Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Mallus]

That's in no way what he stated... he stated that it's as satisfying an answer as telling someone to houserule it.

If you aren't willing to be a flexible when it comes to the rules presented, you're bound to meet with dissatisfaction.

Who claimed this?

Is this kerfluffle about using a ranger to represent a fighter good with a bow? ie an argument about terminology? If not, my apologies.

Because an Avenger doesn't wear heavy armor, has less hit points and healing surges than a Paladin, different weapon and armor proficiencies, different skills, no lay on hands, etc, etc.

You're focusing on the mechanics, I'm focusing on the fiction.

Yes, they're mechanically different. But they're thematically --fictionally-- quite similar (both holy warriors). So I don't see the difficulty in using the Avenger class to represent a paladin. Or a ranger to represent a longbow fighter.

Classes aren't things in my settings (a "knight" be a fighter or a paladin, class-wise. A "wizard" could be an invoker). They're simply provide mechanical descriptors for the fiction. They don't override it.

 

[Mallus]

I'll try to funny...

See? It's easy. I did it by accident!

 

[Mark CMG]

If you aren't willing to be a flexible when it comes to the rules presented, you're bound to meet with dissatisfaction.

Rich Baker brings up the discussion point in the article regarding the inflexibility in the rules themselves and the dissatisfaction that engenders but you're contending that the problem is the inflexibility not of the rules but of the consumer of the rules that spawns the dissatisfaction?

 

[Hussar]

Rich Baker brings up the discussion point in the article regarding the inflexibility in the rules themselves and the dissatisfaction that engenders but you're contending that the problem is the inflexibility not of the rules but of the consumer of the rules that spawns the dissatisfaction?

I'm not Mallus, but, yes, I'd say 100% yes. It's some people's entrenched ideas and completely unwillingness to entertain any change from those ideas that is causing the problem.

As Mallus said, does it really matter if you "archer fighter" is classed as a ranger? I'd say no. The concept is "guy who uses a bow". Classing him as a fighter, putting him in plate mail and giving him all these melee combat abilities doesn't really speak to that archetype.

My problem with Rich Baker's ideas is that this is something new. Players have always found a combat role for their character, and that combat role was generally hard wired into the class. Bill91 brought up the role of mounted warrior. Now, D&D never really has had a mounted warrior class, although the AD&D Cavalier does come pretty close. But, in any edition of the game, making a mounted warrior is ridiculously easy. Take any class that can use either a bow or a lance (or both) and stick him on a horse.

He's a mounted warrior. In 3e, you might up that focus with feats, in 4e, there is a single feat for gaining focus on mounted combat. AD&D, AFAIK, didn't actually really have anything for mounted warriors.

But, then again, is "mounted warrior" a role in the sense of 4e's definition of role? Not really. That's not what the roles mean. Role, in the 4e definition of it, simply outlines what a given class is best at in combat. A striker does lots of damage but is a glass cannon. Defender is a tank.

Tayne above talks about an elf archer as something he could easily build and be very effective in 3e. I agree. (note, in my own example that he goes off of, I was speaking to earlier editions) But, in 4e, that exact, identical character is now called a ranger, because the defender role was never particularly mechanically supported.

Does it matter that the elf archer's class is ranger instead of fighter? How does it make any difference?

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm not Mallus, but, yes, I'd say 100% yes. It's some people's entrenched ideas and completely unwillingness to entertain any change from those ideas that is causing the problem.

(. . .)

My problem with Rich Baker's ideas is that this is something new. Players have always found a combat role for their character, and that combat role was generally hard wired into the class.

It seems like Rich Baker is suggesting something new, something much more freeform in building characters, that has never been a part of D&D (and it seems a 180 from the last decade, which naturally stems from his premise). Is it your contention that people arguing against divorcing "role" from character build to a more freeform approach are the problem? Or are you saying that people arguing against the people arguing against the change are the problem? I may not be understanding your position.

 

[mxyzplk]

As this interminable thread clearly shows, roles have had the same effect that alignments have had on D&D - largely negative. Sure, they could be used as loose descriptions and not straitjackets. But by their nature they generate these arguments about "what is X" and "is person Y really a X" and "you're not playing a X right" and "you are class Z so you must be a X..." It's all BS. In practice it is used as prescriptive, not descriptive, mechanic. So much time and effort has been wasted on the pointless arguing about alignment for 4 editions and roles for 1, let's just stop it.

 

[billd91]

It's a house rule to call something in the game's fiction by a different name than the one used in the rule books?

So calling a fighter something other than fighter, say "person-at-arms", or "armiger" or "brigand", or "bravo", or "sell-sword" is a faux pas? Doesn't this imply the RAW nomenclature should apply to all campaign settings, and not just as metagame terms, but used throughout the in-game fiction as well?

Otherwise, what's the big deal using Avergers to represent a order of paladins, or as a specific member of a paladin order?

Calling it by another name a house rule? Depends. Words have meaning. There are a lot of players out there for whom "paladin" has a meaning utterly incompatible with the 4e conception of the avenger.

But it's usually not just the name. What else do you usually have to change? Class skills? Description? And why are we focusing our characters around combat roles in the first place? The ranger had always been a lot more than a combat archetype. Why is it now relegated to a 'striker' combat archetype?

