Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6506711" data-attributes="member: 177">Goodness gracious.Folks, the concept of roles is not new.&nbsp; 1961.&nbsp; Fantastic Four #1.&nbsp; Mr Fantastic = Leader.&nbsp; Human Torch = Striker.&nbsp; Invisible Woman = Controller.&nbsp; The Thing = Defender.Real world military organizations use tactical roles, and have since before the ancient Greeks!&nbsp; When you have individuals with different tactical strengths, roles are a natural fallout.&nbsp; Being largely specialized is usually the smart way to go in a time-critical, dangerous situation.&nbsp; Everyone knows what they are supposed to do, by role, without having to discuss actions at length before someone starts shooting or trying to stab you.The game, having the base 4 classes since at least AD&amp;D has had the concept of combat roles for decades already.&nbsp; 4e is only the most tightly designed and explicitly stated, and has the greatest focus on those roles.I tend to think that the issue is not about roles, but about classes.&nbsp; Players have a tendency to define the character by their class, instead of *using* the class to implement the definition of the character.&nbsp; Then you get sentences like, &quot;I want a Fighter that can be a Controller!&quot;&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; That is putting the class definition before the character definition.&nbsp; Turn it around, and say, &quot;I want a martial character that can be a controller!&quot;&nbsp; Then you pick what class combinations will get you that result.&nbsp; If some of it is Fighter, that's great.&nbsp; But if more of it is Warlord or Rogue, why do we care, so long as the character has suitable abilities?Your loyalty should be to the character concept, not to the class definitions.&nbsp; Yes, the classes are not infinitely flexible, so you cannot create any and every concept imaginable.&nbsp; This will be an issue with any classed system.&nbsp; Unclassed systems are also imperfect, but in different ways.&nbsp; No game is perfect.&nbsp; Do not make perfect the enemy of good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6506711, member: 177"] Goodness gracious. Folks, the concept of roles is not new. 1961. Fantastic Four #1. Mr Fantastic = Leader. Human Torch = Striker. Invisible Woman = Controller. The Thing = Defender. Real world military organizations use tactical roles, and have since before the ancient Greeks! When you have individuals with different tactical strengths, roles are a natural fallout. Being largely specialized is usually the smart way to go in a time-critical, dangerous situation. Everyone knows what they are supposed to do, by role, without having to discuss actions at length before someone starts shooting or trying to stab you. The game, having the base 4 classes since at least AD&D has had the concept of combat roles for decades already. 4e is only the most tightly designed and explicitly stated, and has the greatest focus on those roles. I tend to think that the issue is not about roles, but about classes. Players have a tendency to define the character by their class, instead of *using* the class to implement the definition of the character. Then you get sentences like, "I want a Fighter that can be a Controller!" Why? That is putting the class definition before the character definition. Turn it around, and say, "I want a martial character that can be a controller!" Then you pick what class combinations will get you that result. If some of it is Fighter, that's great. But if more of it is Warlord or Rogue, why do we care, so long as the character has suitable abilities? Your loyalty should be to the character concept, not to the class definitions. Yes, the classes are not infinitely flexible, so you cannot create any and every concept imaginable. This will be an issue with any classed system. Unclassed systems are also imperfect, but in different ways. No game is perfect. Do not make perfect the enemy of good. [/QUOTE]

Verification