Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Guest 85555]

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

I think a little brokeness can be a good thing. Making character choices matter (including having some potential pitfalls) isn't so bad.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I can agree with this to a point... though I apparently don't feel that hardcoded role is necessarily a significant factor here, especially since many are arguing that the roles have always been in D&D (whether I agree with this or not is besides the point) just not "called out" as they are in 4e.

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

Eh, I would argue class is what feeds into paragon paths and role only in so much as it is hardcoded into a particular class. With one multi-class feat any character can jump into any paragon path they want, regardless of their role.

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.

Hmmm, I've seen you make the same argument for power selection (which I think is a much stronger argument than the one you are presenting here.). Where a themed selection of powers gives a character identity in the fiction, that I can see... role=striker, not so much.

At any rate... I guess we can agree to disagree, as I see nothing in the above statement that revolves around a hard-coding of roles. My PC's have always had a clear identity in the fiction in every game we play and I think creating fictionally dramatic combats that have memorable parts is based much more heavily on DM encounter design than you seem to be giving it credit for... all IMO of course.

(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.)

See and this is where I feel it might be that 4e does this particularly well... for permeton's sensibilities. Because in my experience the things you seem to think 4e does particularly well this can be accomplished with a number of systems that don't hard-code combat role into class.

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.

The "something else" is that it now makes combat role selectable under the more general archetype/class umbrella as opposed to hardcoding a specific role into an entire class. IMO there's a big difference between every Paladin build is a defender and there are both striker and defender builds under the Paladin class/archetype. The first, IMO, is vastly more limiting in in the freedom to match archetype and gameplay style.

 

[pemerton]

this is where I feel it might be that 4e does this particularly well... for permeton's sensibilities.

That's probably true, but who else's sensibilities do you want me to use?

Because in my experience the things you seem to think 4e does particularly well this can be accomplished with a number of systems that don't hard-code combat role into class.

Which systems have you got in mind? When I think of RQ, RM or AD&D I don't agree. But obviously there are many more systems under the sun.

many are arguing that the roles have always been in D&D

I think there was always something there - as the quotes from Gygax that I posted upthread indicate. I don't think the roles had quite the same mechanical expression as they do in 4e. There was nothing mechanically analogous to the defender role in classic D&D (although depending whether one followed Basic or AD&D DMG guidelines on entering and leaving melee, there could be some sort of approximation to it), and at least in my experience in combat healing was also rarer than in 4e, and so also not really a part of the combat dynamics. In my experience at least, in combat classic D&D clerics generally performed as second-rate fighters until they got access to serious attack spells like Hold Person and Flame Strike, at which point they performed as alternative MUs.

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.

I don't think it would break the power level of the game. The game is (in my view) very robust in that respect.

I think it would adversely affect the dynamics of combat - although others, including (I think) [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], disagree. I find that the distribution of "responsibilities" across the PCs helps make 4e combat what it is - for example, it generates dynamic interaction between the "action budget" for each player, which in turn can generate intricate decision making in relation to positioning PCs in the initiative sequence, all of which in turn produces drama and tension at the table.

As to what the designers should take into account - I hope they continue to produce a game that supports the sort of focused builds that 4e seems to me to be designed around. I don't particularly care whether they do it via classes or sub-classes, provided there is neither too much bloat nor too many orphaned options. This may make the game less popular than it otherwise might be. I don't know. But the game as it is seems to be popular enough to be viable, which is all that I need.

The "something else" is that it now makes combat role selectable under the more general archetype/class umbrella as opposed to hardcoding a specific role into an entire class. IMO there's a big difference between every Paladin build is a defender and there are both striker and defender builds under the Paladin class/archetype. The first, IMO, is vastly more limiting in in the freedom to match archetype and gameplay style.

OK. Putting the bloat issue to one side, I think it's much of a muchness whether new sub-classes are created under Paladin, or whether a new class is created that is a heavily armourd, divinely powered striker. For me, this falls under the "what's in a name" comment made upthread by [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION].

