Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Imaro]

There's nothing objectionable about it. But it would produce a different game from 4e. It would have implications for the design of Paragon Paths. It would - I suspect - tend to produce less focused PCs (less focused both mechanically and fictionally).

I'm not really clear here... I can understand mechanically, since I think 4e's hybrids have the same problem multi-classing in D&D has always had... some combos work really well together and some combos gimp you. But I don't get the part about fictionally?

How does one's combat role determine whether one's character is more or less focused fictionally? While this does seem to again support the view that the fictional elements of the game aren't just meaningless fluff for ability packages... I don't see how not having an intrinsic combat role would make a fictionally less focused character than one that does?

 

[chaochou]

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.

The critical design point, I think, is that for class to provide any mechanical meaning it defines what you can't do.

Classes define your abilities - and by omission - your inabilities. If our paladin can be a striker, leader, controller and defender - and so can our wizard, avenger, cleric, rogue, ranger and warlock; why would the system need class? What would it provide, mechanically?

It can no longer be providing mechanical meaning, by definition, since we've agreed that the mechanics give everyone the potential for equality with regard to defence, hp, buffing, area of effect and damage output.

The more overlap there is between classes, the less class means - it's self-evident. Until, if all classes have the potential to do all things equally well, class becomes mechanically meaningless. Wizard controller can do 6d6 area damage with his meteor strike? Ranger controller can do that with her bow and Cleric controller can call down some holy wrath.

So what you say above is true from one perspective: making role seperate from class makes it easy to reskin. But I'd say from a design point of view - it's not easier to reskin, it means that all you are doing is reskinning that 6d6 damage. Class is no longer a determinant of capability with regard to anything.

Of course, systems can be built to allow a paladin to be striker, defender, healer, leader, controller or whatever else. They're called Runequest, HeroWars, Burning Wheel, etc.

 

[Imaro]

The critical design point, I think, is that for class to provide any mechanical meaning it defines what you can't do.

I totally agree with this... with the added factor that class defines "how" you do things.

Classes define your abilities - and by omission - your inabilities. If our paladin can be a striker, leader, controller and defender - and so can our wizard, avenger, cleric, rogue, ranger and warlock; why would the system need class? What would it provide, mechanically?

Because, mechanically, classes provide different ways to perform combat roles as well as mechanics like skills, weapon & armor proficiencies, class abilities, and so on. Outside of mechanics they provide different fluff that is backed up with the particular mechanics of different classes.

As an example, in 4e the avenger, rogue, warlock, slayer, blackguard, ranger, etc. are all under the combat role of striker, but according to your logic above there's no need for all of these seperate classes... Yet I would argue you are wrong because each of these classes provides different fiction and mechanics, (along with different ways to enact their combat role) for a player to use within the game.

It can no longer be providing mechanical meaning, by definition, since we've agreed that the mechanics give everyone the potential for equality with regard to defence, hp, buffing, area of effect and damage output.

Again, then you are arguing that not only is there no mechanical difference between any of the classes I listed above but that there is also no mechanical difference in builds that fall under the same class and have the same combat role either... Honestly, I think quite a few advocates of 4e would argue that this is patently false though.

The more overlap there is between classes, the less class means - it's self-evident. Until, if all classes have the potential to do all things equally well, class becomes mechanically meaningless. Wizard controller can do 6d6 area damage with his meteor strike? Ranger controller can do that with her bow and Cleric controller can call down some holy wrath.

You do realize that the wizard, hunter(ranger), and invoker are all controllers in 4e... right? Yet they don't seem to fall into the situation you've presented as inevitable here.

So what you say above is true from one perspective: making role seperate from class makes it easy to reskin. But I'd say from a design point of view - it's not easier to reskin, it means that all you are doing is reskinning that 6d6 damage. Class is no longer a determinant of capability with regard to anything.

I think what I've posted above addresses his issue pretty well. Just one other note though... class =/= combat role, combat role is one of many things attached to class.

Of course, systems can be built to allow a paladin to be striker, defender, healer, leader, controller or whatever else. They're called Runequest, HeroWars, Burning Wheel, etc.

Ok, ignoring the fact that the games you list give much more freedom than just the decision of combat role in the game and just focussing on that particular aspect...

