D&D 5E Drop the rotating spotlight model of niche protection for 5e

[Dragonblade]

I was reading a fascinating discussion on RPG.net about 5e and two points were made that really struck me as being particularly insightful. The first has to do with the deconstruction of the entire concept of niche protection in terms of the two core game elements that all RPGs have to deal with: Combat and Non-Combat.

In most RPGs, including editions 1e-3e, the designers often subscribed to what can best be described as the "spotlight" method of enforcing the concept of niche protection. For example, you have the Fighter. The Fighter is good at combat. Because combat is their niche, most of their class abilities are geared around combat. The fighter player's spotlight is shined on them in combat. But their focus on combat is "balanced" by giving them a paltry 2 skill points. Then you have say the Rogue. The Rogue is the sneak, the skill monkey. That is their niche and that is when their spotlight gets put on them. They are "balanced" by being less effective than the Fighter in combat. Then you have the caster. They get to do the supernatural stuff. They solve problems with magic. Different casters are better at solving different problems with different magical types.

So in the spotlight method of niche protection, the game encourages the DM to shine the spotlight on different players during different parts of the game. So mix in a little combat and the melee types get to shine. Mix in some diplomatic scenes or some exploration and trap disarming and the skill monkey gets to shine. Throw in some magic based problems and the casters get to shine. Also in the spotlight method of niche protection, combat skils and abilities are often balanced by a lack of non-combat abilities and skills.

Well, this approach has become so ingrained that its incorporated in almost all mainstream RPGs, and in D&D. And I think most gamers pretty much take it for granted.

But there is a flaw in this approach. The flaw is that getting equal spotlight time is very dependent on how well the DM, the adventure itself, and the players can smoothly shift the spotlight fairly. A combat heavy DM is going to frequently have a bored skill monkey player. Likewise, a fighter shines in combat, but in a session filled with intense RP and skill checks, they might as well go play Nintendo.

Now this isn't true in all cases. Some fighter players love RP during non-combat scenes. But from a mechanics standpoint, the game offers little incentive for them to contribute. Whereas the Rogue is mechanically built to excel at contributing in a skill based scene.

Combat and non-combat abilities are balanced against each other in this style of RPG design. If you have a high attack bonus you get fewer skills. The game mechanics reinforce the shifting spotlight method. You shine in combat, but suck everywhere else. Or vice versa.

Well, 4e tried to do something radically different. 4e took the spotlight notion as it pertained to combat and threw it out the door. It said lets dump the rotating spotlight queue model and lets give all classes equal opportunity to shine in combat at all times. In 4e ALL classes have mechanics that allow them to contribute meaningfully in combat. This was a fantastic model and a very innovative approach.

BUT (and this is a BIG BUT), where 4e fell short was that this focus on fixing the combat side, came at the near total neglect of the non-combat side of the game.

For groups where a large percentage of their gaming enjoyment is based around rich tactical combat, 4e is a natural fit. For groups that like to focus more on storytelling, intense RP, exploration, or other non-combat areas, there aren't any mechanical tools to work with, other than skill challenges.

This is a problem. It led to some players feeling like 4e lacked the RP depth of other editions. I think it pretty much offered the same depth in RP as other editions, but let me offer an analogy. Its like you have two light bulbs right next to each other. One is slightly brighter than the other one. But now you replace the brighter one with a super ridiculous halogen bulb. Sure the other dimmer bulb is still there, but the new bulb is so ridiculously bright that its really all you can see. And some people have to avert their eyes and can't look at it at all.

So what I'd like to see 5e do, is not to revert back to the rotating spotlight model, but to finish what 4e started. Take out that dim RP bulb and give it a super bright halogen replacement as well. Flesh out and develop mechanically the non-combat side of the game. Provide mechanics that encourage and foster RP, exploration, and other dramatic non-combat scenes. And not just with skill challenges and skills. But actual cool mechanical things that PCs can just flat out do if they have invested in the appropriate Talent tree or whatever.

Instead of Rogue's making a Disguise check, maybe develop a whole Disguise Talent tree with cool abilities they can unlock as they level up. By level 10, the PC can pick up the Mimic Speech Talent and can mimic perfectly any voice they have ever heard. Or there could be a Glib Tongue Talent, where once per day they can create a Charm Person effect on any NPC just by talking to them. And so on and so forth.

