Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Hussar]

I didn't mention class, I was specifically talking about concept. I don't need a class called knight to play a knight. Never have, never will.

This conversation reminds me of the OOTS strip:

Giant In the Playground Games

Miko: I did not take any levels in "Samurai" class.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Well, 3.X might be a bad edition to use as an example. What, mechanically, represents this?

It is a concept. The magic involved is conceptual. The mechanics of the class would not change in my example.

Are their verbal and somatic components? No? Good spells, since their really aren't (m)any like that.

That's what outside-the-box thinking is all about. It doesn't have to be like other spells. If that line of thought prevailed among designers we would never have seen the 3E Warlock or the Book of Nine Swords.

From an internal consistency standpoint, that's a problem. When people look at the game to give them information about the world (like the Kobold's Shifty power), then things that buck hard against that consistency are more likely to be singled out. Your wizard example is a perfect representation of that. I would never allow that to fly in a 3.X game back in the day, for the reasons stated above.

Like I've said, I would never (or rarely) create something of the sort for NPCs. But PCs can be unique in my games. As long as a player isn't trying to change mechanics they can pass any concept by me and I'm willing to listen. "Martial Magic" can work exactly like the Fighter mechanics-wise. What it allows for is a wider range of options to envision your character. Internal consistency doesn't need to hold true, IMO, when we are talking about a character in the spotlight like the PCs. I'm not even saying I'd make a character like this, it was merely quick brainstorming of an idea that Imaro seemingly thought was ridiculous.

Sure, it's doable, and yes, you can make exceptions, but in my campaign, that means it now has a place in the world. Arbitrarily deciding where those limitations begin and end for balance is something I'd rather avoid, as doing so in this case is going to stretch my groups suspension of disbelief dramatically. (And no, not all decisions a GM makes is arbitrary.)

I understand that individual DMs have different thresholds of concepts they'd like to allow. I have a line myself. My greater point is that people are claiming Roles limit their characters, but they are more than willing to limit player creativity based on class choice.

 

[billd91]

This conversation reminds me of the OOTS strip:

Giant In the Playground Games

Miko: I did not take any levels in "Samurai" class.

And yet archetypes are still really useful, particularly when there are in-game social structures capable of promoting reasonable conformity... Like with your archetypal samurai or members who make through the ranks from page to squire to full member of an established knighthood who all receive similar educations.

If we use Miko as a case in point, she was not only a terrible paladin, though she had the social rank of samurai, she was terrible at it. Perhaps if she had an archetypal samurai training (and all that entails) she'd have been more loyal and not murdered her lord.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

On the one hand you tell me that you can reskin a barbarian to be a city-born, noble-bred scion who channels the power of dragons. Now, not once did you mention that this noble-born, city dweller concept was actually a city-dweller who spent all his time in the wilds and a noble that never learned anything at court... somehow, auto-magically I was suppose to realize that we were really discussing the anti-concept of what you presented. If this isn't a "GOTCHA" type situation I don't know what is. You were purposefully misleading in naming your concept.

I meant that as examples of how the barbarian skill list, used as is, can still fit a city-dweller. I don't honestly remember exactly what skills I chose for my character 4-5 years ago beyond Intimidate and buying off Illiteracy. I most likely spent some resources outside of the class (like cross-class skills) to accomplish my full concept.

My point was that city-dwelling does not necessitate the skills you demand be present for mechanical support. If the skills you believe are important were important to my concept then I would have either spent resources in cross-class skills or feats or chosen a different set of classes.

In other words... wait a minute I'll claim one concept then create a concept that's different (while claiming it's the same) and kind of weasel it in there somehow, disregard the actual rules, tropes and mechanical weight the concept I actually put forth would be expected by most to have and declare it successful.

Who are you to declare what would be expected by most? You speak for all of gamerdom? No. I gave one example to your snarky comeback that took me all of a minute to construct mentally. I said your concept would take work, but it wouldn't be impossible by any means. Of course if you're inflexible on conceptual matters and disallow unique ideas because they don't fit your preconceived notions of how the game world works, then any concept you don't consider 'the norm' will fail.

It's easy to declare failure on my part. It requires no creativity. At least I'm testing the waters of concepts through creative means.

To me this smacks of dishonest discussion, plain and simple.

I am discussing my honest opinion of how concepts can be molded. I can't read your mind to discover what parameters you consider normal, so if stepping outside your box is dishonest, then I geuss I'm dishonest.

 

[LurkAway]

I understand that individual DMs have different thresholds of concepts they'd like to allow. I have a line myself. My greater point is that people are claiming Roles limit their characters, but they are more than willing to limit player creativity based on class choice.

