Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5825655" data-attributes="member: 70707">I think the problem with using all those examples is that they are not PCs in an RPG campaign where they are co-equal protagonists with 4 other people.&nbsp; Many of them are simply too broad, and have little need for relying on anyone else on a regular basis.How many Wizards in the literature (outside of D&amp;D books) actually cleanly fit into the D&amp;D Wizard?I think the problem you are having is 4E's assignment of Fighters to the Defender role.&nbsp; But &quot;Defender&quot; is not a traditional literary protagonist.&nbsp; The guys with heavy armor and shields are the supporting characters.&nbsp; But the same is true of magic-users.&nbsp; Spell casters are traditionally aloof allies of the protagonists (Gandalf) or villains (pervasive in Sword and Sorcery).&nbsp; And how many stories are there whose main characters who's primary defining feature is healing and buffing others?&nbsp; Only Strikers come close to directly mapping most literary figures.But none of that is a problem.&nbsp; Because RPGs are not simulations of novels.&nbsp; That's kind of where they started, but we've been moving away from that for a long time, and for the better.&nbsp; It's like when movie directors figured out that movies could be more than recorded plays.&nbsp; It's a different medium, and different rules apply.And foremost is that whereas most novels have a single primary protagonist (even if there are many other &quot;main&quot; characters), an RPG group is likely to have 4 or 5, or more, people all playing characters, with equal expectation of being &quot;the protagonist&quot;.&nbsp; Which means that the &quot;role&quot; a literary protagonist occupies, really needs to be split up among those players.When the hero of a book nimbly dodges a blow?&nbsp; That's the Defender taking a hit so the Striker doesn't have to.&nbsp; When the hero lands a well-aimed strike to fell his enemy, that's the Striker landing a critical sneak attack.So what this ultimately means is that, yes, all those literary characters aren't &quot;D&amp;D Fighters&quot;.&nbsp; But they also aren't &quot;D&amp;D Rangers&quot;.&nbsp; Or &quot;D&amp;D Rogues&quot;.&nbsp; Or &quot;D&amp;D Warlords&quot;.&nbsp; They're not &quot;D&amp;D anything&quot; because they simply aren't D&amp;D characters.&nbsp; They exist in a context that is simply, fundamentally, different from RPGs.&nbsp; And I don't think we should be expecting them to &quot;map over&quot;.The 4E Fighter design is a good one.&nbsp; It has it's strong points, and its weak points.&nbsp; The 4E Ranger design is a good one.&nbsp; It has different strong points, and different weak points.&nbsp; An Archery Fighter doesn't exist in 4E, because a 4E Fighter is a Defender, and a Ranged Defender doesn't make much sense.&nbsp; And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5825655, member: 70707"] I think the problem with using all those examples is that they are not PCs in an RPG campaign where they are co-equal protagonists with 4 other people. Many of them are simply too broad, and have little need for relying on anyone else on a regular basis. How many Wizards in the literature (outside of D&D books) actually cleanly fit into the D&D Wizard? I think the problem you are having is 4E's assignment of Fighters to the Defender role. But "Defender" is not a traditional literary protagonist. The guys with heavy armor and shields are the supporting characters. But the same is true of magic-users. Spell casters are traditionally aloof allies of the protagonists (Gandalf) or villains (pervasive in Sword and Sorcery). And how many stories are there whose main characters who's primary defining feature is healing and buffing others? Only Strikers come close to directly mapping most literary figures. But none of that is a problem. Because RPGs are not simulations of novels. That's kind of where they started, but we've been moving away from that for a long time, and for the better. It's like when movie directors figured out that movies could be more than recorded plays. It's a different medium, and different rules apply. And foremost is that whereas most novels have a single primary protagonist (even if there are many other "main" characters), an RPG group is likely to have 4 or 5, or more, people all playing characters, with equal expectation of being "the protagonist". Which means that the "role" a literary protagonist occupies, really needs to be split up among those players. When the hero of a book nimbly dodges a blow? That's the Defender taking a hit so the Striker doesn't have to. When the hero lands a well-aimed strike to fell his enemy, that's the Striker landing a critical sneak attack. So what this ultimately means is that, yes, all those literary characters aren't "D&D Fighters". But they also aren't "D&D Rangers". Or "D&D Rogues". Or "D&D Warlords". They're not "D&D [i]anything[/i]" because they simply aren't D&D characters. They exist in a context that is simply, fundamentally, different from RPGs. And I don't think we should be expecting them to "map over". The 4E Fighter design is a good one. It has it's strong points, and its weak points. The 4E Ranger design is a good one. It has different strong points, and different weak points. An Archery Fighter doesn't exist in 4E, because a 4E Fighter is a Defender, and a Ranged Defender doesn't make much sense. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. [/QUOTE]

Verification