What are the "Roles" in True20, Etc?

[Goken100]

Reading the free download for True20 is enough to see that characters don't gain HP every level, they become more resistant to damage. Simulations where damage is either avoided or resisted are clearly more realistic than the abstract ever expanding pool of HP that D&D presents.

What I'm wondering is if the "Leader Role" that D&D 4E presents as one of the integral roles in any adventuring group is simply an artifact of their arbitrary simulation that involves masses of hit points. We've been assured that ALL classes filing the Leader role (both Clerics and Warlords, so far) will be able to heal as one of their primary functions.

So, could some people with experience in True20 and other systems without expanding HP pools comment? In particular:

1. What classes or archetypes are presented for those systems? Are there healers and are they are prominent and necessary?
2. If there are healers, how do those powers progress as they level up? There's no need to heal more, as damage soaking is relatively flat, so how's it work?
3. If the core "roles" of adventurers are different under those systems, what "roles" are important?

Thanks folks!

 

[WayneLigon]

'Roles' tend to pop up in any game; it's not just something 4E invented, but rather has existed in abstract in most games. There will usually be a combat person, a skilled person, etc, even in games with no classes. As far as I know, there isn't an RPG that rewards a person for trying to be all things to all people.

Generally there will be a healer-type but it depends on the game as to how vital they are. In Vampire and Werewolf, for instance, all the characters can heal themselves (though werewolves do have a healing spell available to them). In GURPS there are several powerful healing spells of various grades because there is additional depth to the damage system. In True20, you have a healer role that can be created by taking certain feats and Adept powers.

For the most part, combat in a flat-HP game is somewhat more deadly, so there simply isn't that much of it; the more deadly combat is, the less combat occurs. In Call of Cthulhu the only way to get back HP is to rest or have medical attention and it takes days or weeks. There is no healing spell, so face-to-face combat is somewhat rare. You'll also find that in flat-HP games, the advancement mechanic doesn't have that carrot-and-stick approach that D&D does; in the absense of that one driving factor, people simply don't seek out much combat in the first place.

Now, that said, in most other games there are significant ways of avoiding damage in the first place. Most other systems have means of parrying or avoiding a blow entirely. In Savage Worlds, a flat-HP game with a LOT of combat, the PCs have significant ways to avoid damage in the first place through bennie points, skills, advantages, etc. The combat system itself is geared towards only harming you significantly on a combination of a really good roll on the enemies part and a really poor roll on your part, plus you being out of (or unwilling to spend) your bennie points.

 

[Goken100]

So is it safe to say that flat-HP systems with a focus on combat do not have the same need for a focused healer "role"?

I can't help but wonder what "roles" the Wizards folks would have come up with if not constricted by the abstract and unrealistic mountain-of-HP system.

Maybe roles like "Pointman" or "Anchor", who knows?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

So is it safe to say that flat-HP systems with a focus on combat do not have the same need for a focused healer "role"?

I can't help but wonder what "roles" the Wizards folks would have come up with if not constricted by the abstract and unrealistic mountain-of-HP system.

Maybe roles like "Pointman" or "Anchor", who knows?

With the exception of removing the "Leader" role (in the context of 'healer'), I doubt you'd see much, if any, change. The tank/"Defender" would be focused on soaking and/or dodging damage rather than ablating it, and the "Striker" and "Controller" would be largely the same.

The biggest difference is that gameplay, as in True20, would become much more random, with virtually all attacks taking the form of 'Save or Die,' and one of D&D's main strengths, its ability to appeal to a wide variety of players, would completely disintegrate. The game would cater exclusively to one narrow splinter of Simulationists, those who want to attempt to 'emulate reality' (as they see it).

HP work. They work better - MUCH better - than anything else anyone has come up with in thirty years, and that's something I can't say of ANY other element of D&D's original design. They work so well, (electronic) game companies whose development budget for a single A-list title is comparable to Wizard's ENTIRE budget and who have the data-collection resource to put that budget to use almost exclusively use hit point systems. In fact, HP work so well, they're now almost UNIVERSAL in electronic games, and the old one-shot = one-kill rules all but completely abandoned.

 

[PeterWeller]

Ever RPG implicitly has roles. I know that's the most obvious statement ever, but I mean that in the specific sense we are discussing. Whether it's D&D, Shadowrun, WoW, VtM, whatever. It has specific roles that should be filled for the optimal party. For example, an optimal SR party (a game without classes) has someone who can fight, someone who can hack, someone who can muck about with magic, and someone who can "face." The game never explicitly states that you need a party member in each of these roles, but when you look at the challenges a SR party faces, you realize you're not going to get far without covering these four bases.

 

[Goken100]

With the exception of removing the "Leader" role (in the context of 'healer'), I doubt you'd see much, if any, change. The tank/"Defender" would be focused on soaking and/or dodging damage rather than ablating it, and the "Striker" and "Controller" would be largely the same.

