WotC_Shoe on leaderless parties

[The Little Raven]

So why are they called 'Leaders'? Why are they not called 'Buffers', then?

For the same reason that Rangers are called Rangers: it's a name that summarizes the capabilities of a specific metagame construct.

 

[hong]

So why are they called 'Leaders'? Why are they not called 'Buffers', then?

Well, we _could_ rename the roles from defender, striker, controller and leader to meatshield, squishy, griefer and medic, but I don't see this as particularly necessary.

 

[Lizard]

Well, we _could_ rename the roles from defender, striker, controller and leader to meatshield, squishy, griefer and medic, but I don't see this as particularly necessary.

what's wrong with Tank, Healer, CC, and DPS?

 

[hong]

what's wrong with Tank, Healer, CC, and DPS?

That's so anime.

 

[The Little Raven]

DPS?

Well, DPS obviously wouldn't work, since the abstract nature of the combat system makes knowing the damage output per second irrelevant, since the round (6 seconds) is the smallest unit of time in regards to damage output.

 

[Lizard]

Well, DPS obviously wouldn't work, since the abstract nature of the combat system makes knowing the damage output per second irrelevant, since the round (6 seconds) is the smallest unit of time in regards to damage output.

DPR, then.

Seriously, I use the term in D&D all the time. It's a shorthand for "average damage output over the life of a combat". That it's not actually measured in seconds is pretty irrelevant. (You could, of course, look at damage over X rounds and then divide by 6 to get 'true' DPS, but what would the point be?)

Of course, there isn't a 1-to-1 mapping of MMORPG roles. The "Defender" role is actually Crowd control, to a large extent, and the "Controller" is mostly AE and environmental. "Strikers" are closest to DPS -- large single targer damage.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I suspect that the "leader" role bears only a tangential relationship to actual leadership. (Which probably makes it a poor choice to describe the role since in ordinary english "leader" is also a role that a person might have in a group). What it probably means in terms of class construction is a character whose contributions make the rest of the group better.

This whole "leader" role makes little sense to me. So because I make a warlord character I am automatically a "leader"??? In every PnP game I have ever taken part in, someone within the group has more or less assumed the role of leader thruroleplaying and actions within the game... and his or her ability to get the party to act as a cohesive unit.

What if four people in the party choose to play the warlord class? To me leadership is something which hinges on roleplaying ability rather than game mechanics.

 

[Lizard]

I suspect that the "leader" role bears only a tangential relationship to actual leadership. (Which probably makes it a poor choice to describe the role since in ordinary english "leader" is also a role that a person might have in a group). What it probably means in terms of class construction is a character whose contributions make the rest of the group better.

It's basically marketing.

Other likely terms -- "Supporter", "Buffer", "Healer", etc -- all imply a passive character who stands back and helps others, instead of whacking orcs himself. "Leader" is dynamic and active-sounding, as are all the other roles. The "heal a friend by hurting a foe" game model also supports this; if you're not attacking every round, you're Not Having Fun. So a "Leader" is anyone whose actions inspire/enhance their comrades -- I stab the monster and you are so awed you feel a surge of energy (heal), or I do a minor attack which sets you up for a major one, etc.

Frankly, I think they should have kept the role names in the internal design docs and NOT made them explicit. I do not think much is gained by this, and a lot is lost.

 

[Voss]

Remember, there are no buff potions anymore. At least I'm pretty sure that's what I read somewhere. Potions are pretty much just for healing now.

So potion drinking as a minor action isn't going to allow the PC to pull off some uber buff and then attack.

Please find a source for this. I haven't seen it anywhere, and it makes a huge difference for gameplay.

 

[Campbell]

Frankly, I think they should have kept the role names in the internal design docs and NOT made them explicit. I do not think much is gained by this, and a lot is lost.

It seems like they're shooting for a lot more design transparency this time around. Rather than expecting people (and by extension third party publishers) to figure out the system internals through trial and error they're being rather explicit about their design criteria. I happen to think this is a Good Thing. Knowledge of their design criteria can only help those of us who plan to make modifications to the game do so with fewer unexpected issues arising.