Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller Dynamic

[Jack99]

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

Yeah, I have rarely used any over the last 20 years either. I just wanted to point that it might be why some people see a greater need for balance in their parties. It also helps with less than good DM's.

 

[mneme]

I've always thought about roles. In every game.

You want to make sure not all the PCs are the same, and don't stomp all over one another's niches. So you make them different from one another -- one's a ranged dude, one does magic, maybe one runs really fast, whatever. Maybe one has a stronger psyche, one is physiclaly the strongest, one's got the best warfare, one can take the most punishment, and one's pretty good at all of these, but also has a bunch of dirty tricks. Or, to look at our Feng Shui game, we've got one defender-type (the teenage martial artist with the Scrappy Kid defense and a horde of martial arts), one "take down multiple enemies" controller-type Sorcerer, and one "buff, debuff, and combine sorcery and martial arts for one big attack" striker/leader Taoist.

Basically, as long as the PCs are sufficiently different, you'll always have roles. What those roles actually are will depend on the situation and the system -- but while D&D has focused on the roles to make sure every class is useful, it's not those roles that matter in play -- it's whatever setup works best to deal with whatever threat you're currently facing with whatever team you have now. Maybe that means having someone play bait; maybe it involves catching the foe between the striker "hammer" and the defender "anvil"; maybe it involves the wizard pinch-hitting into striker or leader mode against a single foe that's not effected much by controller-esque powers. The roles you use in play have -some- resemblence to those used in design, but really, you do what keeps your character effective, distinct, and interesting.

 

[DonAdam]

They key benefit would seem to be the constraints roles place on designers. They're forced to adapt the classes to a role, so if they can avoid "hybrid" silliness that should help game balance and ensure niche protection. Whatever its other flaws, shoehorning is good for balance. Hopefully they can give the monk something definite to do in the absence of an enemy spellcaster with low fort saves, and reign in the druid by spreading his multiple types of nature magic across different classes.

But on to the main question of the thread, not only has the idea of roles infecting my D&D thinking, but also my viewing of other media. Because you see, in Labyrinth, Sarah is the leader, Didymus the defender, Hoggle the striker, and Ludo the controller.

At least in terms of party roles. David Bowie

Spoiler

(or possibly his package)

is, of course, really in control.

TMNT also does a fair job of lining up, if you take the Donatello=scientist thing to the limit.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There is a fine line between exploiting the weakness of the group and using standard tactics.

You should not put only elite brutes against the unbalanced party, except when it makes sense storywise. Usually you should use balanced NPC parties or monsters against your group. They will learn that they have weaknesses, but usually the party will find ways out of this dilemma.
(A controller could restrict the enemies possibilities so much, that no defender is needed... (e.g.: a well placed grease spell ... oh i would be sad is grease didn´t make the cut...)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think there have always been at least one role that every game required - that of the healer. You need someone to patch up your team after it was hurt in combat. There can be no doubt about that.

Other roles, in a way, have never been that "visible", though I think the following roles are usually important (in order of notability according to my experience)
- Defender - someone that keeps the enemy busy so he don't kill the "weak" ones.
- Face - not a combat role, but it's good if you have someone that can do the talking.
- Technician - Rogue in D&D, but anyone that can deal with mechanical or electronical devices. Not all settings or games require this, though. D&D and Shadowrun definitely do.
- Loremaster - someone that knows stuff. In D&D, that's typically (and it's a weakness outside of combat if you have a Sorceror instead of a Wizard, for example). Technicians in modern games also often fit this.
- Controller - someone that deals with groups of enemies. That doesn't have to be a full class concept (it is in 4E) - in Shadowrun, someone capable of using grenades and autofire weapons can do this, for example.
- Utility guy - Fly, Teleport, Scry, Divination; Designated Driver, Hacker, whatever. Someone that provides utility "services". Often is also a Technician or Loremaster. (D&D Wizard, Shadowrun Rigger/Decker)

 

[Jhaelen]

Players in my campaigns have always chosen their characters to fit their concept first and making sure sure all combat roles are (reasonably) covered second. You can absolutely play the game even if some of the roles are not covered. I hope in 4E it will be even easier to play slightly unusual party constellations.

In my 3E campaign I have 8 players but for a given session on average 5-6 are showing up, so there's some variety in what roles are covered. Before a session starts, I point out the equivalent party level and missing or weak representation of roles.

I adjust encounters to be approriate for the equivalent party level (i.e. ECL -2 to +4) but don't adjust them according to who's present. This can lead to interesting situations but my players have shown great aptitude at adapting their tactics accordingly. It also made everyone more appreciative of other classes because it's very noticable if someone is missing whou would have made a very difficult encounter a piece of cake.

 

[Mirtek]

If you played as a group, instead of 5+ individuals, you'd have been using the basic concepts anyway.

But a whole lot people have fun playing as 5+ individuals.

I am still concerned about the whole new tactical dimension of 4e vs. groups who do not want to fight like a tactical strike team

 

[D'karr]

But a whole lot people have fun playing as 5+ individuals.

I am still concerned about the whole new tactical dimension of 4e vs. groups who do not want to fight like a tactical strike team

If a group fights as individuals and the DM does not adjust to take that into account, that group is in for a reasonable amount of pain and suffering.

It is not so much what roles the party has but the fact that being "selfish" in combat will get people killed. If someone is unconcious and bleeding and someone else in the party decides that it is more important for them to shine in combat than to help his teammate, there is a pretty good chance that someone is going to die.

 

[mjukglass]

Why on earth would anybody NOT play into DnD:s strengths and NOT play a tactical game? If you want your game to center around characters according to some story/roleplaying concept then there are a large amount of roleplaying systems that cater to your tastes. DnD is about tactical roles and boardgamefun, if you scrap that you just threw 98% of the gametext and rules away.

 

[Mirtek]

Why on earth would anybody NOT play into DnD:s strengths and NOT play a tactical game?

Because tactical battles dont suit everyone. Some people just fighte everyone for himself as soon as combat breaks out.

Especially in RPGA and other convention events where the characters are basically randomly thrown into a party with other characters they did not know before (and sometimes don't like at all), there is no reason why they would function like a good team. Depending on the antipathy within these patchwork parties the fighter might deliberately try to put as much of the battlefield between him an this warlord-a##h##e and don't give a damn about him shouting silly orders