Of course, the bloat issue shouldn't be put to one side. It is a good reason for having sub-classes. Runepriest is the most obvious class I can think of that should have been a sub-class (of Cleric). I don't have a very good understanding of Seekers, but they look like they should probably have been either a Ranger or a Druid sub-class.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think it would break the power level of the game. The game is (in my view) very robust in that respect.

I think it would adversely affect the dynamics of combat - although others, including (I think) [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], disagree. I find that the distribution of "responsibilities" across the PCs helps make 4e combat what it is - for example, it generates dynamic interaction between the "action budget" for each player, which in turn can generate intricate decision making in relation to positioning PCs in the initiative sequence, all of which in turn produces drama and tension at the table.

Maybe it's because I use combat much less frequently than you do, but I've never really felt a lack of drama or tension in a fight, unless the PCs greatly overpowered their enemies (which is hard to do in my game unless you're particularly high level and your enemies are particularly low level). And, as I have a point-buy system (the game is classless), it's definitely up to the players how focused they want their characters. I've yet to see drama or tension wane in my games from switching to my system. Personally, I attribute drama and tension more to the story implications, likelihood of success in combat, and danger presented.

As to what the designers should take into account - I hope they continue to produce a game that supports the sort of focused builds that 4e seems to me to be designed around. I don't particularly care whether they do it via classes or sub-classes, provided there is neither too much bloat nor too many orphaned options. This may make the game less popular than it otherwise might be. I don't know. But the game as it is seems to be popular enough to be viable, which is all that I need.

I think we're talking past another. I'm giving my point of view on games with roles, and you seem to be giving your view of 4e with roles. While I did mention 4e without combat roles being baked into the class, my post was talking about games at large, and the preferences of players.

If most players would not willingly make tightly focused combat role characters if given the option not to, it's a sign to me that most games shouldn't use that approach. To that end, in a theoretically new game (like 5e), I think they should definitely back away from combat roles being baked into the class.

As always, play what you like

 

[Imaro]

Maybe it's because I use combat much less frequently than you do, but I've never really felt a lack of drama or tension in a fight, unless the PCs greatly overpowered their enemies (which is hard to do in my game unless you're particularly high level and your enemies are particularly low level). And, as I have a point-buy system (the game is classless), it's definitely up to the players how focused they want their characters. I've yet to see drama or tension wane in my games from switching to my system. Personally, I attribute drama and tension more to the story implications, likelihood of success in combat, and danger presented.

Emphasis mine... this is more along my experiences as well. IMO, the design of the encounter (or adventure if we are talking about a larger scale) is what drives drama and tension for most players.

In 4e bad adventure/encounter design can lead to the dreaded combat grind which seems to be the very antithesis of drama and tension... and I'm not seeing how combat roles do anything to mitigate this.

 

[pemerton]

In 4e bad adventure/encounter design can lead to the dreaded combat grind which seems to be the very antithesis of drama and tension... and I'm not seeing how combat roles do anything to mitigate this.

Luckily I only run well-designed encounters!

Maybe it's because I use combat much less frequently than you do, but I've never really felt a lack of drama or tension in a fight, unless the PCs greatly overpowered their enemies (which is hard to do in my game unless you're particularly high level and your enemies are particularly low level).

In my experience, scry-buff-teleport style play is somewhat lacking in drama and tension. It shifts the emphasis of play to preparation rather than resolution.

And systems in which victory in combat turns mostly on the "first lucky strike" - Rolemaster, Runequest and classic Traveller are all such systems - tend to produce a different sort of tension from 4e. I've played a lot of these sorts of games. 4e is an interesting change.

 

[Imaro]

Luckily I only run well-designed encounters!

I'm sure...

In my experience, scry-buff-teleport style play is somewhat lacking in drama and tension. It shifts the emphasis of play to preparation rather than resolution.

And systems in which victory in combat turns mostly on the "first lucky strike" - Rolemaster, Runequest and classic Traveller are all such systems - tend to produce a different sort of tension from 4e. I've played a lot of these sorts of games. 4e is an interesting change.

