Should There Even Be Roles?

[JamesonCourage]

Actually it's true, but I should qualify. An individual's game style is only worth noting/taking in to account so long as it coincides with and does not negate other playstyles. Individual preferrences are noted but only important in how they fit with the whole.

Okay, we're in total agreement here

Making a rogue that's bad in combat is poor design.

True, but so is making a rogue good in combat as a base level of competency. That is, if your goal is to be inclusive to as many gaming styles as possible.

Making them good with the option of not using all of their options is the only way to make the character work for all playstyles. This means the different areas of the game probably have to be compartmentalized between combat, social and puzzles. It's about being able to have a character that can play in any style of game and not just sit around twiddling your thumbbs for most of it while waiting for your 5 minutes to shine out of the six-hour session.

I think these are pretty big assumptions about play styles (5 minutes to shine, for example). My play sessions are pretty long by most standards (about 10 hours once per week), and we average about one fight per session (three is really spiking for us, and two is high).

Last session, the players spent about two hours in town, going into detail on performing, spending time in the local tavern, and otherwise pursuing in-character interests. To characters with out-of-combat skills, this was not just "5 minutes" of time to shine. Some players (like mine) really enjoy having skills outside of combat, and willingly sacrifice combat ability to pursue those abilities (it's a point-buy game) most of the time (very rarely will you see a purely combat character).

This is a fine play style. It, like you say, shouldn't be pursued to the point where other play styles are neglected. However, it should be understood that many groups liked the Thief class because he was useful out of combat, and that that same enjoyment extended over time into other areas (crafting, social encounters, etc.).

The game should allow for quite a few options (good out-of-combat rogue and good in-combat rogue; good out-of-combat rogue and bad in-combat rogue; bad out-of-combat rogue and good in-combat rogue; etc.). That doesn't necessarily mean you make the default rogue "awesome" and tone him down. That's an option, but presentation is certainly important, and saying "he's awesome unless you gimp him" isn't exactly palatable to many groups.

I'd suggest a "here's how you can tweak these areas" approach over "he's awesome unless you gimp him", personally. As always, play what you like

 

[DonTadow]

This feels like a definite system versus system conversation. 4e brought in these roles, Pathfinder and previous editions didnt have them. Thus any class can be built to fill any "role" depending on the situation.

There's no real point to them in a game where you develop your own role through your choices and your playstyle. Outside of limiting what you can do. It also gives a false premise that a class or "role" is needed. One of the great things about pathfinder now, is you can play with any class combintation and have a great game. You don't need the full compliment of rolles to get through a module.

When new players come into my game, they always ask me what the party needs, and i tell them, in PF, you play what you want, the gameplay will decide how you act in it.

What I don't want is, by default, people being limited in character selection based on what "role" is needed.

 

[JamesonCourage]

That's fine, as long as everyone remembers it cuts both ways. So if you need some form of "role" -- however termed and improved -- to help the people that want everyone to shine in combat, then it isn't helpful to say, "Just get rid of them so that I can do anything I want with my character."

No, they seem very appropriate for a style that's trying to mimic 4e to some degree, which it seems like WotC would like as an option. No need to make them core, but sure, make them optional to some degree.

That's what I've seen a lot of comments edging towards. "Replace them with something more flexible so that I can get what I want," is a lot more reasonable. And likewise, they should not be so embedded into the design that people that want to ignore them can't mostly do so.

That's my main issue, actually. That they were embedded into classes. I'd've been much happier with a "all Martial powers in the Martial pool, choose from it" and "certain powers have a [role] tag, like [Defender]. You might get a bonus to powers with that tag." So, if I'm a Fighter, I might grab a feat that gives me +1 to DCs with [Defender] powers, and access to the Martial pool. If I select a Martial [Defender] power, it's one DC higher. If I don't, I don't get that small bonus.

You'd have a lot more combinations that way, too. Classes wouldn't be built to fulfill one role. Potentially, I'd prefer people to be able to mix and match power sources, too. If I want to grab Fireball [Controller] from the Arcane pool, I should be able to, as long as I'm willing to justify why I can (mutable flavor). It's kind of like multiclassing but without the mess.

Ideally, of course, instead of some squishy middle ground that satisfies no one, "roles" would be set up flexible enough that everyone at least got a little benefit out of them, even if some used them fairly strictly and others very lax.

Again, I say make them optional. No real reason to codify them for every group, especially considering how divisive they are, for whatever reasons. As always, play what you like

 

[Klaus]

I think that typical roles for each class should be described in the rules, along with notes on how and why to create a balanced party.
Beyond that I don't want class roles as hardwired into the rules as they were in 4th edition. I'd prefer flexibility to be built into each class, so that players could create a swashbuckling, agile fighter or a brutish thug of a thief.

You mean a Fighter (Slayer) with Melee Training (Charisma) and a Fighter (Slayer) with training is Stealth and Thievery?

Did I mention I love Fighter (slayer)?

 

[CleanCutRogue]

No.

Roles are unnecessary constructs designed to define a limited type of behavior already present in the class and the choices you make to customize it through skills and class options/features. I take on a role in a party by action and capability, not because I have a word saying I do.

Completely unnecessary. There are some things I like about 4e, this ain't one of 'em.

