Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Webster Feb 04, 2009 9:42:16	I was responding to another thread, in which the person was complaining about the tactical combat roles of 4e. I got the impression that he's one of two types of players. Neither "type" is bad, but it seems that sometimes I feel like I'm getting stuck with a character that I might not enjoy playing. The first is the players that sits down at the table with HIS (or HER) character. It doesn't matter what anyone else wants to play, this player will only play the character HE (or SHE) wants with no consideration for the group dynamic. The second type (and I fall in to this category) is the one that always settles on whatever character role is needed for the betterment of the group. "We need a cleric". Boom, looks like I'm playing a cleric. "We need another fighter". Looks like I'm playing a fighter. "We really need a wizard on this one." So the question is, are you the type that plays what you want, or what the group needs?
#2 Hocus-Smokus Feb 04, 2009 9:47:06	With the 4 different 4E groups that I DM for, I do NOT require the various roles to be filled. If all the players wish to play strikers, I'm fine with it. If they want to play 1 of each role, that's cool, too. I'm not going to make my players play a PC they might not want to just to fill an imaginary "role" in the party. So far, this has not affected group synergy or combat prowess one little bit. Until I've seen...first hand...that filling all the roles is required, I'm not doing it. I want my players to, above all things, have fun. Pigeon-holing them into a specific role doesn't sound very fun. I would not want to join a group as a new player just to find out that they have all the roles filled except a Warlord, and if I'm to join the group, I HAVE to play one. That's a sure-fire walk-out if I've ever seen one.
#3 tedkordlives Feb 04, 2009 9:50:23	In the ongoing campaign I DM and the few off-hand games I have run, the players worked together to determine what they wanted to play. They knew what they needed, i.e. a healer, a heavy melee fighter, an arcane caster, a support combatant, etc. and then they all brainstormed character ideas until they all had a character that they were happy with, and who filled a rol that seemed important. They didn't pay much attention to the predetermined roles, so it wasn't "striker, defender, leader, controller." They all got to play the character they liked, and they all fill a niche. In the campaign in which I am a player, I originally wanted to play a Warlord, but two of the other players really wanted to play other "leader" classes. No one asked me to change, or really felt it needed to happen, but I decided that we needed something different. Eventually, I landed on two-weapon Ranger, which wasn't my first or even my second choice, but I am happy with it. Usually, going into a game, I come up with two or three character concepts that fill different roles, and choose the one that best suits the group. As for my players, I wouldn't stop them from overlapping class, concept, or role, but I know from experience that I enjoy playing much more if my character fills a specific niche in the group, either from a mechanical or RP standpoint. I find that my players have this same attitude.
#4 Bluenose Feb 04, 2009 10:00:51	I was responding to another thread, in which the person was complaining about the tactical combat roles of 4e. I got the impression that he's one of two types of players. Neither "type" is bad, but it seems that sometimes I feel like I'm getting stuck with a character that I might not enjoy playing. The first is the players that sits down at the table with HIS (or HER) character. It doesn't matter what anyone else wants to play, this player will only play the character HE (or SHE) wants with no consideration for the group dynamic. The second type (and I fall in to this category) is the one that always settles on whatever character role is needed for the betterment of the group. "We need a cleric". Boom, looks like I'm playing a cleric. "We need another fighter". Looks like I'm playing a fighter. "We really need a wizard on this one." So the question is, are you the type that plays what you want, or what the group needs? Yes. And no. The thing is, the group I'm part of has been together so long that we almost always fall into certain roles without really thinking about it much, at least for anything intended to be a long campaign. There's one character who always plays a stealthy lock-picking type (Rogue in D&D), one who always makes a lethal warrior type (previously a Fighter in D&D, but currently having fun with a Ranger), one who likes to be a leader-type who can fight and enhance others (Cleric, sometimes Bard, and has talked of Warlord recently). My characters are usually the special-effects type wizard. This transfers between game systems to, so in a SWSE game we're playing my character is a Jedi "Force-wizard" with lots of force powers but no real effort put in to being a better warrior-Jedi. Any deviating from their "expected" role does tend to throw group balance off. Now if we're getting a group together for a short campaign or a one-shot, them we'll be a lot more experimental. Then we'll usually co-ordinate beforehand depending on the sort of game it's going to be, but there's no particular pressure to fill every role because the characters aren't going to appear again, in fact we'll sometimes make a group we know is unbalanced just to see how it does. Sometimes that's part of the nature of the game too, that the characters are all of one group such as a thieves' guild and probably should mostly come from one class.
