On party roles..

[JusticeZero]

People keep citing the "iconic" party without explaining why it is iconic. Indeed, that party seems to be odd for balance. The "Trinity" is also cited, and that makes even less sense since tabletop fighters generally lack the two defining features of the Trinity tank. There is a set of underlying roles, but the classes that fit them have shifted over time, and the iconics only loosely fit in the first place.

There are four basic needs in a party, but two of them are held by everyone, thus very replaceable. These somewhat resemble both iconic groups.. From least important to most important, they are:

Interactive: "I have the dialogue tree options". This is your "Face", which you will note is also usually your rogue. In CRPG terms, this is a character who is otherwise dead weight, but when you interact with an NPC, door, or anything else, they have extra dialog options that unlock cool stuff.
This is useful, sure. But EVERYONE should be doing this. "I'll use my underworld contacts" is handy, but the Wizard has magical contacts and the library, the Cleric can talk to their church, and so on. EVERYONE has a lot of unique options of this sort available to them, so we can't just give someone a pass because they have options similar to everyone else's.

DPS: "I hit things!" Why yes, it is important to actually do damage to enemies. However, this role is less valuable because EVERYONE can do it. Sure, you can distinguish yourself by being better at it, but often, you won't be all that much better than the others in your group. The entire iconic 4 can do this. In the "Trinity", you have one specialist doing this, but only to speed things up. The other two roles of the "Trinity" can do it all by themselves. This is seen in the queue for group events in online games - DPS is not valued.

Logistics: "Because sitting around isn't much fun". They keep the group loaded up with resources so they can keep going. This is actually there because of certain system design choices, which have actually changed somewhat over time. The first games had resources (hp, spell points/similar, ammo, etc.) refresh slowly over time, and that assumption was simply grandfathered uncritically. As such, having a character along who could cut out the long downtime was very important. However, in 3.x and on, resources are more modern; cure wands, healing surges, and the like are common, and modern MMOs generally allow party members to be at full power mere seconds after a fight. Some forms of this can, however, function as one specific layer of the next role...

Mitigation: "Turn them into teddy bears!" This can be through making the enemy unable to fight in a way that they might ordinarily prefer tactically, making them ineffective, denying them their action economy, or just by forcing them to chop through a brick wall of AC and HP first. The more of this you have, the easier encounters are. This is the single function that determines encounter difficulty the most. You still need to apply DPS - which EVERYONE has, and which is often bundled with the methods used to mitigate damage, and you still need to not deplete your resources in whatever way the system makes meaningful.

The Trinity is one DPS/Mitigation, one Mitigation/Logistics (who can DPS if called for), and an extra DPS.
The "Iconic" is one DPS/Interactive, one DPS (with a bit better mitigation), one DPS/Logistics/Mitigation/Interactive, and one DPS/Mitigation/Interactive with slightly more impressive AOE DPS. And those roles shift and change wildly based on build and system decisions.

Our ideas of what a good core group are are horrible, and we need to come up with some new concepts of a "core party" to fit.

[Aedilred]

Our ideas of what a good core group are are horrible, and we need to come up with some new concepts of a "core party" to fit.

I think our concepts of what a core group are go right back to First Edition. Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief: the first four classes. While six characters are probably more common in fiction, I think people (and the 3.5 rules, in fact) seem to work from the assumption that the classic party is five - those four plus a generalist, probably a bard (Class #6). Paladin (class #5) allows the Fighter to double up as a party leader if you have two players wanting to take on one of the roles. I think the classic Thief role is however not the charismatic Rogue which has now become more common; the Thief tends to focus more on stealth and trap evasion than the con-man "face" character.


We can try to chop it up and reassign names and import nomenclature from MMORPGS/FPS (something which for some reason has always annoyed me) and complain about its being silly and outdated however much we like but I think that idea of the iconic party has remained fundamentally unchanged since 1974 and that's going to be extremely difficult if not impossible to change now (see: iconic).

