PDA

View Full Version : Lets talk about party roles



Shinizak
2017-06-18, 02:41 PM
Hows it going y'all. I was having a discussion last night with a former DM of mine a few nights ago about the Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Thief dynamic. Specifically about how it can be broken further down into other focused party roles that can make or break a party dynamic if the players are improperly understanding the importance of each role. I wanted to know if y'all knew more of these roles, if you've experienced strange party dynamics, What unusual perty dynamics would work well together, and your general thoughts on the matter.

(p.s. this is not system specific.)


The list we were able to hammer out looked something like this:


The Mario: The one guy who does pretty much everything well in a well rounded manner, but never really stands out. overall a good rock.
The Seers: party members who were really good at finding out general, distant facts and directing other actions
The Tanks: the ones who can sink fifty gazillion damage and still walk it off.
The Healers: obviously the one who keeps everyone alive. the most boring of jobs, but god help you if you don't have one.
The Rogue: the one who can navigate strange or hostile territory to exploit the inner weakness
The Beast master: The one character that largely just decided to play pokemon at the gaming table. good for minions
The Illusionist and misdirection expert: the one that defeats his opponents by diverting them, controlling their perceptions, and generally lying or confusing them.
The Mind manipulators: The ones who take over or confuse your enemies. good for minions.
Field controllers: the ones who manipulate the field you fight on.
The Glass Cannon: the one that can kill everything that stands in his way, but everything kills him.
The AoE Damage: The one that is really good at making EVERYTHING die, including his buddies.
The Builders: The ones who basically build everything your party needs, but only as long as they do it in advance.
The Conjurers: the one Who can make a lot of useful things for the party on the fly.
The Megaman/Power stealer: The one that uses the enemy's powers against them.
The Nullifiers: the one that Makes other people's powers and abilities go away.
The Witherers: The one that poisons and cripples their opponents
The Empowerers: the one that makes your other party members abilities better.
The Shielders: the one that provides shields and defenses to other party members.
The Chaos Agents: not really a power set, but the ones who make life hell for BOTH sides of the battle, or provide MANY unforseen battle complications. See also: the Deck of Many things
The Distance Support: Snipers or that one flying D-bag with a ranged weapon who can flank from a distance.
The "Power of Friendship" Player: The one who allocated all of his points into charisma and proceeded to make friends with everyone that might kill them.



This list no where NEAR comprehensive, so please feel free to add to it.

BWR
2017-06-18, 03:17 PM
You can always make things more detailed, if you wish, but I fail to see the point. Most of what you have here aren't so much party roles as methods. Roles are goals, not the the path. The purpose, not the method.

Shinizak
2017-06-18, 04:06 PM
You can always make things more detailed, if you wish, but I fail to see the point. Most of what you have here aren't so much party roles as methods. Roles are goals, not the the path. The purpose, not the method.

The point is the analysis it's self. But also as a method for DMs to properly craft party encounters. Say you are DMing, and your party consists of an AoE specialist, a Distance support, a Healer, a witherer and a Glass canon. Tank characters with little mobility should be your party's bread and butter, while rogues should be your party's most difficult enemy types.

Basically what I'm saying is that the more we know and analyse these party types, the more we (as DMs) can balance the party encounters. Now that's not to say we should force players into these niche roles,but understanding them when we see them is useful.

Vitruviansquid
2017-06-18, 04:08 PM
The number of party roles should be something like 3-4, in my mind.

You're going to want 3-4 players (which is 4-5 total, counting the GM) to have an enjoyable "group hangout" setting for your game. Any more, and you're getting into a territory where it might be hard for some groups to find enough people to play a game to fill out all the roles. If you wanted your game to be flexible enough to play with more people, have some roles be palatable to double, triple up upon. In DnD 4e, a party of 4 is perfectly balanced with Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker, but you can really have an extra Striker or two or an extra Defender and it doesn't change the game's dynamic too much.

I'm also of the opinion that roles should be about what's done, not how it's done.

Thrudd
2017-06-18, 06:28 PM
Don't "balance the party encounters".

Put a wide variety of challenges before them, and make them figure out how to combat them. Depending on the type of characters and abilities they have, some things will be easy for them and some things will be hard for them. That's how it's supposed to be. Don't try to plan every fight so that there are always special tactics required or their abilities will always be just the right thing to use. You don't need to work so hard, as the DM, just gauge difficulty very broadly, and throw stuff at them. See how they do - if you see some things are really easy for them and other things really hard, file that information away for the future.

