How would Veeky Forums feel about a tabletop game that literally designs its classes like an MMO?

>Skirmish scale wargame

D&D 4e is an RPG, and is no less an RPG than any other edition of D&D. It doesn't even fucking work as a wargame.

Maybe they will learn and 6e will be good

MMOs that follow that triangle are such trash. Why simplify everything to that degree if you're not trying to make a quick buck off of a complacent userbase?

I do suppose that the division of labour works nicely in tabletops but I prefer nuance.

Seriously though, if you're not healing, dealing damage, OR at the very least distracting enemies and getting the pressure off your teammates by "tanking"...what in the everloving fuck ARE you doing?

Ideally, classes should have a function in combat that they're good at, assuming you are using a class based system.

To use 4e as an example, it's probably the only edition where a baseline Fighter actually has a way to defend his party members that isn't standing in front of them and hoping they'll be attacked.

In some ways, the 4e Fighter is also the least like an MMO tank compared to other editions. In AD&D or 3.5, the only way a Fighter can protect a party member by default is by simply having more health and AC, and 'tanking' it directly.

In 4e, you instead defend more proactively. You attack an enemy, giving it a penalty if it tries to swing at anyone else, and taking a slice out of them if they do. However, Defenders in 4e aren't exactly tanks, since they actually want enemies to sometimes violate their marks. If you play it strictly like MMO aggro, any Defender will quickly run out of health and healing and will be missing out on a lot of extra value.

In any case, it would be worse design to simply have classes that only do damage, while other classes get to do all 3 depending on what spells they prepared that day.

Hampering enemies by status effects at range. Or giving buffs or extra actions to your allies.

Playing the role of an actual person living in a fictional world, not projecting your idea of a video game avatar into dice-roll-paperwork.

You metagaming faggots killed the entire fucking hobby, and you still don't fucking get it.

Your false dichotomy is showing

>wanting to have teamwork and defined classes in our cooperative dungeon combat simulator is BAD and WRONG

If 90% of the rules are going to be about combat, then they should at least be good rules.

Fuck off with your constant 4e threads and try an actual rpg

At this point that kind of thing sounds like an abused spouse explaining away black eyes

There is no useful definition of RPG which excludes 4e while including every other edition of D&D.

The concept is simple but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The thing that differentiates a good RPG from a bad one is how fun, intriguing, and deep the combat is on a base level, and how well it scales IMO. The overall concept of the three "quintessential roles" does not take away anything from the game. That's like saying "oh, this fighting game sucks because the only way you win is by doing more damage than your opponent". It doesn't work like that. The core concept means NOTHING except to anchor your game to a central point so you don't create stupid useless bullshit.
I'd still put that under "healing" I suppose. Healing kinda extends to buffs/debuffs and whatnot.
>hurr hurr wanting good combat means that roleplay has to suffer even though they're completely isolated

Controllers
Artillery
Skirmishers
Leaders
Support

4e's core concept is based off of this. Whether you are one of the plebs that think that must mean "Video game" is another matter.
But Tank DPS and Healer by another name are still the same.

>Munchkins are still trying to justify ruining tabletop.

I guess at least you made a lot of Capitalists a lot of money.

I'd argue that they're not isolated- Good combat systems add to and enhance the roleplaying experience by letting you convey your characters personality through their actions, giving you mechanically tangible consequences connected to how they react to a crisis.

>even though they're completely isolated
This is your problem. You play D&D like it's a JRPG.

It WoW with dice. 4th e was actually kinda fun but there were basically 3 classes with different flavors and no practical mechanisms for roleplay or customization.

If thats your thing rock on. But in comparison to more robust systems that offer a tonne of agency like the white wolf games, 4th e looks pretty thin.

Lying isn't cool, user.

Eh, crowd control (debuffing) is more like tanking and buffing is more towards healing, definitely. In any case, you can RP that perfectly, especially if you ramp up that for people to actually be able to do the fun shit that works, and if you amp up the realism it can get quite like a simpler version of XCOM's gameplay.

tl;dr: good, wargame-like combat in RPGs is not a bad thing, especially since it can be represented.

no u?

>still only trying to use roleplay as weak justification for optimal abuse of rule systems

You and yours killed everything that was good about TTRPGs.

>Wanting my character, a competent hero with the skill necessary to do their job and do it well, to be mechanically represented in a competent way that lets them do their job well, is rollplaying!

Yeah, and for the teamwork based dungeon-crawler that D&D pitches itself as and many other fantasy games lean towards, the group should default to being people who bring something to the table.