[JusticeZero]

Well, given that the "iconic" party contains a dead weight load whose only contributions to the group is to pass obstacles only put in for their benefit, a "tank" who doesn't actually have any way to do more than survive because the enemy stopped attacking them to chase their friends, and two T1s being encouraged to play as poorly as possible... We really need to envision some better base party structures to work with. Given a model, we can envision a prototype, and promote it as an alternative.

[Red Fel]

Well, given that the "iconic" party contains a dead weight load whose only contributions to the group is to pass obstacles only put in for their benefit, a "tank" who doesn't actually have any way to do more than survive because the enemy stopped attacking them to chase their friends, and two T1s being encouraged to play as poorly as possible... We really need to envision some better base party structures to work with. Given a model, we can envision a prototype, and promote it as an alternative.

The thing is, the "iconic" party is also, in some systems, the "designed" party. As Aedilred mentions, Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Thief has been a D&D staple, and is in fact what most D&D (and likely PF) encounters are designed around. So it's not just a case of it being iconic in that it has history, it's iconic because the game is built upon it as an assumption. Not all systems are designed that way (this argument barely applies at all in classless systems), but many fantasy systems that derive their heritage from D&D incorporated this assumption as well.

Now, you mention the "iconic" party, but I'd like to point out that there are more "iconic" party structures than just the classic four. For example, there's the Five Man Band (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveManBand)1, the Adventure Duo (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdventureDuo)2, the Power Trio (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerTrio)3, the Squad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSquad)4, and many more. Even video game RPGs, many of which started with the classic four-person-party structure, eventually moved past that to more nuanced designs.

1 Caution: TV Tropes will devour your live and leave you an empty, joyless husk.
2 Seriously, I'm warning you.
3 I'm not kidding.
4 Okay, okay, it's your funeral.

[Grim Portent]

Part of the problem of trying to have an 'iconic' set of party roles is that the necessary roles can change wildly from campaign to campaign. There's no real iconic campaign archetype that we can point to and say 'to complete this most easily you need x,y and z roles filled.'

There's also the problem that 'when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail' can be pretty valid in a game context. Nearly any obstacle can be overcome by creative application of a skillset, regardless of the skillset in question.

[bulbaquil]

D&D is not an MMO. (Unless you're playing an MMO based on D&D, but that's something else entirely.)

What party roles are and are not "necessary" depend entirely on the sort of campaign being run and who's running/playing in it, which occurs at the individual table level and not at the system level.

If you're in a game where virtually all enemies can be negotiated with and almost all encounters can be ended nonviolently, lacking "DPS" isn't really that much of an issue. Most CRPGs aren't like this, but D&D isn't a CRPG. On the other hand, if you're in a game where those creatures are still going to attack you, your 60 Diplomacy roll notwithstanding, then DPS becomes an issue again while interactivity falls by the wayside.

[JusticeZero]

D&D is not an MMO. (Unless you're playing an MMO based on D&D, but that's something else entirely.)However, MMOs started out as fantasy heartbreakers of D&D; mostly AD&D and Rules Compendium crowds i'm sure, given that those were the ones being played when they started appearing in the 80's. The comparison is completely justifiable as a result. You do the same basic activities online as you do in tabletop, it's just that the game has to GM itself based on strict rules programmed in which the people running can and do tweak and tune continually so the flow fits their authorial ideology better, rather than tweaking and tuning on the fly during the interaction with the players. Strategic concepts between the two styles do cross over in both directions.
What party roles are and are not "necessary" depend entirely on the sort of campaign being run and who's running/playing in it, which occurs at the individual table level and not at the system level.Completely true, though the adaptation process involves both reflexivity with the GM and a certain amount of time as players discover the needed strategies to work with the setting. At the outset, players will generally try to enter with some model of a generic idealized party, and only over time will builds deviate and party composition adapt to fit a given table.
If you're in a [nonviolent diplomatic game], lacking "DPS" isn't really that much of an issue. Most CRPGs aren't like this, but D&D isn't a CRPG. On the other hand, if you're in a game where those creatures are still going to attack you, your 60 Diplomacy roll notwithstanding, then DPS becomes an issue again while interactivity falls by the wayside.The "Interactive" role that I listed is still important in the latter; picking a lock, spotting an ambush, using a detect spell, or setting a trap are all "Interactive" functions. Additionally, most D&D games aren't going to be purely diplomatic in nature either.
Plus, the basic roles described can be translated to other forms of resolution that aren't directly violent; in a "high finance" setting, market traders are your DPS, backed by a sales floor that sells their investments and keeps the firm flush with capital to invest (Logistics) and accountants that research and tweak the investments to keep the firm from holding onto bad investments (Mitigation). You could map them onto character roles in a game modeled after the bizarre setting of certain X-rated films in which no blood is shed because they are still overwhelmingly using a certain form of interaction to deal with challenges which involves the management of resources against challenges that threaten that resource. (I heard of someone doing this once, and it sounded pretty absurd, which they reported was sort've the point..)

