Interesting set of blog posts about class roles.

[apeloverage]

nnnooner.blogspot.com/search/label/roles

[tombowings]

For as many complaints about 4th edition D&D, I do have a lot of respect to the designers who openly admit that their way of doing things may not be the best.

[waysoftheearth]

An interesting read to be sure, but not all of it rings clear and true for me.

MMOs and RPGs are two entirely different things for me, each with its own very different design goals. What works beautifully for one doesn't necessarily have any place in the other.

In my experience, MMOs are chiefly about maximising character statistics and equipment, which is done by learning how to beat computer game scenarios in the minimum possible time and repeating them over and over to "farm" the rewards. That is so vastly different from even a modern interpretation of D&D that they can scarcely be compared.

And this:
(Quote)
Gygax's desire for realistic natural healing yields a class (the cleric) that becomes mandatory because it keeps the plot from grinding to a halt for hospital time.
(/Quote)

Seems a very strange assertion... Clerics are not mandatory by any interpretation I have ever read. Nor has the plot in any Conan tale ever ground to a halt for lack of a handy cleric.

What about pools of frigid water that heal the sick? Magical feasts that invigorate the wounded? The kiss of life given by mysterious spirits? Faerie magic that speeds time? Or saintly visions that bring the dying back from the brink? These are just the crudest fumblings off the top of my head without any thought what so ever, but surely even a dull referee can drive a game plot without a cleric.

I suspect this notion comes from the idea that the entire game is solely (or very largely) about combat. That may perhaps be truer of MMOs than RPGs, but I like the plotting, intrigues, treasure hunts and pioneering and empire building just as much as the combat. And none of that needs a cleric either.

[Deleted]

Jan 20, 2010 1:48:55 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I suspect this notion comes from the idea that the entire game is solely (or very largely) about combat. That may perhaps be truer of MMOs than RPGs, but I like the plotting, intrigues, treasure hunts and pioneering and empire building just as much as the combat. And none of that needs a cleric either.

This has been pointed out many times, but bears repeating since it is germane to this point: in OD&D and its immediate descendants, combat was best avoided if at all possible. Though XP for recovered treasure is not admired by all participants of the game, it did encourage some rather creative styles of play.

[apeloverage]

I think his main arguments were:

i) Making everyone good at combat doesn't fit the source material.

ii) Making different characters good at different things is inevitable.

iii) The division of roles in D&D, and hence most other computer and pen-and-paper RPGs, isn't inevitable.

I think this would be useful in conjunction with this list, apparently from the Risus Companion, of the basic types of things that characters often do in RPGs:

Athletics
Persuading
Communication & Protocol
Detection
Driving, Riding & Piloting
Gadgeteering
The Medical Arts
Wilderness Mastery
Scholarship
Intrusion
Combat
Magic

[coffee]

Jan 20, 2010 19:35:23 GMT -6 apeloverage said:

...apparently from the Risus Companion...

Yup, that's where it's from alright.

Great list.

[Finarvyn]

Jan 20, 2010 19:35:23 GMT -6 apeloverage said:

I think his main arguments were:

i) Making everyone good at combat doesn't fit the source material.

ii) Making different characters good at different things is inevitable.

iii) The division of roles in D&D, and hence most other computer and pen-and-paper RPGs, isn't inevitable.

Well summorized.

I think that the big difference between source material (books and movies and whatnot) and gaming is the individual versus party mentality.

If a player is doing a solo adventure (or book or movie), or maybe a dual-player adventure, than it's important that each character have more talents than a single class system can accomodate. This forces either a skill system or allowing characters to combine classes in some manner.

On the other hand, with a party of characters (not seen in most movies unless you count X-Men or some group like that) there are enough characters that each one can be good at one thing and together the team has most of everything covered.

Part of my objection with some of the more recent versions of D&D and some other RPGs is that they build the system so that each character can do everything. Not needed (and to me, not desired) in the party model. The second-best thief (for example) might as well not even bother to show up because the best one can do it better, so there isn't a great advantage to the party of having each character gain some thief abilites.

That's why I prefer roles. This way everyone can be important at some point in the adventure. The druid might not be able to do much in a dungeon, but later on in the wilderness he rocks. The cleric might have defensive magic, but has decent offensive combat ability. The mage isn't a great defender but has some nasty offensive spells at decent levels. Everyone has a role on the team.

Just my two cents.

[Finarvyn]

By the way, I disagree with the blog's assertion that clerics evolved because healing magic is so necessary. I can see other ways to make due without healing spells from clerics.
* Magic items that heal.
* Magic potions of healing.
* Simply change the time rate that healling occurs.
* Allow characters to "bind wounds" and heal some after each combat. (I do this one.)

I think that clerics evolved in response to undead, not becasue of healing magic. (The healing magic was just a bonus.) In traditional horror literature, there are many cases of priests who can hold back vampires, purge posessing spirits, and so on. In the original Blackmoor campaign clerics were used to counter the effects of a vampire player character (Sir Fang) and not just because combat was too bloody.

Just thought I'd toss this into the mix. :-)

[apeloverage]

Jan 20, 2010 22:20:47 GMT -6 coffee said:

Yup, that's where it's from alright.

Great list.

It might be an interesting way of coming up with setting ideas to combine items in ways that they aren't usually, or to raise or lower their power. For example what if scholarship and magic weren't associated (wizards are dirt-covered 'holy idiot' prophets?), or if combat was only used rarely (most monsters are way tougher than the player characters?)