It wouldn't be much fun playing a knight who can't do something as simple as stopping a bunch of goblins from running past him and killing his friends, and it would leave a sour taste if the mage of the group can simply step forward and solve all the day's problems without anyone else needing to contribute.

Having roles helps reinforce the idea that the party is a team of specialists that need eachother to succeed.

You think the MMO model is realistic?
>please hold my keks, there are to many for me to handle

I completely agree. I was just arguing against the idea that RP and combat is disconnected.

Decent point. But a lot of the times, things might not truly convey how your character is feeling anyways? The class structure is rigid so you'd have to reflavor some things to make sense for characters that don't "fit the mold"

For example: in one of our campaigns, a fellow player has the most nonchalant and passive barbarian ever. How does he roleplay having incessant rage? Being genuinely angry at his opponent? The answer is he doesn't. Because he doesn't fit the mold. He just rages and that's it. Little to no roleplay in combat
Also, right now I play a rigid, militaristic, monk who ultimately wants to see his leader own a glorious kingdom. What subclass do I take?....path of the open palm. It makes little sense but I'm trapped in this box where I can't roleplay these decisions in combat, because that kind of monk doesn't *exist* in the game.

>It wouldn't be much fun playing a knight who can't do something as simple as stopping a bunch of goblins from running past him and killing his friends, and it would leave a sour taste if the mage of the group can simply step forward and solve all the day's problems without anyone else needing to contribute.
>basically any 3.5 game

That being said Id take a game that offers me agency than a game that assigns me a role. It works for a video game but a pnprpg that emphasizes both combat and roleplay should have a nice blend. Which is why 3.5 is still the best version.

How does that logically follow at all? Assigning combat roles doesn't take away agency in any way.

>I need to win at every game and can't even handle fictional failures.

And here you go into false dichotomies again. Wanting my character to be competent doesn't mean I can never fail, just that when it comes to my area of expertise and competence, I have a reasonable chance of success and being able to contribute to the group.

I want to play a unique charachter with a unique playstyle
>SURE! please select from our robust options!
>lol jk you either take damage, deal damage, or be healbitch.

>3 classes with different flavors
>no practical mechanisms for roleplay or customization

Let's just analyze the class with the least people in the game: the Defender.

>Fighter
Hypercompetent soldier that excels at protecting allies by not giving enemies an opening when they try to move away.

>Paladin
Blessed champion of the gods that can bless his own allies, protect himself and can lay divine punishment over multiple enemies.

>Warden
Tribal champion that infuses himself with the spirits of nature, manifesting them in ways that directly alter the field of battle.

>Swordmage
Arcane specialist that uses his blade to canalize magic, using his magic to soften up attacks towards anyone, and also to move very quickly across the battlefield.

>Battlemind
Psionic warrior that excels at dashing across the battlefield at really fast speeds and fucking with enemies' heads.

Not the notion of a MMO model, but an average army 3-4 people fireteam is composed of people with different skillsets working together to protect one another and cover weak points. You don't have everyone trying to coordinate everything, a full sniper fireteam or anything like that.

>It's ok to be a limp-wristed villager while your friend is a super powerful wizard who can bend reality with his dick!
It's more about keeping everyone roughly on the same level and being able to do different things that actually matter.

Post your most recent character.

So you know nothing about how the system actually works, got it.

Having roles doesn't mean not having unique playstyles. It actually gives more room to create robust frameworks for character mechanics, as well as letting players customise characters within those frameworks, gaining extra capabilities outside them without fearing that they'll lose effectiveness for branching out.

There are many methods to do this, also you're forgetting buffing and debuffing.

If you think that is necessary, you are missing the point of role playing entirely. Gandalf fought in the same battles as Merry and Pippin.

Why?

Lets be realistic, those are all just different flavors of the same fucking tank.
>striker: DPS
>Leader: Healbitch
>Controller: CC

All were missing is a spare striker or controller and were ready to run our instance!

So that we can all judge your as being a powergaming roll player that we already know that you are.

What are you even talking about? Lord of the Rings wasn't an RPG.

This.
Ya, and how do you think the players playing Merry and Pippin feel, getting absolutely outclassed and cucked by a great wizard like Gandalf?...all for the sake of "roleplay"

Balance is really fucking important unless you're playing with an extremely experienced group that doesn't mind big power gap differences.

They all function in completely different ways, is the point, which torpedoes the argument he was replying to.

Ikr, it was just a dumb movie for kids!

Veeky Forums hated 4e, so you know.

But since Pathfinder went full furfag and people actually tried 5e and learned that shit painted white is still shit when you try to eat it, there's been a bit of a renaissance for 4e.

