Roles - Do they serve a purpose?

[Ghostwheel]

So, after my "fixing 4e" thread was almost derailed by the talk-talk about roles (for PCs), I figured I'd discuss them here.
Originally I meant them only as a quick reference to players on what kind of character comes out when taking the class, but it quickly became apparent that it's a larger issue.
On one hand, I could easily scrap them--they didn't add that much as far as I saw.

So here's a list of questions to get the ball rolling:
1. What purpose do roles serve for PCs?
2. Should they be kept in at all?
3. I've heard complaints that they need to be tightened--why?
4. How should they be tightened?
5. Why were they badly implemented in 4e?
6. What are examples of when they worked, and why did they work in those instances?
7. What other roles could you see created that wouldn't be so narrow that only 1-2 classes would fit them?

Feel free to add any other questions that come to mind along with numbers so people can more easily communicate what they're answering.
(Note that in this case I'd like to keep the discussion strictly to roles for PCs rather than roles for monsters.)

[RobbyPants]

Presumably, it's either done to make sure no one player can do too much, or to keep them from stepping on each other's toes. In 4E, it can't be the second one, because the game assumes more players than roles.

I honestly think the 4E devs included roles because of WoW more than anything else.

[Caedrus]

1. What purpose do roles serve for PCs?

Throughout gaming, roles can be made to accomplish many various things, though it depends on exactly what the roles are, how they're implemented, etc. Some common purposes of varied roles are to promote teamwork, emphasize different playstyles, and add replay value.

Indeed, if characters differ in any meaningful sense, roles will almost certainly arise naturally. For example, in many tag team Fighting games different characters serve different roles on a team, though they are rarely classified as doing so.

However, you seem to be talking from an overtly 4e-centric view of the word role, while still asking about the larger context of other games. So I'm not exactly sure what some of your questions are asking.

[tzor]

When I first heard of the notion of "roles," I was interested. One of the classic problems in terms of class design is a class that has no real focus in terms of combat ... name all the classic "suck" classes and they all have an identity crisis on the battlefield; they can do either A or B but neither well enough to do squat.

Then I saw what they did with them, and held my emotions in check until I could get back to my hotel room (yes I found out about this at a Gen Con) and barfed.

I still think that roles are a good idea; even the original role names; assuming that you really use the original role name as they were intended, not as the idiots eventually made them out to be.

[Ghostwheel]

I still think that roles are a good idea; even the original role names; assuming that you really use the original role name as they were intended, not as the idiots eventually made them out to be.

What do you mean by this? What's the original name mean? Could you expand on this a bit?

[tzor]

If I get some time I will grab my PBH and try to explain the difference between how they defined the role and how I would have defined the role. I think the best example is the "Controller." In my mind a controller is one who "controlls" the battle field and by controlling it gives an advantage to their own side. He prevents attackers from attacking, or defenders from defending, through his role.

If you recall, 4E was originally pitched as trying to simulate dynamic terrain battles. Controlling that dynamic terrain could be just as critical as attacking and defending.

[Josh_Kablack]

1. What purpose do roles serve for PCs?

As implemented currently, I have zero clue.

As I would like them to be they would serve the purposes of

• simplifying game learning to new players by having associated classes and unified mechanics shared amongst all classes of that association
• encouraging PC diversification by providing team synergy for groups that include multiple roles in the PC group

2. Should they be kept in at all?

Whether they should or not, odds are good that they or something like them will exist.

Going back to 2nd ed., D&D had "thief group" (thief, bard) "fighter group" (fighter, pally, ranger) "wizard group" (wizard, illusionist) and "cleric group" (cleric, druid), and 3.x tailored each splatbook to what they saw as a group of classes

3. I've heard complaints that they need to be tightened--why?

Because nobody knows what the hell any of them actually mean. Depending on tier, equipment and errata used, it's possible to build a "defender" or "leader" who can outdamage most strikers and a defender whose schtick is creating a zone of difficult terrain while slowing everyone in it.

4. How should they be tightened?

That's a toughy.

Ideally roles should both offer distinction from and synergy with other roles. But you can very easily run into problems in that offering too much distinction or synergy means that a party which isn't Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User (or Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller) is so suboptimal that each group needs one of each and players easily get stuck playing classes they don't want to in order to cover the role the party needs.

5. Why were they badly implemented in 4e?
6. What are examples of when they worked, and why did they work in those instances?

See above comments about lack of clarity and classes within one role performing a different role better

7. What other roles could you see created that wouldn't be so narrow that only 1-2 classes would fit them?

Given D&D traditions, it's probably 4 main roles, and then if you need more you can create classes that are multi-role. In this setup the Warlord becomes a Leader/Defender while the Warden becomes a Defender/Controller. Such classes get access to the schticks of both roles, but not all of the schticks of either role.

[mean_liar]

I'm of the opinion that roles ought to be separated as much as possible, such that any character can mix-and-match through a game's minigame components. The character that fights close-up has an equal right to be the healer or sneaky git or guy who can bathe in lava or swim across an ocean, just as much as any archer or AoE specialist or whatever.