If they have nobody with a lot of hit points or heavy armor - well hopefully that doesn't come to bite them later, but you definitely shouldn't design your encounters based on that fact. Design the encounters that make sense for the world and the adventures you have planned, and let them deal with the fact that they might have a weakness in their party composition.

Honest Tiefling
2017-06-18, 07:09 PM
You can always make things more detailed, if you wish, but I fail to see the point. Most of what you have here aren't so much party roles as methods. Roles are goals, not the the path. The purpose, not the method.

I agree with this. An Illusionist, depending on your system and build, is probably going to be a Controller or Damage Dealer. Their methods are divorced from their end goal, either confusing the ever-loving Pelor out of their enemies or breaking their minds. A Ranger and a Mind Specialist are in essence the same role and can be treated as such for many different purposes including encounter design and concepts for other characters seeking to compliment their team's abilities.

I think it would be better, however, to limit this to a single system. Many systems won't have particular roles, such as the ever-present Dungeons and Dragons and their lack of a traditional tank (which is different then presented here). Sure, most editions have beefy dudes in beefier armor, but they don't prevent damage to allies or take it in place of their party members. They walk up to something in less armor and hit it a bunch of times. 4th edition had the concept of a tank and was designed around it. Doing that in 3rd will probably lead to a dead party since that role doesn't exist.

BWR
2017-06-19, 05:07 AM
The point is the analysis it's self. But also as a method for DMs to properly craft party encounters. Say you are DMing, and your party consists of an AoE specialist, a Distance support, a Healer, a witherer and a Glass canon. Tank characters with little mobility should be your party's bread and butter, while rogues should be your party's most difficult enemy types.

Basically what I'm saying is that the more we know and analyse these party types, the more we (as DMs) can balance the party encounters. Now that's not to say we should force players into these niche roles,but understanding them when we see them is useful.

You mean 'know what your players and their characters are capable of'?
Well, yes, obviously this is a good idea. Assigning names to more or less arbitrary collections of abilities and approaches doesn't do this, nor does it really help anyone else, especially since any one character might perform any or all of your 'roles'. In D&D 3.x, for instance, your Beast Master can take on literally every other 'role' by summoning the right creature.

noob
2017-06-19, 05:29 AM
Or yet the cloistered cleric who is so awesome he can do all those roles and then more.

Mendicant
2017-06-19, 11:17 PM
I think what you've got here reads more as a list of mechanical archetypes rather than "roles" per se. A role is defined by function. "Single-target removal" could be a role, but "glass cannon" is more a way that role is expressed mechanically.

I think you've got several pairs of functions that roles in tactical combat are built out of.


Removal/Recovery -- Altering who is on the field and who isn't. Classically this is damage, but it also includes things like Sleep or hacking a robot. Conversely, you could be bringing people back in, either with Break Enchantment or first aid. I think healing that doesn't flip an ally from inactive to active is actually buffing. Removal is usually split into single target vs. multitarget/AoE and divided up by range to create more variety.
Debuffing/Buffing -- Altering who's good at what. You could argue that the next two things are just species of this, but I think they're qualitatively different enough to merit their own category.
Interdiction/Mobility -- Controlling who and what can go where.
Intelligence/Counterintelligence -- Controlling who knows what. Telling your team tactically relevant capabilities, vulnerabilities, and likely strategies, or masking your team's abilities and position from the enemy.


Now, whether you want to enforce niche protection for all of these is another matter. "Removing enemies" should probably be available to at least some degree for every team member, for instance.

Mark Hall
2017-06-20, 12:10 PM
When we were playing Star Wars, we had people think of themselves in terms of the Serenity crew. You wound up with a couple combination characters (such as one we started calling "Princess Captain Kaylee"), but overall, it worked pretty well.

Cluedrew
2017-06-20, 06:43 PM
Personally, in my group the party seems to be divided into two main roles:
Those that get us into trouble.
Those that get us out of trouble.
It works quite well. But we are not playing a tactical game, we create a bunch of characters (in more than one meaning of the word), give them skills and resources and some motivations (often self-destructive or not-well thought out). The GM doesn't really have to prepare anything, we get ourselves into enough trouble.

Does that qualify as a strange party dynamic?

Floopay
2017-06-20, 08:52 PM
I encourage my players to just make what they want. If we wind up with all rogues and bardd, so be it.