#5 batshido Feb 04, 2009 10:05:12	4E is kind of a new day for me in D&D terms, since I'm not DMing every single game I'm involved in anymore. I played 1 PC in the last 6 years before making the switch, and I've played a half-dozen in the new edition. I'd say I'm kind of a combination of the two. If I see a gap that obviously needs filled, I'll probably step into it. A good example being our group for KotS that didn't have a Wizard. That same group has a very control oriented Dragonborn Warlock with all the breath boosting feats, though, so she plays like a controller as well. Now that that's more apparent, I'm trading out my Wizie for a Warlord because our only healer at the moment is the Paladin. I'm more than happy to fill the holes that are there, but I'm always going to do it my way, as evidenced by my frontlining Wizard and my upcoming Temp HP maven Warlord. I've found that I can have fun playing just about anything as long as I put my own twist on it, so I figure if no one else is going to step up I might as well.
#6 malkav666 Feb 04, 2009 10:13:35	Webster, It really depends on the game for me. If its someones ongoing campaign I tend to try and make a character that complements the parties mechanical needs and that also fits int with the DMs story. My group also plays a couple of times a month a random dungeon campaign in which the dungeons and the encounters are generated randomly (the DM of this game is even random, settled with a roll off each time the party leaves the random dungeon or descends into a new floor). I tend to play whatever I want in that particular game or any game that I feel my character or the game is going to be short lived (in that game its not the game thats short lived. We have been playing that one off and on for over a decade and it works really well as a filler game when none of the story games are ready to go, but the characters, mine in particular have a nasty habit of dying). But even in a random or short game if the party talks about classes needed and want someone to fill a role I'll step up if no one else is on it. love, malkav
#7 nihzlet Feb 04, 2009 10:29:48	I do a little of both--I spend a lot of my free time making up character concepts, so when it comes time to make a party, I've usually got at least one character concept for each role. Unless I have one particular concept I really want to play, I'll play whichever role needs filling.
#8 vaalingrade_ashland_02 Feb 04, 2009 10:39:12	You used to need to be type 2 if you wanted the group to, ya know, not suck and die. Now, I don't see any real reason to be. I was never group 2. If there was a game happening, I'd make sure I was the first to talk character with the DM so I could get my bard or rogue on and if someone played a an enchanter or a paladin, it was thier own fault if there were problems.
#9 mouthymerc Feb 04, 2009 11:13:49	I don't get to play D&D often enough to really say which type I am. I've never settled though. I'm just as content playing something needed as playing a concept I came up with. I guess because I don't get to play as a PC too often I really do not worry too much. I get to play anything as DM.
#10 CCS Feb 04, 2009 11:33:58	So the question is, are you the type that plays what you want, or what the group needs? Well, what my group wants is happy players. And in our oppinion happy players start by playing characters they like. If you're not happy with the basic character you've got, then things will only get worse. Note; this happiness is not the same as just wanting better stats. If you don't enjoy playing class x, don't waste everybodies time trying to do it. We'd preffer whatever challenges an un-filled class presents to someone not enjoying the game. Anyways, although there might be some discussion, nobodies ever forced to play something at our tables just to round out a party/fill a gap. Sure, you can do that if you want to. But nobody expects it of you. And nobody will hold it against you if you choose to leave a role open in lieu of something you'd rather play. All that will happen is that the stories being told might unfold....differently. So yes, I play what I like. The only times I willingly play things don't I like are at cons as most of the games use pre-gen characters. There I'll simply take whatever sheet & enjoy the next 4-6 hours.
#11 Cpt_Micha Feb 04, 2009 11:37:13	Sometimes I pick my own, sometimes I wait for what everyone else picks. Especially if we are trying to bring in new gamers. I let the new guys pick first unless I have a character already in the campaign. Generally speaking I'll pick one of two roles that I want to play, and pick the one that isn't taken or is not yet doubled up. I'll generally speaking have a pair of Characters that I want to play in mind when I pick these two roles. And then go from there. It's the best happy medium I've found.