Ideally, to me, roles (and therefore classes) ought to be separated into each minigame component. Melee Bruiser levels, such that the game ought to have levels at all, should advance in parallel to Healer or Scholar or Scout levels.

[Xenologer]

As I would like them to be they would serve the purposes of: simplifying game learning to new players by having associated classes and unified mechanics shared amongst all classes of that association

I appreciated them as a new player, because in 3.5 when I started playing, I felt like there were things that each class was "good for" that I wasn't necessarily able to easily intuit without more rules mastery than I had at that point. It doesn't seem to me that the expectation in 4e that characters will be doing specific things is all that new. I just felt like they came out and said it instead of what they did in 3.x, which was to leave those roles as some sort of advanced knowledge that lets experienced players feel like they've got a handle on the secrets of the system or whatever. In principle, if the classes are going to have optimal ways of contributing (which isn't new), there's nothing wrong with saying so.

I do agree that they're way too fuzzy, though. If they're intended to keep classes from stepping on each other's toes, then defenders shouldn't be easily outdamaging strikers, etc. If they're intended to keep each class from being able to do too much, then (to use the same example) defenders should still not be easily doing more damage than strikers. They need to have some kind of clear goal before anybody can say it was successfully achieved (whereas it's perfectly easy to fail without one).

[K]

Roles are dumb.

And that's the problem. Once you start writing powers to fit an artificially-constructed role and not some thematic role you end up with 4e: powers that have no flavor and feel like their are a combination of nouns and verbs out of a random word generator.

I mean, the one thing table-top gaming has going for it is that you don't have to be stuck with computer game powers that are just simple damage modifications that might use a list of eight different status effects.

I mean, 4e lost me the instant I looked at the powers. I realized that playing around with number modification may get a math guy hard, but it wasn't going to do a thing for me. No great stories have been told "about number modification, which is why cRPGs gamers tend to tell stories about epeen damage numbers and rarely tell stories about real strategies.

That is what roles are all about. All they say is what kind of damage modification you are doing, and that isn't fun.... like, at all.

The one role that is authentic is the "controller" role, but only because it's the only one using actual strategy. In an ideal world, everyone would use strategy, but at the end of the day most people are not good at strategy and so they need some other way to contribute to the game.... hence roles for various kinds of damage modification.

[JonSetanta]

1. What purpose do roles serve for PCs?

Derpingly restricting options for idiots to understand "this is what you do".

2. Should they be kept in at all?

No. They should be provided as options, but not required.

3. I've heard complaints that they need to be tightened--why?

4rry players.

4. How should they be tightened?

Like Kaelik's raging, swollen, sore anus.

5. Why were they badly implemented in 4e?

It's like MMORPG classes (perhaps sans RPG) wherein 10 year old Brazilians, Viet, and Polish hackers attempt to understand the complexity of a class build guide within 1 minute tops so they can get to exploiting a level grind and crash the server before moving on en masse. Time is everything and if you can understand what a class was designed for as quickly as humanly possible, that's fine, but a lot of diversity is sacrificed.

Also, 4e designers took a decade of 3e reviews claiming "Multiclassing is broken!", and said "Oh.. OK, then we'll take it all away", and that was that.

6. What are examples of when they worked, and why did they work in those instances?

MMOs. No brainer choices. Hop in, create your character, grind your way through similarly role-assigned mobs, and get that DPS shit flying.
GO GO GO

7. What other roles could you see created that wouldn't be so narrow that only 1-2 classes would fit them?

One role: The PC. That's all you need.

[Zinegata]

Roles can be done well. But you need to make sure that roles matter. It should not be some arbitrary classification system that loses all meaning because you don't bother to follow said classification.

A good example would be the current state of Magic: The Gathering's Color Wheel. Before, the capabilities of the five colors of Magic (White, Blue, Black, Red, Green) were all over the place. But they've now changed that and made each color have its own specific schtick.

For instance, spells that inflict direct damage now reside almost exclusively in Red. Other colors may have direct-damage spells, but they come with conditions and limitations.

Similarly, if you're gonna make a D&D game with roles and you choose to have a "Blaster" whose schtick is AoE attacks, then you'd better have the discipline to make sure blasters remain the best at AoEs.

[hogarth]

I think having "roles" is a good idea, in the sense that if everyone can do everything all the time, that's dull.

[tussock]

Why 4e roles are bad.

Striker: I hit you.
Defender: You hit me.
Leader: You hit him.
Controller: You don't hit him.

X hits Y, or doesn't. No real depth there, and everyone overlaps anyway. Try a selection from something like ...

A gets you there, B sets them up, C knocks them down, D cleans up the mess; encouraging varying spotlight time across each scene.
A is hit and run, B is stand and deliver, C is run and gun, D doesn't care; making position matter on the grid, more for some than others.
A is social, B is exploration, C is combative, D is coordination; if you want to include more than combat in the game, it's OK for PCs to be better at other things and worse at combat, because some players don't give a shit about combat anyway.

