|
Specifically, I know one of WotC's big selling points is that the classes in 4E have heavily defined roles, so you play a Cleric or a Warlord and inspire your allies with buffs and the like. The criticism is that this feels too much like World of Warcraft. I'm just wondering how people feel about this. Personally I'm torn; it seems like there are 2 ways to go about making a character. You either say: "I have this awesome idea for a hobgoblin whose father was murdered. He spent his childhood under the tutelage of an expert swordsman and now seeks revenge against the Ogre Mage who killed his pa." and then proceed to decide what combination of rogue, fighter and bard would be best for a swashbuckler type character (assuming you hate non-core classes). Or you say: I want to play a multi-classed fighter/rogue and so I can sneak and fight, then go on and choose a race like hobgoblin for the nice stat bonuses and the bonus to sneak.
I guess I feel like thats the difference between the people who are jazzed up for Pathfinder and the people who want to continue with WotC's abomination they call 4th Edition. However, I'd like others to opine on the issue of class roles, and where development should really begin; should it be a matter purely of a set number of roles, where you have class types A, B, C and D, where A deals damage, B soaks damage, C heals, and D runs buffs and/or debuffs? And then of course other classes spring out of this, where class A1 deals heavy physical damage in melee while class A2 deals magic damage over time. Should this really be the starting point, or should developers come to the table with much more open ended choices for players?
Really, there are only three roles: caster, expert, and warrior. In 3.5, all of the classes except monk fit into one of those roles (some will fit into two or have some ability to function in another).
3.5 caster (CL = class level): bard (also expert), cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard
3.5 expert (6+ Skill Points): bard (also caster), ranger (also warrior), and rogue
3.5 warrior (BAB +1 per level): barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger (also expert)
The class specific abilities/spell lists simply deal with how they fill their primary or secondary functions.
Really, there are only three roles: caster, expert, and warrior. In 3.5, all of the classes except monk fit into one of those roles (some will fit into two or have some ability to function in another).
3.5 caster (CL = class level): bard (also expert), cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard
3.5 expert (6+ Skill Points): bard (also caster), ranger (also warrior), and rogue
3.5 warrior (BAB +1 per level): barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger (also expert)The class specific abilities/spell lists simply deal with how they fill their primary or secondary functions.
I add face to that, though I suppose that could be classed as an expert. Bard fits face as can rogue and sorc.
Character creation for me starts with who this guy is and where he came from. Class flows from that. As far as role, I think the concept as advanced in 4th edition is too limiting and based more on MMO games and the system mechanics than a broader view of what the character does. As pointed out much of it actually comes down to martial, expert or caster. This to me however is more occupational than actual role in the party. Roles are more like melee combat, ranged combat, information gathering, diplomat, heavy weaponry and such.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I start characters by having an idea of what I want to do in game, mechanically, and by the rules. I really don't think that much at all about where I came from, or who the guy really is... cause he didn't quite exist until then; unless of course I want some interesting tidbits explained away... but otherwise I figure character growth is when I play the character and not so much how he started. For that, I need a good understanding of whats in the party, and who does what, and who doesn't pull their weight. I really like the better defined from 4e, as I think it lets designers build options to an idea that is always needed within the tropes of DnD. Give a class a goal, and then build stuff around it. Players only need to choose what they want to do, and can mix and match to get there.
|
However, I'd like others to opine on the issue of class roles, and where development should really begin; should it be a matter purely of a set number of roles, where you have class types A, B, C and D, where A deals damage, B soaks damage, C heals, and D runs buffs and/or debuffs?
I guess for me the defining aspect of this discussion is: what sort of game are you wanting to play? Do you want to role play more, or are you looking at playing a tactical wargame with some "storyline fluff?"