In Mike Mearls L&L article he talked about skill tricks, where at high level you can take a trick to run a certain distance across a wall without falling. Or maybe there is a Speech Talent for paladins called Moving Oratory, where once per day any NPC who is friendly towards you and listens to you make a speech is shifted to Fanatically Loyal from Friendly. Before they would have merely followed you into battle, now they will take an arrow for you and believe they will go to heaven for doing so. Perhaps integrate something like this into new high level kingdom management rules.

Just make a diverse selection of non-combat oriented Talents, feats, or abilities that PCs can take. Perhaps a social combat system. Basically make non-combat matter from a robust and detailed mechanical sense. Sure make it modular so people can add or remove what they like or don't like from it and make it less or more crunchy as desired.

But here is the key: Don't just balance non-combat abilities with combat abilities. That just gets back to the whole rotating spotlight issue. Don't make the Fighter excel in melee but suck in non-combat.

Give every class their own distinct array of non-combat talents that allow them to contribute meaningfully and mechanically outside of combat.

Somebody on EN World once posted a system where every PC essentially took two classes. A combat class and a social or non-combat class. I don't remember who it was, but it was a brilliant idea. So you could be a Fighter Explorer, or a Fighter Diplomat. Or a Wizard Explorer, or whatever.

For those players and groups that can't stand the notion of all players contributing meaningfully both in and out of combat, and really want the rotating spotlight model, then design it so that your non-combat and your combat class can standalone. So you don't have to pick one of each if you don't want to and can just pick a non-combat class or a combat class.

Anyway, it doesn't have to be a two class system like that, but I'd like to see a 5e where one's PC can always meaningfully contribute to the game in a mechanical manner regardless of whether the focus of the game is on combat or exploration, or diplomacy, or whatever.

 

[Nivenus]

I support this idea wholeheartedly, in principle.

The only problem is that non-combat encounters really can work one of two ways: as social encounters or as part of exploring an area. The two are really, when you come down to it, dissimilar in every way except that they generally rely heavy on non-combat skills. A person who's an excellent scout isn't necessarily going to be great at negotiating with foreign dignitaries and vice versa - once again you're back where you started.

What D&D Next needs to do if it wants to get rid of the "spotlight" you're talking about is make each class relevant not only to both combat and non-combat, but to both exploration and social encounters within the non-combat sphere. So a fighter should have something to do not only when they're hitting an orc with a sword or when the party needs to trudge through a thick forest but also when the party is hired to solve the murder of three mages in Silverymoon.

I believe that the Legends & Lore column actually touched on this one point, by breaking the game down into three essential components: combat, exploration, and roleplay (what I'm calling social encounters). So it may be that Cooke, Mearls, and company are indeed thinking about this.

 

[Number48]

That 2-class model was me. This is it.

I can't think of anyone who doesn't want to contribute in combat. I've seen some people who don't want to participate in non-combat meaningfully and some can be coaxed into the light but some can't.

I think the idea is give everyone an equivalent (not necessarily equal) combat function and an equivalent (not necessarily equal) non-combat function. For non-combat, it would most be group effort to accomplish something with everyone contributing but in their own way. Just like characters fight in different ways. Then occasionally, maybe 20% of non-combat encounters plus or minus depending on group, there will be a "niche" encounter allowing one character to really shine out. "Who da diplomat? I'm da diplomat!" Combat, however, is so involved that you can't really have one character shine out. Sure, a fire wizard can really shine against those ice elementals, but not everybody is so focused. The one way I think the hulking brute fighter concept might shine is actually a non-combat encounter that seems like combat. This is a great trope and the game should encourage this possibility mechanically. The big guy takes out the lone guard with a single punch, letting the group continue sneaking past.

So, I say keep the rotating spotlight. But only for noncombat and only not too often. After all, when everyone shines equally, that's the same as nobody shining at all.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why not just ignore the idea of "niche protection" altogether?

Realistically, the usefulness or power of a specific character is always going to be far more dependent on the player and the DM than on how many skill points or combat bonuses the character has.

Furthermore, why limit characters to a specific focus at all? One of the major deficiencies of the 3.X skill system was cross-class skills; you were punished for playing off-type. Why not just let anyone pursue whatever they want (rather than making them a diplomat/scout/etc. as their second class)?

but I'd like to see a 5e where one's PC can always meaningfully contribute to the game in a mechanical manner regardless of whether the focus of the game is on combat or exploration, or diplomacy, or whatever.

