• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

This is just more of your standard schtick of "I know in the abstract that other gamers exist and I'm happy to make noises acknowledging this - but I don't want to know what they want, how, or why. And I'm going to duck any conversations that might possibly point out the advantages of other modes of play and even when such was extremely well discussed I'm going to ignore it.

Wow, the irony here is beyond belief.
Enjoy your games and delusions.


Both of you, stop posting in this thread. Both of you have been around quite long enough to not make it personal, to address the content of the post, not the person of the poster. But, apparently, neither of you choose to. So, both of you may take a break.

This goes for everyone - Rule #1 is "Keep it civil." We expect you to show respect for your fellow posters. If you get annoyed or heated such that you cannot post without being snarky, snide, condescending, or otherwise a jerk, we expect you to not post until you can be respectful.

I hope that is clear and understandable. If not, e-mail or PM one of the moderators to discuss it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There are no shortages of rocks in D&D either, but me picking one up an carrying it with me is not summoning it.
The point about summoning was about mechanical function, not flavour. A character who has the ability to carry a stone wall around with him/her and drop it at will onto the battlefield will play, functionally, like a wizard casting Wall of Stone, even though the flavour is different.

That is what 4e's roles are labels for, and is the idea in play when someone asks "What are the roles now?" They're not about flavour - they're about mechanical function.

So a ranger with a pet is what you consider a traditional "controller" role?
Depending on how the pet plays, yes. You mentioned Evard's Black Tentacles upthread as a controller effect - if I put the tentacles onto the battlefield by deploying my charmed froghemoth, or by deploying my pet one, it doesn't change the function that I am playing.

Or a Paladin with his or her mount?
No. The mount (typically) doesn't add anything but improved mobility.
 

No, you are just changing your tune now.

You specially said "As was well discussed in the magazines of the time, you also didn't play a magic-user to play a Gandalf-like character. Gandalf was more often modelled as a cleric"

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?408712-What-are-the-Roles-now/page140#ixzz3TMiflls2

What you actually said WILDLY mischaracterized the history of the game as played.
This has mostly been responded to by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] above. (Except that my main game was Rolemaster rather than Runequest, which I played a bit but not a lot.)

There are multiple histories of "the game". What "the game" was was a matter of discussion, and contestation. If you count building a fireball-casting, tentacles-summoning wizard as "modelling Gandalf" then you'll see things one way. But I don't, so I see things another way. It takes more than assertion to make something a model of a fictional character (as [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] explains with some examples from actual play).
 

Truth be told D&D doesn't model MOST fiction well.
On this, I think it depends what you mean by "model fiction".

My own experience, plus a bit of reading around, suggests that it is very hard for RPGing to deliver the overall narrative pacing of a novel, play or movie. The following is from Robin Laws' "Hamlet's Hit Points" (p 12):

Theater and film, including off-shoots like radio and TV drama, serve as our strongest models for the RPG experience. Their emphasis on dialogue and external action makes their techniques ripest for our looting purposes. However, texts for playwrights and screenwriters don’t necessarily focus on our issues. Screenwriting manuals tend to focus on structure . . .

The improvised, collaborative nature of the [RPG] experience frees us from the tyranny of structure. We not only forgive messiness, we expect and demand it. Without it, players fear a loss of control to an overbearing uber-narrator. If, as GM, you can occasionally build on a previous moment in an unexpected way, cut out a few boring bits, and have something big and exciting happen near the end of a session, you seem like a genius of structure.

With loose structure being the norm, we can instead turn our attention to the moment-to-moment transitions inside a play, film, or television episode.​

When it comes to those moment-to-moment transitions I think it is possible for RPGing to resemble fiction.

And when it comes to character motivations, and the ways in which characters drive the fictional events, I think it is possible for RPGs to resemble fiction. A character like Conan poses a degree of challenge because he is so close to being infallible and invulnerable - but in 4e one way to have a go at it would be a high-Heroic to mid-Paragon STR/DEX fighter with a barbarian or warlord mutli-class.

But modelling the sorts of events that occur in a Conan story isn't that hard - I've had PCs defeated by magical enemies and regain consciousness in dungeon cells (a la "The Scarlet Citadel"), and not too long ago I ran a Burning Wheel session with a wizard's tower inspired loosely by "Tower of the Elephant".

I think the most important techniques for making RPGing more closely resemble fantasy fiction are (i) avoiding hard fails, (ii) emphasising situation/conflict rather than exploration of the GM's world, and (iii) building that conflict around the PCs' concerns, rather than imposing purely external, merely procedural adversity.
 

Fiction happens. D&D puts you in the role of the character, and too much power and ability would take away challenge and over-shadow other players unless they also get as much. D&D, as much as it does let you become like Conan or Hercules, or Merlin or Gandalf, it does better for an ordinary man who becomes a hero.
 



In which case I think that, in general, it is quite easy for an RPG to model specific characters from fiction.

RPGs, if you shop around for the right one, maybe. But in general D&D doesn't really allow for recreating characters without a lot of bending... I find that filling the concept with some modifications works best.
 

In which case I think that, in general, it is quite easy for an RPG to model specific characters from fiction.

...but not the events which happen to those characters. For example, Harry Dresden almost gets killed in almost every book. Someone always warns him just in time to dodge, or jerks him away, it spots the baddie before he gets Harry. It's a function of the narrative, but in game terms each one of them is a hefty chance of instant death (call it 50% each book) which is part of what makes the book exciting... bit if you try that in game terms, you'll go through 2^20 ~= 1,000,000 Harry clones before one of them manages to compete the whole plotline.

5E dealt with this problem by removing save-or-die from the game in favor of HP attrition.

(Yes, I realize that some people like to play HP as abstract luck points or something, and would consider those close calls to be simple HP ablation. I discount that model because it's incoherent--so, doesn't count as "modeling" anything--but YMMV.)
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top