Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Imaro]

There's a trade off with classes - you get a significant level of confidence that the party's on even footing, which gives you easy paths to encounter and adventure design.

To get that, you need to give up some flexibility.

If you want infinite flexibility, you probably shouldn't be playing a game with classes. If you are playing with classes, you ought to be ready and willing to either wait for someone to make up the class that fits your concept exactly, make it up yourself, or be willing to make a few compromises.

I don't think anyone asked for "infinite" flexibility. But I do think a class system should be robust enough to cover the variations on the roles that particular archetypes encompass. This can be done in numerous ways such as making the class abilities generic and broad enough to fit with the varying iconic roles of the archetype (like a class in Basic D&D) or giving the player the option to customize it with decision points in order to "choose" which iconic role he wants his archetype to represent (feats and alternate class abilities in 3.x). However I think basing your archetypes around a particualr role leads to an unnecessary loss of flexibility overall.

Again this wasn't a problem with missing classes it was a problem with, IMO, heavily tying archetypes to roles... in fact I would argue that the classes in 4e (as far as discussion goes) are much more associated with the role they serve in combat than any archetype they may be representing.

 

[GSHamster]

I'm wonder if it would have been a good idea to have a non-mechanical level above classes, say called archetype.

Archetypes would describe the general characteristics of classes that share that archetype, while classes would provide concrete instances. All the rules would be in the class.

Like the Holy Warrior archetype would be:
- wears heavy armor
- has a little bit of healing
- has a little bit of divine magic
- worships a god
- has a code of behavior

Then Paladin class is still a defender, but it shares the common characteristics of a Holy Warrior, but without involving mechanics. That way if there's a specific archetype component you don't want to include, or if you want to combine archetypes, you can do so without causing rules problems.

That way you can add other Holy Warrior classes, like an striker or controller, without stepping on the toes of the current Paladin class.

 

[Tayne]

There's a trade off with classes - you get a significant level of confidence that the party's on even footing, which gives you easy paths to encounter and adventure design.

To get that, you need to give up some flexibility.

If you want infinite flexibility, you probably shouldn't be playing a game with classes. If you are playing with classes, you ought to be ready and willing to either wait for someone to make up the class that fits your concept exactly, make it up yourself, or be willing to make a few compromises.

... or you could play a game with highly customizeable classes...

 

[Umbran]

I don't think anyone asked for "infinite" flexibility. But I do think a class system should be robust enough to cover the variations on the roles that particular archetypes encompass.

Here's the thing - you have an idea of what "the variations" are. Joe over there has a different idea. Sam will have yet a different set of what "the variations are". And there's no particular reason for me to take your variations, and not Joe's, right?

Gamers are a creative bunch. If you add them up, the list of variations becomes very, very large.

Again this wasn't a problem with missing classes it was a problem with, IMO, heavily tying archetypes to roles...

Ah. You see, I think the standard fictional archetypes usually imply their role naturally. They are "archetypes" because we've seen them frequently in fictions - and in those fictions, they tend to play certain roles. The archetype is, in large part, defined by the role commonly played!

Step away from fantasy fiction, and look at comic book superheroes for an illustration. There are many examples of "the brick" as an archetype in comics - The Thing, The Hulk, Superman, the Tick - the big guy with lots of muscles who;s nigh invulnerable. The archetype is primarily a melee combatant.

If you want to play that archetype, but have him be in the role of "support", you aren't playing the archetype. You're playing *against* the type.

 

[Tayne]

Here's the thing - you have an idea of what "the variations" are. Joe over there has a different idea. Sam will have yet a different set of what "the variations are". And there's no particular reason for me to take your variations, and not Joe's, right?

Gamers are a creative bunch. If you add them up, the list of variations becomes very, very large.

That sounds great to me. Are you implying that there's something wrong with having lots of options? I love all the class archetypal variant options in Pathfinder. I'm playing a phalanx soldier variant right now. It's great.

 

[Imaro]

Here's the thing - you have an idea of what "the variations" are. Joe over there has a different idea. Sam will have yet a different set of what "the variations are". And there's no particular reason for me to take your variations, and not Joe's, right?

Gamers are a creative bunch. If you add them up, the list of variations becomes very, very large.

Using the 4e framework though... this isn't true. You see there are only 4 recognized roles in 4e... striker, defender, controller, and leader. So at most on a high level one needs 4 variations of a particular archetype and that's assuming that the archetype is considered to encompass a certain role. the rest is individual customization through skills, feats, etc.

As an example, the traditional D&D arcane archetype does not encompass healing magic and thus wouldn't have a leader role since that is the primary function of a leader. On the other hand the archetypical D&D fighter has been a striker, a defender, and now with 4e a leader (warlord). Ultimately what I'm saying is let the roles themselves define the variations at a high level and the player fine tune them at the specific level. Instead we don't even have high-level variations in the archetypes.

Ah. You see, I think the standard fictional archetypes usually imply their role naturally. They are "archetypes" because we've seen them frequently in fictions - and in those fictions, they tend to play certain roles. The archetype is, in large part, defined by the role commonly played!

Uhm... I agree with the first part but not the last. In fiction the warrior is only sometimes presented as a defender and I would say he is portrayed as a striker just as much as rogue-ish characters are. On the other hand Wizards are very often strikers, defenders and controllers... clerics can be leaders, defenders, controllers and very rarely even strikers (depending on the god or ideal they follow).

Step away from fantasy fiction, and look at comic book superheroes for an illustration. There are many examples of "the brick" as an archetype in comics - The Thing, The Hulk, Superman, the Tick - the big guy with lots of muscles who;s nigh invulnerable. The archetype is primarily a melee combatant.