[Jay R]

I think our concepts of what a core group are go right back to First Edition. Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief: the first four classes.

This is not quite true. Original D&D had only three classes - Fighting Men, Magic-Users, and Clerics.
The first supplement added Thieves and Paladins
Articles in TSR added Rangers, Illusionists, and Bards, in that order.
The second supplement added monks and assassins.

But most characters after Greyhawk came out were one of what you think of as the basic four. Rangers, Illusionists, Bards, Monks, and Assassins were rare - the requirements were high, and rolling 3d6, you rarely got to play one. Our group of about 40 players included one Bard, one Paladin, and none of the others.

[TheCountAlucard]

And if you step out of the paradigm of D&D and D&D-alikes, you'll sometimes find the notion was never even considered; a coterie of Kindred scarcely needs a DPS guy, and an Exalted circle would covet a sorcerer in their midst, but by no means is it even expected.

[Aedilred]

This is not quite true. Original D&D had only three classes - Fighting Men, Magic-Users, and Clerics.
The first supplement added Thieves and Paladins
Articles in TSR added Rangers, Illusionists, and Bards, in that order.
The second supplement added monks and assassins.

I was using a definition of "first edition" that included supplements as well as the basic rules (just as 3.5 includes more than just the PHB...). I missed Illusionists and Rangers, admittedly, although since Rangers are another one of the iconic "core classes" themselves and Illusionists have now been folded into Wizards it makes little difference. And for this sort of purpose, the difference between Fighting-Men and Fighters, and Magic-Users and Wizards, is largely one of nomenclature.

[Frozen_Feet]

Well, given that the "iconic" party contains a dead weight load whose only contributions to the group is to pass obstacles only put in for their benefit, a "tank" who doesn't actually have any way to do more than survive because the enemy stopped attacking them to chase their friends, and two T1s being encouraged to play as poorly as possible... We really need to envision some better base party structures to work with. Given a model, we can envision a prototype, and promote it as an alternative.

Uh, no. You're describing a perversion of the original grouping which came to be as a result of the game system and the assumption of the players changing.

For example, you characterize thief as someone whose only contribution is to pass obstacles put in for their benefit. This is ass-backwards when you consider that the traps where there from the start, while the thief class was added in a supplement to benefit the players. If anything, the true candidate of "dead weight whose only contribution is to pass obstacles put in for their benefit" is the magic-user, because magic and its idiosyncracies are purely in-game conceit, where as traps and locks are not.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't like the idea of clearly set party roles in roleplaying games - good teamwork comes from people in the group working well together and having each other's back, not from one of them being a tank, another a healer, and the last two DPS.

I especially don't like when a game assumes that one of the PCs will be a dedicated skillmonkey - someone who's good at talking or disarming traps, but in exchange for that sucks in combat. Those characters don't get a fair share of spotlight, because they don't get to meaningfully contribute to the primary factor in which the whole party works together in most games - combat. Depending on who has the spotlight, either the skillmonkey sits there and does nothing, or the whole rest of the party sits there and does nothing.
A game should allow you to build this kind of character, if you so desire, but it shouldn't assume by default that this character is a member of the party, and punish you for not having one. The same is true for all other kinds of characters.

