Should There Even Be Roles?

[GSHamster]

No they have not. This is purely a revisionist history. 'Roles' as they are defined in 4th Edition were introduced in 4th Edition. And I don't ever recall a clamour of players struggling to choose a class in any previous edition whatsoever. The only thing 'Roles' made easier to choose was whether you wanted to play 4th Edition or not.

Sometimes roles and positions can exist de facto and not de jure.

For example, consider the game of basketball. Organized basketball teams generally have five positions: point guard, shooting guard, small forward, power forward, and center.

These positions do not exist in the rulebook. There is no rule saying you must have a center who does X. And yet, if you tried to argue that centers do not exist in basketball, you would be laughed at by every serious basketball team.

Previous editions had all the roles. They existed in practice. All 4E did was write them down to make it easier for to design different classes to substitute for each other. In my view, it was primarily done so you could make a "cleric" substitute, a class that fulfilled the same role the cleric does, but in a different manner.

All our team games tend to specialize, to develop roles for the participants. Sometimes the roles are formal, like the difference between a catcher and a pitcher in baseball. Sometimes the roles are informal, like the difference between a winger and a center in hockey.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I guess the reason why I hate the word/concept of a role is that I associate the motivation of defining roles with a change in attitude towards D&D in 4e... (snip)

Hanez, I think all of those are legitimate avenues on which to critique the implementation of roles as they exist in 4E. (I think some of them are on stronger grounds than others, but you can at least make a case on each point.)

If you'll note, some of us are making an effort to address those complaints. It's made more difficult, however, if we have to wade through a torrent of, "We hates nasty roleeesss, my precious," commentary that treats the whole concept as useless or worse--and flails around trying to deny all reasonable evidence of their application in D&D from the beginning.

 

[Klaus]

To clarify my position:

- Yes, I like that roles exist. Makes it easier to understand a class and what it is good at during combat.
- No, I don't think every role *has* to be represented. I think the DM can (and should) tailor his encounters to better match the party make up. A party with no leader needs fewer encounters before resting. A party without a controller should be faced with 20 minions at a time. These things can show up, but they should be the exception, not the norm (so the leaderless party can feel the pressure of a being besieged by monsters that just. keep. coming!)

 

[Hassassin]

Sometimes roles and positions can exist de facto and not de jure.
[...]
Previous editions had all the roles. They existed in practice. All 4E did was write them down to make it easier for to design different classes to substitute for each other. In my view, it was primarily done so you could make a "cleric" substitute, a class that fulfilled the same role the cleric does, but in a different manner.

All our team games tend to specialize, to develop roles for the participants. Sometimes the roles are formal, like the difference between a catcher and a pitcher in baseball. Sometimes the roles are informal, like the difference between a winger and a center in hockey.

As I wrote earlier in the thread, roles in the sense of what PC's might do in a fight did exist. However, they didn't have a one-to-one relation to either classes or characters and there probably weren't four of them.

In our games, the only role we always try to fill is the rogue. However, that isn't even a combat role, and in 3e it can be filled by any character who takes a level or two of rogue. Healer is another role that is good to have, but again it's not exactly a combat role and can be filled by multi-class characters or even using potions/wands.

Expecting all four 4e roles to be filled wouldn't even work for us, since we have a pool of around eight players, any 4-6 of whom may be present each week.

 

[Umbran]

Previous editions had all the roles. They existed in practice. All 4E did was write them down to make it easier for to design different classes to substitute for each other. In my view, it was primarily done so you could make a "cleric" substitute, a class that fulfilled the same role the cleric does, but in a different manner.

Here's a bit where "power source" also fits in.

Say you define your roles, and your power sources. Now, you get to easily see, "Hey, we could make someone who does the work of a cleric, but does it through other means." You can also see, "Hey, we could make someone who uses the means of a fighter to different ends!"

Used properly, the idea allows you to find a class that gets the combination of flavor and effect that you want. The whole, "I want a fighter who isn't a heavily-armored damage sink (defender)" now makes sense - it is like saying you want someone who uses the same power source as the fighter, but fills a different role in the party!