#12 Seeker95 Feb 04, 2009 11:48:33	So the question is, are you the type that plays what you want, or what the group needs? I am the type that seems to always have three or four characters "ready to drive" in case I have an opportunity to join a game. Then I just pick the one that most closely fills the role the party needs filled or padded. I guess that means I'm both at the same time. 4e makes this much easier for me. In 3e, there was one class that was never in my "ready to drive" file: the wizard. Too much bookkeeping for my tastes, regardless of the godhood power it might give me.
#13 Hocus-Smokus Feb 04, 2009 11:50:36	Well, what my group wants is happy players. And in our oppinion happy players start by playing characters they like. If you're not happy with the basic character you've got, then things will only get worse. Note; this happiness is not the same as just wanting better stats. If you don't enjoy playing class x, don't waste everybodies time trying to do it. We'd preffer whatever challenges an un-filled class presents to someone not enjoying the game. Anyways, although there might be some discussion, nobodies ever forced to play something at our tables just to round out a party/fill a gap. Sure, you can do that if you want to. But nobody expects it of you. And nobody will hold it against you if you choose to leave a role open in lieu of something you'd rather play. All that will happen is that the stories being told might unfold....differently. So yes, I play what I like. The only times I willingly play things don't I like are at cons as most of the games use pre-gen characters. There I'll simply take whatever sheet & enjoy the next 4-6 hours. Well said, and seconded for truth.
#14 Rant_Casey Feb 04, 2009 11:50:58	Previously, with RPGs, I would base my character largely on what information I had concerning the setting and the premise/theme of the RPG from the GM. I'd read the setting books, decide what did and did not fit into its cultures, and ask the GM about the premise and theme of the game, what sort of scenarios we might expect, so I could make a character that fits organically into that sort of plot, springs naturally from the world they live in, and fits in with the themes of the storyline. I've been unable to play this way in 4e, unfortunately. The rigid role system is a straightjacket, thus far, inhbiting player choice from being based on the setting, or specifics of the campaign, and imposing universal requirements for "leader, striker, controller, defender" which supercede anything else in the game. I'd much rather have people play characters that compell them, that resonate with the themes of the story, that have a dynamic effect on the world they spring from... but I can't, in 4e. Because the group needs a leader, a defender, etc. It's a shame when a system puts tactics above storytelling to such a profound degree.
#15 Cpt_Micha Feb 04, 2009 12:01:48	Your sarcasm knows no bounds does it Rant?
#16 tedkordlives Feb 04, 2009 12:05:04	I've been unable to play this way in 4e, unfortunately. The rigid role system is a straightjacket, thus far, inhbiting player choice from being based on the setting, or specifics of the campaign, and imposing universal requirements for "leader, striker, controller, defender" which supercede anything else in the game. I'd much rather have people play characters that compell them, that resonate with the themes of the story, that have a dynamic effect on the world they spring from... but I can't, in 4e. Because the group needs a leader, a defender, etc. It's a shame when a system puts tactics above storytelling to such a profound degree. Justify this statement with facts or never make it again.
#17 ethelion Feb 04, 2009 12:06:48	We'd all have 2-4 classes we want to play and make decisions based on that.
#18 SYB Feb 04, 2009 12:25:56	Previously, with RPGs, I would base my character largely on what information I had concerning the setting and the premise/theme of the RPG from the GM. I'd read the setting books, decide what did and did not fit into its cultures, and ask the GM about the premise and theme of the game, what sort of scenarios we might expect, so I could make a character that fits organically into that sort of plot, springs naturally from the world they live in, and fits in with the themes of the storyline. I've been unable to play this way in 4e, unfortunately. The rigid role system is a straightjacket, thus far, inhbiting player choice from being based on the setting, or specifics of the campaign, and imposing universal requirements for "leader, striker, controller, defender" which supercede anything else in the game. I'd much rather have people play characters that compell them, that resonate with the themes of the story, that have a dynamic effect on the world they spring from... but I can't, in 4e. Because the group needs a leader, a defender, etc. It's a shame when a system puts tactics above storytelling to such a profound degree. That statement is complete hoo-ey and everyone knows it. In previous editions, you needed a cleric (or other healer), wizard (or similar flexible spellcaster), a fighter (or similar front line damage dealer) and a rogue (or similar skill mook). In fact, just about every RPG I have ever played has had a necessary set of individuals for your party to not fall apart. In Shadowrun, you need a mage, a tech guy, a face, and a massive damage dealer (usually a street samurai or a physical adept). Different games end up with different party dynamics, but all games have a minimum necessary dynamic or else your party is hosed. -SYB
#19 crazysamaritan Feb 04, 2009 12:27:37	I'm more than happy to fill the holes that are there, but I'm always going to do it my way, as evidenced by my frontlining Wizard and my upcoming Temp HP maven Warlord. I've found that I can have fun playing just about anything as long as I put my own twist on it, so I figure if no one else is going to step up I might as well. This. I can't help but want to "fix" any "holes" in the group. But I neither require it of my players, or ever play a character I do not choose myself.