Look at most non-DND RPGs out there, and such a thing as party roles doesn't even exist in most of them. In most modern RPGs, everyone can meaningfully affect combat and do something meaningful out of combat - you can get rid of either ability, but you have to do it on purpose, not by default, and it only gives you minor bonuses to the other ability.

[Frozen_Feet]

A sufficiently robust RPG system should be able to handle a "party" where ALL characters are rogue-equivalent who NEVER do any fighting AND work together to solve tricks, traps and puzzles. Or a squad of soldiers who can ALL do damage, tank, heal and draw enemy attention, and who does what can be varied by situation. Or a party of priests who never do anything but debate finer points of their theologies at each other.

You don't actually have to leave the constraints of D&D classes and archetypes to do that. What you need to do, instead, is to scrap all ideas of what the "default challenge" is going to be and allow the "party" of player characters to self-direct towards those challenges they are geared to tackle. This in turn is not the same as purpose-building the world and/or challenges to be such that the party can tackle them.

[JusticeZero]

The party design will adapt to the specific campaign, yes, and I never denied that. What I do deny is that the stereotypical party design is a good model to start that process from in the modern state of the game. The old 1e games resembled Nethack and other random rogue like games with random and nonsensical traps of pointless kinds scattered around, and other odd stuff. As I recall, one module randomly had a Club +4 in an unlit campfire for some low level bandits for no reason. What? Todays module is a bit different, as are the classes themselves.

[NichG]

You can't just naively pick an MMO and import its concepts without being specific about what kind of gameplay you want. There isn't actually a 'generic right answer' here - the questions of roles and gameplay feed off of each-other. WoW, Minecraft, and Crusader Kings will all give you different results, but all could make an interesting tabletop game.

For example, I'm going to describe a break-down of party roles for a hypothetical tabletop game which looks nothing at all like WoW.


- Builder: Characters with this role have the ability to create permanent structures in the world. Since some form of basing points are needed to fight efficiently, to gather resources, etc, the party's long-term success depends on having an efficient builder who can create the necessary permanent structures to keep control of new lands and permit them to grow. Otherwise, all advancement made by the party will likely be temporary. Mechanically, Builders effectively control the directions from which the party can exert strength. Builders can also control the pacing of enemy attacks by creating choke-points which take long enough to bypass that troops can get into place.

- Scout: This role covers characters which can effectively turn impassable regions of the map into passable ones, and so controls the ability of the party to expand and explore new areas at will rather than at the mercy of NPC movements. Without a Scout, travel ranges will be very limited, and the party will miss out on access to most rare resources. Instead, they have to wait for enemy scouts to connect the map to their areas before they can respond to the enemy. An opponent with no Scouts behind an impassable terrain wall is one which you can wait to pick off until you've grown sufficiently in power to make them trivial.

- Scholar: Characters with this role have some way to transform resources or experiences into civilization-wide benefits. They can improve the quality of troops, constructions, etc. This character is needed in order to integrate the benefits of exploration and extermination into the empire. Without a scholar, there is no point in conquering other lands, exploring ancient temples, etc. More mechanically, the Scholar is a force multiplier on the power of troops and constructions - e.g., they are a resource-dependent buffer.

- Commander: Logistically, if each PC commands a contingent of troops, that puts a very strong upper limit on the strength of their civilization - the number of PCs multiplied by their Command scores. Characters with the Commander role have tricks that let them control hierarchies of troops, and so they are critical to being able to have more than a few provinces under PC control.

- Spy: This role centers around characters which detect and control destabilizing influences from within. As the PCs' empire grows, there is a natural decay of order - the PCs can't be everywhere to kill every would-be rebel and schemer. Characters with the Spy role have abilities which allow them to act in many places at once, or to channel PC power at a distance. For example, a Spy might simply be a character with the ability to teleport, so that they can act wherever they want to immediately, rather than taking weeks to get from place to place. A Spy could also be something like a Commander but making use of a network of contacts across the realm to do their bidding. Spies are sort of related to Builders, in that Builders create new directions from which the full force of the PCs can be exerted, but Spies can exert a portion of that force in any direction whenever they choose.


