I don't like this system too much. It tends to punish players based on personality, I myself I'm not confindent on having too much of a charisma, and I'm easily distracted when doing cognitive job, so despite being good at remembering things and quick when making counts, I cannot do so and focus on roleplaying (or what is in the table at the time). Now I normally tend to play support and skill characters (and some are truly non-combatants). This kind of system would force me to be a canary despite the fact I almost never play warriors (or though characters while at that).

I've never had trouble with this system and its a great tool for GMs that have competent players willing to participate. Not every player is the type, though. Some are lazy, some are "that guys", some just aren't all that bright, and some don't want to play in games that have loot, initiative or xp anyway. Some people are purely roleplayer and not rollplayers, so this doesn't work for those types of games, but its not designed for those anyway. This is definitely for a crunch game more than a lite game.
This message was last edited by the GM at 01:37, Fri 11 Apr 2014.

In reply to Arkrim (msg # 9):

Well going by that definition everyone on rpol is THAT GUY or THAT GIRL since we have female players and GMs here to.

In reply to shady joker (msg # 10):

Well that's the truth of it. People may be "that guy" in one group but not in another (because in the other group everyone else is just as much of a "that guy" as they are).

Although there are some people who in general are all-round "good players" and "good GMs", I'm sure there are some people who would be annoyed that someone is TOO cooperative, TOO smart, TOO helpful, TOO nice and so on and so forth. I've been called too lenient by some players and too harsh by others using the EXACT same style, rules and even stats. It's all a matter of opinion.

Everyone has their own tastes. In my case, it would have to be someone who is SO out of touch with the group that they couldn't handle something like this. So you're clearly not the type to meet the standards I hold my players to and my GMing style clearly would not be any fun for you.

Fortunately, this is a game design forum. We don't actually play the games here. We just post our ideas and get help from each other. Nobody's going to strap you down and force you to use every house rule that pops up here. LOL.
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:10, Fri 11 Apr 2014.

Arkrim, this is not about being forced to use this rule, well at least not for me, this is about thinking this is a good idea that needs a bit more work before it is 'ready' so to speak, for mass implementation. I want to see this rule developed and expanded so that it can be applied to ANY game, not just the 'basic dungeon crawlers' to use your own terminology. I want to be able to fit this into Exalted, or GURPS, or =DH= or anything else: but all you seem to want to do is defend your existing model instead of work on improving it, which was not how I thought this board was supposed to work. Quite frankly I am dissapointed by your flippant disregard for critique and suggestions: I expect better from you.

In reply to Alexei Yaruk-Mundhenk (msg # 12):

Well why didnt you say so? Im open to suggestions for improvement but "i dont like it" and "it sucks" are childish remarks, not critiques. If you have actual critiques or suggestions ill listen. Im all ears. :P

Also im a good sport. Im just being cheeky.
This message was last edited by the GM at 06:41, Wed 26 Feb 2020.

I think I understand how the Player Roles system works, but what I am not getting is the why. I'll elaborate. I have assigned tasks to players before such as 'Please run combat between those two PCs for me as a side-event while I deal with the rest of the players' or 'You are in  charge of tracking XP.' I called these roles Assistant GMs, and I went so far as to write an article about them. These responsibilities, however, always existed in a separate world from the events in-game. Your Player Roles system seems to purposefully span the 4th Wall. Many players, including some otherwise good players, flip out at metagame aspects which confuse the gaming experience. I personally don't mind it so long as there is a reason for it. For example, you specified that the Historian's PC should have a high Intelligence Score. I am not seeing the need for that connection. Please explain your theory of how Player Roles relate to the game.

In reply to chupabob (msg # 14):

It was my cheeky way of saying that the players themselves should be somewhat intelligent.

It would be a bad idea to hand over a role like that to someone who was clearly a slacker/"that guy".
This message was last edited by the GM at 01:15, Thu 17 Apr 2014.

Alright: if that is what you are looking for Akrim then here I go.

1: Your use of a primarily in game description of the roles which are largely based on doing at least semi OOC tasks makes the write-ups unnecessarily confusing and make it seem like the systems is only adaptable to D&D and it's derivatives.

2: You have made the system inherently biased towards a four man party, which while good for a D&D group does not make it adaptable enough for use with many other systems which are intended to work with larger parties and furthermore also makes it inevitable that sooner or later you will have a situation where the Wizard or other Glass Cannon character will be singled out as 'The Canary' due to the fact that their PLAYER was not chosen to take on one of the only 3 other roles you provide which I am sure do not include all of the potential possibilities for OOC roles, though I also have not yet been able to parse out what the other roles are.

3: The system seems to be somewhat inflexible and stilted with respect to choosing who does what: it relies on players volunteering for a set of roles which they may not be suited to, but which they also will feel that they MUST chose one of or else they will be punished for not choosing. Furthermore they also are trapped in that role even if it becomes clear that this role is a poor fit for them, as the alternative is for their characters to face grave peril in excess of the amount that they can handle in most cases.

4: Similarly some roles will be more popular than others: many people would want to be the 'Leader' but no one will want to be the 'Canary', and this will lead to hard feelings in the group if the GM decides who does what and makes a person who is not charismatic enough to smooth things over take the 'Leader' role: which I would point out is not only possible but probable since highly charismatic people rarely become gamers in the first place. Moreover in our role as GM how can we accurately judge which players are the most intelligent, charismatic, or detail oriented unless we have already been gaming with them for quite some time: and if that is the case would not adding this system in suddenly probably irritate and offend some or all of the players?

5: As the poster prior to me stated this rules set seems to deliberately remove the fourth wall from the game, which could be entertaining but is not always desirable. Is there a way to revise the content to permit things to remain more separated between player and character?

Last note: I can see the tangible benefits of this system to the GM, but what rewards does it offer the players? A better organized game is desirable to some but the added work would be off putting to most. What benefit can you offer to those who take on these extra duties so that they don't feel that either, A: it is an imposition which makes the game less fun, or B: that those doing some other roles are getting a better Effort/Reward ratio?

In reply to Alexei Yaruk-Mundhenk (msg # 16):

1) If you are familiar with dungeon crawls, it is not confusing.

2) No, it is specifically FOR D&D-like dungeon crawls. Why would any other game need loot tracking?

3) Thats what GM discretion is for. You can assign them.

4) On the contrary, i often have more ppl who want to be canaries than any one other role. Its easy.

5) Yes, flavor text.

6) More time for GM to focus on more important things improves everyone's experience (unless they are a that guy anyway).

I still think this system bleeds too much metagaming and OOCness into the game world. But in order to give you the benefit of the doubt. How would you solve my issue with it if I was to play on your table. Knowing that a) I'm a poor fit for anything but a canary. Having to do extra bookepping would distract me and drawn me out of the game world either my rping wouuld suffer or I would be bound to do lots of mistakes (so historian or treassurer are out. though notice this is one of the reasons I hate playing wizards), and I have no personal confidence on being a leader just on charm alone, and other means of legitimacy would make feel singled out on a game where we are supossed to be equals (I'm not comfortable asking for 'special treatment'). b) I'm drawn to skill and support characters, and most of my charaters fall on the fragile and vulnerable side. And with exceptions most of the time they aren't very melee heavy, or even melee apt. Being forced to put them on the frontline clashes with what they would naturally do -avoid the frontlines-, not to mention mean all of them would be rather short lived.

Perhaps this is too much of a corner case, but how would you solve it?

The solution is simple: Tell you to suck it up or kick you out of the gaming group and find a better player.

It is the GM's responsibility to thin the herd so that only "good" players are part of the group (whatever is "good" for that particular gaming group).

---

I think you're missing the core element of any game: each part is designed for certain types of players, GMs, settings and gameplay.

If you're not the type of player with the capacity or willingness to keep up with something like this, then you'd be a TERRIBLE player for a game utilizing this GM tool (and consequently, also have nothing productive to add to this particular conversation).

Conversely, if a GM wants to play World of Darkness: Cthulhu Noire Style, and you want to hit things with a big stick Dungeons and Dragons style, their game table is probably a TERRIBLE thing to you.

If you don't like a homebrew, don't use it, don't even bother joining the thread. Just go look for something you DO like and CAN improve and provide productive conversation to.

