Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5865709" data-attributes="member: 27160">I'm not sure &quot;bad at&quot; isn't a sort of tangent to what I was thinking of, actually. What I had in mind was more &quot;doesn't have any sort of contribution to make for...&quot;Controllers and Leaders (Wizards and Bards, for example) sometimes aren't particularly &quot;good at&quot; combat in the sense that, if caught alone by some toughs they will struggle. But, when the entire party is engaged in a fight, they have support functions that they can perform. A low level Wizard with only ranged control powers is going to be in a tough place if ambushed by a bunch of thugs in an alley, but when protected by his buddies in a melee he can make a full contribution to the team.Likewise, I see 'roles' for non-combat as being things to contribute, not solo puissance. A burly but uneducated sort of character, for example, may be able to charm the ladies with animal magnetism, and this could help in a general, mixed social encounter in a multitude of ways - but corner him and ask for an academic debate and he'll be a total fish out of water.We seem to be at cross purposes, or something; I wasn't intending to limit my comments to XP, either, although they might be part of the picture. &quot;Rewards&quot; and &quot;victory conditions&quot; are, indeed, extremely varied in RPGs, I agree.Again, I don't see this limited to combat. In fact, you could say that &quot;focussing the players on what we want the game to be about&quot; is part of what I see roles being for. Which, to expand further, is why it's a shame that 4E gave roles only for combat - thus subtly saying &quot;combat is what we want you to focus on&quot;. If roles had been given for social encounters and exploration, perhaps it would have been clearer that these were intended to be foci of play, as well.Is this you agreeing with what I am saying about &quot;there should be roles for social interaction, exploration AND combat, or am I misunderstanding?As a bit of an aside, I'm not sure it's useful to put roles for all three &quot;pillars&quot; into the class. Having them split over class, theme and so on would likely be more flexible and adaptable.Oh, I see - I understood the graphic a different way. I saw the &quot;You Wish!&quot; as meaning that you will never (realistically) get all these three things in one operating system. It's sort of like the old garage sign: &quot;We do three kinds of repairs - good, quick and cheap. You can have any two.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5865709, member: 27160"] I'm not sure "bad at" isn't a sort of tangent to what I was thinking of, actually. What I had in mind was more "doesn't have any sort of contribution to make for..." Controllers and Leaders (Wizards and Bards, for example) sometimes aren't particularly "good at" combat in the sense that, if caught alone by some toughs they will struggle. But, when the entire party is engaged in a fight, they have support functions that they can perform. A low level Wizard with only ranged control powers is going to be in a tough place if ambushed by a bunch of thugs in an alley, but when protected by his buddies in a melee he can make a full contribution to the team. Likewise, I see 'roles' for non-combat as being things to contribute, not solo puissance. A burly but uneducated sort of character, for example, may be able to charm the ladies with animal magnetism, and this could help in a general, mixed social encounter in a multitude of ways - but corner him and ask for an academic debate and he'll be a total fish out of water. We seem to be at cross purposes, or something; I wasn't intending to limit my comments to XP, either, although they might be part of the picture. "Rewards" and "victory conditions" are, indeed, extremely varied in RPGs, I agree. Again, I don't see this limited to combat. In fact, you could say that "focussing the [B][I]players[/I][/B] on what we want the game to be about" is part of what [B][I]I[/I][/B] see roles being for. Which, to expand further, is why it's a shame that 4E gave roles only for combat - thus subtly saying "combat is what we want you to focus on". If roles had been given for social encounters and exploration, perhaps it would have been clearer that these were intended to be foci of play, as well. Is this you agreeing with what I am saying about "there should be roles for social interaction, exploration AND combat, or am I misunderstanding? As a bit of an aside, I'm not sure it's useful to put roles for all three "pillars" into the class. Having them split over class, theme and so on would likely be more flexible and adaptable. Oh, I see - I understood the graphic a different way. I saw the "You Wish!" as meaning that you will [I]never[/I] (realistically) get all these three things in one operating system. It's sort of like the old garage sign: "We do three kinds of repairs - good, quick and cheap. You can have any two." [/QUOTE]

Verification