population shift: for the practicioners of the old paradigm to die out or get drowned out by new arrivals. 4E players will continue seeing 4E-style roles in 5E, probably for the rest of their lives, and any examples that don't fit the paradigm will be shoehorned in anyway ("face" as "controller"?) or dismissed as special cases that don't overturn the general rule that "everyone is a striker/defender/healer/controller."

This isn't a slam on 4E, just what happens to every paradigm. If I had any good examples of another RPG paradigm which was as strong as 4E roles I'd use that example as well.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

ok, then slight change... lets go with your statement, there have always been roles... then I don't see the disconnect.

And that's the problem. Fans of the "4E way" seem completely incapable of seeing the disconnect. And being incapable of seeing it, they are the incapable of accepting that anyone else sees it.

I'm not all 4e players, so please don't group me

I just said I don't see the disconnect, I do see that you skiped all the things about roles we agreed on (like party face) and went on with this. I also see that you don't at all accept what I see, well I am trying to work with you...

In short "roles" in the modern 4e enhanced vernacular are not the same thing as the generic concept of roles which have always existed.

ok... then lets go back to the roles in question... I did striker last time lets do leader this time.

leaders basically buff and heal, they are a defensive combat role, and are based on the classic cleric. WHat role did cleric play in your generic concept pre 4e?

Do you want to understand the other side? Or do you just want to argue wording now?

at this point I don't know what I want, I was responding to you here though...

And yet no one every called the people who stuck with 2E "Haters". A key difference.

I also never called someone who "just stuck with 3e" a hater either.. I did however when people came online to a 4e forurm, or in my face at a 4e game at a con to tell me or others that 4e sucked or that 4e wasn't D&D or that wotc is just one big money grab HATERS... see staying with 3e is hateing nothing. Going out of your way to argue about 4e IS hateing...

A lot of people REALLY don't like 4E. Saying so is not "hurtful or antagonizing".

100% agree. Saying I do not like 4e is not hurtful or antagonizing.
let me go one further saying "I don't like 4e because of combat roles, and I don't use them in my game" is also not... as long as you are talking about your game and your preference it is fine... it is when you present your game as fact that can over ride someone elses game that it is.

we have 2 sides, one says "I see X in my games," side 2 says "I have never seen it so it doesn't exsist" side one come back with "Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it isn't there, or else I would not have seen it." this can be handled with respect and point for counter point... or one side can declair victory by saying they factualy disproved the other, and/or by being insulting (saying someone only wants something they have said they do not).

I was there from the beginning.

me too, how ever I was very much the WotC target audience back then, because I had heavly house ruled everything 3.5, and was using more newer classes and less phb classes. When they wanted to sell a new edition I was ready for one...

my confirmation bias perspective, there was a TON of "hurtful and antagonizing" things said against anyone who was critical of 4E in any way.

yup I remember that...

I'll even say that this statement is true without my perspective, it is just my perspective that makes those comments seems to so overwhelmingly drown out everything else.

I will disagree slitly... what drowned out everything else was BOTH side (especially once pathfinder came along) slining insults and complaints.

So, yeah people get pissed off and start poking at each other.

yup just like this thread...

But you know what? Your side is the side that NEEDS to be extra nice if you want to persuade anyone. (too late now of course)

I don't want to persuade anyone I just want to talk about the subject... you are free to end in the same place you begain or not... as long as you are polite and not dismissive or insulting.

At the end of the day 4E sucks rather badly at delivering the kind of game experience I want.

ok...same with me and pathfinder.

I can say all kinds of things about it. I HAVE said all kinds of things about it.

yup me and pathfinder and core 3.5 too

And I've acknowledged over and over again for years that I completely accept that 4E is the best game EVER for a section of the community.

yup same here just with pathfinder

I have no slight issue with this. When you say "this is an awesome thing", I don't say that is a slanderous lie.

same page here

I simply say "I'm glad it fits your taste. It does not fit mine."

same here

It is very hard to find any 4E fan (then or holdouts now) who are willing to accept this mutual allowance for taste.

wow... just wow...

that is back to grouping and dismissive and border line insulting... it basicly comes down to "If your with THEM, then you don't count." there are plenty of 4e fans that are much MORE accepting then either you or I...

