Should There Even Be Roles?

[TrippyHippy]

That will be difficult, since they've always kind of been there, if not openly named. Wanting the names to go away, I can understand, if not fully agree with.

No they have not. They 4th Edition thing alone. It's an entirely bogus argument.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Your anecdotes are purely subjective. The rules as written in 4th Edition are entirely objective. Therein lies the difference.

My anecdotes support my position, which is the fact that these concepts are nothing new, just given new, overt names. If you can actually show me how the inclusion of role in the game prevents you (as in 'no you *can't* do x, y, or z) from making the RP decisions you want, then you have a point, but they don't. If you can show me that the inclusion of role in some way created the issue of other players bossing their fellows around and trying to tell them what to do, then again, you would have a point. There is a passage in the 2e DMG about that very subject though, which illustrates that it was, in fact, a problem at some tables at some point prior to 1989.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

No they have not. They 4th Edition thing alone. It's an entirely bogus argument.

You can choose to ignore it if you like, but the fact that the concepts the roles embody existing prior to 4e is demonstrably true make it much less 'bogus.' Were they as hard-wired? No, not quite, but they were there.

 

[TrippyHippy]

You can choose to ignore it if you like, but the fact that the concepts the roles embody existing prior to 4e is demonstrably true make it much less 'bogus.' Were they as hard-wired? No, not quite, but they were there.

It's a bogus argument. 4th Edition is the only edition with codified 'Roles' in them. People complained about 4th Edition because of them. To claim they were 'always there' is disingenuous. People played previous editions for all sorts of reasons - including tactical skirmishing - but mostly because people wanted to play in a generic fantasy roleplaying game. 'Hard-wiring' 'Roles' into the game, takes the options away from players about how they want to play the game - and the game ceases to be a generic fantasy roleplaying game because of this.

 

[TrippyHippy]

My anecdotes support my position, which is the fact that these concepts are nothing new, just given new, overt names. If you can actually show me how the inclusion of role in the game prevents you (as in 'no you *can't* do x, y, or z) from making the RP decisions you want, then you have a point, but they don't. If you can show me that the inclusion of role in some way created the issue of other players bossing their fellows around and trying to tell them what to do, then again, you would have a point. There is a passage in the 2e DMG about that very subject though, which illustrates that it was, in fact, a problem at some tables at some point prior to 1989.

Your anecdotes just show a highly selective memory in order to support your position. For every essay discussing the tactical skirmish aspects of D&D, you could probably find ten others discussing all sorts of other aspects of the game. Your experiences of the games history do not invalidate everybody elses, and the fact that you like 4th edition merely highlights that you quite possibly focussed more on the tactical side of the game in previous editions too.

The 4th Edition rules, however, are written down clear for everybody to make their own mind up. As you say, they are 'hardwired' and provide just a narrow gaming experience, based upon a tactical skirmish minatures game. It's simply not providing a roleplaying experience I am after.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

It's a bogus argument. 4th Edition is the only edition with codified 'Roles' in them.

Codified, yes, and I said that. You're shifting the goalposts now.

People complained about 4th Edition because of them.

People complained about 4e for lots of reasons, this among them.

To claim they were 'always there' is disingenuous.

How's so? The idea of a character that deals lots of damage, one that protects his allies from harm, one that ties enemies up in knots, and one that bolsters and heals allies - those are not new. If you don't want to see that, I can't help you, and would suggest that we just agree to disagree.

People played previous editions for all sorts of reasons - including tactical skirmishing - but mostly because people wanted to play in a generic fantasy roleplaying game. 'Hard-wiring' 'Roles' into the game, takes the options away from players about how they want to play the game - and the game ceases to be a generic fantasy roleplaying game because of this.

The hard-wiring of the roles is only as restrictive as you want it to be, only as restrictive as you want to let it be. You can play a cowardly fighter that bullies the halfling, just as you can play a reckless mage that charges the enemy at the earliest opportunity. Nothing about role prevents this.

Yes, the game provides a lot of rules for fighting things (as all editions have) with fewer for roleplaying, and this is intentional. The designers decided to leave role playing decisions up to DMs and players, rather than dictate to them how RP 'ought' to be done. Some people don't like that approach, and I can respect that, if not agree with it. Disagreeing with that decision makes sense to me, and is not something I can refute, but blaming it all on roles? That strikes me as disingenuous.

 

[Plane Sailing]

OK, this thread has had a good discussion about whether there should be Roles or not, but it is starting to devolve into an argument, and in times of heightened tension like the moment I want to prevent those spiralling into full blown arguments.

I think all sides have had a fair shout at putting their point of view, so I'm closing this thread now before someone says something they regret.

Cheers