Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Imaro]

He most likely did it less effectively though. Just like a 4E Fighter. This can and often does happen in my games all the time. Sometimes the best course of action isn't what your character is best at doing. The shooting a bow example (or throwing a javelin) is one. Another was the front-line fighter taking an action to tend to the wounds of the dropped leader. He was best at attacking, not even trained in Heal, but he dtermined that his best course of action to survive was to attempt to revive the fallen leader. He was right. That choice was the turning point of a seeming TPK.

Less effectively than what? If I built him in 3.5 or earlier editions to be an effective ranged combatant... he wasn't less effective at it. The Rogue migh have the Dex bonus over him (but even this isn't guaranteed since I could go for a high Dex/average Str) but the BaB of a fighter made up for that over the long run anyway. So I'm not sure what you're getting at, because in 4e I am not allowed to build my fighter to be an effective ranged combatant... He's already been dictated his combat role by the designers of the game.

This is where some of us talk about trade-offs. You can do other things, just not as effectively (similar to the bow-using 1E Fighter - unless he was lucky enough to have high Str and Dex). If you want to be more effective at both, then you need to make trade-offs.

I think I'm starting to see the disconnect you (and I believe D'karr) are having with my posts... I never said there should be no trade off... in fact I very much said why can't my Paladin be a striker, not a striker/defender... just a striker. i like the gameplay of a striker and the Paladin fits my concept to a tee... in 4e what do I do?

I feel that archetype or class shouldn't dictate his role (gameplay) in combat... that's my argument, not that the Paladin should be a striker/defender/controller/leader mash with all the advantages and none of the drawbacks, I've never made this argument throughout the entire discussion.

 

[Imaro]

It seems the current design team disagrees with my opinion:

D'opp miss-read... Nothing to see here...

 

[The Shaman]

[MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION] - I'm not sure who the metaphorical droids are. Your post? My examples of play? Thunderfoot's non-RPing 4e players? Combat roles in general?

I posted something, then changed by mind. The SW quote was just filler.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's a psychological thing. It's really about managing expectations.

Classes are contained within conceptual archetypes rather than mechanics because that's how we think of them. "Ranger" isn't about the particular mechanics the class has (like favored enemy or two-weapon fighting), it's about the particular feel those mechanics generate (an agile wilderness warrior!).

You can dissociate those, but people generally don't think of classes as faceless bags of mechanics. Your warlock in WoW has the trappings of a dark wizard of eeeeevil because that's the conceptual archetype it is meant to embody. The mechanics of the class -- pet summoning and the like -- reflect that conceptual archetype. They are a secondary addition. The conceptual archetype is the important part.

This is because when we first approach an RPG, we don't approach it saying, "I want to maximize my attack rolls with my bow, so I'm going to be a ranger!", we say, "I want to be like Robin Hood, so I'm going to pick the ranger!" If my character isn't like Robin Hood, I don't want to be a ranger. I'm not going to pick the Ranger class if I'm interested in being a cultured, urbane mercenary for hire, even if my cultured, urbane mercenary for hire still wants to maximize his attack rolls with his bow.

Dissociation also has other risks (seekers, battleminds, runepriests, etc.), but this thread largely isn't about that.

This instinct to follow archetype -- in a game based around fantasy archetypes like knights, dragons, dwarves, and elves, is part of why the dissociation of mechanics and flavor is not an approach I generally encourage. Sure, it makes re-fluffing a cakewalk. But it also means that, fundamentally, mechanics are meaningless. If the exact same player ability can be the healing words of a deity and some jerk shouting at you, it's not great design, IMO, because quite evidently there should be a difference in those effects, since they are quite distinct in flavor. The inability of the mechanics to demonstrate this difference mechanically makes them lousy at creating the immersive fantasy game I want from my D&D.

That is a very good reason for why the archetype needs to be represented somehow in the game. It says nothing about why "class" needs to be that something, other than some people expect it to be that way. I've already conceded that, and explained that some of us--from the very beginning, expected it not to be that way. I think a careful reading of Dragon magazine letters, variants proposed in early Dragon, and so on, will support me in this contention.

I get back to what Umbran said. It's all fine to say that the archetype is expressed via the class--as long as it's my take on the archetype that is expressed. As soon as you start accommodating other people, you either have a huge list of classes or you make the classes have complicated trades to support different variants.

Now putting my cards on the table, I think there are two good design options to square the circle on class simplicity versus expressing a wide range of character concepts: 1) Drop classes in favor of some kind of point-buy, skills-based, or other options. 2) Make the classes narrow, meaningful only mechanically, and support multiclassing as the default as a way of expressing characters that aren't one dimensional cardboard cutouts. Since I think D&D needs classes, I don't see the first one as a good choice for D&D. Since I know that people do think in terms of archetypes, I don't object to making archetype a point of discussion in the game advice--or possibly even including some mechanical support for archetype separate from class.

 

[chaochou]

Let's say I design a new game with four classes. But, as a designer I'm asked to ensure that each class can be just as effective as each other at the striker, leader, defender and controller roles. Okay, then.

At 1st level each has identical defences, identical HP. Each gets to choose one of four powers:
2d6 damage to one enemy
1d6 damage to enemies in a 5*5 area
1d6 damage to one enemy and +2 armour class for me
1d6 healing and +2 armour class to allies within 5 feet.

I've fulfilled the goal of making each class exactly as competent as each other in any role.