Uhmmm, no. Even now 4e is tossing combat role out when it comes to new builds and classes (I mean we even have our first dual-role build in the berserker)... so for all practical purposes they've just chosen a much longer and bloated route to get to the same destination as the games you list. The main difference being that D&D chose/chooses to attach archetype, fiction and particular class abilities to explicit combat roles while those other games don't. So in one you need 10 books to cover the breadth of what the other does in one or two books.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The critical design point, I think, is that for class to provide any mechanical meaning it defines what you can't do.

Classes define your abilities - and by omission - your inabilities. If our paladin can be a striker, leader, controller and defender - and so can our wizard, avenger, cleric, rogue, ranger and warlock; why would the system need class? What would it provide, mechanically?

As I've said before in this thread, give them class abilities to choose from. Make a Ranger a very nature-oriented class from class abilities. Give them options, but let them choose things. Give them track options, or bonuses to Nature, or favored enemy, or the ability to move through natural terrain faster, or the like. Give them class abilities that make sense for their class, and let combat roles be combat roles.

 

[chaochou]

As an example, in 4e the avenger, rogue, warlock, slayer, blackguard, ranger, etc. are all under the combat role of striker, but according to your logic above there's no need for all of these seperate classes.

I said the more overlap there is between classes, the less class means. The thing that logically follows is that there is less distinction between a rogue and a ranger than between a rogue and wizard.

Interesting however, that the Rule of Three has already accepted that there are too many similarities between classes, and too few differences. That it is impossible to tell which class has the power to do '2w and knock the target prone'. WotC think the classes are already too homogenous and you want to make them moreso.

Again, then you are arguing that not only is there no mechanical difference between any of the classes I listed above.

No, I said if classes can all achieve the same thing then class is no longer the determinant of capability.

That's not the same, so either you're deliberately setting up straw men or you don't understand those words.

You do realize that the wizard, hunter(ranger), and invoker are all controllers in 4e... right? Yet they don't seem to fall into the situation you've presented as inevitable here.

See what I said about strikers? Same here.

Because, mechanically, classes provide different ways to perform combat roles as well as mechanics like skills, weapon & armor proficiencies, class abilities, and so on.

But you're saying that none of those things should be a determinant of what role I take in combat. That my wizard can choose to be a defender in the front line of melee in his platemail and polearm.

Or maybe you think the platemail should be refluffed as a 'spell' which gives me an equivalent AC and boosts my hit points to that of a fighter. And I fluff another spell to hit and lock down and immobilise enemies. And maybe you even claim that doing so would make the wizard mechanically different.

Meanwhile the fighter has decided that he's actually going to stand at the back being protected by the front line mage - and somehow gets fewer hitpoints and less armour - and we refluff some spells as 'grenades' or something like that so he can really dish out some hardcore aoe damage.

And all this is to be achieved for every class and every role. And at the end, you claim that all these classes will still be different in ways which are mechanically meaningful.

I think what I've posted above addresses his issue pretty well.

I'm sorry, but I don't think what you've posted addresses anything much. You're arguing to homogenise class effectiveness across the board while simultaneously claiming classes will retain some unspecified uniqueness.

I've yet to see you post anything which supports such a claim.

 

[tomBitonti]

Interesting however, that the Rule of Three has already accepted that there are too many similarities between classes, and too few differences. That it is impossible to tell which class has the power to do '2w and knock the target prone'. WotC think the classes are already too homogenous and you want to make them moreso.

Additional text omitted.

Now there is a telling question. A part of the issue, though, the wash out of how the class achieved the result.

In 3.5E, many class could do that with a bull rush that hit the target into an obstruction. A mage could do it with several spells. Many melee combatants could do it with trip attacks. An archer could (with feats from extra sources, but not with core feats). Monsters could, if they had either bull rush or knockback.

I don't play 4E, but my understanding is that how part is not a mechanical part of the game, other than minimally to place a dependence on an implement, and to have the effect be usable at range or not. I would, say, though, that that is a result of the game designers explicitly omitting the how out of the effect.

I think, in 3.5E, many classes could achieve that result, (or at least with a good degree of success) but only if the player built in the capability to their character abilities.