We used to see a lot of griping about how a given class was restricted from fulfilling a role other than the one it was really designed to fill - why can't I build a sneaky, lightly armored fighter in 1e? 4e, at least, makes it obvious that the class really was designed for a particular role. Yes, you could try to use it for something else, but it wasn't as effective. It makes it obvious where you might find the crunch you need, even if you need to recast the fluff of some of the abilities. The "sneaky fighter" isn't a "Fighter", but is instead a thuggish Rogue, or a Ranger. The charismatic fighter is a Warlord, not a Fighter, and so on.

Overall, you can design a small number of broad classes that can each cover many different roles, or you can build a large number of focused classes that each cover a small number of roles. Both ways cover the same ground, both ways work, but you have to recognize which way the game is designed to avoid cognitive mismatches.

 

[GSHamster]

As I wrote earlier in the thread, roles in the sense of what PC's might do in a fight did exist. However, they didn't have a one-to-one relation to either classes or characters and there probably weren't four of them.

That's true. However, there are ways around that. The thing is that if you don't know what a role needs to be successful, it's very easy to end up designing a class that just isn't good enough to hold its own. Jack-of-all-trades and master of none, as the saying goes.

One idea might be to give each class a major role and a minor role. The major role is what the class's primary duty is. The minor rule would be something, that if the "real" role is not there or goes down, this class can take over.

For example, the cleric could be major Leader and minor Defender. So if you don't have a fighter, but two clerics, one of the clerics can put her heavy armor and shield to good use holding the line. Whereas the Warlord might be major Leader and minor Striker.

 

[hanez]

If you'll note, some of us are making an effort to address those complaints. It's made more difficult, however, if we have to wade through a torrent of, "We hates nasty roleeesss, my precious,"

Understood, along with an LOL.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But if they start insisting that anything that they dislike not be included or even referenced on the grounds of "inclusiveness" they ... are ... flat ... wrong.

No, they aren't. That's an amazingly extreme statement.

But if you are going to stake out the ground that references to things you don't like need to be heavily quarantined, then no meaningful compromise with you is possible for large numbers of other potential players.

I really don't feel that 3-6 tags on many different abilities and rules is the best way to go. It's somewhat unwieldy, and definitely off-putting to people that disagree with certain values influencing design. Perhaps tagging rules with a key rather than [Role]? All [roles] could be tagged [X] or whatever, and all Defenders would be tagged [R1] or the like.

I think, however, that including [Defender] next to strongly protection abilities is going to drive off a section of the market because many people don't like abilities being designed with roles explicitly in mind. I think tagging words with [R1] is much less invasive to those people than [Defender] is.

Again, you are of course free to stake out any position you want. I'm not suggesting that you do or not do anything. Compromise is not a necessity for any of us. We can always not play the game, if it doesn't satisfy us. But to the extent that one agrees with the stated design goals thus far, then practically one has to acknowledge some degree of real compromise will take place.

How are having roles be in the core book as a description of play style not compromise? How is making them strongly prevalent in an optional complexity dial not compromise? Please, don't accuse me of "staking out" a position and imply I'm offering no compromise. No compromise is, "get your roles out of 5e." I never said that, and I'd thank you to not imply that's my position. As always, play what you like

It's as easily disregarded

Apologies, but I have to make this reply fast. Needless to say, it's not easily disregarded for everyone, but if you're going to go this route, go [R1] rather than [Defender].

"Arcane, Evocation, Fire, Implement, Striker"

Maybe it's just me, but for a game big on complexity dials, this screams unwieldy to me. I can decide which of these sounds good individually, take into account how they interact, and ignore what I don't like. I have to tag many ability 3-6 times, and then I'll need to take all those factors into account in the game as a whole. There might be, what, 10 different keywords or tags in all (you're more or less dealing with only 4e tags there, right?)?

No, that doesn't sound like an appealing way to do this, to me. It's very much pushing a certain feel and tone into the core book, and I think that it'll still bug a good number of people. If you're trying to be inclusive, let each complexity dial be standalone, and let people add it to the system as they desire. Much less messy, in my mind.

Do we just eliminate all keywords altogether so that we don't alienate ANYBODY?

What's the huge upside to having a ton of keywords? I can see certain keywords, sure. Like [attack]. Using this ability mimics an attack. We don't need tons of keywords in the game. Keep the number down, and definitely don't use keywords relevant to all editions when going through all the rules and abilities of the game.

Are we now expecting the designers to NOT possibly include in the rules for Fireball (as an example)

Range: 100 feet in a 15 foot burst (Area burst 3 within 20)

...because heaven forbid we offend the 1E and 2E players by including the numbers in squares right next to the range in feet?