Ya, technically, it is self-limiting player creativity based on class choice, but it's self-limiting because it feels wrong.

I don't know if it's the right analogy, but it's like you're shopping for a shirt and the store only offers shirts with front pockets. You'd think it would be easy for the store to offer pocketless shirts, but they don't. A pocket is hardwired into every shirt. Yes, you could go to a tailor to remove the pocket but why go through the hassle and maybe there'd be some ugly stitching left over. You otherwise like this store and not inclined to shop elsewhere, so you hope that next season, they'll offer nice shirts with a pocketless design.

Technically, I am self-limited by my dislike of front pockets and expectations of what a good shirt is, but it doesn't feel that way. I actually think the store is self-limiting for no apparent reason.

So I feel that the solutions provided (other than a 5E rehaul) are somehow missing the point . That's the subjective feeling anyway. The messy rationale behind it has been explained through several perspectives since the OP.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

And yet archetypes are still really useful,

Agreed. Why? Did someone in this thread claim they weren't?

particularly when there are in-game social structures capable of promoting reasonable conformity... Like with your archetypal samurai or members who make through the ranks from page to squire to full member of an established knighthood who all receive similar educations.

See, I definitely do not see adventurers as conformists. They could be, but I don't see the majority as such. If they were they would be the rank and file of the knighthood, later a commander, etc. They would most likely not be mucking through the sewers of an underdark city. They most likely wouldn't be associating with a rag-tag bunch of glory-seekers, zealots, and murderers. They could be part of the order if that's what your campaign is about. But I don't see why you would think a different skill-set for an adventuring knight would be a bad thing.

If we use Miko as a case in point, she was not only a terrible paladin, though she had the social rank of samurai, she was terrible at it. Perhaps if she had an archetypal samurai training (and all that entails) she'd have been more loyal and not murdered her lord.

So choice of class would limit what personal actions a character takes? That sounds like much worse of a limitation than anything anyone has assigned to the game so far.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It is a concept. The magic involved is conceptual. The mechanics of the class would not change in my example.

Right. That's what I assumed.

That's what outside-the-box thinking is all about. It doesn't have to be like other spells. If that line of thought prevailed among designers we would never have seen the 3E Warlock or the Book of Nine Swords.

Haha, bad examples for me personally. I didn't like the class or the book

I do get your point, but those were also entirely new mechanics created to help place concepts. They were not "reskinning" or the like.

Like I've said, I would never (or rarely) create something of the sort for NPCs. But PCs can be unique in my games. As long as a player isn't trying to change mechanics they can pass any concept by me and I'm willing to listen. "Martial Magic" can work exactly like the Fighter mechanics-wise. What it allows for is a wider range of options to envision your character. Internal consistency doesn't need to hold true, IMO, when we are talking about a character in the spotlight like the PCs. I'm not even saying I'd make a character like this, it was merely quick brainstorming of an idea that Imaro seemingly thought was ridiculous.

Well, from an internal consistency standpoint, it sounds ridiculous to me. It models nothing else in the game mechanically, and nothing else in the game can copy its mechanics (no components, unlimited reactive free actions, unlimited spells, and so on) without disregarding the rules that define the game. I think 3.X was pretty simulationist (and pretty gamist), so the rules were meant to model the setting. Mess with the rules, mess with the setting, and all that entails.

And, really, my impression of 4e design doesn't line up with what you're saying (that internal consistency doesn't need to hold true, especially for the PCs). While 4e definitely supports reskinning, it features that on both sides, and it favors giving everything that isn't a PC the possibility of mechanical exceptions, to boot. "Want that door to work a certain way? Beauty of exception-based design! Same for monsters! Not the same for PCs!"

I understand that individual DMs have different thresholds of concepts they'd like to allow. I have a line myself. My greater point is that people are claiming Roles limit their characters, but they are more than willing to limit player creativity based on class choice.

Yes, but player creativity in the sense you're describing it is based on the social contract. It's based on what lines we as a group draw. If you were in a different group, they might accept your barbarian/sorcerer with no problems.

Roles, on the other hand, are deeply and purposefully embedded into the classes. No matter what table I sit it, it's expected that my Cleric be a Leader, or my Fighter be a Defender. Yes, certain groups will accept striving against those confines, but the class is literally mechanically stuck in that role.