#20 mplindustries Feb 04, 2009 14:37:41	In 4e, my favorite is absolutely Warlord (Tactical to be precise). Every party needs a tactical warlord, whether they know it or not. I would also happily play another Leader or Controller, however, which is also something every group needs, especially something like a Cleric with controllerlike abilities. I'm always intrigued by interesting new ways to handle the existant roles. I'm currently fairly interested in Beastmaster rangers, swordmages, and the new avenger. However, I realize that while I will want to sit and stat them out and talk about how awesome it'd be if this and this worked together, they just deal damage and thats...just not that interesting. Even Artful Dodger, with its focus on forced movement, is just not that exciting. So if the group needs me to play a striker, they are both wrong and out of luck. In the end, I always want to play what the group needs, its just not necessarily what they think they need.
#21 rikiji Feb 04, 2009 16:20:27	I tend to be flexible and bend towards what's best for the group. Fortunately the majority of the people I play with regularly are the same way. In 4E, all of the roles are fairly attractive so it's no big deal and I usually get to play something I'm interested in regardless. In other game systems it can sometimes be a bit of a chore.
#22 satori Feb 04, 2009 16:22:12	Interesting question. Personally, I used to always fill the role that was needed. 20 years of heal-bot clerics and meat shields later, and I'm realizing that "Bad Gaming" is worse than "No Gaming". So...if there are glaring holes because certain players choose to ignore the "accepted" party make-up, then I'll try to create a PC that fills the roles that also intrigues me. It's always more fun to have a character that not only interests you, but works well with a team and is "invaluable". However, if I simply can't create a concept that appeals to me, I'll play something else that approaches the class role differently than a similar character. i.e. I'll make a TWF Ranger instead of creating another Archer Ranger, etc. Unfortunately, the standard new PC line is usually "You need to make a healer"... ...to which I immediately turn around and find another game. Can you tell I'm a little jaded? ... Having said that, I do get a little frustrated when some players simply refuse to acknowledge the party dynamic...or refuse to play anything other than a very specific character type. Of course, it is a game...and as long as everyone has fun, nothing else matters.
#23 drunk_yoda Feb 04, 2009 16:25:08	I usually play a head on defender... something that deals tons of damage and can sand by himself just fine but in 4e I decided to play a Wizard/Swordmage and I love it... he's witty, a jackass and can fight just fine without any help. But to get on on topic... i try and find a role that the party needs and that I love, I hate support so if I'm stuck with a support I try and find a way to fit what I like.
#24 AaronOfBarbaria Feb 04, 2009 18:12:29	I always play the character that I want to play... especially since the rest of my group won't even admit what they want to play until someone else has decided what to play. Some of the players I game with will even go as far as to not mention any ideas they have for a character until everyone else has settled on their characters... it irritates me as a DM, I always expect someone to get bored of their character because they only made it to "fill a whole."
