Select Page

In the most recent issue of Comics & Games Retailer, there’s a news item about Wizards of the Coast’s plan for 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons.

Each characters class will have a specific, defined role within an adventuring party, and the designers’ goal was to give each class interesting options for gameplay at every level.

This approach to characters — although I know many of my D&D-loving brethren love it to death — leaves me cold. Although I’ll admit that it may be reading too much that one little sentence, what I hear is this:

“Your cleric will be exactly like all other clerics. He will dispense healing magic and serve as a second-line combatant.” What I hear is, “This game puts you in a pigeonhole.”

What I hate is that that approach to character definition salts a wide swath of the field where a player could otherwise use his imagination, rather than a pre-stocked template, to make his character’s function in the game.

The standard objection runs that Dungeons & Dragons players have all kind of space to use their imagination. For example, you can choose a deity, and select from among dozens of feats (unless you want an effective cleric, that is). In fact, you can go nuts picking out a funny accent for your cleric. Add all the chrome you want!

But the unspoken rule is that you can only do those things as long as you don’t violate your specific, defined role within the adventuring party. As long as you don’t step out of your pigeonhole. You must never develop for your cleric a code of morals that would prevent him from dispensing healing magic or providing second-line combat support.

Maybe I’m reading too much into a throwaway quote; I don’t know. But it pushed my button, so I felt like it was fair to push back.

“Your cleric will be exactly like all other clerics. He will dispense healing magic and serve as a second-line combatant.” What I hear is, “This game puts you in a pigeonhole.”

What I hate is that that approach to character definition salts a wide swath of the field where a player could otherwise use his imagination, rather than a pre-stocked template, to make his character’s function in the game.

The standard objection runs that Dungeons & Dragons players have all kind of space to use their imagination. For example, you can choose a deity, and select from among dozens of feats (unless you want an effective cleric, that is). In fact, you can go nuts picking out a funny accent for your cleric. Add all the chrome you want!

But the unspoken rule is that you can only do those things as long as you don’t violate your specific, defined role within the adventuring party. As long as you don’t step out of your pigeonhole. You must never develop for your cleric a code of morals that would prevent him from dispensing healing magic or providing second-line combat support.

Maybe I’m reading too much into a throwaway quote; I don’t know. But it pushed my button, so I felt like it was fair to push back.