Other user, but: In a role playing GAME, the latter should be as important as the former. Otherwise one would do theater/freeform, if the latter is lacking. Or go play some vidya, if the former is lacking.

Not that the MMO triangle is a good framework. But sure beats no framework at all.

That's an incredibly reductionistic point of view and you know that. That's like saying every caster is the same in 3.5.

Oh wait, casters in 3.5 were far, far more like one another than casters between 4e because their spells were the fucking same, while 4e has actually different spells for casters and they behave differently.

Which is where you get characters with secondary rolls, or effects that don't strictly fit into the main category of what you're doing.

That said

>unique playstyle
>class based system

The entire point of classes is to give you a basic framework that your character fits into. You can have stuff within that that sets you apart, but at the end of the day, your class should be able to bring something to the table.

If you've already come to a conclusion, why should I bother?

And it's not like if I posted a 4e character sheet you'd have a clue how to interpret it anyway.

Well, you got it right on the movie part. I heard it was also a book, but I dunno.

>Balance is really fucking important unless you're playing with an extremely experienced group that doesn't mind big power gap differences.

Why do you think this is? Because the old games had the possibility of big power gap differences and then assholes like you broke out the cheese and whine because all you know how to play is power fantasies.

was a reply to that post:

You don't know a damn thing about mechanics dont you?

They all fulfill the same exact functional roll, with just enough variation to provide the illusion of choice.

Im sorry your favorite tabletop is just WoW with dice. If thats your thing rock on, but as far as tabletops go it offers the least agency.

>I'm a powergaming faggot, but I don't want to show proof on the internet and lose this bullshit argument.

Fuck off, powergaming faggot. You ruined Dungeons and Dragons for the rest of us.

Thanks for proving your ignorance. We can safely ignore you now.

Have you tried not playing a broken system instead of crying?

This isn't even an argument you fucking troglodyte

>People being able to equally contribute in a team based cooperative game is a bad thing

crybabby powergaming metagaming faggot Munchkins like you killed RPGs and will never understand why because you are too fucking retarded to even realize how retarded you are.

Its cute you think 4th e char sheets are complicated or esoteric.

To much truth for ya huh? I did have some fun with 4th e but in comparison with whitewolf shadowrun or even 3.5 it was unbearably restrictive.

>If you aren't ignoring the 'Game' half of 'Roleplaying Game', you're doing it wrong

okay

Have you tried not jerking off about how powerful your imaginary wizard is and playing a game for the mutual enjoyment of everyone involved instead of trying to win at something where there are literally no stakes involved at all and that will never have any effects outside of the imaginary lives of imaginary characters in an imaginary world?

Your level of ass pain could be seen from space famalam.

No one is forcing you to play 4e you gigantic cockstain.

They're not that complicated, but you clearly know nothing about the system so it would be meaningless to you.

The Defenders in 4e I would argue excel even more in terms of different playstyles.

The Fighter wants to be surrounded by enemies, and be striking them so that he can punish them with heavy damage when they try and move away.

The Paladin prefers to challenge the biggest guy in the fight, and take him on in 1v1 combat, his mark functioning from a range as he nullifies the guy's attempts to function.

The Warden wants to be in a big group like the fighter, but doesn't punish with damage. Instead, he wants to root them all in place, make them punch him, so that he can heal himself, buff his allies, and become even more unkillable. Probably the only direct 'tank' in the game.

The Swordmage wants to mark someone, and then zip as far away as possible so that the enemy is either wasting time chasing them, or is forced to violate their mark and let the swordmage get their effects off.

The Battlemind's mark punishment mainly involves staying right on the enemy's heels, constantly hammering them down in a relentless advance if they try to move away.

In spite of them all having the same job, they accomplish it in different ways.

You were the kind of faggot little kid who would claim you had a force field when playing cops and robbers, aren't you?

Maybe I want to play a defender that protects his allies by creating zones and causing enemies not to move; maybe I want to play a defender that protects his allies by rushing to them at the last moment possible and redirecting the attack; maybe I want one that can protect his allies by softening the blow of an attack from far away.

Those are all very different ways of protecting your allies.

Why did it kill RPGs? No circular logic, what inherent thing of RPGs did "crybabby powergaming metagaming faggot Munchkins" kill?

You powergaming faggots ruined an entire industry full of games. There is literally nothing worth playing because you faggots ruined the entire industry.

Nah, I'd just argue that if someone got a force field, everyone else should get something roughly equivalent. Y'know, balance.

The Paladin just really wants to draw the attention of every enemy while challenging one guy in particular and the Swordmage really wants to stop one guy from afar while doing his best to root another guy in place.

