Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller Dynamic

[jeffhartsell]

I doubt our group will think about the 4e roles. We are more into bagels, with some cream cheese. Now cheese roles were common in 3e.

 

[fba827]

I, personally, will not be worried so much about the roles. However, I think they will naturally occur as they have always. Someone's character tends to be better suited for tanking/defending/etc while another PC tends to be better suited/built for striking/etc.

Having said that, I am not sure I like the fact that the roles are predefined by class. I am not saying they are poor choices, on the contrary, they are the typical roles for the classes and good for the masses. But I guess I am the sort that likes to think the role would be defined by the build choices of a particular PC rather than generic stamps on everyone within a specific class. I mean, I've played in groups where the wizard was the best defender, the paladin the best striker, and another paladin the best healer, etc. I feel as though it just adds an assumption and set of expectations from the group even if you want your PC to be built differently (through feats, skills, spells, items, etc) than what is the role label.

So, as said way up above before my ramble, will I go out of my way to use the dynamic as given? no. Will it probably happen as a natural progression of group play? yes.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I'm going to do what we did in 3e and completely ignore the existance of roles. Groups work regardless of your actual classes so long as the characters act as a group.

Actually, unbalanced groups work as long as the DM work with them and adjust challenge to play to their strenght and avoid targeting their weaknesses.

You will realize what your group is doing 'wrong' if you are confronted by standard published module that assumes the group is balanced.

Imagine a group with two wizards, a rogue, an arher ranger and a warlord. First encounter, 20 minions in a camp outside a cave. Wee. It's a carnage. Two controller hitting weak minions with area effects, it's just not fair!

Then you get inside the cave and are confronted by two elite brute and an artillery monster in a narrow corridor. Wait, why aren't the warlord and Rogue able to hold the line? And suddenly it's a rout. Since the two brutes are faster than the warlord in heavy armour... Poor guy.

Though in practice, most DM seeing this scenario would have swapped one of the elite brute for eight minions that the two wizard would have slaughtered right quick and the PCs wouldn't even realize how close they'd come to serious trouble.

---

Bottom line, you can talk about team play all you want, you still need a functional team. If a football team has 10 wide receiver and one quarterback, it doesn't really matter how good their team work is. And the QB could be Joe Montana playing with 10 Jerry Rice. They still gonna lose. The quarterback will get killed on the field and they will lose all their match... Unless the other team is willing to play with eleven safeties and scracth the word blitz from their vocabulary, of course.

And that's what happens with unbalanced parties. You may think you are getting along thanks to great tactics and good team work. And if it makes you happy to believe so, good for you. But the truth is, if you survive, it's because the DM is using kid's glove with you and is under a gentleman agreement not to exploit your glaring weaknessess.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Actually, unbalanced groups work as long as the DM work with them and adjust challenge to play to their strenght and avoid targeting their weaknesses.

Then a lot of other stuff, but above is the key sentence

Well, yes, that's what a DM does. We don't ALL hate the players and want to see them fail so we can smirk condescendingly while handing them blank character sheets.

...Well, we don't all hate players all the time, at least.

 

[jeffhartsell]

And if it makes you happy to believe so, good for you. But the truth is, if you survive, it's because the DM is using kid's glove with you and is under a gentleman agreement not to exploit your glaring weaknessess.

DnD should not be about the GM vs. the group. Exploiting the weaknesses of the group? As the GM I can always find a way to kill the group. The fun is making interesting and challenging encounters and exploring a choose-your-own adventure storyline.

Anyway, fun for the group is always my goal when playing and GMing.

 

[Jack99]

I'm going to do what we did in 3e and completely ignore the existance of roles. Groups work regardless of your actual classes so long as the characters act as a group.

Yes.

However, the above is less true if your DM runs published adventures out of the box. Those are mostly built around a "balanced" party. Which is why I suspect that some people find that such a party is necessary.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yes.

However, the above is less true if your DM runs published adventures out of the box. Those are mostly built around a "balanced" party. Which is why I suspect that some people find that such a party is necessary.

I have never done a pre-published adventure, nor do I ever plan to do so, so that problem is solved relatively easily

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Well, yes, that's what a DM does. We don't ALL hate the players and want to see them fail so we can smirk condescendingly while handing them blank character sheets.

...Well, we don't all hate players all the time, at least.

First of all, I don't hate the players, but if there isn't one or two PC deaths in a given campaign, what the hell was happening? Was this heroic fantasy or 'Carebears the RPG?'
A dead PC every session, or even worse, a TPK, is usually destructive to entertainment. But one or two death over 15-20 session is about right and IMO essential to a true HEROic campaign. I don't plan these death. I just don't fudge and I throw real challeneges at the PCs. That way when they triumph it's, you know, a triumph. They know their PCs really could have died so you bet they are proud to have killed the BBG.

Secondly, the problem is that an unbalanced team is very weak in some areas and very strong in others. If I hit them hard on their weakness, they'll die, but if I hit them hard on their strenght, they'll shrug it off. And I'm sorry, but I won't do too many cake walk fight.

So what do I do to challenge them? Hit them where they are weak anyway on a regular basis? Or hit them EXTRA hard where they are strong?

Both solutions are very swingy and can easily turn in TPKs.

Balanced team are more sturdy. You can challenge them in all possible fashion and they'll still be able to answer while never be able to shrug it off completely. And that's just more fun for me, hopefully for the players and is certainly better for the story.

Exploiting the weaknesses of the group?

Yes, you know, that things Villains do.

 

[FireLance]

Seriously, nothing new under the sun.

Except maybe the whining that D&D is becoming a video game. Back when I was playing 1e, there was a fighter, a thief, a cleric and a magic-user in the party, but nobody complained that AD&D was becoming too much like Ultima.

 

[FireLance]

First of all, I don't hate the players, but if there isn't one or two PC deaths in a given campaign, what the hell was happening?

From where I'm sitting, the DM was doing a pretty good job of calibrating and pacing the challenges, and the players were doing a pretty good job of keeping the PCs alive.

Was this heroic fantasy or 'Carebears the RPG?'

Neither. It's an ideal that I've tried to achieve, but never actually managed. Due to bad decisions on the part of either myself or my players, at least one of the PCs died in every one of my 3e campaigns.

Hopefully, that will change in 4e.