#25 emwasick Feb 04, 2009 18:21:36	This is too perfect! Watch Rant_Casey refute Rant_Casey. In a span of edit:minutes hours (I read them minutes apart, but this doesn't count) he has presented two *completely opposite* viewpoints. Getting sloppy there. Previously, with RPGs, I would base my character largely on what information I had concerning the setting and the premise/theme of the RPG from the GM. I'd read the setting books, decide what did and did not fit into its cultures, and ask the GM about the premise and theme of the game, what sort of scenarios we might expect, so I could make a character that fits organically into that sort of plot, springs naturally from the world they live in, and fits in with the themes of the storyline. I've been unable to play this way in 4e, unfortunately. The rigid role system is a straightjacket, thus far, inhbiting player choice from being based on the setting, or specifics of the campaign, and imposing [highlight]universal requirements for "leader, striker, controller, defender" which supercede anything else in the game.[/highlight] I'd much rather have people play characters that compell them, that resonate with the themes of the story, that have a dynamic effect on the world they spring from... [highlight]but I can't, in 4e. Because the group needs a leader, a defender, etc.[/highlight] It's a shame when a system puts tactics above storytelling to such a profound degree. From the "I'm starting to hate Strikers..." thread in which the OP laments that everyone is his game wants to play a striker. no the group i run and the group I am in is fairly spread out class/role wise. if they want to all play strikers let them.. just make them deal with the consequences. jimthegray says here that an all-striker party would have negative consequences. Check out the reply: There aren't any consequences, actually, in my experience. The game flows faster, and fights are won quicker. The PCs use less resources, as well. Dead enemies don't deal any damage. Hmm, I wonder what's goin' on here.
#26 OleOneEye Feb 04, 2009 18:35:13	That statement is complete hoo-ey and everyone knows it. In previous editions, you needed a cleric (or other healer), wizard (or similar flexible spellcaster), a fighter (or similar front line damage dealer) and a rogue (or similar skill mook). In fact, just about every RPG I have ever played has had a necessary set of individuals for your party to not fall apart. In Shadowrun, you need a mage, a tech guy, a face, and a massive damage dealer (usually a street samurai or a physical adept). Different games end up with different party dynamics, but all games have a minimum necessary dynamic or else your party is hosed. -SYB You reached the correct conclusion that Rant Casey's statement was incorrect, SYB, but for the absolutely wrong reason. Prior editions did not require a party to have a cleric/fighter/wizard/rogue and 4th edition does not require a party to have a leader/defender/controller/striker. I am actually baffled trying to figure out what type of hyper-structured dungeon-mastering would require such a rigid approach to party composition, but would suspect it may come bundled with players that refuse to do anything unless it is an ability written on their character sheet.
#27 rauric Feb 04, 2009 18:40:34	What the groups needs guy right here. Though for 4E I only want to play leaders.
#28 johnnii Feb 04, 2009 18:46:33	I always choose the class or role that isn't already taken in a party, simply because : 1. I like being "unique" in the party setup 2. I have always a multitude of different archetype concepts in my mind to just pick and choose from when I go down from the DM chair.
#29 rauric Feb 04, 2009 18:48:01	Hmm, I wonder what's goin' on here. Perhaps he just likes being contrary. ;)
#30 tusz Feb 04, 2009 19:09:07	I'm an odd mix of the two. I usually DM instead of playing, so I have all these ideas for different characters I want to play. Usually I find myself unable to decide which I want to play most until someone finally says "look, we have a ranger, a wizard, a warlord, and a rogue. How about that paladin you mentioned?"
#31 Artifact Feb 05, 2009 3:13:22	It depends. If the other players are new to D&D, I'll wait to see what they choose and then fill in. If the others have a few games under their belt however, then I'm more likely to pick what I want to play and let them fill in for a change ;), 'specially if I have something specific in mind.
#32 jimthegray Feb 05, 2009 3:57:05	I was responding to another thread, in which the person was complaining about the tactical combat roles of 4e. I got the impression that he's one of two types of players. Neither "type" is bad, but it seems that sometimes I feel like I'm getting stuck with a character that I might not enjoy playing. The first is the players that sits down at the table with HIS (or HER) character. It doesn't matter what anyone else wants to play, this player will only play the character HE (or SHE) wants with no consideration for the group dynamic. The second type (and I fall in to this category) is the one that always settles on whatever character role is needed for the betterment of the group. "We need a cleric". Boom, looks like I'm playing a cleric. "We need another fighter". Looks like I'm playing a fighter. "We really need a wizard on this one." So the question is, are you the type that plays what you want, or what the group needs? I usually come to the table with a few idea's and then after my fellow players have decided ehat they want I then choose one of my idea's that I think will fit with the group.
