D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[pemerton]

If TTRPGs had not progressed beyond AD&D and you brought me a copy of 4E one day, I suspect I'd be quite content with it. If I'd never seen any RPG before in my life and you showed me 4E, I'd be blown away. But in either case if you brought me 3E or 5E (or many other modern games) two months later, my 4E playing days would end very quickly.

I don't know what inference you're inviting me to draw from this.

I assume that you would prefer to play 3E/PF rather than Runequest, Rolemaster or HARP, too - but I would play any of those systems (two over 30 years old, the third a derivative of the second) rather than 3E.

I assume that you would prefer to pay 3E/PF rather than Dungeon World or Burning Wheel - but I would play either of those systems (both more modern than 3E) rather than 3E.

If the choice came up I think I woud prefer AD&D to 3E. And certainly would prefer 5e.

But I don't see how any of these biographical facts are of any more general significance.

Nor do I see how these sorts of biographical facts tend to show that 4e is more "heavy handed" in its use of ordinary English words for technical purposes. What is the difference between using "leader" as a label for a healer/buffer and using "cleric" as a label for an undead-fighting mace-wielding crusader knight? Perhaps there is one, but bare facts about someone's RPG preferences don't explain it.

 

[BryonD]

Nor do I see how these sorts of biographical facts tend to show that 4e is more "heavy handed" in its use of ordinary English words for technical purposes. What is the difference between using "leader" as a label for a healer/buffer and using "cleric" as a label for an undead-fighting mace-wielding crusader knight? Perhaps there is one, but bare facts about someone's RPG preferences don't explain it.

Where did I claim that these particular notes demonstrated that 4E was move heavy handed? I've seen you involved in uncountable threads with many different people explaining to you the reasons 4E has issues with appeal to large portions of the market. And you didn't get the point then, so I don't see any reason to try to make that case yet again here. It is simply stated as a point of fact that a lot of people do perceive it as such.

But in this post you also went back to the well of cherry-picking Gygax quotes. And you then state " The game has been giving generic English words the job of serving as technical labels since day 1.". I was responding to that. And I completely agree with it as a general point. But I also claim that in this conversation about "roles" and how that term may be different in 4E than in the common parlance of the D&D community across all editions requires looking at the complete modern context. You are able to shine a *relatively* decent light on 4E if you focus on AD&D exclusively (at least for this "roles" topic).

But I'm showing that putting it is true historic context, including other more recent games puts a significantly different light on the overall community perception.

 

[BryonD]

I still don't know what you mean when you say "the mechanics make the game work one way".

Yeah, I know. You are not going to suddenly start getting it now.

You think there is some radical difference between a 4e rogue's sneak attack and the sneak attack of a 3E or 5e rouge. Or between a 4e wizard's low hit points and the low hit points of a 3E wizard or 5e wizard (not quite as lowin the latter version). But I don't know what this difference is.

Right, cause I said that rogue's sneak attack was different......

A fighter in 4e can cower just as well as an AD&D fighter can. I don't know what mechanic you think makes a difference there either.

Cowering was YOUR example, and I pointed out this was NOT a mechanical thing. So taking YOUR bad example and trying to hang it on me is amusing.

If you don't see any mechanical differences, then I'm amused that you feel so vastly dedicated to arguing in defense of a game with no differences.
Of course, you DO see differences. But we get back to words games and topic Whack-A-Mole.

The past few years could be summed up as:

Two 4E fans talking: Man it is so awesome that they got rid of A and replaced it with B. A was a real problem in 3E. I always hated/was frustrated by/ignored A. Now they have B and it is awesome. 4E is for the first time and finally the game D&D could always be.

3E fan walks up. 4E fans: We were just talking about how great B is. 3E fan: I don't like B . I prefer A.
4E Fan 1: You H4ter
4E Fan 2: Yeah, and besides, there is no difference. B is exactly like A. And A never existed in the first place. There is no mechanical or conceptual difference between A and B.