This is interesting... The first paragraph definitely speaks more to mid-high level 3e (although I think this again boils down to encounter design) , so I guess I'm curious how the nigh invulnerability of late paragon and epic 4e PC's affects drama and tension in your game?

 

[JamesonCourage]

In my experience, scry-buff-teleport style play is somewhat lacking in drama and tension. It shifts the emphasis of play to preparation rather than resolution.

Um, I'm not sure the point of this? I don't play 3.X, to which this is an obvious reference. Long distance teleportation is hard to accomplish in my game, and "scrying" is effectively impossible. Buffs are possible, though. So, I guess people can buff before a fight, though that limits most enemy-hampering effects.

And systems in which victory in combat turns mostly on the "first lucky strike" - Rolemaster, Runequest and classic Traveller are all such systems - tend to produce a different sort of tension from 4e. I've played a lot of these sorts of games. 4e is an interesting change.

Again, this is also kinda related, I guess, but isn't really a response to what I stated:

Maybe it's because I use combat much less frequently than you do, but I've never really felt a lack of drama or tension in a fight, unless the PCs greatly overpowered their enemies (which is hard to do in my game unless you're particularly high level and your enemies are particularly low level). And, as I have a point-buy system (the game is classless), it's definitely up to the players how focused they want their characters. I've yet to see drama or tension wane in my games from switching to my system. Personally, I attribute drama and tension more to the story implications, likelihood of success in combat, and danger presented.

I was commenting on the type of combat (one based on story implications, likelihood of success, and danger) and the roles of the PCs (whether loose or tight, since I run a point-buy style game).

That is, my game can have pretty broadly created PCs, or pretty tightly made and focused PCs, and yet drama and tension don't seem to suffer or inflate due to how focused PCs are. The PCs can be incredibly broad or incredibly focused, but if the fight isn't important to the story (random unaligned bandits... again), the players are assuredly going to succeed, and they aren't in any danger, there's no tension or drama.

However, no matter how broad the PCs are, or how focused they are, if there's a lot of story involved in the fight, they have a very significant chance of failure, and the combat is filled with danger, there most certainly will be drama and tension.

This has nothing to do with "scry and fry" or "first lucky strike" styles of gameplay. If 4e, just like in my game, my players would have exactly the same reaction I described above. If they have a fully-resourced fight on the road against a random group of unaligned bandits that they can safely use dailys on, then there's no real drama or tension. However, if they're down to a single healing surge each, fighting the BBEG after he ambushed them, they're in very real danger of having the diplomat they're escorting be killed (which would make them fail their mission), and he's powerful enough with his minions to present a very real threat.... you can bet that there's drama and tension.

Again, I think it comes more to those three factors than combat roles. I just don't see it. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I was commenting on the type of combat (one based on story implications, likelihood of success, and danger) and the roles of the PCs (whether loose or tight, since I run a point-buy style game).

<snip>

no matter how broad the PCs are, or how focused they are, if there's a lot of story involved in the fight, they have a very significant chance of failure, and the combat is filled with danger, there most certainly will be drama and tension.

<snip>

Again, I think it comes more to those three factors than combat roles. I just don't see it.

That there is story involved in the fight - that is, that something is at stake which matters to the players and is relevant to their engagement with the fiction via their PCs - I am taking for granted.

But I think mechanics can still matter to this. If the stakes are very high, but the mechanics (as can be the case with Runequest or Traveller, for example) take the form of "miss", "miss", "miss", "hit and win!", then the actual process of resolving the combat won't itself be a microcosm of story and drama. It will just ratchet up the tension until the outcome is decided.

I also find traditional D&D mechanics make for boring combat. My flight from AD&D to Rolemaster was driven both by the standard realism concerns about hit points, and also by the fairly common feeling that victory by attrition made for boring combat. That the combat itself is high stakes doesn't reduce the tedium of the attrition as a resolution process.

This has nothing to do with "scry and fry" or "first lucky strike" styles of gameplay.

