Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What if 5e had 2 types of roles
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5700820" data-attributes="member: 54710"><p>I think it's absolutely correct to note that a major challenge is designing the game so that every character can participate in every major encounter. However, I think there are two important observations to make.</p><p></p><p>First, there is a difference between a non-combat obstacle and a non-combat encounter. An obstacle could be something like a pit trap our a haughty courtesan with a secret. It's possible that the obstacle is only well suited to the skills and abilities associated with one or two roles. However, an obstacle doesn't take a lot of time at the table, and it's OK if only a single character gets to shine overcoming it.</p><p></p><p>In contrast, an encounter is a more complex situation (persuade the duke, save the village from the forest fire, figure out where to go next in the dungeon) that takes longer and should be amenable to a wider variety of abilities. An encounter could have a variety of obstacles and there should be multiple ways of "solving" it.</p><p></p><p>In terms of making sure that each character can participate, the non-combat encounter design is at least as important (if not more so) than the character creation rules. If a GM wants an involved wilderness exploration, there should be multiple ways to participate. (An infiltrator should be able to scout ahead, an information gatherer should be able to learn something about the location of the goal.) If it's just going to be a series of survival checks, then the it should be written as an obstacle that doesn't take a lot of time, rather than a full encounter. (For example, a complexity 4 skill challenge might be OK, but a complexity 12 skill challenge would be awful.)</p><p></p><p>Second, there is a little confusion between Role and Theme. A Role should be well-defined, in the sense that the Face role is good at influencing NPCs and the Defender role is good at both drawing and surviving attacks. However, PCs don't just choose to be a Face or Defender. They choose a Face Theme like Courtier or Performer or a Defender Class like Paladin or Fighter. Just like Paladin and Fighter have secondary roles, the Courtier or Performer would give some ability to participate in (but not dominate) other role-focused challenges. For example, the Courtier might choose from some information gathering or exploration abilities and the Performer theme might have some talent options in infiltration (or possibly any other role). Either way, each character could potentially participate (but maybe not dominate) in a non-combat encounter through one of two different roles.</p><p></p><p>This is where the design fits together. The design guidelines for a non-combat encounter would make it OK if there is one (of a small number) of roles that wouldn't apply to a given non-combat encounter. But, if the encounter is designed so that two roles couldn't meaningfully contribute, then there is a risk that some characters could end up as dead weight. An author/GM could take that risk (or know their party), but it's a potential issue.</p><p></p><p>Alternatively, a GM could say that a campaign was going to feature a lot of infiltration (or social gameplay, or wilderness exploration) and suggest that each PC in the campaign take the relevant role as a primary or secondary aspect of their characters.</p><p></p><p>-KS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5700820, member: 54710"] I think it's absolutely correct to note that a major challenge is designing the game so that every character can participate in every major encounter. However, I think there are two important observations to make. First, there is a difference between a non-combat obstacle and a non-combat encounter. An obstacle could be something like a pit trap our a haughty courtesan with a secret. It's possible that the obstacle is only well suited to the skills and abilities associated with one or two roles. However, an obstacle doesn't take a lot of time at the table, and it's OK if only a single character gets to shine overcoming it. In contrast, an encounter is a more complex situation (persuade the duke, save the village from the forest fire, figure out where to go next in the dungeon) that takes longer and should be amenable to a wider variety of abilities. An encounter could have a variety of obstacles and there should be multiple ways of "solving" it. In terms of making sure that each character can participate, the non-combat encounter design is at least as important (if not more so) than the character creation rules. If a GM wants an involved wilderness exploration, there should be multiple ways to participate. (An infiltrator should be able to scout ahead, an information gatherer should be able to learn something about the location of the goal.) If it's just going to be a series of survival checks, then the it should be written as an obstacle that doesn't take a lot of time, rather than a full encounter. (For example, a complexity 4 skill challenge might be OK, but a complexity 12 skill challenge would be awful.) Second, there is a little confusion between Role and Theme. A Role should be well-defined, in the sense that the Face role is good at influencing NPCs and the Defender role is good at both drawing and surviving attacks. However, PCs don't just choose to be a Face or Defender. They choose a Face Theme like Courtier or Performer or a Defender Class like Paladin or Fighter. Just like Paladin and Fighter have secondary roles, the Courtier or Performer would give some ability to participate in (but not dominate) other role-focused challenges. For example, the Courtier might choose from some information gathering or exploration abilities and the Performer theme might have some talent options in infiltration (or possibly any other role). Either way, each character could potentially participate (but maybe not dominate) in a non-combat encounter through one of two different roles. This is where the design fits together. The design guidelines for a non-combat encounter would make it OK if there is one (of a small number) of roles that wouldn't apply to a given non-combat encounter. But, if the encounter is designed so that two roles couldn't meaningfully contribute, then there is a risk that some characters could end up as dead weight. An author/GM could take that risk (or know their party), but it's a potential issue. Alternatively, a GM could say that a campaign was going to feature a lot of infiltration (or social gameplay, or wilderness exploration) and suggest that each PC in the campaign take the relevant role as a primary or secondary aspect of their characters. -KS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What if 5e had 2 types of roles
Top