 

[Aenghus]

The past few years could be summed up as:

Two 4E fans talking: Man it is so awesome that they got rid of A and replaced it with B. A was a real problem in 3E. I always hated/was frustrated by/ignored A. Now they have B and it is awesome. 4E is for the first time and finally the game D&D could always be.

3E fan walks up. 4E fans: We were just talking about how great B is. 3E fan: I don't like B . I prefer A.
4E Fan 1: You H4ter
4E Fan 2: Yeah, and besides, there is no difference. B is exactly like A. And A never existed in the first place. There is no mechanical or conceptual difference between A and B.

This'll end badly I predict, but I'll try.

I can dislike something without giving a reason, so can anyone.

Likes and dislikes are primarily emotional, aesthetic, there may or may not be explainable reasons behind them, and those reasons are sometimes strawman rationalisations. While people are entitled to their likes and dislikes, providing explanations for that don't make any sense to some of the audience produce this incoherent mess of failure to communicate.

I have encountered RPGs I instinctively dislike before. Typically I don't make much of an effort to learn them properly and a number of times I have discovered that I made mistakes in my initial examination of the RPG and elements of it worked differently to how I initially thought. I have changed my mind multiple times on liking or disliking particular mechanics.

Players and referees who dislike (or think they dislike) a game or module may come out and say it, or consciously or unconsciously try to sabotage it, or try and be fair and objective. The latter is really, really difficult, I realise.

When I look for information on a random topic I generally look for feedback from experts who appreciate the topic and have made an extensive study of it, and those who dislike it and give coherent, rational reasons why, not those who hate it and want to bury it.

To me roles are about sustainable consistent ability, not short term tactics. Given the postings from the "dislike roles" faction have centered around short term, maybe improvised, tactics maybe that's one of the differences being illustrated. As a player I tend by default to want to minimise risk and stick to the tried and trusted. Amongst other player types there are those who (from my perspective) get bored quickly with risk-minimisation strategies and prefer more adrenaline-soaked risky play. Some D&D editions support the former better than the latter and vice versa. I personally hate the swingy slot machine concept for RPGs, but I know I'm far to one side of the curve on this issue.

But if you want to emphasise short-term non-repeatable tactics maybe you don't want many consistent, sustainable abilities in the RPG.

Of course, all versions of D&D have had consistent, sustainable abilities for various classes across the editions, some classes more than others, some editions more than others, but have had different emphasises on randomness and player skill vs PC skill.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah, I know. You are not going to suddenly start getting it now.

part of the problem is that we don't understand each other... people who like something wont suddenly understand why someone doen't... especially if they are using vauge terms. It gets harder when people act like EVERYTHING is worse about something.

Right, cause I said that rogue's sneak attack was different......

see the main part that makes a rogue in 4e a striker is that he can add 2d6, 3d6, or 5d6 damage in the right situation... it is a focus the creator of the class decided to give them a skimisher ability that way... 4e called it a striker. 3e and 5e both have the same feature only MORE of it 1d6 per 2 levels up to a max of 10d6.

If you don't see any mechanical differences, then I'm amused that you feel so vastly dedicated to arguing in defense of a game with no differences.
Of course, you DO see differences. But we get back to words games and topic Whack-A-Mole.

there are a lot of mechanical diffrences, but people pretend that things that didn't change the basics are the same just built around a balanced chassie where things were more upfront instead of hidden.

The past few years could be summed up as:

Two 4E fans talking: Man it is so awesome that they got rid of A and replaced it with B. A was a real problem in 3E. I always hated/was frustrated by/ignored A. Now they have B and it is awesome. 4E is for the first time and finally the game D&D could always be.

3E fan walks up. 4E fans: We were just talking about how great B is. 3E fan: I don't like B . I prefer A.
4E Fan 1: You H4ter
4E Fan 2: Yeah, and besides, there is no difference. B is exactly like A. And A never existed in the first place. There is no mechanical or conceptual difference between A and B.

almost every internet discussion...