As a tactical wargame, you're going to want to assign roles, have an established set of tactics, and have a strict visual representation in order to display clearly the current tactical situation. 4E clearly supports this sort of gaming, and I feel that those who are more about the mechanics of the fight are going to enjoy this sort of game. Those who are more about the "why are we fighting" approach, the role players, aren't as concerned about tanks, nukers and healers as much as they are about the fighter, the wizard and the cleric. It is a subtle, yet very definite, shift in gaming motivation.
My concern and my belief is that 4E is going to be much harder to wrap role concepts around than 3.5 was able to wrap tactical concepts around. The reason WHY I say this is my observation of the human character.
Ever since 1st Ed, concepts like hit points and alignments were abstractions. A round of combat does NOT entail one swing and a miss or hit, but rather a period of time when you work your opponent, looking for a weakness, and maybe able to exploit it. A loss of hit points could as easily be defined as getting winded as it is getting wounded. Alignments were meant to be guidelines as to how to help play your character's motivations, not shackles that bound them to a set series of actions. That being said, nobody really pays attention. I even watched some respected DMs play these interactions as specific swing-and-miss periods. We simply can't seem to grasp the abstractions no matter how hard we try. I therefore believe that players are going to become more rigid in describing their actions based upon clearly established power-n-tactics builds that 4E presents (dailies, encounters, and such.) In other words, I fear that gameplay is going to redefine itself within the scope of the game, rather than the scope of the game helping the DM interpret how to abjudicate what the players are attempting to do.
Mind you, these are generalizations. Good players can still use 4E to run good games, and bad players can turn any 3.5 session into a complete debacle. I just find that when you define my role for me, you limit my options as a player. Under 4E I can never be an aggressive paladin, per se. All my abilities have been narrowly defined into my having to be a defender. I can ATTEMPT to break those bonds, but its not going to be pretty, and in the end it is going to become one of those things that people are going to ask me why I did that instead of just playing X build anyways.
As a role player, I want ME and MY PARTY to define our roles, not the game rules.
|
I guess for me the defining aspect of this discussion is: what sort of game are you wanting to play? Do you want to role play more, or are you looking at playing a tactical wargame with some "storyline fluff?"
I agree Dave.. this pretty much depends upon the type of gamer you are, not the game per say. I have about a 50/50 mix in my current group. There are three players that just want to play the Tanks, & Nuker, (to borrow MMOG terms). The rest of the player's characters aren't so clearly defined. The druid is a noble man with a troubled past. The rogue is running from the damage he's caused to his family. So in my opinion it all boils down to how you want to play the game.
Trent
Infinet Media & Design
DigitalDungeonCast.Com
I guess for me the defining aspect of this discussion is: what sort of game are you wanting to play? Do you want to role play more, or are you looking at playing a tactical wargame with some "storyline fluff?"I agree Dave.. this pretty much depends upon the type of gamer you are, not the game per say. I have about a 50/50 mix in my current group. There are three players that just want to play the Tanks, & Nuker, (to borrow MMOG terms). The rest of the player's characters aren't so clearly defined. The druid is a noble man with a troubled past. The rogue is running from the damage he's caused to his family. So in my opinion it all boils down to how you want to play the game.
Trent
Infinet Media & Design
DigitalDungeonCast.Com
Prefer story-driven games and thus story driven characters myself. My group regularly goes a couple of sessions without a single combat. If I want hack and slash, that is why I bought Guild Wars. This view is part of why I am glad to see options to increase starting hit points to increase survivability of a 1st level character whoe back story, personality and such I put a good amount of work into. And also why I would like to see an increase of skill points at the low end (2 per level) of the scale, so i have something more than just fighting or casting and the option of taking skills that reflect my character's background. My group instituted a house rule for this by giving everyone 5 extra skill points to spend on skill representing the character's background (subject to DM and other player collective veto).
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I can't help but think that setting up tactical play vs. deep roleplay is a false dichotomy, they are not mutually exclusive.
Consider a situation in which the players all make deep characters with no thought to group cohesiveness or balance and all end up with rogues. However the stated game was for an Age of Worms campaign. How far do you think the role playing will last in this campaign? or... perhaps, the roleplaying will end early due to TPK or everyone going in their own direction because they have their own internal goals and conflicting ones at that.