#33 Kaldric Feb 05, 2009 4:14:07	I find that the "role" system in 4e isn't particularly important. 1. If your group is striker-heavy, you'll kill monsters fast enough to need less healing, less tanking, and strikers generally have okay defensive options to keep from getting killed. 2. If your group is defender-heavy, you'll mitigate more damage than usual, need less healing, do a lot of your own healing, and defenders tend to be pretty good for damage. 3. If your group is leader-heavy, you'll heal through pretty much anything, so it doesn't matter too much what else you do, and again, leaders do okay damage. 4. If your group is controller-heavy... eh, still difficult, with only 1 controller really available. You might have some problems with low damage, low ability to take damage, but who knows? --- One of these days, I'm going to require players to mark what class/build they want to play on a piece of paper, without talking to each other, and run a game that way, see if it's even a little more difficult than putting together a so-called "balanced" party.
#34 Chiba_Monkey Feb 05, 2009 5:48:34	You reached the correct conclusion that Rant Casey's statement was incorrect, SYB, but for the absolutely wrong reason. Prior editions did not require a party to have a cleric/fighter/wizard/rogue and 4th edition does not require a party to have a leader/defender/controller/striker. Unless you had a DM who was tailoring every single campaign or encounter to account for a group not having a healer, you needed a healer. Challenge Ratings, monster hps, etc. ESPECIALLY at high levels, rather assumed that players have access to some kind of healing. And while the Front-Line-Meat-Shield type guy may not have been a necessity, someone being a spellcaster certainly was. This applies to pretty much every published adventure, and was common among adventures designed at home by DMs. I, myself, as a DM, tried to make sure that whatever game group I assembled and ran a game for had at least a healer, a caster, and one or two physical damage types, hopefully ones who could stand to take a few hits (as opposed to the monk, for example). While I did not find the rogue class strictly necessary, a lockpicker/trap disabler was usually a nice thing, but not what I would deem a necessity. I am actually baffled trying to figure out what type of hyper-structured dungeon-mastering would require such a rigid approach to party composition, but would suspect it may come bundled with players that refuse to do anything unless it is an ability written on their character sheet. Well, if one is playing a fighter, and one's character sheet does not dictate the ability to call upon divine aid to cure wounds or raise the dead, I'd pretty much rule out that player doing those things. Maybe that's just me. In regardd to the OP's question: I usually DM. But as such, I do try and make sure that party roles are filled if I am going to have 5 or more players. This has never actually been a problem for me, especially since the advent of 4e and the warlord. The days of "you're the last guy to join, you gotta make the cleric" are over. Now I have a new player join and was disappointed that the party already had a warlord. When I told him that the party could have two, he demurred, not wanting to double up on classes. There's always that guy who loves to play rogues, or paladins, or wizards (when I play, I mostly prefer wizards, but that was 3e, now I think I'd love to try warlord or swordmage). If you can get a good mix of these people, then you should have no conflict with party structure and still meeting the four "cornerstones" of class role makeup. Most of the people here seem to have a mature and well-balanced view on this matter. That being that they are flexible enough to have a couple of character concepts that fit into different roles, willing to adapt to what the party needs and still do something they want. I have one guy in my game who's only played rogues, REALLY loves being the sneaky, back-stabby guy who does lots of damage and is conniving and scheming. Well, no one else wanted to play the rogue anyway, so he was thrilled. When my game transitioned from the nentir vale to my home campaign world (which I just finished fine-tuning for 4e), he decided to branch out and made a Beastmaster Ranger. Bottom Line: Having fun is the most important thing. And it's the DM's job to sort of police everyone else. But a group that lacks any kind of leader role, or has no defenders, is going to present serious complications in combat, and that's going to mean a lot more headaches on the DM's part. When people say "everyone should have fun", do you include the DM? Be Honest. Most people, when they make that statement really mean "as long as all the players have fun, who cares if the DM's pulling his hair out?" That said, compromise shouldn't be too hard. If you have "That Guy" show up who refuses to play anything but a dwarven shield fighter, and the part already had a swordmage, rogue, wizard, and Tempest Fighter, then maybe one of the 3 fighter guys might have an idea for a warlord or cleric they want to play, even if it means one guy who already had his character done re-making one. While I personally think it's fair that the person who joins the group last has a little less pull in that scenario, I also try and make sure the first 4 characters made fill the roles needed, and if someone else comes along and says "I wanna be a cleric!", then maybe the other guy had another idea that he likes more and wants to try. I think the real bottom line is: Have fun, but don't be a dick.
