Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4529588" data-attributes="member: 2067">You don't, really. Not everything that is &quot;Role #3&quot; needs to be attributed to the same over-arching archetype. Not everyone who was a &quot;Survialist&quot; would also be a &quot;Spin Doctor.&quot; &quot;Role #3&quot; isn't an archetype, it's a mechanical description. Whether or not your character is &quot;Role #3&quot; in a given situation would depend more on the archetype. For instance, you might just made every role based off of class. Let's take Rangers. In combat, Rangers are strikers (most similar to a Role 1). In the dungeon, they might be Survivalists (Role #3!). In a social encounter, they might be more of a Wingman (that's Role #4!). In solving a mystery, they might be more of a Analyst (a Role 2 duty!). In this way, a Ranger in four different scenarios covers four different purposes. They don't solve every problem by being a Striker, and not everyone who is a &quot;Survivalist&quot; would also be a &quot;Spin Doctor.&quot; And maybe a Ranger-Analyst has different powers than a Rogue-Analyst, who is different than a Wizard-analyst, even.You might link it to a different cap system, too. But the basic idea is that a character wouldn't be &quot;ROLE 3&quot; and then use that for everything. They might be Role 3 in a certain scenario, and Role 1 in another, and Role 2 in two or three others (or whatever). This helps in a few ways. #1 is that you don't shoehorn it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> #2 is that it helps these different scenarios feel different, and require different strategies. In combat, the Bard might champion the party (sort of a Role 3 or 4), but in a social setting, the Bard is going to be on the attack, directly overcoming the problem in front of them (more of a Role 1). He's still effective at both combat and social interaction, but he contributes differently in different environments. #3 is that it helps create variety. You don't just have four over-reaching themes, you actually have a high number of different combination of things, and each one can feel very distinctive as you go from gathering information to going into the dungeon to fighting the monsters to grilling the nobles based on the evidence you found there, to solving the mystery of how your prime suspect was dead three days before the crime was committed. It doesn't get stale, because you're changing the way you're addressing each problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 4529588, member: 2067"] You don't, really. Not everything that is "Role #3" needs to be attributed to the same over-arching archetype. Not everyone who was a "Survialist" would also be a "Spin Doctor." "Role #3" isn't an archetype, it's a mechanical description. Whether or not your character is "Role #3" in a given situation would depend more on the archetype. For instance, you might just made every role based off of class. Let's take Rangers. In combat, Rangers are strikers (most similar to a Role 1). In the dungeon, they might be Survivalists (Role #3!). In a social encounter, they might be more of a Wingman (that's Role #4!). In solving a mystery, they might be more of a Analyst (a Role 2 duty!). In this way, a Ranger in four different scenarios covers four different purposes. They don't solve every problem by being a Striker, and not everyone who is a "Survivalist" would also be a "Spin Doctor." And maybe a Ranger-Analyst has different powers than a Rogue-Analyst, who is different than a Wizard-analyst, even. You might link it to a different cap system, too. But the basic idea is that a character wouldn't be "ROLE 3" and then use that for everything. They might be Role 3 in a certain scenario, and Role 1 in another, and Role 2 in two or three others (or whatever). This helps in a few ways. #1 is that you don't shoehorn it. ;) #2 is that it helps these different scenarios feel different, and require different strategies. In combat, the Bard might champion the party (sort of a Role 3 or 4), but in a social setting, the Bard is going to be on the attack, directly overcoming the problem in front of them (more of a Role 1). He's still effective at both combat and social interaction, but he contributes differently in different environments. #3 is that it helps create variety. You don't just have four over-reaching themes, you actually have a high number of different combination of things, and each one can feel very distinctive as you go from gathering information to going into the dungeon to fighting the monsters to grilling the nobles based on the evidence you found there, to solving the mystery of how your prime suspect was dead three days before the crime was committed. It doesn't get stale, because you're changing the way you're addressing each problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification