Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D is a Team Sport. What are the positions?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9178053" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I mean, it's literally a game about cooperative adventure. Even if they don't always like each other, the point is to adventure together.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You cannot design for every possible individual; that goal cannot be achieved even in principle.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Check out video game design sometime. Particularly in MMOs. It's an <em>incredibly</em> significant motivator in game design. As I said: people will optimize the fun out of your game if it's a possibility. It's a near-inevitability.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Player individuality is not something you can meaningfully affect, so I can't really respond on that front--the players will be what they will be.</p><p></p><p>As for the other? By making it so that the most powerful things you have access to actually depend on someone else's contributions. To use a very simple example (meaning, most examples will be more involved) from 4e, the "Radiant Mafia" concept. Unlike in 3e and (most of the time) 5e, where optimization is almost exclusively about personal actions and personal power, 4e optimization was almost always about teamwork and cooperation. Sure, each player has things they can do to make their contributions better, but most of the time that optimization pales in comparison to what a team can achieve by collaborating. The "Radiant Mafia" does this by having all players work together to deal more damage through applying and exploiting vulnerability to radiant damage. While Divine characters are particularly good at this, almost everyone else can get in on the game with careful choice of powers, or (for Martial characters, who never get elemental/energy keywords) items like sunblades or holy weapons (in 3e that would have been a "brilliant energy" weapon).</p><p></p><p>For a more complex example, a power I used liberally on a Paladin I once played was <em>One Heart, One Mind</em>. It telepathically links the party together, and makes "aid another" rolls stronger. Other players also invested into things (powers, equipment, consumables, rituals, etc.) that benefited from skill-sharing and aiding others. When we truly did work as a team to resolve a skill-based encounter, we could achieve things genuinely impossible for anyone to achieve alone. I couldn't roll Dex or Int stuff to save my soul, but the Barbarian and Wizard could. They couldn't persuade or deceive, but my Paladin and the Bard could. Our Shaman made use of banners and potions and all sorts of other tricks and doodads to grease the wheels even further. Was I "dragging them along" by using <em>One Heart, One Mind</em>? Was she "dragging us along" by using such consumable resources? The individual characters' actions were carrying the day; I (and each of us) was simply helping <em>all</em> of us to be better at it, and living up to the character's personality and ethos as a "father to his men" noble-soldier character (for whom the party really was a surrogate family.)</p><p></p><p>You make things work by building up synergies. One player sets up an opening, another exploits it. Without a powerful follow-through, the first player's setup is weak; without first being set up, the second player's follow-through is weak. Only together are they strong, and there's no meaningful sense in which one or the other is "dragging" anyone along. They're cooperating. In the ideal case, this is scaled up to the level of the whole team--each person contributes a piece of the puzzle. The Wizard blows away the little pissers that would have blocked other characters' approach. The Paladin locks eyes with the greater foe and issues a divine challenge, making it both likely to fail and costly merely to <em>try</em> to fight anyone else. The Warlord nods to the Barbarian, and the two do their practiced maneuver, <em>hammer into anvil</em>. Without the Wizard clearing the way, none of them could have approached so close. Without the Paladin commanding the foe's attention, the Warlord and Barbarian would have been grievously wounded. Without the Warlord, the Barbarian's blow couldn't have felled it in one strike; but without the Barbarian, the Warlord's strategy is useless, it <em>requires</em> the help of another.</p><p></p><p>Who was the MVP? The Barbarian whose rage and battleaxe bit deep into the foe? The Warlord whose cunning strategies turned a powerful strike into a deathblow? The Wizard who toasted half a dozen kobolds? The Paladin whose steely glare and steely-er sword kept the foe distracted? I don't know if we can say <em>any</em> of them did. Instead, their cooperation is the MVP. Each of them did what was wise for them to do--but the wisest thing they could each do was something that made <em>everyone</em> better-equipped to face the threat.</p><p></p><p>That's how any actual small-unit tactics situation is going to play out. In actual battles, you can't afford to act as five individuals who all happen to fight in the same general space at the same time. You <em>need</em> to be a team. And a well-designed game can--and should!--reward players who actually act and think like teammates, and punish those who act and think like lone wolves trying to be solo acts.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, don't get me wrong, you really do have to be careful with design in that space. 