If you don't already understand why metagaming faggots ruined RPG's, you never will.

>The games everyone likes are bad because I say so!
>All these people making new products and making money off new audiences are awful!

Yes, I'm doing it right now and casters a shit.
You're still crying because you're bad a system that wasn't made for you to do what you want, though. Try something else or learn how to play.

No, please, enlighten me, oh great grognard, for I am a 19-year-old moron who wasn't around for the great days of old where people actually roleplayed.

My fellow negro i've been dming since you were likely in diapers. 4th E was a pleasure to run but it was fucking weak to play. The most fun I had was with Avenger because it basically instagibs BBEG's, which is always good fun for DM tears. But it got boring faaaaaaaaaaaast.
But they all do this
>stand in one place and taunt to tank damage
in one way or another. The Druid, warrior, paladerp, and deathknight all tanked differently as well. But they were all still bloody tanks. Your agency is restricted to your roll. The biggest problem I had playing 4th ed is combat is pointless unless you have at least 4 players to fill all the rolls. Some of my favorite time at the table is when one player gets into shenanigans on their lonesome and isnt fucked because all he/she knows how to do is soak arrows.

What the fuck does metagaming have to do with any of this?

>But they all do this
>>stand in one place and taunt to tank damage

No, they literally don't. Half of them don't even want to stand in one place, and most of them don't even want to be tanking damage, since that means they're dying without getting any benefit out of their mark.

Stand in one place and tank applies to the Warden and literally only the Warden.

Man, all those years, some actual play experience, and you still completely failed to understand the system? That's just sad.

ok squire, clearly I don't know anything about mechanics or game design. Therefore my legitimate critiques of wow with dice are facile. Master debater you are.
Yes some move around a bit but its still all around damage mitigation. That is your role comrade, do as your fucking told XD

>You're bad at playing dice-roll-paperwork.

You still think that being "good" at dice-roll-paperwork matters. Good on you, you can do middle-school-tier probability!

You will never get it and me and mine will always hate you and everything that you represent. You killed the entire industry.

You're clearly demonstrating you don't understand the game by the misinformation you keep spouting. It's just makes your claims of experience even more pathetic.

>The biggest problem I had playing 4th ed is combat is pointless unless you have at least 4 players to fill all the rolls. Some of my favorite time at the table is when one player gets into shenanigans on their lonesome and isnt fucked because all he/she knows how to do is soak arrows.

4e combat is actually still quite functional even with only a 3 or 2 person party, or if you're missing a role. The DMG actually gives rather extensive advice on what to do for groups that are missing something by modifying enemies or accounting for the altered playstyle.

As for running off solo, that's often terrible to do in RPGs anyway since there are 3+ other people at the table who are forced to sit around while you jack off, but even in those cases it's no different than any other edition. Just because the Defender doesn't have team-mates doesn't mean they can't make use of their general abilities of crowd control to help themselves and grind down what they're fighting.

The thing you don't seem to be getting is that having a role doesn't mean the class is 100% only that role and 0% anything else. Being a defender does not magically make you into an unmoving brick that enemies are magically compelled to attack.

The only reason why "system balance" ever matters is because of metagaming powergaming faggots.

Steve Jackson Games made Munchkin to mock these people. The statistics are supposed to be tangential to what you do in the game, but these morons use them as the center stage.

Balance in a game where if someone points their finger at you and says BANG you die?

This is my first post in this thread, but that is kind of a silly point to make here. I'm not sure who is trolling who at this point.

>stop it! your shitting on the thing I like!
the post.

>killed the entire industry
>larger and more profitable than ever

>Yes some move around a bit but its still all around damage mitigation

Yeah, it's damage mitigation. Defenders help the party by preventing enemies from dealing as much damage to their allies, and punishing them for doing so.

What's the problem with this? You picked a Class. That class excels at defending others. If you wanted to be dealing lots of damage, you should have picked a class that excelled at doing that.

What character or concept are you incapable of playing because the game mechanics support a class being good at a particular task?

So you don't actually understand why it matters, got it.

Hint- It has nothing to do with optimisation and powergaming. There's a reason 3.PF is still the favourite system of optimisers and powergamers everywhere.

Fast Food is larger and more profitable than gourmet cafes, too.

How many times do I have to point out I know 4th E has "some" variation. But by its bloody design it is meant to be played in a very specific way. I found that lack of agency highly restrictive. If you don't and you are okay with the amount of agency 4th e grants than good on you.

Roles in and of themselves restrict agency. Its like the designers are saying
>you will play this game our way not your way
and I don't like that.