Opinion: PoL and high tiers do not fit in the long run

[PeterWeller]

In other words, PoL is "different name for the same"? That does not sound in any way different from just about every campaign setting I ever read.

Yeah, Kind of, sort of. Just about every campaign setting has been PoL to some extent or another, depending on how you look at it. It's about the feel, which is supposed to be one of mystery and high adventure.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In other words, PoL is "different name for the same"? That does not sound in any way different from just about every campaign setting I ever read.

It's certainly not reinventing the wheel. It is more "making things more obvious".
Many things in 4E seem to do this. Maybe this is just the first edition where the designers are able (or willing) to show us this stuff. The roles aren't a new concept, either, they always existed.
The new thing (if at all) might be that the designers are conciously looking at this stuff and building the Core rules on it, instead of having it as some kind of emergent property that always comes into being, but no one really actively trying to achieve it.

What makes a working combat group*: Covering the 4 roles.
What makes a working adventuring setting: Points of Light.

Is this the only way? I don't know, but I tend to think absolutely yes in the 1st case, and very probably yes in the second case...


*) I first wanted to write adventuring party, but I think the roles are to combat specific for the most part to say so. Adventuring parties typically need also abilities outside of these roles. The roles are "for combat purposes only". Outside you might have someone like "Face", "Knowledge Guy", "Spelunker" or things like that. If there is a mistake in 4E, it might be not yet definding the out-of-combat roles...

 

[Fenes]

I think those roles are a mistake. The CPRG's "tank/healer/CC/DPS" model is not supportive of roleplay, and often leads to "who plays the healer today? We need a healer!" moments. Too many players, as seen in MMOGs, fixate on this, and become unable to think outside this narrow box.

There are lots of alternatives to the stipulated four roles covered group, and I'd rather not have social encounters get limited to a single make up either.

 

[PeterWeller]

I think those roles are a mistake. The CPRG's "tank/healer/CC/DPS" model is not supportive of roleplay, and often leads to "who plays the healer today? We need a healer!" moments. Too many players, as seen in MMOGs, fixate on this, and become unable to think outside this narrow box.

There are lots of alternatives to the stipulated four roles covered group, and I'd rather not have social encounters get limited to a single make up either.

I disagree. First of all, those roles have always been there, the whole, "infantry, artillery, special forces, medics" paradigm. Also, by recognizing these roles and building each class to excel at one, the game provides more freedom for role-playing. You can play whatever you want, safe in the knowledge that you will be effective in combat. Nothing stipulates that you fulfill those four roles, either. Doing so will result in an optimal party mix, but that's no different than the good old fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue mix.

Your "who plays the healer today? we need a healer!" argument doesn't work because its the same thing as the old D&D "who's playing the cleric in this campaign? we need a cleric!" problem.

This really doesn't have anything to do with PoL though.

 

[Lizard]

I think there's a couple of misconceptions about PoL getting bandied about. First of all, it isn't a setting. It's a very loose framework with which to build a setting. Stop calling PoL a setting. Second, there's nothing about PoL that prohibits nations, kingdoms and the like. They're just really big points of light, and the PoL idea just assumes that the entire map is not divided by political boundaries, nor do these large points of light necessarily border each other (but neither do they necessarily not border one another).

This seems to be veering towards the "Any campaign setting with any areas of wildness or savagery is POL", which strikes me as silly, as that includes 99.99% of ALL D&D campaigns past or present, published or homebrew. Generally, even in worlds with massive empires, the campaign is set on the borders, the frontiers, the edge of the unknown, or where two hostile powers contest the same land. If the campaign is set entirely in a big city, the city will have lawless slums, forgotten crypts, monster-infested sewers, etc. Almost by definition, an adventure game is set where adventures happen.

Calling a nation-state "A really big POL" seems to me to be missing the point entirely...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think those roles are a mistake. The CPRG's "tank/healer/CC/DPS" model is not supportive of roleplay, and often leads to "who plays the healer today? We need a healer!" moments. Too many players, as seen in MMOGs, fixate on this, and become unable to think outside this narrow box.

There are lots of alternatives to the stipulated four roles covered group, and I'd rather not have social encounters get limited to a single make up either.

I am afraid that leads us off-topic.
Anyway: but the point of the Roles is that you can claim whatever you want, the roles always existed. Yes, you could try playing without them, but usually you ended up finding tricks to "simulate" someone filling the role.
No Cleric? THe Druid handles the healing, or the Rogue maxes Use Magic Device to get use of at least the Wands of Cure Light Wounds. Your Barbarian ends up multiclassing with Fighter to be able to wear a Full Plate and a Heavy Shield so he doesn't take too much damage per fight (so the need for in-combat healing is lessened). Without buff spells/abilities, you will often see the unbuffed Rogues only being there to provide flanking and aid another benefits to the groups fighter.
Without a Defender, Cleric, Ranger or Rogue will do the best to max their AC and avoid enemy warriors to get to the Wizard. Or the Wizard concentrates on defensive spells like invisibility, Mirror Image and Fly in every combat to get outside of enemies reach.
Some of these classes *cough*Cleric*cough* can do this, others are really bad at it...

So it was possible to compensate the lack of a Role, but the Role always, invariably, existed, and you needed to compensate if someone didn't fit the role.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Ancients did not have any magic.
And why is it like this (PoL) in d&d ? Due to struggling with external threats is the answer. But this struggling has to be tied to the cosmology to make any sense by definition: exactly because it IS a fantasy setting with magic.

I believe that it is linked to the cosmology, albeit not, perhaps, in as simple and concrete a fashion as you might wish.

Further, I'd argue that it's less external threats that make PoL than the internal dynamics of heroes acquiring power and monsters being born to it.

If you have some heroes defending and waiting for people to come to enjoy those benefits and other heroes sneaking around and exploiting people in order to enjoy their benefits then there's no way to avoid PoL.

Protection is certain but limited and threat is unfixed and probable.

 

[xechnao]

I believe that it is linked to the cosmology, albeit not, perhaps, in as simple and concrete a fashion as you might wish.

Further, I'd argue that it's less external threats that make PoL than the internal dynamics of heroes acquiring power and monsters being born to it.

If you have some heroes defending and waiting for people to come to enjoy those benefits and other heroes sneaking around and exploiting people in order to enjoy their benefits then there's no way to avoid PoL.

Protection is certain but limited and threat is unfixed and probable.

My point was that protection agaisnt external threats always has the priority versus any internal threat. This is because external threats are unpredictable. One has to invest more to gain information for protecting himself against an external threat.

This is what I mean by external threat. It happens now in d&d PoL that the external threat is "the monsters". The monster manual (a core book) is 99% about them.

If they could and would make a book about internal politics and conflict of interests in d&d and make it possible to leave monsters out of the window, then yes PoL can be as generic as you say. But this is not the case in this game. D&D PoL IS about monsters and they should tie this to cosmology.

 

[DandD]

Huh? How and why? A monster doesn't have to necessarily come from the other planes. There is nothing wrong with a fantastic monster simply being a normal inhabitant of a given setting world.

 

[xechnao]

Huh? How and why? A monster doesn't have to necessarily come from the other planes. There is nothing wrong with a fantastic monster simply being a normal inhabitant of a given setting world.

1st) I did not mention other planes.
2nd)In the case a monster is a normal inhabitant there are implications that need to be explained in a sensible way: how the monster manages to co-exist with its enemies and the higher the power level the more solid a reason one needs to make: this reason is what I call comsmology.