I certainly don't expect my characters to contribute in every situation or even in every style of game. If I'm playing a game where my PCs investigate murders, I tell them to make investigators, if we're playing a game at sea, I tell them to make sailors. If they make characters that don't fit the style of the game, they're not going to work. Frankly this is one of those things that I think is an issue at the table more than in the design of the game rules.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I can't think of anyone who doesn't want to contribute in combat. I've seen some people who don't want to participate in non-combat meaningfully and some can be coaxed into the light but some can't.

Say what?

I've probably played with a couple dozen people for an extended period of time, and I'd say that somewhere between a third and a half of them don't care much about combat at all and tend to just ask others what to do during battles without bothering to learn how to fight effectively, basically letting others play their character for them.

I've seen a smaller but significant group that doesn't want to do the out-of-combat mechanical stuff, generally a subgroup of the first bunch-these are the people that are just there to learn or because their friends are doing it, the wallflower types.

Obviously, we've played with very different people.

Frankly I think the variety of character types possible under classic D&D assumptions pretty accurately reflects the variety of player types.

 

[Number48]

I certainly don't expect my characters to contribute in every situation or even in every style of game. If I'm playing a game where my PCs investigate murders, I tell them to make investigators, if we're playing a game at sea, I tell them to make sailors. If they make characters that don't fit the style of the game, they're not going to work. Frankly this is one of those things that I think is an issue at the table more than in the design of the game rules.

I don't run adventures as one-and-out. In fact, a few years ago I had a group that investigated a murder and later had to pilot a ship! I actually wished I'd had non-combat roles in the game. The investigator could've taken the lead in the one, and the pirate could've taken the lead in the other.

 

[FireLance]

The problem with non-combat classes is that non-combat challenges are very broad. If you have an Explorer, a Diplomat and an Investigator, you are back to the rotating spotlight again, depending on whether the non-combat challenge is crossing the wilderness, negotiation, or solving a mystery.

I think there needs to be more granularity with respect to non-combat challenges, beyond the two mentioned (exploration and roleplay). I would divide them up into Persuade, Move, Learn and Survive. I think the key is to ensure that every character has some way to contribute in each of these areas.

EDIT: I managed to find an old post of mine on the subject (in SBLOCK).

[SBLOCK]Before I delve more deeply into the subject, I'd like to run through some of the terminology I'll be using:

A category is a broad grouping of non-combat challenges that are related in some way.

An element is a specific way in which skills and other non-combat abilities can be used in challenges of that category, or specific types of challenges in that category. A typical non-combat challenge would comprise one or more elements.

Sub-challenges are ways in which elements of other categories can be used in a non-combat challenge. This can be useful for DMs who want to allow a broader variety of non-combat abilities to contribute to overcoming a specific challenge.​

As mentioned, I think there are four broad categories of non-combat challenges: Learn challenges, Move challenges, Survive challenges and Persuade challenges.

Learn Challenges

Learn challenges typically involve finding an object, a creature, or a piece of information. Learn challenges can be broadened to include more than one PC by requiring successful checks in a variety of skills to obtain a complete picture. Learn challenges are also very easy to incorporate as sub-challenges in the other categories - almost any task can be made easier with the right information, or by finding something or someone helpful nearby.

Elements
Knowledge: Whether a PC already knows the necessary information.
Observation: Whether a PC notices something hidden or discerns an NPC's intent.
Tracking: Discovering the location of a creature or object through observing physical clues.
Research: Creating or discovering new information. This may be broadened to include invention or solving puzzles.
Learn challenges can even be broadened to include any application of PC knowledge or skill, including performing rituals, working at a profession, or crafting an object.

Sub-Challenges
Move challenges may be made part of a larger Learn challenge if being in a particular location makes it easier (or is necessary) for the PCs to observe or discover something.
Survive challenges may feature in a Learn challenge if some information may only be discovered in a dangerous location.
Persuade challenges may be part of a Learn challenge if the knowledge sought by the PCs is possessed by an NPC.​

Move Challenges

Move challenges typically involve getting to a location. Move challenges can be easily broadened to include two or more PCs if they are all required to be in a particular place. Move challenges can be incorporated as sub-challenges in the other categories if being in a specific location confers some advantage on the PCs.