Thanks for reading,
Floopay

Joe the Rat
2017-06-21, 08:53 AM
So what you have here is more playstyles (and Tropes) than roles. In terms of jobs, I'd go such (with your associated styles noted)

Intelligence: Forewarned is forearmed

The Seers: party members who were really good at finding out general, distant facts and directing other actions
The Rogue: the one who can navigate strange or hostile territory to exploit the inner weakness
The "Power of Friendship" Player: The one who allocated all of his points into charisma and proceeded to make friends with everyone that might kill them.
The Sage - Enough ranks/points/proficiencies in knowledge/information to already know what's going on

Damage Control: Incoming!

The Tanks: the ones who can sink fifty gazillion damage and still walk it off.
The Healers: obviously the one who keeps everyone alive. the most boring of jobs, but god help you if you don't have one.
The Shielders: the one that provides shields and defenses to other party members.

Area Control (via opponent control, environment, area denial) - None shall pass!

The Illusionist and misdirection expert: the one that defeats his opponents by diverting them, controlling their perceptions, and generally lying or confusing them.
The Mind manipulators: The ones who take over or confuse your enemies. good for minions.
Field controllers: the ones who manipulate the field you fight on.
The Tanks: the ones who can sink fifty gazillion damage and still walk it off.
The AoE Damage: The one that is really good at making EVERYTHING die, including his buddies.
The Beast master: The one character that largely just decided to play pokemon at the gaming table. good for minions
Lockdown - Keep them with you

Damage Make the other team stop moving

The Glass Cannon: the one that can kill everything that stands in his way, but everything kills him.
The Distance Support: Snipers or that one flying D-bag with a ranged weapon who can flank from a distance.
The AoE Damage: The one that is really good at making EVERYTHING die, including his buddies.
The Witherers: The one that poisons and cripples their opponents
The Beast master: The one character that largely just decided to play pokemon at the gaming table. good for minions
The Tanks: the ones who can sink fifty gazillion damage and still walk it off.
Striker - get close and hit things
Untouchable: The one that draws fifty gazillion attacks and doesn't get hit enough to go down.

Buffer Make you better at your job.

The Builders: The ones who basically build everything your party needs, but only as long as they do it in advance.
The Conjurers: the one Who can make a lot of useful things for the party on the fly.
The Empowerers: the one that makes your other party members abilities better.

Debuffer Make them worse at theirs

The Nullifiers: the one that Makes other people's powers and abilities go away.
The Witherers: The one that poisons and cripples their opponents
The Megaman/Power stealer: The one that uses the enemy's powers against them.

Combat Avoidance Mission XP > Combat XP

The Illusionist and misdirection expert: the one that defeats his opponents by diverting them, controlling their perceptions, and generally lying or confusing them.
The Mind manipulators: The ones who take over or confuse your enemies. good for minions.
The "Power of Friendship" Player: The one who allocated all of his points into charisma and proceeded to make friends with everyone that might kill them.

Minionmancy Let someone else do the fighting

The Beast master: The one character that largely just decided to play pokemon at the gaming table. good for minions
The Mind manipulators: The ones who take over or confuse your enemies. good for minions.
The Conjurers: the one Who can make a lot of useful things for the party on the fly.

Backup / Gap Filler / "Jack" The second best at any role.

The Mario: The one guy who does pretty much everything well in a well rounded manner, but never really stands out. overall a good rock.
The Conjurers: the one Who can make a lot of useful things for the party on the fly.
The Megaman/Power stealer: The one that uses the enemy's powers against them.
Blue Mage: The one that copies the party's abilities

Quertus
2017-06-21, 03:28 PM
Here's how I think of the role of a few of my characters :

So, as a rather powerful toolkit wizard, Quertus could probably cover just about any role, limited only by his own tactical ineptitude. Note that that's any role, not every role, because finite resources and action economy. He is usually played in the role of sage, logistics, and, um, "sights". He focuses on Magic, and dealing with magic, leaving mundane problems to those with less limitations on their resources.

Raymond is Infiltration and Control, and a passable Face. If he is unfortunate enough to actually be present for a fight, he will generally cower / hide / dive for cover. But, if necessary, he can utilize incredible telepathic powers to dominate foes.

Armus is a toolkit tactician, an unusual Face, and a scout (to protect the team from the truths that would destroy them). Armus is also a master of deception: if you figure out why he traditionally opened combat by moving to protect someone more durable than himself, kudos, but that's only one of about 6 deceptions Armus has used to win the battle before it even started.