This looks nothing like WoW or D&D, but it could easily be a tabletop game. MMO roles aren't fundamental, they're only very well tuned to a particular kind of gameplay. You have to decide on what gameplay you want before you can talk about whether or not the D&D iconic party or whatever makes sense.

[Frozen_Feet]

The party design will adapt to the specific campaign, yes, and I never denied that. What I do deny is that the stereotypical party design is a good model to start that process from in the modern state of the game. The old 1e games resembled Nethack and other random rogue like games with random and nonsensical traps of pointless kinds scattered around, and other odd stuff. As I recall, one module randomly had a Club +4 in an unlit campfire for some low level bandits for no reason. What? Todays module is a bit different, as are the classes themselves.

The causation goes the other way. Nethack and other CRPGs resemble early D&D because that's what they tried to emulate. I find this to be rather important, because many of the things D&D is blamed for being "computer-gamey" are actually just D&D. My experience with "modern modules" is limited, but the best ones have been for an OSRIC game system, and they've stood out positively precisely because they've included a lot of randomness and "odd stuff". They have reusability and allow for real player choice, of the "do whatever" sort.

By contrast, most others have been very linear "follow these plothooks to go from A to B", with only real choice appearing at the very end of the adventure.

Which of these reflects the "modern state" better in your opinion?

[JusticeZero]

The causation goes the other way. Nethack and other CRPGs resemble early D&D because that's what they tried to emulate.This is also true, but does not diminish the fact that the older modules often resembled a roguelike game - albeit even more random and swingy. Furthermore, the adventures have moved away from that, as have the designs of the classes themself. Some old modules were very linear, others very sandboxy.

[The Grue]

Ugh. Party roles.

If I had a nickel for every time I've had a character build vetoed or been outright rejected from a game because "we already have a wizard/rogue/whatever"...

[JusticeZero]

Yeah, and the roles are barely a starting point. I'm hoping we can think up some different cores to model as basic mixes that we can push when those situations come up. I know I'm unimpressed when I start being told something about "Well we really need a rogue" when I have seen nothing to indicate that rogue skills will be any more necessary than any other set of skills and contacts. And I get tired of reflexive "ZOMG we need a healer" stuff in response to proposing a protective buffer with UMD.

[LibraryOgre]

The four essential party roles are: Bad Ideas, Smartass Comments, Rules Minutiae, and Snacks. As long as those are covered, they can play whatever the heck they want.

[Jay R]

The four essential party roles are: Bad Ideas, Smartass Comments, Rules Minutiae, and Snacks. As long as those are covered, they can play whatever the heck they want.

You left out Designated Target. You need one character who is always insulting to the bad guy so that he, rather than my character, is attacked first.

[LibraryOgre]

You left out Designated Target. You need one character who is always insulting to the bad guy so that he, rather than my character, is attacked first.

Multiclass Bad Ideas/Smartass Comments.

[Mr Beer]

The "core" party roles largely depend on setting. There is no one "core" role required in every game without being absurdly broad in your description.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

The four essential party roles are: Bad Ideas, Smartass Comments, Rules Minutiae, and Snacks. As long as those are covered, they can play whatever the heck they want.

Please allow me to +1.

[The Grue]

The four essential party roles are: Bad Ideas, Smartass Comments, Rules Minutiae, and Snacks. As long as those are covered, they can play whatever the heck they want.

At my table, I typically have the first two covered.

[Seto]

I don't know if it's been said, but in D&D there's also the fact that the Rogue's niche is to be able to disarm traps. Which is really helpful for a game focused on classic dungeon-crawls.

[Jay R]

There's a lot than can be done with Rogue skills besides traps, and they are valuable totally apart from dungeon crawls. I just finished a very successful game as a 2E Thief who never once picked a pocket or disarmed a trap. But he routinely snuck into the enemy camps to commit sabotage, overhear plans, etc.