3e's attempt at rewarding good roleplaying resulted in the horrible mess that was Prestige Classes. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. Dungeon World's alignment moves, for example, are a great, straightforward way to reward roleplaying. They can't be ported over to D&D directly (due to being based on DW's <em>much</em> different XP rules), but they show that roleplay rewards <em>can</em> be all three of good, simple, and worthwhile if refined.</p><p></p><p></p><p>"I can only be happy if I'm the absolute best, and everyone else is inferior" is not behavior appropriate to a cooperative teamwork game. That is the kind of game D&D is, that is the kind of game WotC has always presented it as, and that is the kind of game they continue to sell today. Those who can only have fun by being the best, the star, the most important person, the protagonist while everyone else is just a sidekick, should not be encouraged to play D&D. They only have fun by reducing others' fun, and that is not acceptable behavior in the D&D space. It's actively rude.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But you've already said they haven't. It is the <em>player's</em> ambition. Not the <em>character's</em> ambition. A <em>character</em> wanting to be the best is a totally different beast.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Still sounds like that makes the most sense as a Ranger subclass, if we simply make the Ranger a non-spellcaster and have a subclass that swaps out whatever "woodland" or "nature" features it gets for some other thing. It's a clear, coherent concept, it just has such complete overlap with the Ranger's fundamentals (moderate to heavy armored warrior who exploits observation, terrain, and pinpoint accuracy to both deliver devastating blows and guide his allies' efforts toward the most effective locations/targets/goals they can find) that I worry it would be widely derided as "oh, so it's just the Ranger with a different coat of paint."</p><p></p><p>E.g., what I would see for this is, assuming a 5e-like base...</p><p>Ranger 1: Baseline, get decent armor, good broad-range skill choices (so you don't <em>have</em> to pick Nature and Animal Handling, you can pick Perception and Investigation), good weapon selection, and a Fighting Style</p><p>Ranger 2: Terrain focus, which would include Urban or something like "cross-country" (roads and travel focus, rather than any specific environment)</p><p>Ranger 3: Subclass, which could offer spells, <em>or</em> a powerful animal companion, <em>or</em> your sharpshooter/observer/encyclopedia Scout, <em>or</em> etc.</p><p></p><p>So the same core base of a flexible warrior (Str or Dex) who can specialize in different styles of combat (Fighting Styles), who learns how to leverage some kind of terrain/situation/environment very effectively, with subclass then zeroing in on being a mystical tracker-hunter, a beast-tamer, an observer/sniper, etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah. Fair enough. I personally see this as either a Rogue that gets Fighter stuff (like a Fighting Style and Extra Attack at higher levels) or a Ranger that gets rewarded for eschewing heavy armor and specializes in the art of the blade. But I recognize that both of those could feel like a bad fit; Swashbuckler <em>is</em> its own class in many games, both tabletop and computer.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess I just don't see the need for something that dials it up to 10 when there's already something that dials it up to 11 and something else that's hovering at a comfortable 7-8.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah. That's a pity. With ranged <em>but limited</em> healing, you can make combat highly volatile (status changes wildly from round to round, perhaps even from turn to turn) without needing to risk all that much lethality (that is, characters don't actually die all that often unless players make actual tactical errors.)</p><p></p><p>The key, of course, is the limitations. 4e limited healing in two ways: Standard healing powers (e.g. the ones Clerics, Bards, Warlords, etc. get at first level) could only be used twice per combat (three times for levels 16-30), and Healing Surges put a very strict soft cap on how much healing someone could get each day (so long as you correctly followed the "no bag of rats" rules--powers that give you healing from attacking an enemy actually require a real combat, not just a manufactured "I use this attack on a rat I pulled out of my bag!" type situation.)</p><p></p><p>Between the two, Leaders had to be cautious about not blowing through their resources right away, and players in general needed to avoid having one person always in front, always taking all the hits. You <em>needed</em> those Cleric etc. heals because healing yourself was usually risky and tactically wasteful, but you also couldn't just leap blindly into the fray knowing that there was an endless font of healing behind you, neither tactically (only 2x per combat!) nor strategically (you only get ~8 surges a day, less for squishies, more for beefy classes like Barbarian or Paladin). A party running out of healing surges genuinely has to weigh whether it is worth the risk to engage in combat again, <em>regardless</em> of who is bringing the party heals. That's part of why having stuff like Skill Challenges or environmental hazards (e.g. Dark Sun stuff) cost Healing Surges was so <em>useful</em>--it was a way to heighten tension and force difficult, nail-biting strategic decisions without <em>directly</em> just threatening characters with death.