In another situation you can have a tactical based group decision (a balanced party) with roles assigned to each of the players who then creates a deep character with in the parameters agreed upon by the group (called a group template by some). In this way the players get an immersive experience, long running campaign, good tactical combat, survivability... AND good role playing through out.
So I suppose my answer is that I believe the group has to come up with a group template FIRST and then design the characters to fit well into the agreed upon mold so that a cohesive story can be crafted and the group as a whole can have fun.
Nothing in the concept of a party role keeps someone from having a deep character concept and in some cases can help the player form the ideas for his character.
I try to keep a cadre of potential characters I would like to try out in my 'hip pocket' as it were. I normally DM, but if I were to play and the role of a tank were to come up I would sure like to play a dwarven defender type using the Knight class... have some great ideas for that guy and his back story (though it would have to work with the world the DM is proposing). On the other hand, I have a great idea for a young Air Genesai Wizard I would like to try out as well (great background story of how he grew up on the streets and was found by wizard and taken on as an apprentice when he saw the boy use his levitation abilities... then I spend points on some rogue type skills for a point or two with the character).
Anyway... the point is that these are not mutually exclusive concepts but rather work best, IMO, when used in conjunction rather than people falsely thinking one or the other is the way to go.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
Hey Sean -
By your post, I deem you are more of the tactical mindset. This is why you would be concerned by having an established, balanced group dynamic. There is nothing wrong with that - it is one APPROACH to role playing.
I on the other hand LOVE to have games where we're all rogues! I want to see all of us doing rogue-y things, dealing with no healers, etc! My APPROACH to role playing is different. For me its not about a cool backstory - its about what I can do in the game - where the story takes me.
I feel that a rule set that is deliberately designed and balanced for the tactical party is going to make it harder for those who don't establish their game gesalt based on a balanced tactical party. I never said "mutually exclusive", but I did say "more difficult" and "these are generalizations." 4E definitely encourages a tactical approach to play moreso than making allowances for tactical play, even if the players only pick up on this at a subconsious level. In the end, however, the tactical gesalt will become the APPARENT approach to 4E, even if it isn't deliberately intended in that manner (via the exact same inability of us to abstract in the same manner as happens in the current ruleset.)
As such, I think that this short discussion is an exact case in point of what I was saying. Those of a more tactical mindset will want a rule set that defines and enhances the tactical dynamic, and may sometimes even require a player to bring a character that player does not really want to play to the table instead. Your own comments of having an ensemble of characters to choose from for just such an occasion, I feel, further validates my point.
I don't want to be forced into a role. I want to play my character, the one I came to the table with. If we catch hell trying to figure out how to stay alive with no healer (may I direct you to page 81 of Privateer Press's Iron Kingdoms Character Guide) then that is part of the story we have to deal with.
One thing is definite truth, however: no matter HOW you slice a party, a TPK is always around the corner!
Enjoy your gaming!
By your post, I deem you are more of the tactical mindset.
I don't think that is an accurate assessment. I would be very unhappy playing a tactical only game (and I realize that isn't what you are saying). The point I was trying to make is that these are not two approaches on opposite sides of a single slider.
I on the other hand LOVE to have games where we're all rogues!
I agree, it could be a fantastic game. The point was that if the DM had already talked to the party about running a campaign along the style of Age of Worms. So the point wasn't that there was anything wrong with the party balance but that there was something wrong with that party balance in that specific situation.
If on the other hand, the group had said, "hey it would be fun to play an all rogue game." and the DM was fine with developing a game around those parameters and with those challenges then things are great. As you said, this could be a great game.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that taking either the approach of designing your character independently with a great back story or designing a tactically optimal party is often missing the boat.
In my opinion is that the group has to come to a consensus about the style of game it wants to run and play in and then design characters in that mold. If the group decides they want to try something like a group of all rogues, then that is great and works perfectly. If the group decides to take on something like Age of Worms that requires a more balanced party, then that is fine too.