I'm not talking about styles so much as mechanics. "First lucky strike" isn't a style of gameplay, it's a property of the action resolution mechanics of games like RM, RQ and Traveller. And also high-level 3E, but substituting "first failed save" for "first lucky strike". (I suspect maybe also Burning Wheel, but (i) I don't have the play experience with BW to form a strong view, and (ii) BW has other mechanics, including both "shrug it off" mechanics and also its expectations about what losing a combat means, to make it a bit different from the traditional games.)

Scry-buff-teleport is also, in my view, a mechanical phenomenon. (Which "first lucky strike" encourages.) It doesn't even depend on having access to scrying, to teleportation, or to buffing! What it depends upon is mechanics which make it possible (i) for the PCs (and hence the players) to gain advance knowledge of when a fight will take place, and (ii) for the PCs to benefit, in the ensuing combat, from deploying their resources in advance and/or in an opening surprise salvo.

Even at low-levels in classic D&D this can be done to an extent using invisible and silent scouting, and then casting Sleep and/or Hold Person and/or backstabbing.

4e has the first sort of mechanics - the scrying/scouting options - but not the second. The PCs can't win a fight by expending their resources in advance or in a surprise round. The important decisions about resource expenditure have to be made in the course of the combat itself.

If 4e, just like in my game, my players would have exactly the same reaction I described above. If they have a fully-resourced fight on the road against a random group of unaligned bandits that they can safely use dailys on, then there's no real drama or tension. However, if they're down to a single healing surge each, fighting the BBEG after he ambushed them, they're in very real danger of having the diplomat they're escorting be killed (which would make them fail their mission), and he's powerful enough with his minions to present a very real threat.... you can bet that there's drama and tension.

Different mechanical resolution systems can make it more or less likely that the sort of scenario you talk about will come about.

A "first lucky strike" system, for example, discourages the GM from having the BBEG ambush the PCs, because such a system makes it more likely that the ambush will see a significant number of PCs killed.

An attrition system, like classic D&D, makes the sort of scenario you describe less dramatic (in my view) because once combat has begun it offers few options for turning the tide or "making your own luck" other than lucky rolls to hit or to damage.

4e has mechanical features - its emphasis on movement and position as an integral component of combat resolution, for example, and its very liberal use of conditions that make the resolution of combat more than just a matter of attrition - that make it different from many other mainstream fantasy RPGs. There are many, many ways in which the players, by clever play, can make their own luck. And the correlation between mechanics and fiction means that this will be different from making your own luck if you're a clever chess player or poker player or whatever - because the players' clever use of the game rules translates (at least typically) into interesting events in the fiction.

4e also has mechancial features - like the need for PCs, if they are to win combats, to gain access to their healing surges - which make it more likely that the sort of "down to a single healing surge each" moments you describe will take place. These same mechanics also make it very common for the tide of battle to swing, quite dramatically, one way or another. In some ways it resembles the action resolution system in HeroWars (of points bidding, and the shifting of points one way or another) but obviously much less abstract.

This sort of thing can, of course, happen in other games. But at least in my experience, in a game like AD&D or RM it will be a result of changes in luck with the dice (every Rolemaster group has their story about the time a player rolled double-open-ended-high to pluck victory from the jaws of defeat). In 4e it is also, to a significant extent, a result of the players' clever use of their PCs' powers and action budget.

Which is where roles come in. Because it is the existence of focused PC builds that helps create the mechanical intricacy of the interaction between powers and the action economy.

This is interesting... The first paragraph definitely speaks more to mid-high level 3e (although I think this again boils down to encounter design) , so I guess I'm curious how the nigh invulnerability of late paragon and epic 4e PC's affects drama and tension in your game?

At the moment my game is in mid-Paragon. In story terms, I would think of it as comparable to name level AD&D.

I've heard differing view expressed about whether 4e combat breaks down at Epic (and/or later Paragon). I'm curious to find out - and obviously am hoping that it doesn't!

 

[iela13euoiw]

I wasn't following how your post relates to the topic of codified roles in RPGs, so maybe it doesn't. But it seems you are equating "4E Leader" with "Party Leader." A "4E Leader" is actually shorthand for "Healer and Buffer" while the party leader can be taken on exactly how you describe it by any character and/or player