TomB

 

[LurkAway]

But you're saying that none of those things should be a determinant of what role I take in combat. That my wizard can choose to be a defender in the front line of melee in his platemail and polearm.

He could choose to do so, but he'd be very bad at it without the appropriate training in arms and armor.

Or maybe you think the platemail should be refluffed as a 'spell' which gives me an equivalent AC and boosts my hit points to that of a fighter. And I fluff another spell to hit and lock down and immobilise enemies. And maybe you even claim that doing so would make the wizard mechanically different.

No, you don't reskin armor mechanics in this case at all.

The wizard class mechanics consider what kind of magic is fun and compelling to be in the game. If there is an abjuration school, the wizard can choose to take force shields spells. With force armor, that wizard might temporarily be a defender for a few rounds or have some other mechanical differentiation from the reliable plate and armour fighter.

Magic force shields are fictionally different than mundane armor, operate by magic advantages and limitations, and thus have different mechanical rules as well, not just reskinned plate armor.

 

[Imaro]

I said the more overlap there is between classes, the less class means. The thing that logically follows is that there is less distinction between a rogue and a ranger than between a rogue and wizard.

Of course there is less distinction betwen a rogue and ranger as opposed to a rogue and wizard... but this is only due to the fact that they have the same combat role hardcoded into the class... If say one player could pick a defender role for the ranger and another could pick a controller role for the rogue there would be more distinction... which is exactly the point.

Whether you hard code combat role in or don't, there are a finite (4) number of combat roles so there will always be overlap in characters (unless you have exactly 4 characters who all want to play each of the 4 combat roles, which seems kind of unlikely, but definitely possible if the stars align correctly.), dissassociating combat role neither increases or decreases this.

Interesting however, that the Rule of Three has already accepted that there are too many similarities between classes, and too few differences. That it is impossible to tell which class has the power to do '2w and knock the target prone'. WotC think the classes are already too homogenous and you want to make them moreso.

Hmmm, that's not exactly what I took away from that Rule-of-Three. IMO, they were moreso saying that there were so many powers (which is a seperate thing from class) that there were no powers associated with a particular class that were considered iconic. With the exception of a few...(Twin Strike anyone!!) I am in agreement with this.

Furthermore they were arguing that there should have been overlap lists containing powers that had the same mechanical effect... similar to the same way that the Sorcerer and Wizard spell lists were in 3.5 (Yet I don't often see the claim that these classes were too homogenous).

No, I said if classes can all achieve the same thing then class is no longer the determinant of capability.

Now that you've clarified...I realize this is the strawman. No one in this thread is asking for all classes to do the same thing, combat role is a single piece of what classes encompass, not the entirety.

EDIT: Thinking about this even more... even concerning combat role, classes might cover all the combat roles but it would still be the player who decided which role(s) he would be trying to cover through his own choices of build, feats, etc..

That's not the same, so either you're deliberately setting up straw men or you don't understand those words.

See above about strawmen and such...

See what I said about strikers? Same here.

*sigh* again there are only 4 roles... the fact that a ranger can now be a controller or striker is actually diversifying the class, not homogenizing it. Homogenizing it is exactly the problem before the hunter was created...when ranger = striker no matter what build or choices one selected.

But you're saying that none of those things should be a determinant of what role I take in combat. That my wizard can choose to be a defender in the front line of melee in his platemail and polearm.

Why would a wizard be a front line defender? Why would he wear platemail and why would he use a polearm? This seems like such a limited view of the possibilities in the defender role that, even though I'm not the biggest fan of 4e, I have to ask do you play 4e?

Or maybe you think the platemail should be refluffed as a 'spell' which gives me an equivalent AC and boosts my hit points to that of a fighter. And I fluff another spell to hit and lock down and immobilise enemies. And maybe you even claim that doing so would make the wizard mechanically different.

Why would I have to do this? We have an arcane defender (which, IMO, for all practical purposes should have been a wizard build like the Bladesinger) called the swordmage and it is mechanically different from the fighter... especially the shielding build. The shielding swordmage doesn't wear plate mail, doesn't fight on the frontline, doesn't punish with attacks, and doesn't have to use a polearm. He uses alot of teleportation, he reduces damage taken, he wears cloth armor, and so on.

