Your role? Nothing matters but combat.

[VannATLC]

I think bugaboo has made a valid observation.

I accept that these roles are there and that they serve a clear and useful purpose. I also accept that many people like their RPGs to run a fairly common course - some agency gives you a task which takes you to a location where you expect to find monsters to fight and defeat. D&D is perfect for that type of game - and is becoming even more so. What D&D appears to be less capable of now IMO ls supporting a game where there is very little to no combat; for example one focused on politics and intrigue where getting into a 'fight' is a sign of failure. In that type of game, being classified as a 'striker' seems a bit ridiculous. In fact none of the archetypes (classes) really support that type of game at all.

4e seems to put a stake in the ground and say 'this roleplaying game is about mighty herores battling fearsome creatures in a high fantasy setting'. And I think it is better off for it. If you want to play a 'deeper' game focusing on politics and diplomacy, other systems are better for that - and really, always have been.

What in the name or Orcus are you talking about?

The role is irrelevant outside of combat. Your Fighter/defender can be a court dandy who happens to be an excellent swordman. He might thrive off the the petty intrigues in an average court, while your Cleric/Leader is sullen and introspective, spending most of his time at the bottom of a tankard.

DND has never had a structured out-of-combat system, to facilitate that kind of play. You could always do it, but it was totally DM fiat.

There are hints in 4e that there may be structure and guidelines to the kind of play you discuss, which is a massive improvement over any older edition.


Again, Class and Role are metagame concepts that should have little to no impact on how your character seems himself.

I'm an IT Engineer.. Its part of my life, its my job, but it doesn't define me.

 

[Bugaboo]

Will mentioned it above, but the snarkiness and vitriol has blinded people from taking note of it, so I'll reiterate in the futile hope that the following fact has to be taken into account:

WotC have mentioned quite often that 4th ed now has a better and more evolved social interaction system. Hell, social encounters are now full fledged encounters that grant *XP*.

No edition before has went that far. They even reworked how the alignment system influences the game in order to create a more dynamic role-playing environment.

Sure as heck don't see that in the intro page of the Ranger (photo, ENWorld news). Pure combat, with tactical "role" right at the top.

 

[NebtheNever]

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.

I would say that, at the very core, role-playing is developing a character and playing that character in a hypothetical scenario. This can involve counseling, improv, LARPing, diceless acting in a game where the resolution mechanic applies only to combat, acting out mechanics that strictly define how social situations play out, etc. Role-playing can be a lot of things, but isn't necessarily narration/acting on top of resolution mechanics.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Sure as heck don't see that in the intro page of the Ranger (photo, ENWorld news). Pure combat, with tactical "role" right at the top.

Why would the social system be in the class description? Since they are no longer making some classes better combat wise and some better non-combat wise this doesn't need to be brought up as much in class section. Since everyone can equally use the social/skill system as such they leave it for that chapter.

 

[Will]

In previous edition (3.0 and 3.5) you were able to develop your character off-combat side by investing into professions, crafts and specialized skills, whereas now all you get is a selection of maximums (i.e. trained and untrained skills) and social challenges subsystem.

So, is it wrong to make combat even more appealing while reducing socializing and mundane activities?

It is not wrong to focus the game more on combat, no. It's a perfectly valid approach.

However, I don't think there is any clear evidence 4e is actually doing this. They have claimed that they aren't, and their claims make it sound, if anything, 4e will support noncombat better.

I don't agree that 'all you get is a selection of maximums' necessarily has anything to do with more or less focus on noncombat. I've seen plenty of players get turned off to the game and noncombat play by having all those fiddly numbers. Then again, some people love having the increased control and detail. In short? It's different, sure, and granularity is changed; but I don't think it makes for less of a noncombat role.

I find your use of 'social challenges subsystem' a bit bizarre in this argument; how does having a subsystem for social challenges make for more of a combat focus?

Now, mind you, I'm not a senseless 4e fanboi; while I certainly hope 4e delivers on promises and like some of what I hear, they could easily miscalculate and the mechanics may very well not deliver the results suggested. D&D's made claims before. If 4e DOES actually focus more on combat and ignore any function of noncombat element of characters I'll be very disappointed (and annoyed, because they aren't delivering on promises).

 

[Ulthwithian]

I'd like to point out that general information that applies to all classes would normally be placed at the start of the chapter (or chapters) dealing with those classes, instead of repeatedly at the start of each class's section. Therefore, I see no reason why you should expect to see the kind of information you seek at the beginning of one class's entry.

Another way of looking at it is that each class's entry should be based on how it is differentfrom the other classes. Since any class can have any personality, nothing regarding this should show up under any specific class entry.

 

[drjones]

(And kneejerk "troll" calls are not called for, so cut it out already.)

As a disinterested third party my judgment is:
Ding!
The Troll label you called for is ready.

 

[Bugaboo]

Try this: Describe what a "ranger" is. Maybe "paladin." Pick a class, your choice. Imagine someone wanders into the room where you're playing, or you're writing a letter to a friend who is ever so vaguely unfamiliar with fantasy roleplaying classes, and you've got about five to ten sentences to describe that class.

What info do you put right up at the top, the intro? Really. Share an example. ... Feel free to borrow text from 3rd edition, it that helps.

 

[hong]

I don't agree that 'all you get is a selection of maximums' necessarily has anything to do with more or less focus on noncombat. I've seen plenty of players get turned off to the game and noncombat play by having all those fiddly numbers. Then again, some people love having the increased control and detail. In short? It's different, sure, and granularity is changed; but I don't think it makes for less of a noncombat role.

I find your use of 'social challenges subsystem' a bit bizarre in this argument; how does having a subsystem for social challenges make for more of a combat focus?

Well, there _was_ one guy who tried to claim that because you rolled dice, that turned it all into combat....

 

[Foundry of Decay]

I honestly don't see this thread going anywhere 'good'.

Do people jump in to defend 4e quickly? Yes. A great deal of the sudden reactions is because people may be getting tired of the arguments already. Especially circular arguments when its clear that nobody save the developers have the books in hand.

As for the original observation of the OP? Best wait until the books are released and ask again. Its impossible for anyone to leaf through to the social encounters section, or the RP sections in the DMG to answer any questions you might have.

My own observation about playing 5 'lite' games of 4e is that my group and I have had the best RP sessions and social encounters we've had in years. Class role did not enter into the equation at all.