</p><p></p><p>Things are better in 5e than they were in 3e, but still flawed on the "forcing both tactical and strategic decisions" front, for a variety of reasons on both ends. No more wands of CLW (or, more typically, <em>lesser vigor</em>), but conversely, still tons of low-level spell slots to dump on healing at high levels. No more ridiculous CL cheese, but now Life Cleric <em>goodberry</em> cheese. Etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9178053, member: 6790260"] I mean, it's literally a game about cooperative adventure. Even if they don't always like each other, the point is to adventure together. You cannot design for every possible individual; that goal cannot be achieved even in principle. Check out video game design sometime. Particularly in MMOs. It's an [I]incredibly[/I] significant motivator in game design. As I said: people will optimize the fun out of your game if it's a possibility. It's a near-inevitability. Player individuality is not something you can meaningfully affect, so I can't really respond on that front--the players will be what they will be. As for the other? By making it so that the most powerful things you have access to actually depend on someone else's contributions. To use a very simple example (meaning, most examples will be more involved) from 4e, the "Radiant Mafia" concept. Unlike in 3e and (most of the time) 5e, where optimization is almost exclusively about personal actions and personal power, 4e optimization was almost always about teamwork and cooperation. Sure, each player has things they can do to make their contributions better, but most of the time that optimization pales in comparison to what a team can achieve by collaborating. The "Radiant Mafia" does this by having all players work together to deal more damage through applying and exploiting vulnerability to radiant damage. While Divine characters are particularly good at this, almost everyone else can get in on the game with careful choice of powers, or (for Martial characters, who never get elemental/energy keywords) items like sunblades or holy weapons (in 3e that would have been a "brilliant energy" weapon). For a more complex example, a power I used liberally on a Paladin I once played was [I]One Heart, One Mind[/I]. It telepathically links the party together, and makes "aid another" rolls stronger. Other players also invested into things (powers, equipment, consumables, rituals, etc.) that benefited from skill-sharing and aiding others. When we truly did work as a team to resolve a skill-based encounter, we could achieve things genuinely impossible for anyone to achieve alone. I couldn't roll Dex or Int stuff to save my soul, but the Barbarian and Wizard could. They couldn't persuade or deceive, but my Paladin and the Bard could. Our Shaman made use of banners and potions and all sorts of other tricks and doodads to grease the wheels even further. Was I "dragging them along" by using [I]One Heart, One Mind[/I]? Was she "dragging us along" by using such consumable resources? The individual characters' actions were carrying the day; I (and each of us) was simply helping [I]all[/I] of us to be better at it, and living up to the character's personality and ethos as a "father to his men" noble-soldier character (for whom the party really was a surrogate family.) You make things work by building up synergies. One player sets up an opening, another exploits it. Without a powerful follow-through, the first player's setup is weak; without first being set up, the second player's follow-through is weak. Only together are they strong, and there's no meaningful sense in which one or the other is "dragging" anyone along. They're cooperating. In the ideal case, this is scaled up to the level of the whole team--each person contributes a piece of the puzzle. The Wizard blows away the little pissers that would have blocked other characters' approach. The Paladin locks eyes with the greater foe and issues a divine challenge, making it both likely to fail and costly merely to [I]try[/I] to fight anyone else. The Warlord nods to the Barbarian, and the two do their practiced maneuver, [I]hammer into anvil[/I]. Without the Wizard clearing the way, none of them could have approached so close. Without the Paladin commanding the foe's attention, the Warlord and Barbarian would have been grievously wounded. Without the Warlord, the Barbarian's blow couldn't have felled it in one strike; but without the Barbarian, the Warlord's strategy is useless, it [I]requires[/I] the help of another. Who was the MVP? The Barbarian whose rage and battleaxe bit deep into the foe? The Warlord whose cunning strategies turned a powerful strike into a deathblow? The Wizard who toasted half a dozen kobolds? The Paladin whose steely glare and steely-er sword kept the foe distracted? I don't know if we can say [I]any[/I] of them did. Instead, their cooperation is the MVP. Each of them did what was wise for them to do--but the wisest thing they could each do was something that made [I]everyone[/I] better-equipped to face the threat. That's how any actual small-unit tactics situation is going to play out. In actual battles, you can't afford to act as five individuals who all happen to fight in the same general space at the same time. You [I]need[/I] to be a team. And a well-designed game can--and should!--reward players who actually act and think like teammates, and punish those who act and think like lone wolves trying to be solo acts. Oh, don't get me wrong, you really do have to be careful with design in that space. 3e's attempt at rewarding good roleplaying resulted in the horrible mess that was Prestige Classes. