One of the new features of the 4E rules was the implementation of formal roles. All Dungeons & Dragons classes now fit into one of four roles: controller, defender, leader, or striker. In brief, for those few readers who may not be familiar with these terms, a controller uses area of effect abilities to manipulate enemy status and deal damage; a defender charges into the middle of the enemy to draw their attacks and absorb damage; the leader buffs his allies; and the striker deals massive amounts of damage to individual targets. Critics of 4E have decried this inclusion of roles as the de-evolution of tabletop RPGs, while proponents observe that the mechanic provides the benefit of distilling the function of a class into an easily assimilated concept for new and casual players.

Whether you love or hate roles, they are now a part of D&D, and that means players and DMs have to understand their impact upon the game. One impact that DMs might not consider until it rears its ugly head is how roles set expectations for how a character will be played. This expectation can cause friction in a group when one or more players don’t adhere to the role their class falls under.

Two common conditions that result in a player not playing their character according to the role its class belongs to are that it conflicts with the concept a player has for their character and that it conflicts with a player’s playstyle. A role can conflict with a player’s concept, or vision, of their PC for a number of reasons. Perhaps they were inspired by a character from a book or a movie, and chose a class that best represents the abilities of the character, but the character used them in a way that doesn’t fit with the 4E role for the class. If the player is transitioning from a previous edition of Dungeons & Dragons, it’s likely they are not accustomed to the focused nature of role-based classes.

Sometimes players choose classes with roles that conflict with their natural playstyles. A player may choose a leader class because of the cool class features or powers, but their natural tendencies are to single out a target and attack it until it falls, which is the definition of a striker. This behavior can frustrate the other players when they’re expecting to be healed or buffed while the player spends extra rounds trying to take down an opponent with attacks that deal average or subpar damage.

It is important the DM deals directly with this conflict instead of hoping it will go away as the group learns their characters. The first step is to understand why the player made the choice in class, and why they are playing it as they are. There isn’t an easy way to do this other just coming out and asking them.

The next step is to be sure everyone is clear on roles. You don’t want to tell players how to play their characters, but roles are a fundamental element of 4E design, and attempting to ignore role when playing a character will lead to a frustrating experience on both sides of the screen.

When the players are clear on roles, and you understand what the player wants out of their character, take some time to look through the classes and identify ones that fit more closely to the player’s concept and their playstyle. If they want a fighter who deals a lot of damage, suggest a barbarian or a ranger. Players from previous editions may stumble over the names, so you will need to help them divorce the concept of class from archetype. Or, in other words, a Ranger (class) is not necessarily the ranger (archetype), a guy running around the woods while talking to animals and killing orcs.

If, after all this, the player still doesn’t stick to his character’s role, try to manage the expectations of the other players. As long as the player is making a positive contribution, they should be allowed to play their character how they want.