Rogues: essential class or sacred cow?

[ThirdWizard]

The rogue's role is essential as a non-spellcasting skill monkey. If you were to replace it, you'd need to then create a lightly armored skill based character. I suppose some fighter substitution levels could do the job (lose heavy armor for +6 skill points or something), but really I don't see the point in getting rid of the rogue only to replace it with something similar anyway.

But more importantly:

I think the biggest problem conceptually is most people equate the rogue with what we in real life call professionals, but forget that they are adventurers first and professionals second. Indiana Jones for example, as an archaeologist, or MacGyver who you could say is in law enforcement. How do you portray a skilled worker who happens to also be an adventurer in the rules?

Enter the rogue, which is a hacky way to introduce a character class that doesn't really exist in fantasy settings but people relate to in movies and real life. Just because archaeologist is a profession now in the 21:st centuary, doesn't mean it have to be a class. In the same vein, I wouldn't call "doctor" or "lawyer" or "computer programmer" character classes. This is just a skillset. The class? Commoner.

Did you just call Indiana Jones a Commoner?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That's what I do. I think traps are mostly not fun for the party. The rogue does this, the rogue does that, and finally the chest is open, the door is open, the rope is cast. Fine. But did the others have fun? I don't think so. The same is true for sneaking ahead: While one rogue sneaks, the others wait. Sit at my table and start leafing through the MM.

Traps suck. They are basically a piointless time waster in the majority of implementation. Either you bog the game down as the rogue does his thing at every friggin door, chest, 10 foot section of floor, or you get screwed. Try and probe with poles? You set off a pressure plate to target 10' away. Probe with an 11 foot pole? You guessed it, 11 feet away.

The only traps that dont implicitly suck are encounter traps, because they are designed to be set off and get the entire party involved in the action.

Theres no need to ditch the rogue/thief character, just how traps are handled.

 

[fusangite]

Traps suck.

The traps part of the D&D genre is my least favourite too. But, to follow Doug's very strong points, D&D is its own genre. And traps are part of it.

Certainly, I can see the rogue being a lot more peripheral in games where there are no traps. I run games with few to no traps and, as a result, few people play rogues in my games. But for those who like the good old fashioned dungeon crawl, traps are indispensible.

Some people don't like high magic. So they eliminate most or all spellcasters. But not liking high magic is a matter of taste not a flaw in the wizard class.

 

[gizmo33]

I think you should think the tone of your posts before hitting the reply button, but anyway. If I'm disputing the logic of D&D's definition as something like D&D, just a bit more D&Dish I don't have to provide my own: it's enough to demonstrate that it isn't valid.

Still no "valid" definition of Monopoly? What you're saying about providing your own definition is logically true, but how relevant is it when all the games that I'm familiar with have the same basic attributes as DnD does - they use various props to evoke ideas/themes from other things (money and finance in the case of Monopoly) without pretending to be an accurate simulation of anything.

I don't accept that D&D is a self contained entity, living in a vaccum, that devours itself as some people think, nor believe that kind of thinking does the game any good. If the game imports characters and concept from other sources, it must be for some purpose; that purpose could also be very well be archived by killing some sacred cows.

Who said anything about "devouring itself"? All I'm saying in this case is that if DnD is an attempt to model something, I'd like to know what that "something" is. The game imports characters and concepts for some purpose, but it doesn't have to be any other purpose than creative inspiration. It's like if someone writes a song about a book - though the book contributes ideas to the song, it doesn't necessarily prove that the song's purpose is to model something about the book.

Logically, I'm just not following everything that you're saying. You say "that some purpose could very well be achieved by killing some sacred cows" without establishing what that purpose is (only "some purpose").

 

[SavageRobby]

Since nobody's said it, I'll point out the the Grey Mouser is D&D's rogue ideal.

And though they came later, Silk and Shadowspawn are archetypal Thieves (they'll always be thieves to me).


In a class-based game system, each class represents (or should represent IMO ... the vast proliferation of classes nowadays has watered this statement down) an archetype. One who Fights, One who Believes, One who Studies, One who Sings, etc ... and I believe you need an archetype to represent the One who Steals. In fact, if there is a problem with the archetype of the Rogue, its the fact that its now CALLED a Rogue, and it is too generic. Thief was much better.