Illirian is a scout, a skirmish, and something of a glass canon.

Woody is a BDH. Ok, a BDAH. He believes in the motto, "never play a deuce when you have an unlimited supply of aces". He and Quertus could have a "sight-off".


Don't "balance the party encounters".

Put a wide variety of challenges before them, and make them figure out how to combat them. Depending on the type of characters and abilities they have, some things will be easy for them and some things will be hard for them. That's how it's supposed to be. Don't try to plan every fight so that there are always special tactics required or their abilities will always be just the right thing to use. You don't need to work so hard, as the DM, just gauge difficulty very broadly, and throw stuff at them. See how they do - if you see some things are really easy for them and other things really hard, file that information away for the future.

If they have nobody with a lot of hit points or heavy armor - well hopefully that doesn't come to bite them later, but you definitely shouldn't design your encounters based on that fact. Design the encounters that make sense for the world and the adventures you have planned, and let them deal with the fact that they might have a weakness in their party composition.

I strongly second this mentality.

However, if the game isn't fun for the players, and they can point to a cause like, "you're never providing them a challenge", or "it's a TPK every other encounter", then it might be a good idea to have the skills to evaluate things at this level.

Also, these skills can help with conversations about role protection, spotlight stealing, etc.

So, while I agree with you, I don't think this conversation is without merit.


I think it would be better, however, to limit this to a single system. Many systems won't have particular roles, such as the ever-present Dungeons and Dragons and their lack of a traditional tank (which is different then presented here). Sure, most editions have beefy dudes in beefier armor, but they don't prevent damage to allies or take it in place of their party members. They walk up to something in less armor and hit it a bunch of times. 4th edition had the concept of a tank and was designed around it. Doing that in 3rd will probably lead to a dead party since that role doesn't exist.

I think you've explained exactly why we shouldn't limit this conversation to a single system, actually...

FreddyNoNose
2017-06-23, 02:04 PM
Don't "balance the party encounters".

Put a wide variety of challenges before them, and make them figure out how to combat them. Depending on the type of characters and abilities they have, some things will be easy for them and some things will be hard for them. That's how it's supposed to be. Don't try to plan every fight so that there are always special tactics required or their abilities will always be just the right thing to use. You don't need to work so hard, as the DM, just gauge difficulty very broadly, and throw stuff at them. See how they do - if you see some things are really easy for them and other things really hard, file that information away for the future.

If they have nobody with a lot of hit points or heavy armor - well hopefully that doesn't come to bite them later, but you definitely shouldn't design your encounters based on that fact. Design the encounters that make sense for the world and the adventures you have planned, and let them deal with the fact that they might have a weakness in their party composition.

I love this and agree. Challenge the party with things outside the safe area.

FreddyNoNose
2017-06-23, 02:06 PM
Hows it going y'all. I was having a discussion last night with a former DM of mine a few nights ago about the Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Thief dynamic. Specifically about how it can be broken further down into other focused party roles that can make or break a party dynamic if the players are improperly understanding the importance of each role. I wanted to know if y'all knew more of these roles, if you've experienced strange party dynamics, What unusual perty dynamics would work well together, and your general thoughts on the matter.

(p.s. this is not system specific.)


The list we were able to hammer out looked something like this:


The Mario: The one guy who does pretty much everything well in a well rounded manner, but never really stands out. overall a good rock.
The Seers: party members who were really good at finding out general, distant facts and directing other actions
The Tanks: the ones who can sink fifty gazillion damage and still walk it off.
The Healers: obviously the one who keeps everyone alive. the most boring of jobs, but god help you if you don't have one.
The Rogue: the one who can navigate strange or hostile territory to exploit the inner weakness
The Beast master: The one character that largely just decided to play pokemon at the gaming table. good for minions
The Illusionist and misdirection expert: the one that defeats his opponents by diverting them, controlling their perceptions, and generally lying or confusing them.
The Mind manipulators: The ones who take over or confuse your enemies. good for minions.
Field controllers: the ones who manipulate the field you fight on.
The Glass Cannon: the one that can kill everything that stands in his way, but everything kills him.
The AoE Damage: The one that is really good at making EVERYTHING die, including his buddies.
The Builders: The ones who basically build everything your party needs, but only as long as they do it in advance.
The Conjurers: the one Who can make a lot of useful things for the party on the fly.
The Megaman/Power stealer: The one that uses the enemy's powers against them.
The Nullifiers: the one that Makes other people's powers and abilities go away.
The Witherers: The one that poisons and cripples their opponents
The Empowerers: the one that makes your other party members abilities better.
The Shielders: the one that provides shields and defenses to other party members.
The Chaos Agents: not really a power set, but the ones who make life hell for BOTH sides of the battle, or provide MANY unforseen battle complications. See also: the Deck of Many things
The Distance Support: Snipers or that one flying D-bag with a ranged weapon who can flank from a distance.
The "Power of Friendship" Player: The one who allocated all of his points into charisma and proceeded to make friends with everyone that might kill them.



