EQNext Discussion

[t0lkien]

Originally Posted by fastboy21 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem isn't the roles themselves; its the artificial assigning of the roles, rather than the roles coming organically from the actual play that is occurring.

Last post, but this is a really interesting point. I would say that on the contrary, designing into those roles is good design. If those roles occur anyway, which they do, it makes sense to provide players with tools to carry them out. Not to do so means giving players a bunch of stuff they never use anyway, and you end up with a weirdly unsatisfying, vague gameplay experience.

On this point, roles feed into archetypes (and visa versa). It's not just the mechanics you are dealing with, but the fantasy of embodying a certain archetype. The Ranger class exists because of the fantasy created by Tolkien in LoTR. The Fighter/Warrior is as old as mythology itself and in RPGs is heavily influenced by the Conan stories. Good class design embodies strong archetypes which create strong and satisfying gameplay mechanics, and coincidentally meaningful gameplay roles. It's all interconnected.

Games that don't create or embody compelling archetypes loose a great deal. These are RPGs after all.