Elements
Obstacle Course: The PCs are required to traverse obstacles to reach their destination. This could involve climbing, jumping, swimming, balancing, and even opening locks.
Sneak: The PCs must evade discovery while travelling.
Handle Transport: The PCs are required to pilot a vehicle, control a mount, activate a portal, or use some other means of transport. This is one simple way to add sub-challenges to a Move challenge.
Race/Chase: The PCs must arrive at a location before another party or continuously stay ahead of them.
Move challenges can be broadened to include moving objects or creatures instead of or in addition to the PCs, e.g. clearing a pile of stones, or guiding a group of pilgrims.

Sub-Challenges
Learn challenges may be made part of a larger Move challenge if the PCs can find a short cut, an easier way to travel or similar objects or information that would be useful to them.
Survive challenges may feature in a Move challenge if the PCs are required to travel through a dangerous area.
Persuade challenges may be part of a Move challenge if the PCs are required to handle mounts, convice NPCs to allow them to pass, or if they are required to move NPCs.​

Survive Challenges

Survive challenges typically involve the PCs being in danger until the challenge is overcome. Survive challenges can be easily broadened to include two or more PCs if the danger affects them all. Survive challenges can be incorporated as sub-challenges in order to increase the level of danger to the PCs, or as optional components that would give the PCs an advantage if they overcome the Survive challenge.

Elements
Trap: This is probably the classic Survive challenge.
Environment: Dangerous weather, natural disasters, extremes of temperature, poisonous gases, inimical energies and other hazards.
Health: Recovering from diseases, long-term poisons, curses and other afflictions.
Survive challenges can be broadened to include protecting or helping objects or creatures, or removing a potential danger even if it is currently passive, e.g. negating a ritual which will summon a demon.

Sub-Challenges
Learn challenges may be made part of a larger Survive challenge by giving the PCs advance warning of the danger, knowledge of how to counter it, something they can use to mitigate the threat, or similarly useful objects or information.
Move challenges may feature in a Survive challenge if they allow the PCs to reach a safe area.
Persuade challenges may be part of a Survive challenge if an NPC is able to help the PCs.​

Persuade Challenges

Persuade challenges tend to be quite specific as they involve interaction with an NPC. When broadening Persuade challenges to require more than one PC, it is probably better to use sub-challenges unless there is a plausible reason why a particular mode of persuasion will not work on the NPC beyond a certain point. Persuade challenges can be incorporated as sub-challenges if the PCs need to interact with NPCs for any reason.

Elements
Although there may be a number of modes of persuasion, the end objective of such challenges tend to be very similar. Persuasion challenges can be broadened to include handling animals and other creatures, or mediating between two or more parties.

Sub-Challenges
Learn challenges may be made part of a larger Persuade challenge by allowing the PCs to discover an NPC's preferences, state of mind, and other facts that would be useful to them.
Move challenges may feature in a Persuade challenge if success entertains or intimidates an NPC.
Survive challenges may be part of a Persuade challenge if the PCs are able to help the NPC or someone that he cares about.​

[/SBLOCK]

 

[MarkChevallier]

I'm very much in favour of the rotating spotlight niche protection model (bit of a mouthful!) I'm for it for several main reasons:

1. Players are different, and enjoy different things. Some people don't enjoy combat. Some people don't enjoy noncombat. Some people always want to have reliable options. Some people enjoy finding solutions to problems with limited and perhaps inappropriate resources. Most people are a mix of these, at one time or another. For every inclination, there's a class which can best serve those needs.
2. It creates variety in game pacing. The party doesn't have to stick together like glue out of fear that someone will get more "shine" time. Shine will come to everyone, in time.
3. It creates variety in game mechanics and means specific balance in specific areas (combat, say) doesn't have to be razor sharp. This is important, because balance in specific areas is never razor sharp. 4E came closest, but a hundred pages of errata will tell you that they didn't get it right.

On the other hand, you are completely correct to say that it requires a more skilled GM to pull off the demarcation model. There's no easy way around this, but I think it leads to much richer and more varied game. Short of strong advice in the DMG (or equivalent), there's not much to be done about this.


Giving the GM the reins, and saying, the balance of spotlight time in your game is mostly up to you, not mostly up to the mechanical treatment of combat or noncombat rules, is a step backwards in edition terms - but it's one of those steps backwards that's actually a step forwards, in that I think it'd lead to concrete benefits for the game.

 

[billd91]

I don't see how any of this, though the idea of picking 2 classlets (combat orientation, non-combat orientation or somesuch nomenclature) is interesting, really fixes or necessarily addresses the idea of niche protection and spotlight rotation. Any time you have differentiated abilities, you'll have some form of spotlight protection.