Why are we stepping away from fantasy fiction to discuss fantasy archetypes? I'm not playing a superhero game. Secondly, melee combatant isn't a role... so I'm not sure what point you were making?

If you want to play that archetype, but have him be in the role of "support", you aren't playing the archetype. You're playing *against* the type.

Really? Because the Warlord is very much a melee combatant and support. That's why I said melee combatant isn't a role, at least not how 4e defines them (which is of course what we are discussing here.).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Cool, though my Paladin now has the primal power source and rages and a host of other things that don't necessarily fit with the archetype I'm picturing... especially depending on the god or ideals I want him to follow.

Power Source has no mechanical bearing on the game outside of design.

You say Rage, I say Holy Fervor.
You say Rage, I say calling upon the strength of my god.

If you want a Striker (guy who dishes out lots of damage) it is unlikely he would choose to follow the goddess of peace. You would more likely choose a god whose ideals uphold proactive violence.

Are you implying that there's something wrong with having lots of options? I love all the class archetypal variant options in Pathfinder. I'm playing a phalanx soldier variant right now. It's great.

There is nothing inherently wrong with alot of options. If those options lead to capable characters I'm all for it.

As for Pathfinder I think that would fall in the range of a large, maybe even vary large number of options. Whereas Umbran is talking about the near-infinite possibilities that a large group of creative minds can imagine. You can't please everyone, but you can continue building towards pleasing more. Pathfinder has basically had 11 years to develop the options it has today, whereas 4E has just 3. Most class-based games start at the popular archetypes and expand from there. Could you have built the same phalanx soldier you are playing today back in 2003?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Using the 4e framework though... this isn't true. You see there are only 4 recognized roles in 4e... striker, defender, controller, and leader. So at most on a high level one needs 4 variations of a particular archetype and that's assuming that the archetype is considered to encompass a certain role. the rest is individual customization through skills, feats, etc.

As an example, the traditional D&D arcane archetype does not encompass healing magic and thus wouldn't have a leader role since that is the primary function of a leader. On the other hand the archetypical D&D fighter has been a striker, a defender, and now with 4e a leader (warlord). Ultimately what I'm saying is let the roles themselves define the variations at a high level and the player fine tune them at the specific level. Instead we don't even have high-level variations in the archetypes.

The bard is the traditional arcane healer.

Even if you limit your thinking to 4 roles, the existence of power source to expand archetypes in design is key. With the six existing power sources you have a base of 24. And even that isn't a limitation. Even in the first PHB you have two Martial Strikers that play and feel very different. Class concept adds a multiplicative variable to the base that is only limited by the imagination of the designers.

 

[Tayne]

There is nothing inherently wrong with alot of options. If those options lead to capable characters I'm all for it.

As for Pathfinder I think that would fall in the range of a large, maybe even vary large number of options. Whereas Umbran is talking about the near-infinite possibilities that a large group of creative minds can imagine. You can't please everyone, but you can continue building towards pleasing more. Pathfinder has basically had 11 years to develop the options it has today, whereas 4E has just 3. Most class-based games start at the popular archetypes and expand from there. Could you have built the same phalanx soldier you are playing today back in 2003?

Of course I could have. I can build anything I want, if the DM allows it.

Options in a good role playing game aren't near infinite, they are infinite.*

Again, is there anything wrong with this? I don't see the logic in this line of reasoning at all. Isn't homebrewing still encouraged? Aren't all RPG systems brewed in someone's home, after all?

Is 4E so restrictive that people, in it's defense, argue FOR pigeonholing and stereotyping AGAINST plurality of options and diversity? Or is that just kind of a misguided way to stick up for it?

*subject to DM discretion offer not valid in Utah

(also, I would argue that both systems have their roots all the way back to the same time in the 1970's or whatever, it's just that Hasbro has chosen to scrap so much of that for 4E, calling the wisdom of that decision into question in the first place... but that's somewhat off topic)

 

[Imaro]

Power Source has no mechanical bearing on the game outside of design.

No, that's not exactly true... power source does tend to correlate with the type of damage your powers do. Like alot of divine powers doing radiant damage and it being more effective against undead.

You say Rage, I say Holy Fervor.
You say Rage, I say calling upon the strength of my god.

Great if you happen to worship a war god or something along those lines, but still limiting for other types of gods.

If you want a Striker (guy who dishes out lots of damage) it is unlikely he would choose to follow the goddess of peace. You would more likely choose a god whose ideals uphold proactive violence.

I think there's a big middle between god of violence and god of peace that you are overlooking. I don't see a correlation between the god/ideal and role. Otherwise why isn't my paladin of a war god a striker?

On another note I would argue every god in 4e upholds proactive violence by the simple fact that they all have weapon wielding paladins in their service...

The bard is the traditional arcane healer.

I would argue that the bard isn't the traditional arcane archetype (that would be Wizard, and upon further thought the archetype is the wizard class.)... he's a totally different archetype since he's a little bit of everything not just arcane... in fact I would say the bard is more under the rogue archetype than that of the wizard.

Even if you limit your thinking to 4 roles, the existence of power source to expand archetypes in design is key. With the six existing power sources you have a base of 24. And even that isn't a limitation. Even in the first PHB you have two Martial Strikers that play and feel very different. Class concept adds a multiplicative variable to the base that is only limited by the imagination of the designers.

Sigh, I don't think power source has anything to do with it, that's something WotC extrapolated from archetypes... but true archetypes transcend that. When I say archetype, I am speaking of archetypical classes, and power source can be a part of them, but it doesn't define archetypes.