|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 1:32PM
#11
|
|
|
@wrecan: I don't think people are looking at roles wrong. These roles are roles that characters get pushed into as a natural part of playing the game. "Outdoorsman" is an exploration role. The "Outdoorsman" is the one that finds food in the wild when the party's provision have run low. He is also the one who makes survival checks to protect, or to help protect, the party members in extreme climates.
And what does an outdoorsman do to aid his party in a trapped room? If he isn't helpful, then what you're described is not a "role". It's closer to a class.
It's not a role as roles were expressed in 4e. It's one role that a character occupies. Remember the scholars I mentioned in that post. Lara, Abby, and Indy can do far more than just be scholars. They are characters with multiple roles. This often happens to PCs too. You can be the infiltrator-outdoorsman, the scholar-face, and then you add combat roles onto that. The ranger is basically an infiltrator-outdoorsman-ranged striker.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 1:38PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I think people are looking at roles wrong. A role tells you how to act in pretty much any situation un a pillar. "Outdoorsman" is no more an exploration role than "Giant-killer" would be a combat role.
For me, these are the roles for the noncombat pillars:
EXPLORATION
Logistics
Athlete
Spotter
Mechanic
SOCIALIZATION
Good cop
Bad cop
Profiler
Morale Officer
Can you explain these a bit more? I'd be interested in listening.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 1:49PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2005
|
Nice list. I like the infiltrator and outdoorsman.
I personally dislike social skills. In my group they seem to limit the role playing. But I understand why others like them.
Other games have a role based on networking and gathering information, but I don't know if this is needed in D&D.
You know, that just gave me a random thought. What if social skills were one of the optional systems provided in the starting rules? So those who choose to use a skill system gets to choose between one system that excludes skills that could be handled purely by roleplaying, and a slightly different system that does include social skills. After all, not everyone can be as glib of tongue and quick-thinking as their character is meant to be, but for those who are, why bother with skill ranks? Let the player choose the option that better aligns their abilities with their character's abilities.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 2:40PM
#14
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
It's not a role as roles were expressed in 4e. It's one role that a character occupies. Remember the scholars I mentioned in that post. Lara, Abby, and Indy can do far more than just be scholars.
Right, those are not "roles". That's just "examples", maybe "Archetypes". I don't see the point of listing characters. From a design perspective, that's not going to be fruitful. From a deisgn perspective, what's useful is designing for a team.
Does Indiana Jones work well in agroup? Because D&D is about parties. If those archetypes don't play well with others, what's the point?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 2:40PM
#15
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Can you explain these a bit more? I'd be interested in listening.
I think I'll make that a future blog. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 2:58PM
#16
|
|
|
It's not a role as roles were expressed in 4e. It's one role that a character occupies. Remember the scholars I mentioned in that post. Lara, Abby, and Indy can do far more than just be scholars.
Right, those are not "roles". That's just "examples", maybe "Archetypes". I don't see the point of listing characters. From a design perspective, that's not going to be fruitful. From a deisgn perspective, what's useful is designing for a team.
Does Indiana Jones work well in agroup? Because D&D is about parties. If those archetypes don't play well with others, what's the point?
You seem to be getting bogged down by the word "roles" and their connection to the 4e mechanic called "roles," so I'll refer to them as "elements" instead.
As for the characters I listed, they are examples of how characters have more than one element. These elements are pieces of what the character does for the group, and are pieces of their total archetype. Because these are jobs that the character does for the party, they fit into the mechanics of the three pillars.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 4:28PM
#17
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
You seem to be getting bogged down by the word "roles"
No, I simply read the OP and when he uses the word "roles" he is clearly using the 4e definition of the term.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 4:34PM
#18
|
|
|
You seem to be getting bogged down by the word "roles"
No, I simply read the OP and when he uses the word "roles" he is clearly using the 4e definition of the term.
We'll have to wait for clarification then, because I don't believe he is. To use the 4e definition of roles would be to imply that a character can only fill one role, and I don't think that's what Pashalik ws implying.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 4:59PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
I'm just trying to get some ideas as to how different different characters might approach the exploration and socialization pillars, ideas that might help in figuring out what to give classes to let them have something to do in those pillars. I used roles because it's a familiar term for different approaches characters might take to the same general activity. I'm definitely not interested in the exact semantics of what 4e roles mean.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 5:05PM
#20
|
|
|
I'm just trying to get some ideas as to how different different characters might approach the exploration and socialization pillars, ideas that might help in figuring out what to give classes to let them have something to do in those pillars. I used roles because it's a familiar term for different approaches characters might take to the same general activity. I'm definitely not interested in the exact semantics of what 4e roles mean.
So, do you think these approaches should be exclusive? That is, a character can only fill one role in each pillar?
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