I see the bigiset issue is

when a 3e fan says "I hate that you can't do X in 4e"
then a 4e fan responds "Of course you can do that, we do all the time"
then the 3e fan basicly breaks down into tell you why everything about 4e sucked.
or
when a 3e fan says "I hate that 4e forced you to do X"
then 4e fans respind with "Um, no it doesn't we don't play like that."
then the 3e fan breaks down into why everything about 4e sucked
or (and this thread is the perfect example of it)
WHen a 4e fan says "X or Y is needed in 5e like it was in 4e"
then a 3e fan will come in and say "No other edition had anything like that"
so the 4e fan will respond with "Well X and Y where always there, 4e handled it a bit differently but it was based on they way it always was."
then a 3e fan will break down into tell you why everything about 4e sucked...


In this case (Roles) someone asked what they were, I said "Same as always" and used the 4e labels. over 100 pages later we still have people claiming that isn't true... I even tried to round it out by explaining that the basic explanations could be expanded on and that some names sucked, and even that it was used to nerf some classes... but all of that means nothing if you like 4e.


Rogue is the best example...

in2e you had backstab, it was a bit of flavor and hard to use consistently but gave the thief a good burst damage. the rogue wasn't the best combat class by far. in 3e and 3.5 they expanded backstab into sneak attack, made it MORE damaging and easier to use. in 4e they lowered the damage (although not much and did give a feat that could get you back up there) kept the ease of getting the same. 5e went back to the 3.5 more damage and made it still easier to get the damage. so from 2e into 3e/3.5 into 4e then finally to 5e every edition except 4e made them more damaging. some how by just putting a lable on the 4e class that it is good at doing damage, it made it "YOU MUST PLAY THIS WAY" but it is the only edition that didn't up both ease of doing the damage and the damage... 4e also had the same or more rp and skill abilities as 3.5 and 5e, and had the same evasion type abilities.... the class didn't really change that much sine 2000

 

[Abraxas]

when a 3e fan says "I hate that you can't do X in 4e"
then a 4e fan responds "Of course you can do that, we do all the time"
then the 3e fan basicly breaks down into tell you why everything about 4e sucked.
or
when a 3e fan says "I hate that 4e forced you to do X"
then 4e fans respind with "Um, no it doesn't we don't play like that."
then the 3e fan breaks down into why everything about 4e sucked
or (and this thread is the perfect example of it)
WHen a 4e fan says "X or Y is needed in 5e like it was in 4e"
then a 3e fan will come in and say "No other edition had anything like that"
so the 4e fan will respond with "Well X and Y where always there, 4e handled it a bit differently but it was based on they way it always was."
then a 3e fan will break down into tell you why everything about 4e sucked...

Switch every instance 3E and 4E in the above statement and it is just as true...

 

[BryonD]

I can dislike something without giving a reason, so can anyone.

Unless you dislike 4E. Then you are a H4ter who whose only reason for your opinion is fear of change.

Obviously I don't really think this. But I have been flat out in no uncertain terms told that my opinion of 4E is for these and no other possible reasons.

Likes and dislikes are primarily emotional, aesthetic, there may or may not be explainable reasons behind them, and those reasons are sometimes strawman rationalisations. While people are entitled to their likes and dislikes, providing explanations for that don't make any sense to some of the audience produce this incoherent mess of failure to communicate.

Of course. But liking red over blue is one thing. The fact that red and blue are still quantifiably and objectively different is another.

I've often and loudly endorsed the enjoyment of 4E. I'm disputing the unending assertion that "all editions are the same" or the claim that it is unreasonable to observe a difference over which varying opinions are possible in the first place.

To me roles are about sustainable consistent ability, not short term tactics. Given the postings from the "dislike roles" faction have centered around short term, maybe improvised, tactics maybe that's one of the differences being illustrated.

I can't speak for others. But I tend to doubt it being as tactics is a clear strength of 4E.

of course, all versions of D&D have had consistent, sustainable abilities for various classes across the editions, some classes more than others, some editions more than others, but have had different emphasises on randomness and player skill vs PC skill.