"This variant doesn't work for me" is not a helpful critique; it's a childish complaint. The difference between a helpful critique and unjustified complaints is whether a reasonable suggestion to fix a problem is offered with it. If there is no suggestion for a fix or for an improvement, then there is no critique. Just an asshole complaining that they don't like someone else's stuff. Don't be that guy. If you just want to piss and moan about how awful something is, go to a vent thread and cry your tears there. This is not the place for it.

The threads here are for people to discuss things that they LIKE and want to IMPROVE and ADD to. Constructive critiques and helpful suggestions are what this forum is for, not flagrant insults and childish complaints.

Okay!  Let's try this "critque" thing, then.  I swear I'm not stalking your posts; you've just posted 10x as much as everyone else!

1. Why does the Leader roll include an alignment restriction?  If you want an all-Good party, that's something to be handled as part of the social contract right up front.  If everyone wants to play a more mixed game, I see no reason why a Cleric of Pelor (or, say, a Lawful Good fighter) couldn't be the leader of a party including, say, a Chaotic Evil rogue.

2. I'm not exactly opposed to conflict within a party, but I think it will create unnecessary tension to have the GM say, "Okay, guys, I've picked Bob to collect and organize all the loot.  Bob, here's the rules for when you want to steal from the other players."  I recommend that stealing
A) Be an option that everyone has (or no one has, depending on the group) and
B) Not be a part of the assigned roles (particularly not Treasurer).  If you want PvP pickpocketing, let the canaries in on the fun.  They have more free time, after all!

3. Why does the Leader's reputation overwrite everyone else's?  I've found it fairly easy to have NPCs react differently to different PCs (within reason).  Further, consider the following scenario:
Your basic four-man party starts off.  The charismatic but vicious Sorcerer becomes the leader.  A few months later, Black Leaf the Rogue dies.  Her player (for some inexplicable reason) decides she -really- wishes there was a healer in the group and states up Wondrous Rose of Tender Mercies, an incredibly pious and holy woman (taking feats/advantages for NPC reaction modifiers as appropriate).
Are people going to ignore the holy woman and focus on the sorcerer because he was there first?

4. Sort of a meta-comment based on responses I'm seeing in the thread...
It's not especially productive to post "I hate your system," but it doesn't add much to say, "If you don't like it, just don't use it/post," either.  It seems like we have a number of different playstyles and systems on the forum, so why not take advantage of that?
You/we/somebody with the time could start listing variants for the "Player Jobs" tool-- strip down the system at the top, then describe ways to tweak it for people who like more/less PvP, people playing different types of settings/systems, groups with more or fewer players, etc.  Then people can start posting notes about which player roles they find save the GM the most time, so that people with fewer than four players know which roles to fill first when they try out the Jobs.
-
For instance, I'm running a game right now on a "Lite" system (Risus) that could benefit from a historian as written and possibly a treasurer who spends a bit less time on gp and a bit more time on what the characters have in their trunks.  Because of the way advancement works, being kept out of danger actually acts like more of a penalty than a bonus (especially with how we handle death).  On the other hand, there's not really "loot" that players would benefit from getting fractionally more of.  So probably the reward in -that- game would be more aggro for the people with jobs!

In reply to Cassus (msg # 20):

1. Disagree on that one. Where is HYPOTHETICALLY possible to get around alignment restrictions, I've found that 99% of all players that WANT to only intend to do so as to justify horrific acts of evil and still claim neutrality. Doesn't fly on my tables.

2. Good point. I assumed that anyone could steal as well as the treasurer. I only thought to mention in the treasurer's section since they deal with loot.

3. No, the leader is the miniature and the rest of the party is the paint. They serve as the CORE of the reputation, but everyone contributes. Whenever the party gets in trouble the first person to be punished is always the leader. When an army surrenders, the only person who HAS to be executed are the leaders and war criminals. In this case, leaders have their asses on the line and need to keep their members in check. Essentially, Canaries draw aggro on the battlefield and leaders draw it in social encounters.

4. Again, you're going back to the very point I made in my previous post about varying system and the difference between critiques and criticism (see previous post). I agree, but you've pretty much restated my case...so uhm, thanks for the thumbs up...I guess?
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:42, Tue 15 Apr 2014.