 

[Hussar]

Calling it by another name a house rule? Depends. Words have meaning. There are a lot of players out there for whom "paladin" has a meaning utterly incompatible with the 4e conception of the avenger.

But it's usually not just the name. What else do you usually have to change? Class skills? Description? And why are we focusing our characters around combat roles in the first place? The ranger had always been a lot more than a combat archetype. Why is it now relegated to a 'striker' combat archetype?

Because it's not?

A ranger's role in combat is striker. That's what role means in 4e. Combat only. However, everything that you could do with a ranger outside of combat, you can still do in 4e. All the nature bunny stuff and woodsy stuff is still there.

However, as this thread shows, people equate combat role with character archtype, which is simply a misreading of how 4e actually defines role.

----------

MarkCMG - the above is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The problem isn't that the roles have been codified. In my mind, that's simply recognizing what has always been there. The problem is, people read, "striker" and presume that that's the sum total of the character.

But, that's their fault. Perhaps it could be explained better, but, honestly, I don't think so. I mean, page 15 of the 4e PHB says this:

Each character class specializes in one of four basic functions in combat: control and area offense, defense, healing and support and focused offense. The roles embodied by these funcitons are controller, defender, leader and striker. (bold and underline mine)

How much more plain can they put it? Nothing in that says the slightest about what the character does outside of combat. The only thing that role entails is what the character does best in combat. Note, that it's also not the only thing it can do in combat, just what it's best at.

The problem isn't a case of wanting more freeform character generation (in which case earlier editions are FAR more guilty of limitations on what your character can be) nor is it arguing against change.

The entire problem stems from a misreading of what role actually means. Role defines your specialization in combat. That is the long and the short of it. Nothing more, nothing less. Throughout this thread, people have tried to conflate role with archetype and they are not the same thing in any way, shape or form.

 

[Hussar]

As this interminable thread clearly shows, roles have had the same effect that alignments have had on D&D - largely negative. Sure, they could be used as loose descriptions and not straitjackets. But by their nature they generate these arguments about "what is X" and "is person Y really a X" and "you're not playing a X right" and "you are class Z so you must be a X..." It's all BS. In practice it is used as prescriptive, not descriptive, mechanic. So much time and effort has been wasted on the pointless arguing about alignment for 4 editions and roles for 1, let's just stop it.

I would point out there there is a significant difference between the alignment debates and this one.

In the alignment debates, the disagreement is fueled almost entirely because the game designers are trying to define the indefinable - what is good and evil. The definitions that we do have are vague, easily interpreted multiple ways and often self contradictory which quickly leads to all sorts of disagreement.

OTOH, in this case, we have a clear definition of Role given that people can point to and make concrete statements about. The difference here is that people are ignoring that actual defined terms in favour of their own ideas which aren't actually linked to the defined terms. Archetype and role are not the same thing, at least, not as 4e defines combat role.

It's that mistake that is fueling this discussion.

 

[LurkAway]

"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

What's in a name like "Shakespeare"? Or is it just the name of an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?

Who cares whether the class name is specifically F-I-G-H-T-E-R? Does it do what you want? You can fight, you can uses axes, you can toss them around effectively and impressively? Yes? Then what's the issue?

There's a legitimate issue in that sometimes the thing you want to do isn't represented by any current class. But that you cannot make a thing that happens to be named in the rules as "fighter" that does what you want I think is a weak critique indeed.

There's a second-order critique that folks who are just starting out will have their ideas kind of pigeon-holed for a while, I suppose. That's a theoretical problem that I haven't seen be a major issue in practice, myself - I find gamers to be far too free-willed and creative to be stuck in ruts for long. I'd like to see someone present more than anecdote that it is a major issue with the design.

My two cents:

Terms are evocative, there's no way getting around it.

For example, vampires mean garlic and no reflection and fear of sunlight. So then a new vampire series comes out and the author must face the fact that somebody, somewhere is going to wonder why my vampires sparkle in sunlight. Thus the author wisely throws in a fluff explanation that fear of sunlight is just a half-true old wives' tale. (I googled that, BTW, I swear I didn't read any of them).

To ignore all that is to be ignorant of meanings attached to words.

I think "healing surges" (vs just "surges"), "bloodied" and other bits of terminology in 4E, including some class titles, seem to me to be naive of the meanings they can evoke vs what the rule actually encompass. Can you really blame somebody for being thrown off by a term like "healing" surge, when it can easily and frequently be fluffed as renewed confidence?

Since Basic D&D, I always thought that classes could translate somewhat into the fiction. A Thief was a thief (in a dungeon), a Fighter was some sort of warrior (in a dungeon), a Magic User was a boring generic word to describe a mage/wizard (in a dungeon). So the terminology itself may not exactly appear in-game (not "Hello, I'm Bob, the Fighter), but the meaning of the word did carry over. And I think this extended all the way to 3E.

BTW, class titles are also inconsistent in their meanings. Arguably, a Cleric and a Warlock actually mean something tangible in the fiction, but an Avenger is only a metagame term?

You can educate the older gamers that a 4E class name is not necessarily an in-game concept that should straightjacket your roleplaying, but why naively fault those gamers for attaching valid meanings to words. Those meanings were true in D&D, are still true in various systems, and might be true in D&D again one day.