Meanwhile the fighter has decided that he's actually going to stand at the back being protected by the front line mage - and somehow gets fewer hitpoints and less armour - and we refluff some spells as 'grenades' or something like that so he can really dish out some hardcore aoe damage.

Uhm...the slayer with his high Dex is already competent enough to be a ranged fighter. It would seem that all your complaints above would apply equally to the hunter as well and yet we now have a ranger controller that is mechanically different from a wizard.

And all this is to be achieved for every class and every role. And at the end, you claim that all these classes will still be different in ways which are mechanically meaningful.

Uhm yeah... and the fact that they have done it with certain classes would seem to indicate my line of thinking is correct. What actual proof do you have that this wouldn't work? I mean outside of unsupported opinion?

I'm sorry, but I don't think what you've posted addresses anything much. You're arguing to homogenise class effectiveness across the board while simultaneously claiming classes will retain some unspecified uniqueness.

Okay, I'm going to try this again... it's already being done. You're claiming it can't be done but we already have builds that have taken on combat roles outside of those their particular class has been assigned. On top of that we have classes that have the same combat role and yet use different mechanics to accomplish it. A Paladin's divine challenge is different form a Knight's aura, is different from a Swordmage's aegis... and so on. I'm unclear on why you are assuming it can't work?

I've yet to see you post anything which supports such a claim.

Then you must be willfully ignoring what I've posted as well as what already exists in the game.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not really clear here... I can understand mechanically, since I think 4e's hybrids have the same problem multi-classing in D&D has always had... some combos work really well together and some combos gimp you. But I don't get the part about fictionally?

How does one's combat role determine whether one's character is more or less focused fictionally? While this does seem to again support the view that the fictional elements of the game aren't just meaningless fluff for ability packages... I don't see how not having an intrinsic combat role would make a fictionally less focused character than one that does?

A big part of conflict resolution in 4e is combat. PCs are built for it; so are monsters. So the way in which combat plays out is a big part of the fiction. And role is a significant contributor to the way in which combat plays out - and hence to the fiction.

Role also feeds into paragon paths, which contribute to the fiction.

The contribution, I think, has two elements: giving the PC a clear identity in the fiction; and creating combats that are fictionally dramatic, and in which the various PCs play memorable parts.

(Of course other RPGs have dramatic combats with memorable fictional parts being played by the PCs. But I think this is one thing that 4e does particularly well. And tightly defined combat roles help this.)

If that's the case, then the players would be voluntarily choosing watered down roles. That is, they could choose all Defender powers if they wanted to be paramount at Defending. If making powers optional as indicated above would tend to produce less focused PCs, isn't that a sign that players tend to want more diversity than roles give them?

I don't think the game should create options that undermine the play experience it offers. Reasonably tightly defined roles are part of what makes the 4e combat mechanics work.

we already have builds that have taken on combat roles outside of those their particular class has been assigned.

Using builds/sub-classes rather than classes reduces power (especially utility power) and feat bloat. But you seem to think it does something else as well. I'm not sure what you think that something else is, though.

Magic force shields are fictionally different than mundane armor, operate by magic advantages and limitations, and thus have different mechanical rules as well, not just reskinned plate armor.

What you say is true, but from a practical point of view I find that one thing I don't miss in 4e is the rules' relative indifference to power source as an element in action resolution.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think the game should create options that undermine the play experience it offers. Reasonably tightly defined roles are part of what makes the 4e combat mechanics work.

If players would tend to build PCs differently than 4e currently allows, and that is an indication that players would prefer a different technique to character building, I would hope that the designers would account for that while also taking combat mechanics into account.

Personally, I don't think the game would completely break if you allowed PCs to have any power they wanted to, as long as it fit their level. It would certainly be different, and PCs would certainly have better combinations of powers, but my impression of the combat engine is that it could handle this change with some strain.

On that note, if the game was designed for it from the get-go, I imagine it'd be much easier to account for. And, in a discussion on whether or not roles should be baked into classes (and not just 4e), I'd much rather my view be followed. As always, play what you like