The problems come in when people go off on their own and design their characters independent of one another that there are issues. Let's go back to our all rogue group for a moment. Turns out I spoke too soon and there was another player joining... only he made him a fantastic druid with a deep and immersive background and optimized him for combat and the whole bit... best of both worlds, right? Well, not really. See for legitimate reasons in his back story he won't go into cities. This makes things far tougher for the poor DM trying to get this party to all work together. Sure maybe one of the Rogues is just as happy being a highwayman or something but that isn't what they designed or what they wrote up.
Anyway... that was more of my point. The first thing is not either backstory or balance, but rather a group concensus and idea of the general parameters of the game. The needs flow from that.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
What sounds better? Playing Allaster the paladin who was orphaned during an orc raid, and was raised by the chruch to be a holy warrior to prevent such atrocities from happening in the future, or just playing divine defender #1? The whole, "I play this role and only this role" is a MMO concept that really shouldn't be in D&D. Lack of flexibility within the classes was one of the worst things about earlier editions of the game, and should continue to be left out of the game. Roles have always existed to a degree, but they shouldn't be the onlly thing that defines what your character does in combat. One of the best things about 3.0/3.5 is that your fighter doesn't have to be a "defender" or "tank". He can be a swasbuckler or an archer, or something else.
What sounds better? Playing Allaster the paladin who was orphaned during an orc raid, and was raised by the chruch to be a holy warrior to prevent such atrocities from happening in the future, or just playing divine defender #1?
I am still getting lost here. Allaster the Paladin who was orphaned during an orc raid and was raised by the church to be a holy warrior to prevent such atrocities from happening in the future IS playing a divine defender role. The fact that he has an interesting story neither includes nor precludes the idea of the role he plays and vice versa.
The whole, "I play this role and only this role" is a MMO concept that really shouldn't be in D&D.
I would contend that this idea CAME from D&D and was borrowed by later MMOs, not the other way around. I would further contend that whether or not you think about the role your character plays, it is still there.
Roles have always existed to a degree, but they shouldn't be the only thing that defines what your character does in combat.
My understanding is that the design of 4E (which is what I am assuming you are unhappy with in this discussion, correct me if I am wrong there) completely agrees with this statement. Instead they chose to recognize the role and make sure that a character could do MORE than just the role and so could be distinct. In this way two classes can both fill the same role but be VERY different in feel and playability (and story and background, etc. etc.).
One of the best things about 3.0/3.5 is that your fighter doesn't have to be a "defender" or "tank". He can be a swasbuckler or an archer, or something else.
And I don't see that the new designs preclude anything other than the one and only role. Instead they provide a base so you can provide that role AND have other things that define you in combat.
I see this as making sure the roles are covered so you can actually focus on the role-playing aspect of things. I see it as making MORE opportunities for role-playing for me and my group.
But back to the topic of this thread (which I didn't read as specific to 4E but simply asking about play styles), I would make the same contention. Making decisions as a group about the mechanical portions of the group that will be covered frees you up during character design and play to focus on the story and roleplaying.
Look at movies or novels. The people with the right skills to get the job done are most definately there, but they all have interesting stories and motivations that are above and beyond their role... even though they still fulfil their role.
Essentially this leads back to my previous point. Role-playing and Tactical oriented thinking are in no way opposite ends of a single spectrum... they are not mutually exclusive (though people often choose to play with one and not the other... that is a choice not a necessity).
