Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Gryph]

I don't have an answer to this... but I guess my question would be... once the designers have decided what archetype we are basing the class on... why restrict it further with the innecessary attachment of a explicit combat role??

Well I sort of agree with you and sort of don't. I do think the 4 roles of 4e are actually fairly artificial in concept. I prefer to think of character roles in terms of tactical placement on the battlefield. So, frontline anchor, melee floater, ranged artillery, crowd control, mid-range support. I think the NPC roles of Soldier, Brute, Lurker, Skirmisher, Artillery are better role descriptors than the PC roles.

On the other hand, I would prefer classes to have fewer available builds and be more specific and iconic in their usage. Even if that means having a larger set of classes to choose from.

So I think that means I like class and role to be fairly tightly coupled, I just don't think that the four roles are the right ones.

 

[Umbran]

I'm going to disagree here, I feel like in earlier editions "da rulz" gave you much more freedom to decide what role in combat you wanted to take on within the archetype of the class you picked.

I think I see the disconnect here....

Total strawman here... What people are saying is why does my selection of the holy warrior archetype auto-regulate me to taking hits and being a blockade... When really I want to be doing damage and striking down my gods enemies like a hot knife through butter.

The thing is, the paladin class is not *the* holy warrior archetype, in full and total. It is one class that fits within the archetype. I would say that "holy warrior" is an exceedingly broad archetype, and I wouldn't generally want the designers to try to represent very broad archetypes in a single class.

Look, for example, at arcane spellcasters - if you speak as the word is used in literature, "wizard" is broad. In the game, there are multiple classes for the archetype, including both the wizard and sorcerer.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seem to be you want all things that meet a broad archetype to be one class. Others don't feel the need for that. The real argument is about how broad "class" should be.

So I think communication about games would be a lot more clear if we could have labels for mechanics that did not take on archetypical connotations. Given the resistance to that in forums, I don't know that we could ever get there.

It would be more clear, but it cannot be done unless the designers make up new nouns. White Wolf did this - they have hordes of names for "classes" throughout their games: Tremere, Children of Gaia, Virtual Adepts. These words mean very little, outside the game, carrying only a smidgen of connotation to a person in the real world.

This has a result - if you approach the game, you need to learn a whole new vocabulary before you can tell what folks are talking about at all. If you listen to someone talking about the game, it comes out as gibberish - I see this now as my friends talk about nWoD games. They have different names than the oWoD that I'm used to, so I cannot follow discussions easily at all.

Meanwhile, if you call a class a "fighter", yes your ideas of what a fighter does may differ some from the exact implementation in the game, but you have a general idea that it's a guy who fights. In a fantasy game, the images of people in armor with swords leap to mind.

There's a tradeoff there. Clear communication for folks already in the know is traded for a level of accessibility for those who aren't. ("Spellsword" - okay, that's someone who uses spells, *and* a sword! I got that fast. "Euthanatos"? Huh?)

 

[D'karr]

Yep.



I play 4e and PF...

Going this route I'll still always be a second-rate, probably even a third rate striker compared to a true striker class that maximizes for damage (I would say about the only defender class this isn't true for is the fighter right now). I will only truly excel as a defender... because the class was built that way.

If you wanted to be a "first rate striker" then you should have picked a class that supports that fully.

If I want to play Sebastian from the Little Mermaid and I choose to play Sebastian from the Little Mermaid, and the rules support playing Sebastian from the Little Mermaid, I don't then complain that someone else is playing Megatron. You could have picked Megatron, the rules support playing Megatron, but YOU chose to play Sebastian.

You chose to be a Paladin and there are tons of feats and powers that let you do as much damage if not more than a striker. The choice was yours.

I'm not loosing anything (except the ability to defend better)... the problem is that I am in an uphill race at this point where other "true" strikers are already ahead of me.

LOL you should seek help. There are a lot of ads on the internet to take care of this ***** envy "problem."

Mod Note: Right. Folks, if you hadn't noticed, there's a moderator active in the thread. Taking cheap personal shots is remarkably unwise under such circumstances. ~Umbran

 

[Imaro]

I think I see the disconnect here....



The thing is, the paladin class is not *the* holy warrior archetype, in full and total. It is one class that fits within the archetype. I would say that "holy warrior" is an exceedingly broad archetype, and I wouldn't generally want the designers to try to represent very broad archetypes in a single class.

Look, for example, at arcane spellcasters - if you speak as the word is used in literature, "wizard" is broad. In the game, there are multiple classes for the archetype, including both the wizard and sorcerer.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seem to be you want all things that meet a broad archetype to be one class. Others don't feel the need for that. The real argument is about how broad "class" should be.

This is close to what I am getting at Umbran... My bigger point though is why tie a particular archetype, whether it's Paladin or Wizard to a specific role in combat... I'm finding it hard too understand why you would do this instead of, for excample, leaving them open and having a build for numerous roles (like...surprise, surprise, they are finally doing now.). It's like they tried to tie a game conceit into the part of the game that revolves around concept.