In my game, what does 'class' mean?

I'd say character class in my game is meaningless. It's effectively a point-buy design where you get one point at first level and four powers to choose from, each costing one point. What class you chose is irrelevant.

So I can't see how the design goal of 'I can fulfil any role with any class' can't be anything other than in direct conflict with the implicit goal of class-based design which is to 'make classes unique'.

Making classes mechanically equal across roles is, as far as I can see, the same as eliminating classes as the mechanical foundation for characters.

 

[Imaro]

Let's say I design a new game with four classes. But, as a designer I'm asked to ensure that each class can be just as effective as each other at the striker, leader, defender and controller roles. Okay, then.

At 1st level each has identical defences, identical HP. Each gets to choose one of four powers:
2d6 damage to one enemy
1d6 damage to enemies in a 5*5 area
1d6 damage to one enemy and +2 armour class for me
1d6 healing and +2 armour class to allies within 5 feet.

I've fulfilled the goal of making each class exactly as competent as each other in any role.

In my game, what does 'class' mean?

I'd say character class in my game is meaningless. It's effectively a point-buy design where you get one point at first level and four powers to choose from, each costing one point. What class you chose is irrelevant.

So I can't see how the design goal of 'I can fulfil any role with any class' can't be anything other than in direct conflict with the implicit goal of class-based design which is to 'make classes unique'.

Making classes mechanically equal across roles is, as far as I can see, the same as eliminating classes as the mechanical foundation for characters.

We already have some classes in 4e like the fighter who, through seperate builds fulfills more than one role... and yet I haven't seen the complaint that a slayer is the same as a ranger... or that the slayer build is the same as the brawler. Just because the method you chose to do this with had a certain result doesn't logically conclude that every method will have the same result.

 

[howandwhy99]

Making classes mechanically equal across roles is, as far as I can see, the same as eliminating classes as the mechanical foundation for characters.

I agree. Class == role in earlier games. They defined the scope of the game. Fighters were good at combat, magic users at magic, thieves at thief situations, clerics at clericism. The primary choice during chargen was class. Eliminating classes means eliminating roles and a kind of role playing.

This has been done in plenty of other games. D&D has kept roles though they have shifted the scope from fantasy situations by social role to individual roles in fantasy combat.

The method you illustrate of forcing PCs to choose 1 of 4 options each level still retains combat roles minimally (as well as levels). Another option is to give all 4 powers to everyone at every level, but then there is no mechanical differentiation at all between characters - at least in terms of combat powers. I suppose the description or fluff for these could be different.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think I'm starting to see the disconnect you (and I believe D'karr) are having with my posts... I never said there should be no trade off... in fact I very much said why can't my Paladin be a striker, not a striker/defender... just a striker. i like the gameplay of a striker and the Paladin fits my concept to a tee... in 4e what do I do?

I feel that archetype or class shouldn't dictate his role (gameplay) in combat... that's my argument, not that the Paladin should be a striker/defender/controller/leader mash with all the advantages and none of the drawbacks, I've never made this argument throughout the entire discussion.

Fair enough, there certainly was some misunderstanding on my part. Also, I don't think I've presented my opinion clearly enough. I consider heavy armor to be part and parcel of the defender role. So, when you ask for a Striker Paladin I do believe your asking for something with no trade-off. Then again, there are the Blackguard Paladin, Hexblade Warlock and Slayer Fighter which are strikers that wear heavy armor, so maybe my preconceptions are clouding my judgement.

 

[Imaro]

Fair enough, there certainly was some misunderstanding on my part. Also, I don't think I've presented my opinion clearly enough. I consider heavy armor to be part and parcel of the defender role. So, when you ask for a Striker Paladin I do believe your asking for something with no trade-off. Then again, there are the Blackguard Paladin, Hexblade Warlock and Slayer Fighter which are strikers that wear heavy armor, so maybe my preconceptions are clouding my judgement.

Yeah, plus the way armor works in 4e... Heavy or Light doesn't really matter except in so far as your prime attributes. Most classes that have light armor also have Dex or Int as a secondary or primary ability... so they end up with nearly equivalent armor classes (after their attribute bonus is added in) as those classes with heavy armor... in fact I'd argue heavy armor with it's penalties and weight is more of a detriment than a bonus in 4e. IMO, of course.

 

[Stormonu]

While I have a lot of issues with 4E's roles, for combat I wished they'd approached it with the power listing the role it fits and then letting you choose what you felt matched what you were trying to do with the character.

For example, Swordhound, a fighter power, might have the Defender keyword (say, it lets you make an attack against someone you've marked who attempts to attack someone else). Knockdown, another fighter power, might have the Controller keyword (say, it lets you knock down one or more opponents). You also might be able to have "suites" of class abilities based on a chosen role (the Defender fighter gets class ability A,B,C, the Striker fighter gets D,E,F). It would then be beneficial for the character to take powers within the role he's picked, but you could choose to override the designated role to pick something "out of role".

Yes, it would have increased the proliferation of powers, but perhaps cut down on the proliferation of classes. Some powers might have even been generalized for several classes (for example, how some spells used to show up on the Wizard, Cleric and Bard list back pre 4E). And, you might be able to do some mixing and matching of role powers. Perhaps your fighter takes mostly Defender at-wills and a Defender encounter power, but decides that for his Daily, he really wants to take a Striker power.