Sean Mahoney
Sean Mahoney
|
I start characters by having an idea of what I want to do in game, mechanically, and by the rules. I really don't think that much at all about where I came from, or who the guy really is... cause he didn't quite exist until then; unless of course I want some interesting tidbits explained away... but otherwise I figure character growth is when I play the character and not so much how he started. For that, I need a good understanding of whats in the party, and who does what, and who doesn't pull their weight. I really like the better defined from 4e, as I think it lets designers build options to an idea that is always needed within the tropes of DnD. Give a class a goal, and then build stuff around it. Players only need to choose what they want to do, and can mix and match to get there.
for that i would play WoW... and i will in the night
for RPG i HATE that they try to make my character as 2D as any class of a MMORG... barely able to customice...
if i want my character to be a Pirate Princess... I will decide if i wante her to be a Foghter, Rogue or Wizard depending in how i felt about what i want her doing, not that she takes rogue because that is the only class that would more or less fit (and don't get me wrong, i love rogues)...
or if i want a cleric... i don't want to make the usual band-aid box, that goes, buffs, heals and that is all... i liked my old cleric who was in the front of the battle taking down enemies... and then and only after the fight is done and every enemy is down, I will check on how are my companions... (god of war and justice, we worked as SWAT so it worked fine)
I don't want that the game says ME what can or can't be, as another person mentioned... I think in a story, i tell it to the DM/GM/ST id he or she says its fine ok... i bregin with the character... i take the class, the feats and skils i deam necesary to REACH my character... not the other way around...
That is what i prefered of WoW RPG over WoW Videogame... if i want to do a damnable Night Elven Ranger rebell who prefer to stick to the more savage customs of the Horde than the Alliance and their Sun Elf friends (yes in the RPG they where still allied, the blood elf are something entirely) then i am going to do my night elven ranger allied with the horde...
i loved the example of one fo the games where a human rogue assassinated a Tauren Warriors that was with the Alliance, because she was paid good coin by the Chieftain to do that... the poison was a troll one...
so yes... i do prefer to ROLE Play than ROLL Play
|
|
i did a long post where i complained about the quialities of 4th edition aboput feeling like a mmorg... but for some reason it crashed middle way...
just for the record:
i don't play Clerics like healers (band-aid boxes) but first line combatants
i don't play Paladins as defenders, but as hunters of the dark
i don't play Rogues just as secundary fighters, but as individuals with different interests
I don't play Rangers as the wyld hunter, but focused hunter with pretty much social skills...
*sight*
as i was saying... 2 friends and I are planing to make a playtest of Pathfinder... the first thing first... we chose our classes... rogue (me) and wizards (my friend).
from that we planned what we wanted to play ( GM not withstanding) i want to work ina guild and look for their enemies and targets or go for items important for our bosses.. and that the wizard buffed me and deffubed enemies... the wizard sayd NO
He wanted a Tombraider adventure full of item searching and high adventure... ok I was not interested, but hear his reasons and accepted..
Instead my rogue IS NOT intersted... but forced to roll with it... the story is a fun and interesting one, he liked it and it work for us...
but my rogue is not the adventure type... she is wanted to be merchant, have her ship and sail the 7 seas (or whichever its number is this days), but she got involved into this and she has no way to say no... (family issues, we all hate those)...
so using the rogue she is not strong or very resistant... she is quite aguile and deeply inteligent, and she her smile win many arguments...
so even when she would be detecting the tramps... she is more likely evaluating the information of how to arrive to the palce, descipher the text, convince the guide to cut a bit from his salary, evalauting the costs versus the gain of the expedition... and definitively... she IS NOT involing herself in battle... if she fights is long range... never close...the Wizard is stronger and has more hp as her (human wizard: 9 hp = 6 class +2 con +1 fav class; elven rogue: 8 hp = 8 class, + 0 con + 0 pref class)
I am between giving her Persuasive or Stealthy feets :D
and i am thinking on giving her 1 level of Wizard/Enchantress... just for the bonuses to bluff, intimidate & diplomacy (and detect magi and identify for better evaluate the cost of what she finds)
she would be absolutely dedicated to charm and think... and could care less about fighting... so she is not going to involve herself into combat, she is not climbing the wals if he can do it with spider walk, and she will complain all the way down... and still we intend to have fun...
I can do this with pathfinder... can i play like this in 4th Ed? or i wikll be considered just the jack of all trades, disarm traps and secundary fighter? meh...
