D&D General D&D is a Team Sport. What are the positions?

[Scribe]

Most definitely. We had this to an extent already with 4e roles. For example, the Paladin was a Defender Primary and Leader Secondary.

I think (gut feeling) this is where a lot of the tension exists in terms of design and balance.

We intuitively know that these roles exist, but we (the community) cannot agree or determine if we want it codified and stack ranked, as it then creates a perception of handcuffing how one plays the character.

 

[Pedantic]

* I would, however, love to see some TTRPGs (though not D&D) with more MOBA-like character design. Characters generally have a basic attack, 3 or so basic abilities, a passive ability, and an ultimate. There is a fairly wide range of character-specific mechanics that create a wide variety of playstyles. So MOBAs favor a LARGE cast of playable characters/classes. Moreover, progression often includes, but not always, magic items.

It does still lean in harder than I'd like to a strict combat/non-combat divide. Nothing to say about who does the talking, how scouting works, wilderness travel and so on in MOBAs.

 

[Pedantic]

I think (gut feeling) this is where a lot of the tension exists in terms of design and balance.

We intuitively know that these roles exist, but we (the community) cannot agree or determine if we want it codified and stack ranked, as it then creates a perception of handcuffing how one plays the character.

The most consistently important part of a MOBA team (with some occasional meta variance) is a ranged "carry" character, and everyone else is defined in terms of either protecting, catching, or avoiding them. I'm not sure that would be a popular thing to bring to a TTRPG, even if it does possible drive diversity outside of the role. Tanks vs. Support vs. Mages vs. Assassins are all combinable in different proportions as long as you have a consistent source of damage and a delivery plan for it.

 

[Scribe]

The most consistently important part of a MOBA team (with some occasional meta variance) is a ranged "carry" character, and everyone else is defined in terms of either protecting, catching, or avoiding them. I'm not sure that would be a popular thing to bring to a TTRPG, even if it does possible drive diversity outside of the role. Tanks vs. Support vs. Mages vs. Assassins are all combinable in different proportions as long as you have a consistent source of damage and a delivery plan for it.

A ranged carry is almost always a problem I think. The benefits of being at range, should almost always (I think always but maybe there is a scenario I'm wrong on) be a cap on potential damage/control.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Qwik - Thief, Monk
Slash - Fighter (Dex), Ranger
Drive - Fighter (Str), Paladin
Griffer - Magician, Cleric

 

[Lanefan]

Thanks. Its cool that MOBA is a thing, but I hope its never a D&D thing.

Oh, I dunno - I could easily see a situation where two groups get together for a weekend and have their parties throw down against each other.

 

[Lanefan]

Qwik - Thief, Monk
Slash - Fighter (Dex), Ranger
Drive - Fighter (Str), Paladin
Griffer - Magician, Cleric

You forgot:

Cheerleader and tea-server - Bard, Warlord

 

[Baron Opal II]

There were cheerleaders?

Well, yes, of course there were cheerleaders. There's always cheerleaders.

 

[jmartkdr2]

As I think more on it, I feel that DnD shouldn't really have roles - because if there are roles, those roles need to be filled. And most players I've played with, especially new players, aren't interested in playing whatever the party happens to need. They want to play a character they've made, who fits the narrative tropes they're drawn to, and play that character through a story. Battles are part of the story, but the battles should serve the story, not the other way around. Not even combat as sport; combat as performance. They want to do their cool thing.

Put another way - most people I play with don't want to think about party composition before making their character. They already know what they want to play, or will randomize. That means the game works best when it works with any mix of classes, from the classic four to all artificers. So each pc needs to be flexible enough to fill all the roles until you get into the nitty-gritty.

Ergo, it's quite alright for fighters to be tank-dps-support-control-healers, emphasizing different aspects based on build. Making all fighters tanks will tick off more players than the few who get confused as to what they should do, especially when "attack with your weapon" is always a solid choice.

 

[Scribe]

As I think more on it, I feel that DnD shouldn't really have roles - because if there are roles, those roles need to be filled. And most players I've played with, especially new players, aren't interested in playing whatever the party happens to need. They want to play a character they've made, who fits the narrative tropes they're drawn to, and play that character through a story. Battles are part of the story, but the battles should serve the story, not the other way around. Not even combat as sport; combat as performance. They want to do their cool thing.

And this is the tension.