Of course. But the mechanically implementations have varied substantially. And, as you so correctly state, having differing preferences is completely fair.

 

[BryonD]

part of the problem is that we don't understand each other... people who like something wont suddenly understand why someone doen't... especially if they are using vauge terms. It gets harder when people act like EVERYTHING is worse about something.

Noted. Irrelevant. But Noted.

see the main part that makes a rogue in 4e a striker is that he can add 2d6, 3d6, or 5d6 damage in the right situation... it is a focus the creator of the class decided to give them a skimisher ability that way... 4e called it a striker. 3e and 5e both have the same feature only MORE of it 1d6 per 2 levels up to a max of 10d6.

Noted. Irrelevant. But Noted.

there are a lot of mechanical diffrences, but people pretend that things that didn't change the basics are the same just built around a balanced chassie where things were more upfront instead of hidden.

That whole conversations about it is ok for people to have different opinions. It goes in right here.
What you see as "didn't change the basics" are things other see as "came in and threw the basics out the window".
Are they allowed to have this opinion? Or are you saying they can only see it your way?

almost every internet discussion...

yeah yeah yeah. "I know you are but what I am I?" is a great rebuttal.

There is a ton of emotional baggage coming from all sides.

The "you are a h4er" thing is strongly representative of the pro-4E crowd. (or was when 4E was still front and center)

I see the bigiset issue is

when a 3e fan says "I hate that you can't do X in 4e"
then a 4e fan responds "Of course you can do that, we do all the time"
then the 3e fan basicly breaks down into tell you why everything about 4e sucked.
or
when a 3e fan says "I hate that 4e forced you to do X"
then 4e fans respind with "Um, no it doesn't we don't play like that."
then the 3e fan breaks down into why everything about 4e sucked
or (and this thread is the perfect example of it)
WHen a 4e fan says "X or Y is needed in 5e like it was in 4e"
then a 3e fan will come in and say "No other edition had anything like that"
so the 4e fan will respond with "Well X and Y where always there, 4e handled it a bit differently but it was based on they way it always was."
then a 3e fan will break down into tell you why everything about 4e sucked...

And over and over you refuse to open your eyes to "Why do you think 'you can't do X in 4e'"?
To so many 4E gamers the reality that THEY can do things in 4E the way THEY did things in other games means that EVERYONE MUST have the exact same experience.

You want people to work towards a positive solution? You could start by leading by example.
4E is way down the list of delivering a variety of the key gaming experiences I want. And if back in 2008 the 4E fan base had been thoughtful about making 4E be a game that didn't have the problem for a lot of people, maybe, just maybe, things would have gone differently.

But instead they put their head in the sand and insist that the other opinions don't count. "Here is how *I* do "X" in 4E." MUST be the one size firs all response for all games everyone. Anyone not seeing this truism as absolute is a change-fearing h4ter. And then they get surprised when they get emotional "well, 4E just sucks" answers.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've often and loudly endorsed the enjoyment of 4E. I'm disputing the unending assertion that "all editions are the same" or the claim that it is unreasonable to observe a difference over which varying opinions are possible in the first place.

<snip>

Of course. But the mechanically implementations have varied substantially. And, as you so correctly state, having differing preferences is completely fair.

Is there that unending assertion that "all editions are the same?" I mean, I certainly don't feel that way. I'm a 100 %, dyed in the wool "system matters" guy and most of the prominent 4e commenters that I know of are as well. I think where the disagreement has always lived is in clarifying the differences and their impact on play. Things like genre, pacing, mechanical infrastructure, player authority, and the primary locus of play.

For instance, with respect to the above, I would say that 4e is definitively focused on "player protagonism", "Big Damn Heroes", and an aggressive push toward "the conflict charged scene" (the combat or noncombat encounter as "action scene") as the primary locus of play. I don't think you'll get too many 4e advocates disagreeing on that. Is TSR era D&D, 3.x, and now 5e focused on those things? Clearly not. They could probably be encapsulated as "GM empowerment", "Murderhobos or Zero to Hero (and some other stuff)", and "dungeon/hex-crawls, open-world exploration, or metaplot railroads." To those varying ends, the rulesets (broadly or tightly in some cases) supported those aims...and in some areas, to the detriment of an alternative agenda.