As an example, the Paladin could fit the concept for my character perfectly... but if I don't like the gameplay of the defender role... he won't be fun to play. I don't like that 4e tied these decisions even more intimately to each other. On the one hand the proficiencies, class abilities, skills, etc. could be perfect for my concept but the role could be terrible for the type of play experience I enjoy.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This is close to what I am getting at Umbran... My bigger point though is why tie a particular archetype, whether it's Paladin or Wizard to a specific role in combat... I'm finding it hard too understand why you would do this instead of, for example, leaving them open and having a build for numerous roles (like...surprise, surprise, they are finally doing now.). It's like they tried to tie a game conceit into the part of the game that revolves around concept.

I think part of this in 4E is an accident of the implementation (or at least a side effect of it). When they decided that each class would have its own list of powers, and then the powers became a big part of expressing the role, not just the class, we were going to get a certain amount of class/role blending no matter what. (That is, regardless of whether one thinks that is a good idea or not.)

Now, I'm not particularly bothered by role/class linking in the ways discussed in this topic. But I happen to not like some of the other side effects of having a list of powers for every class. I believe it was mentioned as a possible mistake in one of the recent WotC posts. So there may very well be some design/implementation avenues open here that would appeal to multiple style preferences, albeit for different reasons.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I know I said I was done, but one last thing - wasn't smite evil in 3E? Smite evil is "a striker ability."

No it isn't. A rogue, with Sneak Attack, can reliably dish out extra damage every round, like a 4E Striker. A Paladin can Smite Evil a maximum of 5 times per day by 20th level without spending feats to increase this. It's more like a specialized attack spell with linited targets than a Striker mechanic.

It kind of seems like 3E had way, way more than one striker mechanic, anyway... Magic missile?

Yes. Wizard and Clerics and Druids, oh my! They stepped on the toes of everybody else's role. In my humble opinion the game was entirely busted and near-unplayable by those that abused the Mary Sue classes. In my humble opinion 4E is the only edition to move in the right direction of given character classes a unique identity. In my humble opinion anyone who champions for these unbalanced classes is playing the game wrong.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It would be more clear, but it cannot be done unless the designers make up new nouns. White Wolf did this - they have hordes of names for "classes" throughout their games: Tremere, Children of Gaia, Virtual Adepts. These words mean very little, outside the game, carrying only a smidgen of connotation to a person in the real world...

Interesting. I've never played any White Wolf or hung around much with those that have. So my question is did these made up nouns retain their made up, technical nature over time, or did the players start to assign other meanings to them? Was this part of why there was a change in the nWoD, to get new made up nouns since the old ones had "baggage", or was it something else?

Reason I ask is that part of my hypothesis is that you can't get there even with made up nouns. Or at least you can't stay there. "Magic User" is about as generic and bland as one could possible hope to get, and not move to a completely made up term. Yet it still picked up some baggage.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This is close to what I am getting at Umbran... My bigger point though is why tie a particular archetype, whether it's Paladin or Wizard to a specific role in combat... I'm finding it hard too understand why you would do this instead of, for excample, leaving them open and having a build for numerous roles (like...surprise, surprise, they are finally doing now.). It's like they tried to tie a game conceit into the part of the game that revolves around concept.

Now, I'm not particularly bothered by role/class linking in the ways discussed in this topic. But I happen to not like some of the other side effects of having a list of powers for every class. I believe it was mentioned as a possible mistake in one of the recent WotC posts. So there may very well be some design/implementation avenues open here that would appeal to multiple style preferences, albeit for different reasons.

Imaro, I've given you alot of flak, but to be fair I can see how the game could have gone down this route. I'm just not convinced that 3E was any better in this regard. I hope they keep expanding upon these ideas and learning what works best to create the theoretically perfect game. But they can't make it perfect for everyone, so I merely hope they keep trying things to see what works and what doesn't and continue to head down a path I enjoy. And I'm happy for those who have other companies continuing to support their game of choice and hopefully growing it in a direction they enjoy.

 

[Imaro]

If you wanted to be a "first rate striker" then you should have picked a class that supports that fully.

Which ties right back into my problem with role and class being explicitly connected in 4e.

If I want to play Sebastian from the Little Mermaid and I choose to play Sebastian from the Little Mermaid, and the rules support playing Sebastian from the Little Mermaid, I don't then complain that someone else is playing Megatron. You could have picked Megatron, the rules support playing Megatron, but YOU chose to play Sebastian.

These aren't archetypes or even concepts, they are specific characters... you're analogy doesn't even make sense in the context of what we are discussing.

You chose to be a Paladin and there are tons of feats and powers that let you do as much damage if not more than a striker. The choice was yours.

How about my concept was best represented by the Paladin, but I enjoy the gameplay of the Striker role?

LOL you should seek help. There are a lot of ads on the internet to take care of this ***** envy "problem."

... Really? Let's not go there.

 

[Imaro]

No it isn't. A rogue, with Sneak Attack, can reliably dish out extra damage every round, like a 4E Striker. A Paladin can Smite Evil a maximum of 5 times per day by 20th level without spending feats to increase this. It's more like a specialized attack spell with linited targets than a Striker mechanic.

Huh? In 3.5 there were specific conditions that had to be met for the Rogue to sneak attack... and certain groups of monsters were immune to it... so I don't think I'd say it was anywhere near reliable that the rogue got this every round.