I like Roles

[DandD]

It's not the concepts of role they attack, but 4th edition. It gets tiring.

Not that roles already existed prior to 4th edition.

 

[The Green Adam]

1. They help eliviate the "You wanna play what now?" moments when I DM.

I like new classes, both as a player, and as a DM. As a DM, however, they often meant I needed to take a good amount of time studying a class to see how it would impact the game, and even then sometimes the ony real way to know was to see it in action. I often didn't (and still don't) have the luxury to spend all that time on a new potential new class. And since I only have time really to run one campaign seeing it in action could have ver damaging effects.

That's because you're using a game with classes. I don't need to learn a new class when my players make characters, I just need to know what kind of character they want and what they want to be able to do. Each character has the same or similar mechanics but can do different things.

To me, classes are roles and vice versa to some extent. Its one of the things about 4E that really irks me.

2. They help eliviate the "Awww man... I have to play the _____?" moments.

Maybe your games were different, I dunno, but as I mainly DM, I've seen a good number of people end up playing a certain class because that's what the party needs, as opposed to a concept they imagined.

While roles don't eliminate the sometimes need for a new character to fullfill a certain function, they do help give the player a few more options to match his/her concept.

See, to me 'roles' not only fail to eliminate this, they reinforce it. We don't have A Healer so some one must play A Healer. Instead of, we don't have a healer...don't worry, Joe took some healing skills and Rachel has potion making skills. She can probably whip up a healing potion.

But wait! Rachel? Isn't she A Wizard. Isn't Joe A Warrior.

Er...not exactly. Rachel is a mage and has spells and magic but she's also an alchemist and knows about nature and herbs. Joe was a solider caught behind enemy lines who learned to steal, sneak and patch his wounds in order to survive.

So those are two reasons I like roles... What do you think?

I disagree and agree with Shemeska. But I do think the name Scribble is neat.

AD
"That was a hell of a thing."

 

[Scribble]

That's because you're using a game with classes. I don't need to learn a new class when my players make characters, I just need to know what kind of character they want and what they want to be able to do. Each character has the same or similar mechanics but can do different things.

To me, classes are roles and vice versa to some extent. Its one of the things about 4E that really irks me.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here?

Roles are more of a category that classes get placed in. They've always (as others have brought up) existed to an extent, they just weren't really talked about.

All classes are built to effect the game in some way shape or form. To fill some sort of purpose in game. So changing one for another will ave an effect on your game.

If you have a group with a Wizard, a fighter, a cleric, and a rogue, and suddenly the fighter wants to make a new class and chooses incarnate the game will change. If he chooses knight it will change in a difefrent way. If he chooses swordmage again, another change.

Roles help you anticipate what will happen ahead of time. They're just a tool.

See, to me 'roles' not only fail to eliminate this, they reinforce it. We don't have A Healer so some one must play A Healer. Instead of, we don't have a healer...don't worry, Joe took some healing skills and Rachel has potion making skills. She can probably whip up a healing potion.

But wait! Rachel? Isn't she A Wizard. Isn't Joe A Warrior.

Er...not exactly. Rachel is a mage and has spells and magic but she's also an alchemist and knows about nature and herbs. Joe was a solider caught behind enemy lines who learned to steal, sneak and patch his wounds in order to survive.

Again I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying here.

You can do all of the above still despite roles. Or are you arguing against classes classes in general? If so thats a whole different ball game.

 

[The Green Adam]

It's not the concepts of role they attack, but 4th edition. It gets tiring.

Not that roles already existed prior to 4th edition.

I do not attack but merely state my opinion. I don't like role and classes in any edition of any game with one or two exceptions.

Star Trek for example, where each player plays a department head such as Chief Engineer, Chief Science Officer or Chief Helmsman certainly has distinct roles. At the same time, most of the Trek RPGs were aware that there is a need to avoid 10 identical Chief Helmsmen. So, to this end, there are usually skill choices or background packages independant of your 'Role'. My old Andorian Chief Helmsman/First Officer could kick the NPC Security Chief's butt Hand-to-Hand, though the Security Chief was better with weapons. In one campaign our Engineer was a Science whiz in the area of Spaital Phenomena and Theoretical Physics. The Science Officer (an avid collector and history buff) would consult him all the time.

The way they designed 4E I think it would have been much cooler if you were able to build your character out of at-will abilities, hit dice and the like, essentially creating your own custom class. Every time I look at the game it just reads that way, like their is a better system inside this one that we're not seeing. Its like, I want to know the system the creators of 4E used to balance out the classes and use that to play D&D.

AD
"Look! I have one job on this lousy ship, it's *stupid*, but I'm gonna do it! Okay?"

 

[malraux]

I think the inherent decition to make sure that all classes (and similarly wrt the monster roles) had something to do. Its also nice to pick up a class and know more or less what you'll try to do in combat. By taking some stress off having to learn my class's mechanics, I can spend more time on making my character exist as an individual.

 

[DandD]

Points buy system tend to not be very balancedl. Just ask the Shadowrun players on the Dumpshock boards, and soon, the minmaxed character created with standart ressources completely overshadows other ones (especially those with no really viable skills).
Also, point-buy systems (or plug ins) will force you to be cautious, so that your charactere doesn't suck. At worst, you get a charater totally dominating the game himself, or totally being incapable to keep up with the rest, like for example not having a stealth skill as a shadowrunner, nonetheless.

Least thing D&D should ever have is system mastery like in 3rd edition, where some skills, feats and spells were purposefully made to be bad, to distinguish good players and bad players.

Also, it's quite clear (or at least, I hope it would be) that roles are only about combat. What does being a defender or a striker going to matter in climbing, swimming, haggling or seducing anyway? The answer: Nothing, and that's quite clear.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I think this says it best.

Thanks man, that really made me laugh.

 

[Shemeska]

like in 3rd edition, where some skills, feats and spells were purposefully made to be bad, to distinguish good players and bad players.

You know, I'd love to see you back that claim up with you know, some evidence?

 

[Aus_Snow]

While they don't tell me EVERYTHING about a new class, roles give me a pretty decent idea on how the new class operates. And since the game is now balanced based on roles (and gives advice on how lack of certain roles will impact the game) it's easy to see what will happen when a new class enters the mix.

That was what the class detail sections, like 'Making a _______', 'Playing a _______', and '_______s in the Game' were (and are) for, though. I don't really see much difference there.

While roles don't eliminate the sometimes need for a new character to fullfill a certain function, they do help give the player a few more options to match his/her concept.

Instead of having to rethink your concept in order to play a needed class, you can find a class within the needed role that fits your concept pretty quickly.

Hm. I don't see the difference, again. So, you need to end up playing a certain kind of class, in either scenario. Er. . .

Any advantage in terms of say, 'not having to play a Cleric' would be more to do with actual class differences (or other more fundamental system changes), right? Healing surges or what have you. . .

You know, I'd love to see you back that claim up with you know, some evidence?

Unfortunately, there *is* some, IIRC. Monte Cook, or one of those dudes. Though I might be misremembering. . .

 

[RefinedBean]

Heh. I'm curious about that one, too.

The best I can muster is that you should never, ever take a non-house-ruled Dodge.

But that's because I've never, ever been in a game without Dodge being house-ruled, and I am one AWESOME player. Facts! They speak for themselves.