Reskinning classes is nice. It lets you do things with them that are out of the box. It lets you be creative. I think that separating role from classes only lets classes get even more easy to reskin, really. I mean, if I want to play a holy warrior striker, I'm not forced to reskin the Avenger, now I can potentially reskin the Cleric or Paladin, too.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Sometimes I'm not great at getting my point across. I hope you at least see what I'm trying to say. As always, play what you like

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I don't know if it's the right analogy, but it's like you're shopping for a shirt and the store only offers shirts with front pockets. You'd think it would be easy for the store to offer pocketless shirts, but they don't. A pocket is hardwired into every shirt. Yes, you could go to a tailor to remove the pocket but why go through the hassle and maybe there'd be some ugly stitching left over. You otherwise like this store and not inclined to shop elsewhere, so you hope that next season, they'll offer nice shirts with a pocketless design.

Well, the current store started small and had limited room for types of shirts they could offer. But since they've expanded they've started to not only offer pocketless shirts but some new shirts that their customers previously had no exposure to. They still haven't offered all the esoteric choices that their shirt customers can imagine, but they seem to be working towards stocking popular demands as the store grows.

 

[LurkAway]

Well, the current store started small and had limited room for types of shirts they could offer. But since they've expanded they've started to not only offer pocketless shirts but some new shirts that their customers previously had no exposure to. They still haven't offered all the esoteric choices that their shirt customers can imagine, but they seem to be working towards stocking popular demands as the store grows.

It's too bad the store was thinking small instead of thinking big when they started. Because they lost a lot of customers to The Gap. Still that would be forgivable except that the head of the marketing dept should be fired for labelling the pocketless shirt line to be "esoteric" because that judgment value means they still didn't understand their customers.

Edit: Not to inadvertently land myself in hot water, but the metaphorical head of the marketing dept should be fired, not you. Marketing people are supposed to be sensitive to customer values, but I don't hold the same expectations here, nor for myself

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I do get your point, but those were also entirely new mechanics created to help place concepts. They were not "reskinning" or the like.

Well, I'd talk about house-ruling but I don't enjoy it myself and it always seems to invoke an even stronger negative reaction than reskinning.

Well, from an internal consistency standpoint, it sounds ridiculous to me. It models nothing else in the game mechanically, and nothing else in the game can copy its mechanics (no components, unlimited reactive free actions, unlimited spells, and so on) without disregarding the rules that define the game.

It models the Fighter mechanically. The Fighter can copy its mechanics. The concept drives the look of that 18 STR Fighter from buff pro-wrestler body to scrawny geek. That's it. It requires no rules adjustments. I understand this may not be a satisfactory answer to some, but when its seems those that are unwilling to reskin are also unwilling to house rule, then it seems unreasonable to me to expect the designers of the game to cater to all your wants in the game.

And, really, my impression of 4e design doesn't line up with what you're saying (that internal consistency doesn't need to hold true, especially for the PCs). While 4e definitely supports reskinning, it features that on both sides, and it favors giving everything that isn't a PC the possibility of mechanical exceptions, to boot. "Want that door to work a certain way? Beauty of exception-based design! Same for monsters! Not the same for PCs!"

I can only speak to my own preferences. I prefer to offer consistency most of the time to the players. But, since their characters are in the bright spotlight, I have no issue with breaking expectations for a unique concept. Exception-based design speaks directly to rules, not concepts.

Yes, but player creativity in the sense you're describing it is based on the social contract. It's based on what lines we as a group draw. If you were in a different group, they might accept your barbarian/sorcerer with no problems.

I would hope few tables would have a problem with a player choosing Barbarian and choosing to be from a civilized city. Anything else outside of special campaigns would be too restrictive for my tastes.

Roles, on the other hand, are deeply and purposefully embedded into the classes. No matter what table I sit it, it's expected that my Cleric be a Leader, or my Fighter be a Defender. Yes, certain groups will accept striving against those confines, but the class is literally mechanically stuck in that role.

No matter what table? Then you say certain groups. I'm confused by alot of what you and Imaro are saying. I'm arguing the absoluteness that the two of you are projecting. If you're dealing in less than absolutes then I have only a matter of scope to argue. And since I only have anecdotal evidence of the tables I've played at and their expectations, that endeavor would be pointless.

Reskinning classes is nice. It lets you do things with them that are out of the box. It lets you be creative. I think that separating role from classes only lets classes get even more easy to reskin, really. I mean, if I want to play a holy warrior striker, I'm not forced to reskin the Avenger, now I can potentially reskin the Cleric or Paladin, too.

I've said multiple times I think both you and Imaro have great ideas and I hope WotC continues to work towards these goals. But I also like working with the current toolset to see what I can make work for me. And I enjoy sharing my ideas with others. You and Imaro may think my ideas are crap, but I'm sure some think their gold, while others just wish we'd all just shut up.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Sometimes I'm not great at getting my point across. I hope you at least see what I'm trying to say. As always, play what you like

I think I do. Hopefully I've gotten mine across as well and don't come off as discussing dishonestly.