I start with the rules set and what mechanics I need to consider in regard to my playing style. I like my characters to be intuitive to play, so I don't have to focus much on game mechanics during an adventure. Then role play comes along to flesh out the roll-play.
|
|
What sounds better? Playing Allaster the paladin who was orphaned during an orc raid, and was raised by the chruch to be a holy warrior to prevent such atrocities from happening in the future, or just playing divine defender #1?I am still getting lost here. Allaster the Paladin who was orphaned during an orc raid and was raised by the church to be a holy warrior to prevent such atrocities from happening in the future IS playing a divine defender role. The fact that he has an interesting story neither includes nor precludes the idea of the role he plays and vice versa.
The whole, "I play this role and only this role" is a MMO concept that really shouldn't be in D&D.I would contend that this idea CAME from D&D and was borrowed by later MMOs, not the other way around. I would further contend that whether or not you think about the role your character plays, it is still there.
Roles have always existed to a degree, but they shouldn't be the only thing that defines what your character does in combat.My understanding is that the design of 4E (which is what I am assuming you are unhappy with in this discussion, correct me if I am wrong there) completely agrees with this statement. Instead they chose to recognize the role and make sure that a character could do MORE than just the role and so could be distinct. In this way two classes can both fill the same role but be VERY different in feel and playability (and story and background, etc. etc.).
One of the best things about 3.0/3.5 is that your fighter doesn't have to be a "defender" or "tank". He can be a swasbuckler or an archer, or something else.And I don't see that the new designs preclude anything other than the one and only role. Instead they provide a base so you can provide that role AND have other things that define you in combat.
I see this as making sure the roles are covered so you can...
The paladin I mentioned has defending the weak as his goal, and he has some divine powers. That doesn't mean that his combat role has to be a divine defender. He might be more of a kill the evil guys before they can hurt anyone guy(a striker in MMO/4E terms) most of the time ,or he might not fit into any of the 4E pigeonholes (roles). He just does what he has to in combat, and doesn't worry about having to aggro the bad guys to keep them away from the wizard or marking something so it takes damage every round it doesn't attack him.
|
|
I like what you're saying Sean. I think WoW has created a new breed of MMO reactionaries who want a return to story heavy roleplaying. I know some people call shenanigans on Pathfinder for being heavily WoW influenced, but I think that tall, buff elves =/= WoW.
I agree that tactical gaming doesn't need to be dumb gaming. After all, putting as much work into a BA (and I don't mean Base Attack) tactical encounter can be as rewarding and enjoyable as a massive plot twist.
I remember a ridiculous trap a DM used once that involved a giant undead squid, a water trap, and a simple dart trap that seemed like a solution, but was actually totally unrelated. Now, that happens to be one of my favorite D&D moments, and I think it falls into both a tactics and story realm. Ultimately solving puzzles is an awesome part of the game. Whether they be riddles or how to save such and such king from such and such plot, D&D is based a lot on solving simple or complicated problems.
That being said, my approach to class/race creation begins with either something I encountered from another source that I thought was interesting. A good example is Roger the Homonculus from Hellboy. Starting with that, I created a golem-like character, carved from sandstone and steeped in blood, then brought to life with electricity. I added elements like oversized hands and an oversized head (both techniques used by Michelangelo on his David).
The character spends his time trying to discover where he comes from, and fighting clerics who consider him a tool and deny the existence of his soul. That whole idea was inspired by this.
I guess this is just how I go about it. I'm kind of tired of things like warforged and ultraloths. I think D&D needs a movement towards fewer/simpler rules and more exciting ideas. I also believe that a class like paladin is should be balanced (to an extent) by the DM of a game. Use of the occasional miracle, direct connection to a god, followers, and rewards for maintaining virtue are all things I include when I DM and a paladin is in the party. I underscore the paladins relative importance compared to the party's rogue, on a metaphysical level. Demons know the paladin's name and have an interested in killing or turning him, angels look to aid the paladin if he needs it, etc.