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. Dungeon World's alignment moves, for example, are a great, straightforward way to reward roleplaying. They can't be ported over to D&D directly (due to being based on DW's [I]much[/I] different XP rules), but they show that roleplay rewards [I]can[/I] be all three of good, simple, and worthwhile if refined. "I can only be happy if I'm the absolute best, and everyone else is inferior" is not behavior appropriate to a cooperative teamwork game. That is the kind of game D&D is, that is the kind of game WotC has always presented it as, and that is the kind of game they continue to sell today. Those who can only have fun by being the best, the star, the most important person, the protagonist while everyone else is just a sidekick, should not be encouraged to play D&D. They only have fun by reducing others' fun, and that is not acceptable behavior in the D&D space. It's actively rude. But you've already said they haven't. It is the [I]player's[/I] ambition. Not the [I]character's[/I] ambition. A [I]character[/I] wanting to be the best is a totally different beast. Still sounds like that makes the most sense as a Ranger subclass, if we simply make the Ranger a non-spellcaster and have a subclass that swaps out whatever "woodland" or "nature" features it gets for some other thing. It's a clear, coherent concept, it just has such complete overlap with the Ranger's fundamentals (moderate to heavy armored warrior who exploits observation, terrain, and pinpoint accuracy to both deliver devastating blows and guide his allies' efforts toward the most effective locations/targets/goals they can find) that I worry it would be widely derided as "oh, so it's just the Ranger with a different coat of paint." E.g., what I would see for this is, assuming a 5e-like base... Ranger 1: Baseline, get decent armor, good broad-range skill choices (so you don't [I]have[/I] to pick Nature and Animal Handling, you can pick Perception and Investigation), good weapon selection, and a Fighting Style Ranger 2: Terrain focus, which would include Urban or something like "cross-country" (roads and travel focus, rather than any specific environment) Ranger 3: Subclass, which could offer spells, [I]or[/I] a powerful animal companion, [I]or[/I] your sharpshooter/observer/encyclopedia Scout, [I]or[/I] etc. So the same core base of a flexible warrior (Str or Dex) who can specialize in different styles of combat (Fighting Styles), who learns how to leverage some kind of terrain/situation/environment very effectively, with subclass then zeroing in on being a mystical tracker-hunter, a beast-tamer, an observer/sniper, etc. Ah. Fair enough. I personally see this as either a Rogue that gets Fighter stuff (like a Fighting Style and Extra Attack at higher levels) or a Ranger that gets rewarded for eschewing heavy armor and specializes in the art of the blade. But I recognize that both of those could feel like a bad fit; Swashbuckler [I]is[/I] its own class in many games, both tabletop and computer. I guess I just don't see the need for something that dials it up to 10 when there's already something that dials it up to 11 and something else that's hovering at a comfortable 7-8. Ah. That's a pity. With ranged [I]but limited[/I] healing, you can make combat highly volatile (status changes wildly from round to round, perhaps even from turn to turn) without needing to risk all that much lethality (that is, characters don't actually die all that often unless players make actual tactical errors.) The key, of course, is the limitations. 4e limited healing in two ways: Standard healing powers (e.g. the ones Clerics, Bards, Warlords, etc. get at first level) could only be used twice per combat (three times for levels 16-30), and Healing Surges put a very strict soft cap on how much healing someone could get each day (so long as you correctly followed the "no bag of rats" rules--powers that give you healing from attacking an enemy actually require a real combat, not just a manufactured "I use this attack on a rat I pulled out of my bag!" type situation.) Between the two, Leaders had to be cautious about not blowing through their resources right away, and players in general needed to avoid having one person always in front, always taking all the hits. You [I]needed[/I] those Cleric etc. heals because healing yourself was usually risky and tactically wasteful, but you also couldn't just leap blindly into the fray knowing that there was an endless font of healing behind you, neither tactically (only 2x per combat!) nor strategically (you only get ~8 surges a day, less for squishies, more for beefy classes like Barbarian or Paladin). A party running out of healing surges genuinely has to weigh whether it is worth the risk to engage in combat again, [I]regardless[/I] of who is bringing the party heals. That's part of why having stuff like Skill Challenges or environmental hazards (e.g. Dark Sun stuff) cost Healing Surges was so [I]useful[/I]--it was a way to heighten tension and force difficult, nail-biting strategic decisions without [I]directly[/I] just threatening characters with death. Things are better in 5e than they were in 3e, but still flawed on the "forcing both tactical and strategic decisions" front, for a variety of reasons on both ends. No more wands of CLW (or, more typically, [I]lesser vigor[/I]), but conversely, still tons of low-level spell slots to dump on healing at high levels. No more ridiculous CL cheese, but now Life Cleric [I]goodberry[/I] cheese. Etc. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D is a Team Sport. What are the positions?
Top