If I may, I have some suggestions for other roles.  Cartographer: in exploration-heavy camapaigns, having one player in charge of drawing and maintaining maps would be more useful than a Treasurer.  NPC Controller: optionally named Puppeteer because it sounds cooler, one player can be designated to control certain NPCs like the merchant or town guard #1; I have found this technique invaluable for keeping players engaged in large groups.

Some canary alternatives I can think of.


Designated victim.
You don't pick danger, danger comes to you. Ranged enemies like to attack you. Monsters find you tasty. If the situation calls for a bait; you are that bait. If there is a hostage situation you get taken. Basically another way to draw Aggro without being forced into the frontline.

Bunny's paw

You are a lucky charm for your party, by basically drawing bad luck to yourself. You exchange your initiative with your teammate with the lowest one, if a teammate rolls a worse saving throw than you, you exchange rolls. You always pick the short straw. You always get the cursed item. You get the idea.

In reply to chupabob (msg # 22):

Holy crap, thats brilliant. I need to add that!

In reply to kaiisaxo (msg # 23):

Designated victim is the same thing as a canary but the badluck one sounds interesting.

See, I KNEW there were roles getting left out but I just could not cudgel my brain to figure out WHAT: So Kal and Bob, thanks!

Got to agree on the Designated Victim being the same as Canary, but also a more HONEST term so if I use this that is what I am going to call that role.

Actually: I have something to contribute on that score: Why not split the canary and DV roles?

Canary: You are the scout, the person who goes ahead, who picks up the glowing red orb to test if it is magical or just painted with glowing paint, the guy who quaff's the dark count's ale first so only one person will get poisoned if it's been drugged, and the guy who get's lowered on the rope into the pit trap to check for secret doors and treasure. This put's you in harms way a great deal, but also is good for your heroic image and standing, as well as helping your party. (This role should go to the nimble scout type character, unless they are doing some other job.)

Designated Victim: Fate hate's you for some reason. The bad guy's single you out, monster's think you are tasty, and if someone is going to get a contract placed on their head it's you. You will be shot at, stabbed, and generally beat on by anyone and everyone. Put another way your character hold's agro from the enemy unreasonably well. You probably ought to be playing a character that is combat savvy with high damage tolerance.

In reply to Alexei Yaruk-Mundhenk (msg # 26):

"Fate hates you"  lol! Conceptually i see a story difference but mechanically there is very little. Not enough for me to justify it myself.But i love your flavor text.

Think of if as an active vs passive thing. One draws aggro because he/she is contractually obligated to seek danger and stand in the frontline guarding others, the other one draws aggro just because, and is legitimately allowed to seek refugee and protection by the group, but of course danger just will keep fidning a way.

In reply to kaiisaxo (msg # 28):

The end result is the same: drawing aggro. The REASON behind it doesn't justify a new role from a mechanical standpoint (just a story standpoint). And where I do feel that story is important to a game, in a game design forum I usually go with SYSTEM trumps STORY instead of the other way around (unless noted otherwise by saying "LITE" on the system type).

As per kaiisaxo's suggestion + my own ideas:

LUCKY CHARM/BUNNY'S FOOT
You bring good luck to the table.

• Player Job: Whenever there is a miss chance, random mishap, off-target teleport, random critical hit effect or similar effect, it's your job to roll the d% or draw the card and declare the results aloud to the group.
• Player Boon: Whenever you roll a natural 1 or 19, there is a 20% chance that your luck turns the 1 into a 2 or the 19 into a natural 20. In addition, whenever you draw cards, there is a 20% chance you'll get the opportunity to discard as many of them as you want, shuffle, and draw that many more cards in their stead. You can spend a Hero Point or 2 Mythic Power Points to beef this up to a 50% chance before you roll/draw or to reroll/redraw it.

HEALER/MEDIC
You keep track of the party's health.

• Player Job: Whenever there is a negative condition created other than damage or ongoing damage (such as shaken, slowed, poisoned and similar effects), it's your job to keep track of it. Each player already keeps track of their own conditions, but you just sort of "double check" them and the NPCs/monsters.
• Player Boon: Whenever you are affected by a negative condition with a set duration that lasts more than 1 round, you cut the duration in half (round down, minimum 1). This does not function against sustained effects (such as grapple) or ongoing effects that don't target you but affect creatures in their radius (such as Entangle).