Let's say that for non-combatant classlets, your players pick Faceman (high social skills), Trapster (trap finding and neutralization), Bookworm (knowledge skills), WildGuide (wilderness skills). Unless everybody is as invested in everybody else's skills, you will have each one wanting spotlight time for his or her chosen specialty. Any time you have these choices, you get spotlight rotational needs.

The other alternative is to allow everybody to use whatever they want in every situation, whether or not it makes sense. Assuming everybody is invested in a fight may be relatively easy. But assuming that the WildGuide wants to help Faceman negotiate with the Duke may be less true. And if he's got some gruff loner tendencies, it may even be counter productive.

 

[rounser]

From what I've seen of the results, approaching design from a metagame perspective and trying to kludge on archetypes/"fluff" as an afterthought is likely to result in gamist dross that is at risk of disappearing up it's own behind and mapping to little in even a fantasy reality.

That's what you're in danger of doing here. And in doing so, you completely remove the reason for playing D&D to begin with, which is suspension of disbelief for playing in a fantasy world.

Simple example - I want to play a wizard, and already you've complicated that with jargon nonsense so he's no longer a Wizard, but a Wizard-Explorer. Not a good start. Then you toss fantasy archetypes out the window because they'd play better this way, and pretty soon you're in 4E territory, inventing healing surges. Nuh uh, we've been there and seen what's down that path; no more please. Or at least don't put it under the name "D&D".

 

[hanez]

I couldn't disagree more. If 5e follows this theory I will be able to smell it in the first 40 pages and put it back down right in the store.

Some points:

You forgot to mention how making classes equally effective in combat regardless of niche made them feel the same. Didn't see how you're going to overcome this without having niches either


Your post also assumes players want to all be equally effective at combat and non combat. Players pre 4e have always been able to set their combat effectiveness and there non combat effectiveness according to their own wishes. Skills, Feats, Items and Spells can be chosen on the players desire.

Let Burselbutt (my gnome bard) keep collecting non combat feats and spells so when he has to charm a King, thats his time to shine. And Taku (my brothers barbarian) well he can keep picking powers to rip orcs heads off if thats what he likes. Bursellbutt and Taku don't need you telling them they need to select powers from a variety of sources so they dont have a niche.

Some theives like to focus on being skillmonkeys and sneakers, how are you going to satisfy them by shoving combat powers down their throat?

What Im trying to say is it sounds like you want to TAKE AWAY my ability to focus on non combat at the expense of combat. You also wants to take away someone elses ability to focus on combat at the expense of non combat

No edition was perfect. The fighter should be able to boost his non combat area if he wishes. But pushing everyone into a rigid power structure where everyone is equally good in all areas will not make the game more fun for me or my group.

Anyways, we all ready tried that. I thought the only reason Im in this forum is that they gave up on telling me how I am supposed to play my character?

Frankly I'm still astounded at WOTCs actions. This is akin to turning monopoly into the game of life, or adding complicated and more granular mechanics to risk to make it "more realistic". Your trying to change the very CORE of what d&d IS and means to player. Stop What your arguing for sounds like a very fun and interesting game, but its in many ways opposed to D&D. They should try it out as something else, it might gain in popularity, it might replace D&D. But calling it D&D is just brand destruction.

D&D needs updates, twists, ever more elegant rules, new ideas and rebalancing. What it doesn't need is people changing what it means to be a fighter, or a theif or a wizard.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I thought the only reason Im in this forum is that they gave up on telling me how I am supposed to play my character?

We're all holding our breath on that one.

D&D needs updates, twists, ever more elegant rules, new ideas and rebalancing. What it doesn't need is people changing what it means to be a fighter, or a theif or a wizard.

No, it certainly doesn't.

 

[Hussar]

What Im trying to say is it sounds like you want to TAKE AWAY my ability to focus on non combat at the expense of combat. You also wants to take away someone elses ability to focus on combat at the expense of non combat

Yes, absolutely. Why should your choice of class force you into a specific focus? Why can't I have a diplomatic fighter or a combat wizard? You say that players will choose where there focus is. And that's true. However, by choosing that focus, you pretty much close down the option of choosing any other archetype.

The idea that class=archetype is something that I hope goes into one of the modules WOTC talks about and I can safely drop it in the ocean in my game. If you want strong archetypes based on class, with rotating spotlight, that absolutely should be an option.