So you can have a Scout class that's A, A, B, or a Bard that's B, B, A. Then everyone can do tanking like everyone cast fireball. The Wizard casts Armour, Shield, Mirror Image, and Chill Touch for the first, the Fighter carries a large barrel of naphtha for the second. Everyone leads in their own area, defends and strikes somehow, and can stop the monsters from attacking (by taking away their HP, if nothing else).

[Niles]

Presumably, it's either done to make sure no one player can do too much,

Or too little, like the 3.x Monk.

I honestly think the 4E devs included roles because of WoW more than anything else.

They included roles, for the same reason that WoW did, namely that D&D has had them since the 70s and they're useful. 4e made them explicit rather than implicit because that's the direction the game's been headed in since the release of 3rd edition.

[JonSetanta]

Why 4e roles are bad.

Striker: I hit you.
Defender: You hit me.
Leader: You hit him.
Controller: You don't hit him.

I like that. Very succinct.

[shadzar]

So, after my "fixing 4e" thread was almost derailed by the talk-talk about roles (for PCs), I figured I'd discuss them here.
Originally I meant them only as a quick reference to players on what kind of character comes out when taking the class, but it quickly became apparent that it's a larger issue.
On one hand, I could easily scrap them--they didn't add that much as far as I saw.

So here's a list of questions to get the ball rolling:
1. What purpose do roles serve for PCs?
2. Should they be kept in at all?
3. I've heard complaints that they need to be tightened--why?
4. How should they be tightened?
5. Why were they badly implemented in 4e?
6. What are examples of when they worked, and why did they work in those instances?
7. What other roles could you see created that wouldn't be so narrow that only 1-2 classes would fit them?

Feel free to add any other questions that come to mind along with numbers so people can more easily communicate what they're answering.
(Note that in this case I'd like to keep the discussion strictly to roles for PCs rather than roles for monsters.)

1. in 4th edition they are specific railroads to make the game more like a miniatures game, as was the hopes of changing the minis game rules to be compliant with 4th edition and emulate CRPGs where someone see the cleric as the walking first-aid kit....

in other editions you can see the cleric as a prime example of someone trying to maximize efficiency of the team at the expense of the player, so these "roles" serve little purpose int he game except cause problems. jsut because the "fighter" isnt the best healer, doesnt mean he shouldnt try.

classes are NOT roles. they are just a group of skills collected under a name and idea to bring a visual image instantly to mind.

Defender a a role, is intended to do this as well, but goes to far as to tell the player what their character must do at all times as is their JOB.

so 4th edition "roles" are really the character "duties" predefined by the game as it was created for that character to be.

2. i would throw them out. a wizard wants to not try to dominate but be rouge-ish and sneaky, then so be it. dont confine the players by some constricted idea of what some min-maxer thinks is the best way for that character to be player. each player decides how to play his own character and Bill Slavesik should have no say whatsoever in your home game.

3. how could you tighten the duty of a character anymore that making the cleric a walking first-aid kit? and going further to tell he that he is so right up front?

4. "Free your ass, and your mind will follow" - George Clinton
dont tighten them, throw them away. let the player choose what type of tactics he will deploy during combat, as well as the set of skills he chooses from and let them be disconnected from each other. dont force a rogue to always be trying to be in there up front in and in your face with the enemy...or in their back as the case may be.

5. 4th is just an amalgam of trying to port video games back to tabletop play. what video games CAN do with large number crunching quickly to allow for the TANK, KITE, HEALBOT, etc...doesnt translate back into a free-form table-top RPG. MMOs are the rip-off of table-top RPGs and made for people that couldnt find or didnt want groups of people around to play at the same time or make the schedule to meet with others and travel to do so. they are made with no set goals, and the "quests" in them are static being the reason you must always buy expansions to them to have something to do other than level-grind. they tried to take something that was tranformed into something else for another medium, and transform it again back to where it started, rather than working with the thing specifically made for where it started and its medium.

like making something, reverse engineer it to use in a different way, and reverse engineer it again to work for the original purpose. why not just use the original instead of trying to reverse engineer it so many times and lose focus on it?

6. never seen an example of forcing someone to play a game a specific way as called "working" from the player standpoint. form the math it works great and efficient, but only if the player is seeking that, does a predefined course of action "work". in CRPGs where everyone is taking a turn at once it works...in table-top where it is a turned-based game...it just wont work.

7. i wouldnt try to create these roles/duties for players, and are more thigs that NPCs would/should have to make sure they are performing their job to interact with the players to give them a good game experience.

summary: roles were just number juggling trying to bring a CRPG element to table-top play to get the attention of computer gamers in order to buy product, and serve very little to help D&D in any way as D&D is an open game that is free-form where the player decides, rather than some dating-sim where you are given multiple choice and must pick one. as you cant climb a tree in a MMO to see what is there because the code doesnt allow it, you CAN in a table-top RPG for MANY reason outside of what is supported by the written code. so pigeon-holing players into some battle tactic everytime because they chose a single class, is not fun and NOT D&D, but a minis game or board game.

feel free to start the other thread whoever wants to dispute it rather than to derail this one...and ask me why the old classes arent the same as the 4th edition roles since i used cleric as a walking first-aid kit as an example....