No disagreement there. Where there will be disagreement is when you zoom in on the subtle nuance where one edition is claimed to be deviant from orthodox. These issues are things like HPs, the existence/place of combat roles, and player authority. But just because folks may disagree with you and say there is no (or at least not in any way that is functionally impactful to playstyle - eg an aesthetic coat of paint) deviation from orthodox D&D on those specific issues doesn't mean that they disagree that 4e wasn't (when taken as a whole) different than TSR D&D etc.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That whole conversations about it is ok for people to have different opinions. It goes in right here.
What you see as "didn't change the basics" are things other see as "came in and threw the basics out the window".

and this is why the above was very relevant... if you like something and can say X Y and Z you will never understand people who claim X Y and Z are not there... and on the flip side if you hate something (notice the word hate is spelled out here) because X Y and Z aren't in it then no one will ever convince you that they were there and you missed it.

part of the problem is that love/hate and like/dislike are not even... if you just dislike something but don't hate it you can enter into a discussion just fine, onece you hate something your blinders are on... the opposite is worse, you don't have to love something to be just as set in your ways... you can just like it.

Are they allowed to have this opinion? Or are you saying they can only see it your way?

they can like or dislike something all they want, what they can not do is make factual statements based on there opinion, especially when it is antagnostic to those who like it...

yeah yeah yeah. "I know you are but what I am I?" is a great rebuttal.

my rebuttal was that taken as you said it is meaningless... it was not a childish rebuttal at all, although it was partially to try to be humorous.

There is a ton of emotional baggage coming from all sides.

yes, and very little respect with it... telling someone that something they don't like is really good can cause problems... on the other hand telling someone something they like or love sucks or is wrong is almost always a problem...

The "you are a h4er" thing is strongly representative of the pro-4E crowd. (or was when 4E was still front and center)

yes... when people came to the 4e board and dissed 4e it was strong, notice it was not when people where on the 3e or pathfinder threads...

And over and over you refuse to open your eyes to "Why do you think 'you can't do X in 4e'"?
To so many 4E gamers the reality that THEY can do things in 4E the way THEY did things in other games means that EVERYONE MUST have the exact same experience.

no, but the oppiste is equally true... no one can say "4e was the game for everyone" or "4e was the game that sucked the most" but what we can do is talk about our experences without dismissing others...

try this, if someone says that something you do and love to do sucks, and the reason is it works like X, when in your experience X isn't true at all... how does that work in your mind?

Humans have this habit of being self agreeing. "Well I don't like X" then when they try X they pick up confurmation... the discion was not based on the experience, but what they brought to it...

You want people to work towards a positive solution? You could start by leading by example.
4E is way down the list of delivering a variety of the key gaming experiences I want.

ok, sorry to hear that, it delivered most of what I want in a game. I am upset that 5e is not so far doing as well for me, how about we try to bridge the discussion into "How can we both be happy?"

And if back in 2008 the 4E fan base had been thoughtful about making 4E be a game that didn't have the problem for a lot of people, maybe, just maybe, things would have gone differently.

and if wishes where horses....

But instead they put their head in the sand and insist that the other opinions don't count.

you mean like I have been out right tol in the last 80 or so pages...

"Here is how *I* do "X" in 4E." MUST be the one size firs all response for all games everyone

.
please give an example... the closest I can find is my solution of "Let the mechanics fall in the background and run the game the same way you did every other edition..."

Anyone not seeing this truism as absolute is a change-fearing h4ter.

please quote these people who miss spell hater with a 4, so far it seems to me to only be people who dislike 4e and who are holding that up.

And then they get surprised when they get emotional "well, 4E just sucks" answers.

no one is surprised that a vocal minority are taking pot shots at an edition... any edition....