If you dislike something in 4E then you are a hater and you are expressing hurtful and antagonizing things.

nope... if you present your views in hurtful or antagonizing ways you are a hater...

The ways roles work in 4E brings major changes to the table and I really dislike it.

ok, feel free to ignore them in any game you play...I'm fine with that.

I reject 4E for many reasons and this is on the list. There were characters with roles in my 3E and PF games. There are characters with roles in my 5E game happening tonight. These "roles" do not have the gamist feel of 4E by any remote stretch.

great, maybe if you shared your thoughts on better ways to incorporate roles, or your thoughts on how to use them (since you did just say you use them just differently) we could turn this into a more positive thread.

Again this is talking past each other. 4E is the only edition to have roles in the strict gamist manner of that context. My game tonight will have roles. My game to night will most absolutely not have "4e roles".

what makes a 3e role and a 2e role different from a 4e one?

I disagree. Being clear why one group of people avoided a system because of something is every bit as productive as being clear why another group of people flocked to it. Expressing dislike is still productive. Telling people they should not tell you their opinion is not productive.

I agree expressing a dislike (in the form of an opionon) is fine, it is being disrespectful or dismissive of others that is not.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

This isn't a slam on 4E, just what happens to every paradigm. If I had any good examples of another RPG paradigm which was as strong as 4E roles I'd use that example as well.

Fighter-Cleric-Thief-Mage is another; it's a paradigm of party building.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Only because they were fighters. Other PCs, if you watched them, would turn out not to have a 4E role at all (thieves), so clearly they were not "doing the same thing."

This whole discussion is very Kuhnian (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Kuhn says that a paradigm defines, for its practicioners, which questions are valid to ask and are assumed to have answers, and which data is worth paying attention to. So within the 4E paradigm, the valid question is, "What role is Bob the Magus?" The idea that he might not act as a striker/controller/defender/leader never occurs (maybe he's a scout), or that he might fit one of those labels now and another in ten minutes and another tomorrow, or that he might fit two or more simultaneously (5E fighters are strikers + defenders simultaneously). In theory it's possible for individuals to shift paradigms, but in practice the only event which ever leads to community-wide paradigm shift is population shift: for the practicioners of the old paradigm to die out or get drowned out by new arrivals. 4E players will continue seeing 4E-style roles in 5E, probably for the rest of their lives, and any examples that don't fit the paradigm will be shoehorned in anyway ("face" as "controller"?) or dismissed as special cases that don't overturn the general rule that "everyone is a striker/defender/healer/controller."

This isn't a slam on 4E, just what happens to every paradigm. If I had any good examples of another RPG paradigm which was as strong as 4E roles I'd use that example as well.

so where does some one fit who thinks 4e roles where a good start, but missed the rest of the spectrum... someone who would like to discuss combat role/social role/explorative role all being given in a spectrum... like that briggs test thing you are X amount striker and Y amount Defender, you are A amount face and B amount sly trickster. Someone who would rather build and modify the 4e terms (some that he doesn't even like) then bury them and pretend they do not exsist.

 

[MechaPilot]

Fighter-Cleric-Thief-Mage is another; it's a paradigm of party building.

It is the classic D&D party composition, and it's such a paradigm of a party that MMOs probably took the whole Tank-Healer-DPS-CC roles from it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It is the classic D&D party composition, and it's such a paradigm of a party that MMOs probably took the whole Tank-Healer-DPS-CC roles from it.

I am assuming tank and healer are defender/lead, DPS sounds like striker, but what is CC?

(((This remeinds me of the big argument I have over the title tank... a friend who plays MMOs tells me all the time tanks are weak hitting big armor... I always tell him every tank I know of has a really big gun, and when they hit they end the fight.)))