If 4e players cannot accept a more inclusive wording (same effect, different feel), I'd posit that it's not me who isn't compromising. Why not have it be Area 2, with a section of what that might mean to a particular group? Some would have it be a sphere, others would want a square. Figure out something that works in a vanilla sense.

Can't we go into this with the expectation that the rules will probably include all the ways for them to be interpreted via your edition of choice, and yes... you as a player and reader will just need to gloss over those small, niggling keywords, definitions and numbers that you yourself won't use, just so that the whole book doesn't have to get printed a second time to now include them? Is that really too much to ask?

And if you say 'yes'... then I don't think you're ever going to be happy with the game that gets eventually gets produced, because I guarantee it will include info attributable to all the editions, much of which won't actually be used by you depending on which dials and knobs you chose to play with.[/QUOTE]
I think that's a limited view of how to do things. I think there may be other, less intrusive or unwieldy ways of addressing these issues, and I'd hope that WotC pursues those options.

And if you say 'yes'... then I don't think you're ever going to be happy with the game that gets eventually gets produced, because I guarantee it will include info attributable to all the editions, much of which won't actually be used by you depending on which dials and knobs you chose to play with.

I'm okay with info from all editions being included. I'd prefer it. I don't think unwieldy and numerous keywords on nearly every rule and ability is necessary to achieve that goal, and think it's going to be a turn off for many groups. You think it's the best way. We disagree. As always, play what you like

I think both are going to have to have a pretty generic base actually and add-ons are going to have to be in numerous layers. Take a fighter, for example. The "base" fighter may be a guy who can wear armor and use all the standard weapons. His attack will basically be a Melee Basic. One module may add iterative attacks, a different module may add defender aura and associated abilities, another may add marks and AEDU power structures.

Yes! This is what I'd prefer.

Which is why at its "base" level it may not even have a skill system, ala 1E. One module could add secondary skills, ala 2E, another a base skill set, ala 4E, and then a full skill suite, ala #E in another.

I can see this, too. However, I wouldn't necessarily want all classes equally contributing in combat. Maybe at a very low, base level. Then, if you add in skill systems (highly benefits the thief or rogue) and combat systems (highly benefits the fighter) people might get it to the area they'd like.

I don't think we're that far apart really, but with 'almost no core' I think that will likely mean the "core" is VERY bare bones and the social vs. combat skills will need to be presented separately and exclusively.

What's going to be really intersting is how wizards are handled. Will the base wizard just be a guy who shoots magic missiles with modules for Vancian vs. AEDU casting?

I'm pretty much in agreement with you in terms of what I think they should do, and curiosity surrounding those decisions. Very nice post. Thanks for the reply. As always, play what you like
And will the modules just basically be the editions re-printed in a modular format meaning if you really like any edition as-is you could just stick with what you have and find no difference in your actual game?[/QUOTE]

 

[Umbran]

I think, however, that including [Defender] next to strongly protection abilities is going to drive off a section of the market because many people don't like abilities being designed with roles explicitly in mind. I think tagging words with [R1] is much less invasive to those people than [Defender] is.

It is all well and good to want to protect sensibilities, but tags that lack mnemonic value are a useability issue, and are generally a speedbump to adoption.

That being said, massive lists of abilities players need to choose among, however those powers are named or tagged, are themselves a useability problem, and pose a speedbump to adoption. They might serve for the "gearhead supplements" later on, but the larger the decision tree is, the more system mastery is required before it is seen as fun, instead of a burden on the player.

 

[Hassassin]

That's true. However, there are ways around that. The thing is that if you don't know what a role needs to be successful, it's very easy to end up designing a class that just isn't good enough to hold its own. Jack-of-all-trades and master of none, as the saying goes.

Sure, *designers* should definitely keep roles in mind, since they are useful for thinking about what a class can do.

However, as long as by taking levels in that class you can't make yourself suck at everything (edit: and your party won't need one of each!), the player doesn't need to know about roles at all.

One idea might be to give each class a major role and a minor role. The major role is what the class's primary duty is. The minor rule would be something, that if the "real" role is not there or goes down, this class can take over.

That might be a good idea. Also, I think classes should be designed so that you can use all your options (skill points, feats, talents, whatever there is) on things that have nothing to do with your "main role" and still be pretty much as good at it.