However, it also absolutely should be an option and not a pre-defined way to play the game.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Yes, absolutely. Why should your choice of class force you into a specific focus? Why can't I have a diplomatic fighter or a combat wizard? You say that players will choose where there focus is. And that's true. However, by choosing that focus, you pretty much close down the option of choosing any other archetype.

The idea that class=archetype is something that I hope goes into one of the modules WOTC talks about and I can safely drop it in the ocean in my game. If you want strong archetypes based on class, with rotating spotlight, that absolutely should be an option.

However, it also absolutely should be an option and not a pre-defined way to play the game.

Your last statements leave no room to argue. SHAME!

Really though I see what you mean. I guess the difference is which is the focus of the character first and foremost. Being a fighter, or being a diplomat? The idea being both should be achievable to some extent from each direction.

A fighter who has a knack for words or a diplomat who has some skill with a blade!

I want BOTH.

 

[Hussar]

Slydoubt- well, thinking about it, does it really matter how you achieve that end point, so long as the end point is reached. So long as you get the "talky fighter", how you reach that isn't so important.

What I could envision is an extremely basic outline for classes. Each class would be a collection of themed abilities, probably mostly combat oriented, similar to what classes have been all the way along. That gives you your basic vehicle for your character in the game.

For those who don't care about the talky bits, or want to free-form the talky bits (a la AD&D), that's probably good enough.

Layer on another module and you get stronger archetypes. This is where you'd get the "sub classes" (although that's a bit of an older term) where each of the basic archetypes get a layered set of changes to create a more traditional strong archetype class.

Or, go to a different module, where the basic chassis is layered with a thematic concept that isn't tied to specific flavor. Thus a "diplomatic fighter" could be virtually any flavor concept from knight or commander or pirate or whatnot, but, will be mechanically fairly similar regardless of the specific concept.

Something like that anyway.

 

[rounser]

However, it also absolutely should be an option and not a pre-defined way to play the game.

Based on what D&D has been for every edition prior to 4E (and the latter days of 3.5 which led to 4E e.g. mystic theurge and other contrived classes with no archetype), I think to avoid needless complication maybe it may be time to look elsewhere for your fantasy RPG needs? In D&D done properly, class and archetype are synonymous. Deviating from that leads to meaningless class names and archetypeless classes like the mystic theurge or warlord, which are thematically rudderless, and dilute D&D's reflection of the fantasy genre.

Enough of that, I reckon. Maybe stick with 4E if that's your bag.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I mentioned in another thread a possible way I could see D&DNext working out. I do not see the Basic version of the game giving the customization some of you are looking for at the start, but I do think that it may become available in a latter "Advanced" module.

Consider this: The basic rules would predetermine your social and exploratory roles without expanding to much on them. The advanced module would tell you that the Fighter is an Intimidating Athlete, the Wizard a Impressive Scholar, the Rogue a Glib Explorer, the Cleric a Diplomatic Hierophant, etc. It would also go in to how to change and alter these roles.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Some gamers seem fairly opposed to the idea of "classlets" (coined by Billd91) and I do agree that it can take focus off the pure archetype. However there is no need to multiclass every single concept. The explorer part of Explorer Wizard is simply a preselected package of skills. In 3ed this was already possible (yet expensive). It is not necessary to mention this in the class entry on the record sheet but I really want the option to pick role.

Now, I think it's important to remember that all players do not long for the spotlight. Some players want a lot of attention, some are content with a little and a fair share of players rather stay out of the spotlight alltogether.

A player who choses to be a Faceman craves attention and is pretty likely to engage in entertaining debates with the DM when trying to convince guards to let him through or interrogating prisoners.

An Explorer still wants some attention but in a more toned down manner. An explorer player constantly interviews the DM about details. Since objects won't talk back explorer is a good niche for a player who wants to do things but aren't exactly comfortable in a showy environment.

Another player doesn't want attention during the actual game but likes to enjoy status from some facts established about the character early on. A Status player is likely to describe the character and its' titles in great detail (monologue) and from then on remain rather silent.

The fourth niche is for the player that doesn't want to talk or be seen at all. They tend to be mysterious yet resourceful. Some players are willing to trade all attention for the ability to be the last character standing.