The biggest difference is that gameplay, as in True20, would become much more random, with virtually all attacks taking the form of 'Save or Die,' and one of D&D's main strengths, its ability to appeal to a wide variety of players, would completely disintegrate. The game would cater exclusively to one narrow splinter of Simulationists, those who want to attempt to 'emulate reality' (as they see it).

HP work. They work better - MUCH better - than anything else anyone has come up with in thirty years, and that's something I can't say of ANY other element of D&D's original design. They work so well, (electronic) game companies whose development budget for a single A-list title is comparable to Wizard's ENTIRE budget and who have the data-collection resource to put that budget to use almost exclusively use hit point systems. In fact, HP work so well, they're now almost UNIVERSAL in electronic games, and the old one-shot = one-kill rules all but completely abandoned.

Save or die? It seemed like you could absorb quite a few hits in True20 to me, is that not so? And what about Savage Worlds, is that save or die? If it is, that doesn't seem like a good system to me.

It seems to me that good system would allow for the ability to minimize damage using the same mechanic that damage is avoided altogether. So if you barely get hit, it only hurts a little. Thus if the opponent is of appropriate level, you're probably not going to get clobbered.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Ever RPG implicitly has roles.

I'm not sure if that's true. In Amber, while there are a variety of powers and stats, the PCs are almost all assumed to have the same power, Pattern. In the example party, 6 out of 8 PCs do. Amber assumes a lot more inter-party conflict and splitting up than is common in most rpgs.

In Pendragon 1e every PC is a knight. All can fight. They're mostly differentiated by culture, personality (there are a huge number of stats for this) and the possession of relatively minor skills like heraldry.

In Call of Cthulhu, all PCs are referred to as 'investigators' which suggests that they are all doing the same thing, more or less. One might be an expert in archaeology, another in forensic science, but they are all basically learned men.

 

[Gloombunny]

Save or die? It seemed like you could absorb quite a few hits in True20 to me, is that not so?

It's not. I've yet to play True20, but the impression I get from reading it, and more importantly what people who have played it tell me, is that PCs depend heavily on the rerolls from spending Conviction points to stay alive in combat.

I think a damage-save system with a more well-developed system of conviction/action/fate/whatever points usable to mitigate its deadliness would be a pretty cool thing for a D&D-like game. It would also make it very easy to have "healers" who don't use instant-wound-fixing magic, if you want that. Not to mention characters who can confidently get in fights a lot but don't have some unexplained ability to get stabbed a dozen times and be alright. I don't think anyone's really made such a system yet, though.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Save or die? It seemed like you could absorb quite a few hits in True20 to me, is that not so? And what about Savage Worlds, is that save or die? If it is, that doesn't seem like a good system to me.

POTENTIALLY save or die, although this is mitigated by a couple of factors - one, it's unlikely, and two, True20, unlike the current edition of D&D, has a strong narrative mechanic in the form of Conviction. The latter is more important, but is, IMO, separate from the damage mechanics - games with hit points can also have strong narrative mechanics.

True20 without Conviction would be really, really lethal, though.

Savage Worlds is set up fairly similarly IIRC, although from my limited experience it seemed like it was a bit less common to be forced to spending your bennies to stay in the game.

It seems to me that good system would allow for the ability to minimize damage using the same mechanic that damage is avoided altogether. So if you barely get hit, it only hurts a little. Thus if the opponent is of appropriate level, you're probably not going to get clobbered.

So a margin of success system? That's pretty much how True20's is, actually.

Again, though, this too can work with either a damage save or a hit point mechanic and is easier to implement and balance with the latter.

And, of course, none of this really impacts roles in the sense 4e uses the term.

 

[PeterWeller]

I'm not sure if that's true. In Amber, while there are a variety of powers and stats, the PCs are almost all assumed to have the same power, Pattern. In the example party, 6 out of 8 PCs do. Amber assumes a lot more inter-party conflict and splitting up than is common in most rpgs.

In Pendragon 1e every PC is a knight. All can fight. They're mostly differentiated by culture, personality (there are a huge number of stats for this) and the possession of relatively minor skills like heraldry.

In Call of Cthulhu, all PCs are referred to as 'investigators' which suggests that they are all doing the same thing, more or less. One might be an expert in archaeology, another in forensic science, but they are all basically learned men.

I haven't played Amber or Pendragon, so I can't comment, but in Cthulhu, which I agree is one of the most role-less RPGs out there, there's still enough specialization to distinguish roles like sneaks, toughs, talkers, and thinkers (to apply my own terms I just came up with).
Granted, these roles are a lot more nebulous than those in D&D, but you can still come up with a list of necessary roles that a Cthulhu party should fill to be successful. That being said, part of the draw of Cthulhu is the fact that the party doesn't so much succeed as they do survive, and crafting a party to cover all your bases in Cthulhu may be detrimental to the overall play experience.