D&D General D&D is a Team Sport. What are the positions?

[Reynard]

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that group of players should cover the bases for whatever it is they will being doing -- dungeon crawling, wilderness exploration, urban heists, whatever -- when they sit down at session 0 and create characters. I find it frustrating as a player and as a GM when a player refuses to play an appropriate team member.

 

[overgeeked]

As I think more on it, I feel that DnD shouldn't really have roles - because if there are roles, those roles need to be filled. And most players I've played with, especially new players, aren't interested in playing whatever the party happens to need. They want to play a character they've made, who fits the narrative tropes they're drawn to, and play that character through a story. Battles are part of the story, but the battles should serve the story, not the other way around. Not even combat as sport; combat as performance. They want to do their cool thing.

I can't think of anything more boring than that. No risk, no loss, nothing that doesn't serve the predetermined story. Ugh. I'd rather just read a novel or watch a movie.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I can't think of anything more boring than that. No risk, no loss, nothing that doesn't serve the predetermined story. Ugh. I'd rather just read a novel or watch a movie.

Not a predetermined story, but not a series of random events with no connection to the characters. They're not called pawns, after all.

 

[overgeeked]

Not a predetermined story, but not a series of random events with no connection to the characters. They're not called pawns, after all.

How can something be “in service to the story” if there’s no set story to follow?

So encounters that are built around the PCs are good. Okay so could you then make a list of them and attach some numbers to those entries and then roll to randomly determine which one happens next?

Pawn stance is a thing and a fair number of people play that way.

 

[jmartkdr2]

How can something be “in service to the story” if there’s no set story to follow?

Branching stories.

So encounters that are built around the PCs are good. Okay so could you then make a list of them and attach some numbers to those entries and then roll to randomly determine which one happens next?

Or have it determined by what happens in the scene

Pawn stance is a thing and a fair number of people play that way.

Yeah, but I can't think of anything more boring than playing DnD in a game where my character doesn't matter as a fictional person.

 

[Lanefan]

As I think more on it, I feel that DnD shouldn't really have roles - because if there are roles, those roles need to be filled. And most players I've played with, especially new players, aren't interested in playing whatever the party happens to need. They want to play a character they've made, who fits the narrative tropes they're drawn to, and play that character through a story. Battles are part of the story, but the battles should serve the story, not the other way around. Not even combat as sport; combat as performance. They want to do their cool thing.

Put another way - most people I play with don't want to think about party composition before making their character. They already know what they want to play, or will randomize. That means the game works best when it works with any mix of classes, from the classic four to all artificers. So each pc needs to be flexible enough to fill all the roles until you get into the nitty-gritty.

Ergo, it's quite alright for fighters to be tank-dps-support-control-healers, emphasizing different aspects based on build. Making all fighters tanks will tick off more players than the few who get confused as to what they should do, especially when "attack with your weapon" is always a solid choice.

While I agree players shouldn't find themselves expected to make characters specifically to fill an in-party role, I still think those roles should exist and that a party that doesn't fill them should find itself at a bit of a disadvantage.

Recruiting NPCs should always be a viable option if a party realizes they're short on a key role e.g. no sneak or no healer or no front-liner.

Far better that than a bunch of jack-of-all-trades characters who don't need each other to cover off their weaknesses.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that group of players should cover the bases for whatever it is they will being doing -- dungeon crawling, wilderness exploration, urban heists, whatever -- when they sit down at session 0 and create characters. I find it frustrating as a player and as a GM when a player refuses to play an appropriate team member.

I specifically ask that they roll up their characters without discussing it with others. That way, they each get to start the campaign playing what they want (as far as the dice will co-operate, anyway) and then during their first adventure or two have to go through the very realistic sorting-out phase where they learn what they're short of (or have too much of) and find ways to compensate.

 

[payn]

Oh, I dunno - I could easily see a situation where two groups get together for a weekend and have their parties throw down against each other.

There is nothing stopping folks from doing that now. I would not want the game designed with this specifically in mind.

 

[Lanefan]

There is nothing stopping folks from doing that now. I would not want the game designed with this specifically in mind.

Again, dunno - designing with this in mind would certainly force them to make sure the bloody classes are halfway balanced against each other.

 

[payn]

Again, dunno - designing with this in mind would certainly force them to make sure the bloody classes are halfway balanced against each other.

Smile all you want, but do not want.