I'd like to present four roles/niches/classlets/skillsets or whatever you like to call them:

Dungeon: explore skills, lock picking, trap disabling. In short, capabilities that allow the player to role-play in a matter of factly way by pose questions to the DM about the environment. [interview]

Urban: social skills, bluff intimidate, haggle. A player who wants a dialogue with the DM. Perhaps die rolls are out of the question and these skills should be govered by some other mechanic, such as Vampire hand signals. [dialogue]

Organized: knowledge skills, secrets, contacts. A player who likes to, now and again, get up on a soap box and talk uninterrupted about themselves and known facts. [monologue]

Wilderness: survival, awareness, animal handling. Players who are shy or otherwise not interested in talking likes to be hard to kill. [interviewee]

I forgot! There is the fifth type of the joker too. Some players like to be utterly unpredictable and spring surprises upon the other players and the DM alike. They like to shout something completely inappropriate and the get away with it scot-free. Use Magic Device is an important skill to these guys.

 

[Li Shenron]

I want to point out a few things, even if I understand that these will sound like a strenuous defense of 3ed... I apologize, but 3ed is the only D&D system I used to know really well after all I don't want this to sound against any other edition, just because it is based on saying something good of one edition in particular.

1) I have no problems with rotating spotlight. That's exactly what "roles" mean to me, so if I play a roleplaygame, that's what I am expecting from it: different characters shining at different things. It doesn't bother me the least.

2) From what I've seen in my experience, already in 3ed there was hardly a class that sucked in combat. All the fighter types had obviously good and straightforward combat-related features. Rogues had sneak attack, which required a very different approach to combat based on finding ways to activate the bonus damage; IMHO playing a Rogue in combat was actually more exciting than the average Fighter (unless you approached the Fighter with an attitude towards specializing in feats that opened up for more combat options). All spellcasters had a lot of combat spells, both tactical and simpler damage-dealer or buffs. Combat was not when some classes sucked (I only had issues with Monks and Bards in combat, but I've never understood how much the problem was in the class design and how much in players' abilities). In fact I want to point out that when I hear fans of 4ed, they generally say that 4e did a good job at actually making the fighter-types better in combat and toning down the spellcasters a bit.

3) In theory, 3ed already offered some non-combat stuff to do to many classes, mostly via skills, spells and class abilities. Personally I think only Fighters and Monks had seriously quite too little to do out of combat, besides forcing/sneaking their way somewhere. These should definitely needed more. But more commonly, characters who had nothing at all to do out of combat were the result of players maxing them for combat, e.g. trying to only get themselves combat feats, offensive/defensive spells, and asking all the time how to make their skills useful in combat (e.g. every fighters spending all their skill points in Climb, Jump and Swim because maxing them out is "must-have", except that they never used those skills but cried they couldn't afford others...). Now it sounds like players would like to be forced to take non-combat stuff because they realized they suck out of combat, but I could bet that later on the same players will want the right to give up the non-combat mandatory abilities in exchange for more combat ones whenever they are not interested. Somehow this brings me back to the period when the forums were full of threads about wanting to play "gestalt" characters...

4) OP's quote: "The flaw is that getting equal spotlight time is very dependent on how well the DM, the adventure itself, and the players can smoothly shift the spotlight fairly. A combat heavy DM is going to frequently have a bored skill monkey player. Likewise, a fighter shines in combat, but in a session filled with intense RP and skill checks, they might as well go play Nintendo.". So what...? The group (players + DM) have the responsibility of making the game together. It is impossible that the game takes care of this. The DM and players must agree together on what are the characters and the adventures. A DM that runs adventures only based on her own agenda, not realizing that some PC are unsuitable, sucks as a DM. A player that obtusely wants to play one and only PC archetype at any cost even if this forces the DM (or others) to play a game they dislike, sucks as a player. So in your example, a combat-heavy DM runs a combat-heavy game for combat-heavy players, period, and no one gets bored. Otherwise if the group is balanced, the DM must avoid unbalanced sessions, is it hard? Yes, sometimes it's hard, but it's also her damn job! If the DM isn't having fun in doing this, then again the group's game just need to be rediscussed and rearranged.

 

[Saracenus]

I think that themes in 4e get at the idea of "2 classes" and is a possible vector for the idea of class for combat and theme for non-combat.

Unfortunately for those of us playing 4e, themes reinforce the combat side with crunch while leaving the fluff in the discpition.

It would take some reconcepulization of themes to accomplish this.

Hopefully themes will be one of the elements that are used in 5e from 4e.

Sent from my HTC EVO using Tapatalk