Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9743918" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Perhaps not; but it is a general truism in game design that, unless you specifically go out of your way to make support very enjoyable or very powerful (the two are not the same), people will prefer to play direct-action roles, even if they would otherwise like playing supportive roles.This, too, is an area where MMO design gives us really useful data. It is essentially always the case that "DPS" characters outnumber non-DPS characters by a substantial margin. Even in games which allow players to play every role and flexibly move between them, like FFXIV, it is still nearly always the case that damage-focused players outweigh defense- or support-focused characters. To put this in perspective, FFXIV has "duty roulettes" which allow the player to sign up for being randomly assigned to duties (dungeons, raids, etc.) that they have access to. These give various rewards, and those rewards are meaningfully increased if the player chooses to play whatever role was recently "in need". So, for example, if the last time the system checked, healers weren't common enough for a particular roulette type, then players who queue as healers will get various small but meaningful bonuses.Having played for many years, I can tell you that the data clearly supports a ratio of something like 1<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/2.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2:" title="Two    :2:" data-shortname=":2:" />4 of tank:healer:damage, because those which have a lower ratio of damage-dealers essentially never have DPS as the role "in need" (e.g. FFXIV dungeons require 1 tank, 1 healer, 2 DPS, and seeing dungeon roulettes with DPS in need is incredibly rare), while those with a higher ratio of 1<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/2.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2:" title="Two    :2:" data-shortname=":2:" />5 frequently do end up having DPS in need even when no other roulette does.My point in bringing up these specific numbers from a specific game is not to say that D&D absolutely has this exact precise setup. It's simply to show that, in the absence of design specifically made to make supportive or defensive roles compelling, people default to blowing things up. Doesn't matter if good tanking or good healing are incredibly valuable; people prefer being the ones who actively conclude situations, not the ones who support others ending situations, unless you make support genuinely engaging and exciting in and of itself.That, in particular, is one of the greatest benefits of 4e's roles. By having classes designed for roles, we can actually do the testing required to be sure that fulfilling that role as that class is, in and of itself, an enjoyable gameplay experience, in addition to the other components of the experience. Now, being an enjoyable gameplay experience absolutely is not the only thing that matters for TTRPG class design--far from it!--but I think we can lay a number of design flaws in both 5.0 and 5.5e at the feet of neglecting that element. Because...like...I genuinely can't think of any other reason that the Berserker Frenzy => Exhaustion mechanic from 5.0 would ever have survived. Because it sucked. It was really actively anti-fun to play. It was very thematic, someone burning their candle at both ends to eke out as much damage as possible. And, in general, high thematic rigor is extremely important! But it's pretty clearly an example of putting thematic rigor ahead of...y'know...fun (or even functional...) gameplay.</blockquote>

Verification