This list no where NEAR comprehensive, so please feel free to add to it.


The Caller!

Frozen_Feet
2017-06-23, 02:49 PM
1) The Leader: one who decides the goals and direction of the group, who everyone else looks up to, who hands out responsibility and orders.
2) The Second-in-command: one who fills in for the leader when the leader is indisposed or absent.
3) The Quartermaster: keeps tracks of supplies and divides the loot.
4) The Specialist: is unquestionably the best in some area and is deferred to in situations falling under their expertise.
5) The Crush: romantically entangled with one of the above four and shown undue favoritism because of that.
6) The Comic Relief: the one who is kept around because others think they're funny.
7) The Bottom of the Pack: the one who is kept around so they can be made to do all the stuff no-one else wants to do.

Or in OotS terms, roughly in order: Roy, Durkon, Haley, Varsuvius, Celia, Elan, Belkar.

Some roles can be combined, some there can be multiple of. For example, combining Quartermaster and Second-in-Command is common. All group members may also be specialists in their own fields. The Crush can combine with all roles save the Leader and Bottom of the Pack. The Comic Relief can theoretically combine with any role. In small groups of four or below, the leader's role becomes less pronounced and may be lost entirely; you could have three or four specialists who make decisions more-or-less independently save for when they need help from one another.

---

The above is meant to draw attention to the fact that most posts in this thread are not talking about party roles at all. They're talking about tactical roles or tropes for abilities. But a halfway competent character could fill multiple different tactical roles or switch them from battle to battle, while still staying in the same party role.

Cluedrew's distinction between people who get into trouble and people who get them out of trouble tells more about party dynamics and roles than most other distinctions in this thread.

Vitruviansquid
2017-06-23, 03:07 PM
Did it just get semantic in here?




The above is meant to draw attention to the fact that most posts in this thread are not talking about party roles at all.

Oh yeah, it just got semantic in here.

There are many different ways of having roles for a party.

There can be roles for how they execute tactics in a battle.
There can be roles for how they function in the story.
There can be roles for how they are laid out in a piece of artwork (you need a man man/woman to be in the center, a big guy to fill out the space toward the back, etc.)

Frozen_Feet
2017-06-23, 04:02 PM
Semantics is quite important for an endeavor like this, since without defining what is or is not a "party role" you just end up cataloguing all possible roles you could have in a party, regardless of how they relate to the party or how redundant they are with each other.

For me, "party role" is a character's role in respect to other people in the party; whatever they do in combat is their tactical role.

FreddyNoNose
2017-06-23, 04:14 PM
Semantics is quite important for an endeavor like this, since without defining what is or is not a "party role" you just end up cataloguing all possible roles you could have in a party, regardless of how they relate to the party or how redundant they are with each other.

For me, "party role" is a character's role in respect to other people in the party; whatever they do in combat is their tactical role.

semantics can be important. Then again, you didn't start the thread now did you?

Quertus
2017-06-23, 08:00 PM
1) The Leader: one who decides the goals and direction of the group, who everyone else looks up to, who hands out responsibility and orders.
2) The Second-in-command: one who fills in for the leader when the leader is indisposed or absent.
3) The Quartermaster: keeps tracks of supplies and divides the loot.
4) The Specialist: is unquestionably the best in some area and is deferred to in situations falling under their expertise.
5) The Crush: romantically entangled with one of the above four and shown undue favoritism because of that.
6) The Comic Relief: the one who is kept around because others think they're funny.
7) The Bottom of the Pack: the one who is kept around so they can be made to do all the stuff no-one else wants to do.

Or in OotS terms, roughly in order: Roy, Durkon, Haley, Varsuvius, Celia, Elan, Belkar.