 

[drothgery]

I'm another proponent of taking defined rolls and putting them up against the wall.

In previous editions, roles in combat was something that emerged during play and could be heavily, heavily influenced by player choices. In 4E, you either function as your role in combat, or you are being suboptimal and not contributing properly. The same way that if you try to blend one role into another in an MMO. 4E is not an MMO, but "roles" is something you find in both. People even talk about strikers in terms of DPS/DPR.

The thing is that pre-4e there was never anything that could effectively substitute for a Cleric. And nothing that could do the job well for a rogue or a wizard. Explicit combat roles (and a less restrictive skill system for non-combat stuff) went a long way to not making certain classes necessary (or at least extremely desirable) because the game designers knew what had to go into them for them to work in combat.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Except there really wasn't an idea of roles being filled in forming the Fellowship in anything approaching 4e terms. They were picked as representatives of the free peoples of Middle Earth (the stakeholders in the project to destroy the ring) and approved volunteers.

I'll admit that I haven't been following the conversation that lead to this, but I'll just use your comment here as a bit of a springboard for some unrelated thoughts.

What happens in The Lord of the Rings has very little to do with game roles, and really shouldn't be called upon to discuss game roles. Those books are a story, not a game. The major characters in the story do actually fill out different roles, but they are story roles, not game roles. For example, Boromir's role is to be the person who is tempted by the ring. Frodo's role is as the main protagonist. The other hobbits fill the role of the common man's voice and perspective. So, each character in those books fills a role, but it is totally unrelated to anything relevant to discussing game mechanics.

D&D, however, is not a story. It is a game. And the major "pieces" of a game always have roles. After all, D&D is ultimately is derived from wargames, where the concept of roles (such as infantry, cavalry, and artillery) is extremely transparent and important. These roles were actually derived from the very real different roles seen in actual military warfare, after all. Even modern armies still make very heavy use of the idea of roles in battle (like the idea of a designated marksman in a group of riflemen).

I think the problem with D&D was that, at the very beginning, the ideas of "roles" and "classes" were inseparable. They really were the same thing, even if they were never balanced properly. However, the unbounded proliferation of new classes and class options diluted that equivalency to the detriment of possible game balance. Early 1E classes may not have been balanced, but late-era 3E classes would probably be impossible to balance. 4E's introduction of roles is just a step to re-establish some of that necessary order upon a system where class proliferation is inevitable.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Then you obviously misunderstand the term "Leader" in the game. The leader is the type of or suite of combat abilities in the game. It has NOTHING to do with the non-combat portion of the game.

Inside a battle, I would say the common sense definition of a leader could be either the person who leads the charge (typically a fighter or paladin) or someone who makes tactical decisions and directs the party.

I understand that the classes that are called "leaders" in 4e are more "healers", but I think that it's a serious misnomer, which is what I meant when I said they got the roles wrong.

Of course, the fact that roles are strictly combat definitions is also restrictive and has been criticized by plenty of others in this thread.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Again, I say make them optional. No real reason to codify them for every group, especially considering how divisive they are, for whatever reasons. As always, play what you like

We are so close to agreement that we can actually see each other waving across the gap, through the fog.

So let me counter that statement above. How about instead that the designers acknowledge that the primary purpose of roles all along was as a communication tool? So don't make them optional, per se. Instead, make them so flexible in application that if you want to ignore the message they are giving you, you can? In practical implementation terms, that is very close to what you proposed.

So for the 4E style, the message is, "if you want everyone to be able to contribute well in combat, pay attention to what we are telling you about roles here." And if you want the opposite, the message is, "you can use these role labels for some general idea of how this power is going to help you, but otherwise feel free to ignore these guidelines." After all, this isn't much different than what various groups figured out for themselves when D&D started--our group needs some healing, we need a tough guy in front, etc.

 

[JamesonCourage]

We are so close to agreement that we can actually see each other waving across the gap, through the fog.

So let me counter that statement above. How about instead that the designers acknowledge that the primary purpose of roles all along was as a communication tool? So don't make them optional, per se. Instead, make them so flexible in application that if you want to ignore the message they are giving you, you can? In practical implementation terms, that is very close to what you proposed.

I'm okay with the idea, as long as there's no actual application. That is, there's no mechanical effect on the game. If it's pure communication, something like "you'll find that having someone dedicated to taking the hits on the front line, soaking damage, and keeping enemies off of other party members is very valuable in combat when highly engaged in team-oriented play" (but with much simpler wording), I think I'm totally fine with it. It's just commentary on a particular play style. I think they should comment on many different styles, and if there's no mechanical application, there's no reason for it to be "optional" in the sense I've been talking about.

Label the section you're talking about, and put roles under a subsection. Totally fine with me in the core books, as long as it's purely commentary meant to help with a particular style, and it's expressed as such.

So for the 4E style, the message is, "if you want everyone to be able to contribute well in combat, pay attention to what we are telling you about roles here." And if you want the opposite, the message is, "you can use these role labels for some general idea of how this power is going to help you, but otherwise feel free to ignore these guidelines." After all, this isn't much different than what various groups figured out for themselves when D&D started--our group needs some healing, we need a tough guy in front, etc.

Yep, that'd fit into what I'm talking about above. As always, play what you like

/wave through the fog