 

[gizmo33]

In a class-based game system, each class represents (or should represent IMO ... the vast proliferation of classes nowadays has watered this statement down) an archetype. One who Fights, One who Believes, One who Studies, One who Sings, etc ... and I believe you need an archetype to represent the One who Steals. In fact, if there is a problem with the archetype of the Rogue, its the fact that its now CALLED a Rogue, and it is too generic. Thief was much better.

How about "one who fights with weapons", "one who fights with spells", "one who heals people while fighting", and "one who sings while fighting". I really think the role that PCs play in an adventure game is "fighter", regardless of what particular skill bundle is used to kill monsters. The bulk of games I'm familiar with (probably all) do not feature anyone "studying" or "believing" for example - although those are the out-of-game justifications for why the character's have their particular powers. IMO the use of the term "archetype" is potentially confusing because AFAICT it bears little-no resemblance to the way it's used in literature. A character's archetype in literature doesn't have to do with the set of skills they have, but more so the role that they play within the story. I would think that from a literature perspective, all PCs, regardless of class, fit the same archetype. Then again if there's some description of archetype somewhere that would clarify these things I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[Someone]

Still no "valid" definition of Monopoly? What you're saying about providing your own definition is logically true, but how relevant is it when all the games that I'm familiar with have the same basic attributes as DnD does - they use various props to evoke ideas/themes from other things (money and finance in the case of Monopoly) without pretending to be an accurate simulation of anything.

Ok, so Monopoly isn't a game that simulates Monopoly, since by you is a game that evokes ideas and themes from money and finance. So you basically end agreeing with me.

All I'm saying in this case is that if DnD is an attempt to model something, I'd like to know what that "something" is. [...]. You say "that some purpose could very well be achieved by killing some sacred cows" without establishing what that purpose is (only "some purpose").

I'm a bit lost, please could you quote me saying that I would provide a definition of D&D? Surely pointing at a flaw on someone else's position doesn't put me in the obligation to provide a better argument. However, if we use your definition of Monopoly and apply it to D&D as "a game that evokes ideas and themes fantasy works", it's certainly possible that discarding some wargame-ish concepts from it in favor of rules that would better represent archetypes from those fantasy works, instead of being designed to model 4 battlefield specialist with a thin fantasy disguise. Keep that last "possible" at whatever value it has, but please don't ask me this time to write a whole ruleset to prove my point.

 

[messy]

Did you just call Indiana Jones a Commoner?

sure! he's a 1st level commoner with 4 ranks in profession- archeology professor and exotic weapon proficiency- whip.

messy

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The traps part of the D&D genre is my least favourite too. But, to follow Doug's very strong points, D&D is its own genre. And traps are part of it.

Certainly, I can see the rogue being a lot more peripheral in games where there are no traps. I run games with few to no traps and, as a result, few people play rogues in my games. But for those who like the good old fashioned dungeon crawl, traps are indispensible.

Are they? Honestly, most of them are bypassed entirely. Using basic characters, I dont think I've seen a rogue fail to find a trap on a chest, door, halway etc. The rest of the party withs with their thumbs up their butts, and most of the time the trap is bypassed. Zinger traps (traps that do their effect and then are done) are as interesting as a dungeon where monsters are randomly teleported next to party members and make full attacks each round with no variation. Theres next to no room for tactics, imagination, excitement or fun. They shoot you, burn you, zap you or impale you, and you suck up your d(whatever) damage and move on to something you can actually interact with or react to. That needs to change. Encounter traps are fine. That gets everyone involved. Not all aspects of the good old fashioned dungeon crawl were actually good. Most types of traps fall into this category. Its a lame ass procedure you do (listn at door, poke with stick, pull lever with string etc) to get back to having fun to avoid punitive measures for not following SOP. It makes what should be exciting and daring into a routine.

Some people don't like high magic. So they eliminate most or all spellcasters. But not liking high magic is a matter of taste not a flaw in the wizard class.

Theres a large difference in that magic doesnt bog down play while people say "I search the chest. I search it again. I search it again", then disarm it all by themselves. To a lesser extent, rogues suffer from decker syndrome (from shadowrun), where the decker does his computer crap and the rest of the party goes on a beer run, because they cant really participate. Like I said, its not a flaw with the class, its a flaw with traps.

 

[messy]

Did you just call Indiana Jones a Commoner?

sure! he's a 1st level commoner with 4 ranks in profession- archeology professor and exotic weapon proficiency- whip.

messy