Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4706585" data-attributes="member: 54707">By coincidence the next posting I was gonna do was a post/article I've been working called, "To Hell With Roles." But I haven't had the time yet. I've been too busy to repsond even to my own threads much.I'm not against roles per se, by the way, just the idea that the bets way to develop roles is based upon Class. To me this is a seemingly natural development of the class idea, but a stupid idea in actual practice, limiting even combat roles as a function of class. Some combat roles, like some non-combat roles may seem to follow logically form certain inherent class abilities, but then again class abilities are no guarantee that either combat roles or non-combat roles will flow naturally from "Class function." (I'll explain why by example in my post.) It seems intuitive that class should determine roles, but the counter-intuitive proposition that roles should be "class-free" is actually a far superior operating practice.But as for non-combat roles I can think of many and my players have acted out many such parts over the years we've been playing. Roles such as Team Leader, Navigator/Land Navigator (which often includes things like being a mapper), Survival Expert (often the best guy at foraging, locating water, and being expert at survival tactics in dangerous situations or in inclement conditions, or simply when lost), Engineer/Dungeoneer, Tactical Leader (the guy who calls combat formations and dispositions depending on what you are fighting and in what environment), Diplomat/Spokesman/Mouthpiece, Scout/Reconnaissance, Intelligence Gatherer/Agent, Independent Operative, Political and/or Religious Operative, Translator/Communications man, Field Medic (as the back-up to the Healer) etc.By team members having roles which they want to pursue and become good at, either by natural talent or by practice and training it is much easier to meet any particular situation with a good chance of survival, and it is often possible to multi-task or achieve multiple goals at once. You don't waste time or advantage searching for or rebooting during each situation for who is best to "take charge" of a particular set of circumstances.For instance you meet a party of strangers. The Diplomat or Spokesman goes out to parley. At the same time, while the potential threat is distracted in negotiations or conversation the Scout begins to search for beneficial routes of advance or escape, the Tactical Leader can be arranging optimum party response dispositions, the Survival Expert can be looking for environmental advantages, the Team Leader can be examining or making inspection of the potential threat for weaknesses in defense, of arrangement, etc, etc.Any situation, combat or non-combat can be so approached.It is similar to Special Forces operations. Everyone should know a little bit about everything, but certain members in a squad are the designated experts or leaders in certain things. Languages/Translation, Survival, Cover stories or Undercover Operations, Sniping, Heavier Weapons Combat, Escape and Evasion, Navigation, Medic, Engineering, Communications, etc.Arrange your teams not by Class, though class should be used to give a clue as to potentials, but by individual capabilities. Also players can use their characters in this way to pursue personal interests and to practice at becoming good at a thing. Also one advantage to saying to hell with Class Roles is that if a certain character is disabled or killed then back-ups can easily stand in based upon their corresponding or overlapping interests, skills, and personal/individual knowledge bases. (You can also develop sub-teams and sub-team expertise skill-disciplines in this way.) Another advantage of "open-roles" is one of flexibility. For instance for a time or given a certain environment a Ranger might make an ideal forward scout, but in another situation, or simply given a different environment or period of time, a Rogue/Agent/Thief would make a much better forward scout. In a city a Cleric would often make an ideal forward scout and undercover agent, as well as an Intel agent. The same in a political environment. Then again in certain political environments the Paladin might be the optimal agent. However in the wilderness or against a hostile cult a Cleric or a Paladin would probably make a poor scout or undercover agent. Though not necessarily. So roles should be flexible enough to "adapt to, and overcome the actual situation or obstacle being presented." Not fixed in a stilted and static, inflexible manner. Inflexibility cripples real capability. It certainly cripples optimal capability in a slavish desire to pursue already existing forms simply because, "that's the way it has always been done." You don't re-win yesterday's wars, those wars are already over. You win the wars of today by being way ahead of the opponent. Let him fight yesterday's war, you fight today like you're already well ahead of tomorrow.The last advantage is one of individualization. You can choose roles form a list of potential capabilities but you can also "invent your own roles" based upon the peculiar capabilities of the characters and the peculiar interest of the players. You are not limited to pre-assigned roles or even to the idea that only the existing pre-assigned roles are the only proper or potential roles. If a guy becomes expert at guerilla tactics, or at reading flora useful for creating ad-hoc medicines in the field then let that fella do that. Let them develop their own roles.So I say to hell with "fixed roles."Let team members "take on roles" (combat and non-combat) as they see fit, as they wish and can be good at the job, and as the situation demands.There should be non-combat and combat roles, but free of fixed and artificial limitations on capabilities.I like the idea for this thread by the way Herremann.If I'm allowed to give you experience for the idea then I will.Anyways, gotta go.See ya.</blockquote>

Verification