#35 negative_hp Feb 05, 2009 6:08:09	I'd say its a little bit of both. I tend to play LFR more frequently and I have a couple of characters from different roles (defender, controller). If we are defender heavy I play my controller-- or vice versa. That being said, I will still play my defender if there is one other in the party, even if we lack a controller. From what I've seen if there are only 4 players at a table one of the roles is usually not filled, but if there are 6 players all of the roles are. It seems like all of the players understand the value of a balanced party, but no one will demand someone play a particular role.
#36 syrsuro Feb 05, 2009 7:15:08	As a DM: When we first started playing, I put alot of emphasis on having a balanced party. Now that we have been playing for quite awhie I leave it up to the players to play whatever they want. They seem to see some roles as more important than others and choose accordingly. As a Player: I offer a limited choice to the group, based on what I want to play. My current 'stable' of characters includes a striker, a defender and a leader (all of about the same level). If the group so far lacks a leader, I play the leader. If it lacks a defender, I play the defender. Otherwise I play my striker. The others, likewise, have multiple characters to choose from so the start of play is typically spend figuring out who is playing what. As for 4E versus prior versions: 4E does not require all roles to be filled any more or any less than the earlier editions did. In both 4E and earlier editions it is/was a Very Good Idea to have a balanced party. But it is not required. Rather, having a balanced party (in all editions) makes encouters easy and leads to more obvious tactics while having some roles missing requires more intelligent play and planning on the part of the players. With one difference: In earlier editions, spell casters had the ability to make some classes redundant. This ability has been removed so that the roles are more closely tied to their respective classes and cannot be made obsolete by the spellcasters. This is a Good Thing and is a change that ought to be carried back into the earlier editions, not decried as a flaw in 4E. Carl
#37 molepunch Feb 05, 2009 7:31:56	Previously, with RPGs, I would base my character largely on what information I had concerning the setting and the premise/theme of the RPG from the GM. I'd read the setting books, decide what did and did not fit into its cultures, and ask the GM about the premise and theme of the game, what sort of scenarios we might expect, so I could make a character that fits organically into that sort of plot, springs naturally from the world they live in, and fits in with the themes of the storyline. I've been unable to play this way in 4e, unfortunately. The rigid role system is a straightjacket, thus far, inhbiting player choice from being based on the setting, or specifics of the campaign, and imposing universal requirements for "leader, striker, controller, defender" which supercede anything else in the game. I'd much rather have people play characters that compell them, that resonate with the themes of the story, that have a dynamic effect on the world they spring from... but I can't, in 4e. Because the group needs a leader, a defender, etc. It's a shame when a system puts tactics above storytelling to such a profound degree. Good grief! Really, it's like you take every opportunity to--OH NEVERMIND! Sigh. I can play any character that suits the story, but I tend to try to find a character that will get along with everyone else, or has something in common with someone.
#38 Darkwolf_Bloodsbane Feb 05, 2009 15:12:05	The second type (and I fall in to this category) is the one that always settles on whatever character role is needed for the betterment of the group. "We need a cleric". Boom, looks like I'm playing a cleric. "We need another fighter". Looks like I'm playing a fighter. "We really need a wizard on this one." I fall into this category as well. (for the most part.) And I'm glad I do. I never would have created my favorite all time character: Mindarthis Silverburg, Eladrin Tactical Warlord. My group needed either a leader or a defender, and I chose Warlord, because I wanted to play something besides a Cleric. One session later, and the character won a special place in my heart. 5 levels and several brushes with death later, I consider him to be a God of Awesome. And Death. And then there's my LFR chcarcter: Lazam Stringer, Halfling Bravura Warlord. Personality based off of Kamina from TTGL. He is insane, ballsy, and very intimidating. (+9, will be higher once I can fit Focus.) He has successfully armwrestled an orc, PLOWED through a cave-in, and killed 8 monsters at once. My Next character will be either a Beastranger or something Primal. Maybe a Warden.
#39 Arbitrary_Aardvark Feb 05, 2009 15:38:44	Some of the time I fall in love with a miniature I've just painted and then decide what kind of character to run based on that.