---

As per chupabob's suggestion + my own ideas:

CARTOGRAPHER
You keep track of the maps and solve the puzzles.

• Player Job: You keep track of the maps, names and locations in the game. Also, you keep track of miniature placement on the map and ensure that everyone is being true to their base speed, difficult terrain and other movement rules.
• Player Boon: Whenever you are affected by an effect that slows your base speed (such as difficult terrain), you can ignore half of it. That is, if you move through difficult terrain, half the total number of squares you move through it are treated as normal terrain for the purposes of your base speed and ability to perform actions. In addition, your character is considered to have photographic memory and you gain a bonus to all INT/WIS/CHA checks made to solve puzzles, riddles or mazes equal to 1/2 your character level (minimum +1).

PUPPETEER
You keep track of nameless NPCs on the field.

• Player Job: You keep track of nameless NPCs and animals on the map. What the typical reactions of faceless crowds are in the face of battle or social scenes created by the players and the more important NPCs and monsters. You do not control familiars, animal companions, special mounts, other players/NPCs' hirelings, important NPCs or important monsters (as determined by the GM).
• Player Boon: Whenever you make an opposed check of any kind against a nameless NPC or beast you gain a bonus equal to 1/2 your level (minimum +1) including everything from Diplomacy checks to Grapple attempts. However, this does not apply to monsters that the GM intended you to encounter. Only random nobodys that have little to no consequence. It also does not function against targets with equal or more HD than you. However, while adjacent to 2 or more nobodys, you are granted soft cover from all directions. In the direction you'd normally be granted soft cover from a creature in the way, you are instead granted full normal cover (until the nobody is moved or downed). Hirelings that you intentionally brought with can count as nobodys but you require 2 hirelings per 1 nobody that the GM placed there (so 4 hirelings for the same benefit).

This gives me the idea of granting a BOON for each JOB. I could further clarify each boon to each job. Hmmmm.
This message was last edited by the GM at 04:32, Thu 17 Apr 2014.

In reply to Arkrim (msg # 29):

I think they are different enough for one reason, the canary job as you first described it overrides the character's natural decisions by making it compulsory to act as a meat shield regardless of the character's motives and in-universe job, in a way it overrides character agency, a pacifist white mage with no armor, no weapons and no strength is forced to stay at the frontlines along with the platewearing two-handed fighter with percentile strength and a vorpal sword, instead of having the option to hide behind said warrior, because that is her player's job. Designated Victim as I wrote it, allows the character to behave on a 'normal' way, since it is passive, danger will just follow the character regardless of being in the frontlines,in the middle of the group, in the sidelines, hidden in order to snipe, or cowering below the kitchen table.

And speaking of that one last job you posted I just thought of one more: Team Mom. This player is in charge of tracking provisions, encumbrance and expenses for the whole party, including upkeep.(originally it was the Mule, but this upkeep reminded me of household chores)

In reply to kaiisaxo (msg # 31):

Again, you just repeated what I already pointed out was the flaw. They have different actions on the part of the player, but the results are the same: this player gets more aggro than normal. I don't care about the WAY it's done, that's all story. It's only the raw results I care about. So the justification still lacks existence on the Canary vs. Victim spectrum. As far as THIS system is concerned, they are one and the same in function, no matter how much flavor text you add or subtract to it. Don't get me wrong, the flavor text is great, it's just not productive or conducive to these purposes here. If you really value the idea, you should consider writing it down elsewhere and preserving it under your own notes and material. I certainly do not want or need it as it is not useful to me or this thread's purposes. But I thank you for trying. Your brainstorming has already contributed a lot to the expanding ideas here. Afterall, the LUCK person and the HEALER wouldn't have been added nor would I have thought up a "boon" as a reward for the job if you and chupabob and alexei hadn't presented your own questions and arguments.

Tracking provisions and expenses already falls under the TREASURER's purview. The only thing new added there is tracking carrying capacity. Which could easily be added to the treasurer's task list since it's so closely related. But I love the idea of calling the treasurer "TEAM MOM" instead. That's pretty hilarious. But the HEALER could probably also qualify for that title.
This message was last edited by the GM at 04:20, Thu 17 Apr 2014.