Some roles can be combined, some there can be multiple of. For example, combining Quartermaster and Second-in-Command is common. All group members may also be specialists in their own fields. The Crush can combine with all roles save the Leader and Bottom of the Pack. The Comic Relief can theoretically combine with any role. In small groups of four or below, the leader's role becomes less pronounced and may be lost entirely; you could have three or four specialists who make decisions more-or-less independently save for when they need help from one another.

By that logic, I'd expect I prefer Specialists. Sure enough, Quertus and Raymond are clearly Specialists. Armus is Leader / Comic Relief. But I'm not sure about the others.

But, for true party roles, Quertus sends the invitations and likely hosts the party. Raymond does setup / sets the mood. Woody brings the, ah, refreshments. Armus is the designated driver (although, despite having consumed the greatest quantity, quality, and variety of intoxicants, Woody insists that should be his role), and Illirian... would be the party pooper, I suppose.

Mendicant
2017-06-23, 10:14 PM
Pfft, all you people replying to the OP in the spirit it was intended clearly are just talking about mere tactical and story roles.

Party roles are:

The Candidate: Preferably telegenic and good at kissing babies. The face of the party and hopefully the one who wields power on the party's behalf. Sometimes takes on other roles in retirement.

The Committee Chairman: Dishes out money and resources for everyone else to use. Sometimes acts as a backup face but usually isn't very good at it.

The Strategist: Formulates strategy and attempts to deploy other team members in the best possible way. Should be kept on the rear lines because honesty and lack of direct political melee skills makes the strategist very vulnerable to opposing fire if exposed to it.

The Hatchet Man: Master of dirty tricks and skullduggery. Utilizes misinformation, smear campaigns, and political kneecapping to take out enemy party members.

The PR Flack: Acts as a face but is nore focused on mitigating damage than going on the offensive. Expert in deflection and redirection. Sometimes is not an expert in these things and becomes an SNL punchline.

The Pollster: Maintains both internal polls that the Strategist and Analyst use to run campaigns, and occaisionally releases public polls that the Press Flack and Candidate use when talking to the public.

The Analyst: Tries to ascertain which constituents need to be contacted for maximal benefit.

The Megadonor: The power behind the scenes. Key buffer who allows everyone else to do their job. Preferably about 500 years old.

khadgar567
2017-06-26, 07:05 AM
And there is the link aka reincarnating butt monkey force to adventure even he doesnt wanted

weckar
2017-06-26, 07:20 AM
Pfft, all you people replying to the OP in the spirit it was intended clearly are just talking about mere tactical and story roles.

Party roles are:

The Candidate: Preferably telegenic and good at kissing babies. The face of the party and hopefully the one who wields power on the party's behalf. Sometimes takes on other roles in retirement.

The Committee Chairman: Dishes out money and resources for everyone else to use. Sometimes acts as a backup face but usually isn't very good at it.

The Strategist: Formulates strategy and attempts to deploy other team members in the best possible way. Should be kept on the rear lines because honesty and lack of direct political melee skills makes the strategist very vulnerable to opposing fire if exposed to it.

The Hatchet Man: Master of dirty tricks and skullduggery. Utilizes misinformation, smear campaigns, and political kneecapping to take out enemy party members.

The PR Flack: Acts as a face but is nore focused on mitigating damage than going on the offensive. Expert in deflection and redirection. Sometimes is not an expert in these things and becomes an SNL punchline.

The Pollster: Maintains both internal polls that the Strategist and Analyst use to run campaigns, and occaisionally releases public polls that the Press Flack and Candidate use when talking to the public.

The Analyst: Tries to ascertain which constituents need to be contacted for maximal benefit.

The Megadonor: The power behind the scenes. Key buffer who allows everyone else to do their job. Preferably about 500 years old.

You're getting it all wrong, clearly the correct party roles are:

the Organizer

the Drunk

the Designated Driver

the Friend who is not into parties but had nothing else to do tonight

The one who is going to have to clean it all up

Quertus
2017-06-26, 07:31 AM
So, hopefully on topic, and definitely works with the current theme, roles need not even be in the same genre: you can have the Striker, the Tank, the Tactician, and the Love Interest in the same party.


You're getting it all wrong, clearly the correct party roles are:

the Organizer

the Drunk

the Designated Driver

the Friend who is not into parties but had nothing else to do tonight

The one who is going to have to clean it all up

Did you miss my post? :smallconfused: