Your role? Nothing matters but combat.

[tombowings]

It is similar in a way, as you say, but when I say its more wide open, I'm talking about things like the lack of a combat grid and squares, the lack of initiative order, etc, etc. There are far fewer rules for non-combat situations, as it should be.

The fewer rules is also why many people who enjoy "role-playing" enjoy it. They like not being confined by a strict set of rules that defines what they can and cannot do.

 

[Bugaboo]

nevermind

 

[marune]

With 10 posts on this board and very little said about role-playing, I'd be curious as to how you could make that claim.

IME, people that doesn't like the definition of roleplaying being to add narration/acting on top of resolution mecanisms is the people who define roleplaying strically as "in-character acting".

I would like you say I'm wrong.

 

[robertliguori]

D&D 4E combat roles tell to the players at which position they play in combat (like a forward vs a goaler in hockey).

It is a very good thing to have in a gamist (i.e. tactics vs challenges) RPG like D&D.

However, D&D has a long history of (IMHO, boring) "acting" guidelines, like alignments, Paladin's code of ethics, etc. 4E seems to have get rid of many of them, focusing on the tactical parts.

Well, that's the thing. Some people think of combat like a hockey game. Some want to be able to cast Wall of Stone and enclose our goal, or to sneak into the dormitory of the opposing team and murder them in their sleep, or bribe the referee. Now, a sufficently-rule-robust 4E won't prevent any of this from being possible, but naming the character who is doing the bribing or sneaking "Center Forward" seems to put the focus on his ability to solve a problem in a particular way, and only that way.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

nvm

 

[Fifth Element]

THANK YOU.



Gawd.

Say what? Skeptic was arguing against your OP. He said the combat roles, and lack of non-combat guidelines, are good things for D&D.

 

[UltimaRatio]

I'll bite.

It's not stupid, and please refrain from such insults.

He didn't insult you. He said your idea was stupid (i.e. a bad idea). The judgment is passed on your idea, not on you personally. And if we aren't allowed to pass judgment on people's ideas then there really isn't much point to a discussion board, now is there?

Anyway, this thread was over when it was pointed out that, yes, one's combat role only includes the stuff that one does in combat. I can roleplay my character as an asocial know-it-all (just to grab a popular archetype) and have that be any class - fighter, ranger, wizard, and what the hell, even a bard. But it's not _necessary_ for the purpose of RP to have a party made up of one smartass, one bleeding heart, one or two antiheros, and one spastic.

In contrast, there _is_ a benefit to having a party with at least one each of Defender, Controller, Striker, and Leader. And therefore there is value in assigning those roles names, because it allows for an easy marker by which one groks the combat capabilities of a given class (e.g. someone releases a custom class and says "this is a controller with hints of leader" and you immediately understand what kind of powers it will have).

Combat is the dimension in which _balance_ is most important to design in from the ground up. Having defined roles, and the assumption that all parties will have at least three out of four covered, facilitates balanced design. Roleplay is completely independent of combat role, and one does not depend on the other. You can roleplay with your dice just as easily as you can without.

Example that much of this board will probably easily recognize: the manga Bleach. Ichigo, Orihime, and Chad all have the same overriding motive (which, incidentally, is common to most heroes of shonen manga) - the desire to protect those they love. They have the same main goal, but implemented in totally different ways. In D&D terms, Ichigo is a Striker, Orihime a Leader, and Chad a Defender. Their characterization as different individuals is done as much by their approach to combat as it is by the way they interact with one another out of combat.

tl;dr version: combat role only dictates the role you play in combat. That is the full extent of its purpose.

 

[Will]

From preview material, 4e is apparently going to expand and better-support a vast array of non-combat approaches to resolving conflict, and not force anyone to choose between combat and noncombat roles.

Instead, folks will have a variety of combat roles, and then a variety of noncombat roles, or something along those lines.


This, if anything, will encourage and bolster role-playing elements of the game, rather than diminish them.

 

[marune]

Well, that's the thing. Some people think of combat like a hockey game. Some want to be able to cast Wall of Stone and enclose our goal, or to sneak into the dormitory of the opposing team and murder them in their sleep, or bribe the referee. Now, a sufficently-rule-robust 4E won't prevent any of this from being possible, but naming the character who is doing the bribing or sneaking "Center Forward" seems to put the focus on his ability to solve a problem in a particular way, and only that way.

A player who chose to play a defender, is of course limited in his way of helping the group overcoming the fight. For example, he's not good at healing his allies.

The important thing is that in his "limited" scope of action, does he still have some meaningful (in D&D, that means tactical) choices to make ? 4E seems to answer yes and that is certainly good game design.

I prefer to have to make a meaningful choice between 2 things than a meaningless one between 10.

 

[Eridanis]

This thread's been open little more than an hour, and it has already degenerated into a questioning of motives and general unworthiness of others to claim the title of "gamer." I'll leave this thread open for now, but kindly stick to polite discussion of the topic, or there will be bans.