Once, in a full-battle of a couple of hundred warriors on a side, with assorted trolls, giant spiders, etc., he got behind a line of infantry and gave the command, "Archers in the trees - left flank, go engage!" just to mess up their defenses. An accompanying very low-level Phantasmal Force of a few arrows coming from the trees completed the subterfuge.)

[JusticeZero]

Well, that's what the interaction role does, is have more noncombat options.. The issue is that if you weren't there to do that, a Druid, Ranger, Wizard, Psychic Warrior, etc could have done something very similar and been in their core role.

[Darcand]

I suppose the only two actual roles in D&D are Combat and Utility. The issue is that certain classes offer only Combat functions, the Fighter being the one which springs to mind. The fix for this would be to build in Utility roles for all classes, specialized to those classes with some overlap so that there is no required mix of classes. This way all party members serve both a Combat function and unique Utility functions.

[Sartharina]

The iconic four roles in D&D are:
1. The Main beatstick/Fighter. His job is to beat straight-up fights by hitting hard and not dying. Unfortunately, D&D turned combat into a full-party extravaganza, crippling the fighter's contribution.
2. Mundane Utility/Rogue. His job is to bypass obstacles that trying to facetank is a bad idea, and find alternative paths and hidden treasure and other things. Poor dungeon design, strict WBL tracks and loss of GP-for-XP have crippled his contribution. His combat contribution is denying enemies certain strategies by punishing them with brutal sneak attacks.
3. The Divine Caster. He's normally a healer, support caster, and 3/4ths fighter, but his primary contribution is bringing in Divine Magic and making use of divine artifacts and dealing with divine supernatural threats found on the adventure.
4. The Arcane Caster. His usual role is off-utility and a bit of battlefield control, but his primary contribution is calling in arcane power and making use of arcane threats.

In a modern campaign, the roles would be:
1. Assault Soldier+Heavy Weapons Specialist.
2. Covert Operative+Demolitions Expert
3. Combat medic
4. Communications Officer

[Jay R]

Well, that's what the interaction role does, is have more noncombat options.. The issue is that if you weren't there to do that, a Druid, Ranger, Wizard, Psychic Warrior, etc could have done something very similar and been in their core role.

Not at third level they couldn't. A lot of the statements that casters can replace non-casters require the assumption that the party is never at a low level, when roles get defined.

You can define a mid- or high-level caster who can replace a thief or fighter. But you can't easily grow a party from the start without fighters and thieves, so there is no incentive for a wizard to make choices along the way to duplicate that role, merely to replace their loyal buddy at higher levels.

[SiuiS]

Interesting thread.


I think you're making a mistake by just saying "logistics" and "mitigation", both of those are usually split up into components. There isn't always one toolkit which can do all the necessary things, let alone well enough to take pressure off other players, and the MC moves focus on removing that capacity temporarily to put pressure on the rest of the crew.

Haven't read up here yet though, just want the check mark for later perusal.

[Raimun]

I've found out that things always work the best when people play what they want to play. Everyone has always a character concept they like to try out and they will do better in that job than in a job they are forced to perform.

Every time someone asks: "What should I play?", I tell them to play whatever they want. It's more fun that way, for everyone. People have almost always ideas that go beyond the traditional "Fighter-Cleric-Rogue-Wizard"-thing. And with different kinds of players, even that "four-some" might happen sometimes.

Non-traditional parties are usually more fun, original and organic than traditional parties.


Edit: Oh, I almost forgot. The best possible scenario is that you can pull multiple roles with one character. One of my current characters in Pathfinder can do all of the roles in OP's post: Interactive, DPS, Logistics and Mitigation.


Now, this is just small details but I have to point out that no, not everyone can do "DPS". That is, unless you count as damage 1D6+1 per round (or people who can only hit with 15+ O.o)... at level 10-ish (in D&D/Pathfinder). Those who can't deal more damage than that in a round usually have better ways to contribute to a fight than damage.