Roles of the Game

[Frostmarrow]

Forget everything you know about D&D and role-playing for a spell. Let's go back to the extreme basics. What we have is four players and a GM at a table. The players will each be playing a part in the GM's tale. Now, what are the different roles a player can assume?

I'm not talking about classes, races, feat chains, preferred method of spellcasting or anything of that kind. I'm trying to get at the very roles of the participants. For instance you might think that being the chairman in the party; the person who has final word and organises discussions, within the party, has a clearly defined role. You might think that the person acting as tha party's face in interaction with NPCs has a clearly defined role too. A role should be confined to what is possible within the parameters of the medium: i.e five guys, a table, pencils, paper, and dice.

What roles can you define? Please comment.

 

[d4]

i know i'm still thinking in the D&D mindset, but i think you also need someone specialized in dealing with NPCs in a less, ahem, diplomatic manner (i.e., a warrior).

as an option, someone devoted to supporting the abilities of the other PCs (in D&D, a cleric with his healing spells, or a bard with his music).

given the types of missions / adventures PCs generally go on, some type of information-gatherer is usually needed (in D&D, a rogue; in other settings might be a hacker or even a telepath).

 

[Frostmarrow]

i know i'm still thinking in the D&D mindset, but i think you also need someone specialized in dealing with NPCs in a less, ahem, diplomatic manner (i.e., a warrior).

as an option, someone devoted to supporting the abilities of the other PCs (in D&D, a cleric with his healing spells, or a bard with his music).

given the types of missions / adventures PCs generally go on, some type of information-gatherer is usually needed (in D&D, a rogue; in other settings might be a hacker or even a telepath).

Interesting choices. I don't know about the warrior, though. I mean, a role-playing game is equal parts social interaction and make-believe violence. In such a mileue I think all characters ought to be able to deal with NPCs in a less diplomatic manner. Once you set up the battle mat no one wants to play the scardy cat. I.e. the warrior is redundant in a war-game.

List (so far):

Chairman (The role of reaching consensus within the party)
Ambassador (The role of interacting with NPCs)
Supporter (The role of helping out the other characters)
Investigator (The role of gathering information of current events)
Learned (The role of knowing the history or the world)
Troubleshooter (The role of bypassing obstacles)
Scribe (The role of documenting events and making maps)
Instigator (The role of getting things going)

 

[d4]

Interesting choices. I don't know about the warrior, though. I mean, a role-playing game is equal parts social interaction and make-believe violence. In such a mileue I think all characters ought to be able to deal with NPCs in a less diplomatic manner.

true, but there are some players who prefer to play someone focused on the violence. me, for example.

and for what it's worth, i've played in at least three or four campaigns (all under GURPS, though, not D&D) where there was only one character in a party of six or seven who had any combat abilities worth mentioning. that was that character's designated role in the group: if it came down to combat, that one character did the lion's share of the fighting while the rest try to help or at least get out of the way.

 

[Frostmarrow]

true, but there are some players who prefer to play someone focused on the violence. me, for example.

and for what it's worth, i've played in at least three or four campaigns (all under GURPS, though, not D&D) where there was only one character in a party of six or seven who had any combat abilities worth mentioning. that was that character's designated role in the group: if it came down to combat, that one character did the lion's share of the fighting while the rest try to help or at least get out of the way.

Alright, I guess you are right. There is clearly a role for the violent party member. This need not be a "Warrior" for it can be any sort of character (archer, sneak attacker, wizard, et c).

I'd like to distill the list above and introduce a new role too. There is a need for a character in the party to be aware. Some would call it a scout but that isn't necessary. The role of picking up the little things, the details. Covering areas such as spot, listen, reflex saves, search, and sense motive.

That leaves us with:

Chairman (The role of reaching consensus within the party)
Ambassador (The role of interacting with NPCs)
Supporter (The role of helping out the other characters)
Investigator (The role of gathering information of current events)
Learned (The role of knowing the history or the world)
Troubleshooter (The role of bypassing obstacles)
Scribe (The role of documenting events and making maps)
Instigator (The role of getting things going)
Scout (The role of picking up clues from the immediate vicinity)
Warrior (The role of taking on the lion's part of combat)

*Distill*

... I'll leave the distilling for a few minutes to ponder it.

Hm. No weirdo. There should be a wildcard, a joker, or a weirdo up there somewhere. Perhaps that's an instigator?

 

[d4]

Hm. No weirdo. There should be a wildcard, a joker, or a weirdo up there somewhere. Perhaps that's an instigator?

yep. every group needs one player who says, "ok, this is boring. what happens if i do this???" and then does the thing you'd least expect.

of course, no group should ever have more than one of those guys.

 

[Frostmarrow]

First of all I'd like to stitch the investigator. Since the game is about investigating stuff and gathering information it seems a less necessary role to keep on than some of the rest. Moreover, if one character is scout, one is an ambassador, and one is learned they'd get the job done through team-work. Something to strive for, imho.

 

[Frostmarrow]

yep. every group needs one player who says, "ok, this is boring. what happens if i do this???" and then does the thing you'd least expect.

of course, no group should ever have more than one of those guys.

Yes, the point of this exercise is to define the roles and let each player be responsible for one role each. I'd like to see six roles in all. One for each player and two which aren't used in any particular game.

Dragonlance ended up with scores of weirdos. Kenders, gully-dwarves, tinker gnomes...

 

[d4]

i don't know how helpful this will be, but here's some thoughts from a different genre -- superheroes.

in the Champions (5th ed) genre book for HERO, they talk about personality types and member roles.

for personality types, some they list are:

Captain Daffy: this is the guy who's always acting in a goofball, madcap way. always doing the unexpected. can help bring levity to situations. can also be the emotional centerpiece of the group, because everyone tends to like him.

Mr. Dependable: does his job, doesn't talk back, doesn't run away, doesn't cause problems. usually the second-in-command, for when the Natural Leader is away.

Mr. Gung-Ho: this guy is always anxious for direct confrontation. usually a front-line fighter.

The Natural Leader: the charismatic one. leads the group with good planning and advice.

The Thinker: always thinking one step ahead. the strategist and tactician of the group.

for member roles, they include (and i realize most of these are combat-focused):

Artillery/Air Support: ranged attack and good mobility (in supers games, that usually means flight).

Infantry: can stand up front and take and dish out the damage.

Intelligence: coordinates teammates' communication, as well as handling gathering intel and investigating leads.

Officer: someone to speak for the team, and lead them effectively.

Special Ops: someone who has skills or powers that are difficult to detect or anticipate. the wild card character.

Support: in supers games, this usually means transportation and healing.

 

[diaglo]

what is needed to game:

1 referee
4 to 50 players





you don't need to assume a role in the group to have fun. but it helps. it is like a pecking order in nature. it (the pecking order) shifts as the obstacles in the campaign shift focus.