D&D Kills Group Cooperation?

[Walter_J]

In the last session, a 9th level Rogue/Barbarian boosted by Haste, Improved Invisibility, Bless and Greater Magic Weapon (on his greatsword) have slaughtered AC 34 HP 99 11th level Cleric Lich in 3 rounds. While a Paladin and a Cleric vaporizing his follower undeads (8 Bane Guards and 2 Sword Wraith). FYI, the lich have used Harm on himself in his first AND second round. He had no time to use any attack spells at all....

Ah yes, group cooperation is beautiful and effective.

My lich.........

I think that example pretty much sums up the reality of the "D&D kills cooperation" theory.

I'm still waiting for my current group to jell. They do pretty good for only having played together for three sessions and we dont' get to play together as often as we'd like. The old crew had gamed together for almost 20 years and it was freaky at times the way they could handle situations and seemingly pull off the perfect plan without ever having talked to each other. Of course, it did back fire on the rare occassion which typically resulted in the spell caster defending himself by saying "But I thought you knew I was going to throw a fireball..."

 

[Black Omega]

Agreed. The system doesn't hurt team work at all. The only exception I can think of is if a group gets used to not having to work together and can still win. The classes still have strong roles with strengths and weakness. I know the group I run for is at their best working together.

 

[hong]

I've been thinking for a while about the idea that the 3rd Edition game promotes personal power ascension over group cooperation...a few people I know are of this opinion, and I'm not sure that I agree.

They probably don't like the way the 3E rules are worded in a technical, legalistic manner, and are thinking up ways to rationalise that feeling.

 

[Nathal]

Gygax has criticized 3e for his perception of it as promoting the individual over the group. I disagree. If anything, 3e seems to stress the need for a balanced party as much as its predecessors.

I agree. Certain books which were considered "off-limits" in the past, such as the MM, are being showcased for potential characters now, and more books are being sold as both for DM and players. So the new edition offers more for the individual character, but I see no reason why it would then hamper the group. Power Gaming maybe (and how do we really define that? Is that the same as munchkin?), but anti-cooperation I think not.

Multiclassing may look like a way to create the true "jack-of-all-trades," but the fact is, it's still a big trade off in power. Maybe the character is more versatile, but he/she is not going to run roughshod over the single classed members of the party.

True, I know this too from my limited experience with the new edition. The main difference in my mind is that 3E characters seem more like super heroes (using the core rules) when compared to 2E, which does nothing to hamper group cooperation.

That the number of choices can get overwhelming is another matter. As a DM, I'd restrict much of the material. Because I haven't been playing the game in quite some time I wouldn't even TRY to go back and absorb all of these prestige classes, new skills, etc. What a nightmare!

 

[SableWyvern]

Hmmm.

So, if I understand correctly, the argument for 3e killing co-operation is that individuals have more options? And perhaps also that they can become more powerful?

That makes little, if any sense.

In order for the game to promote selfishness, there would need to be a distinct, intrinsic advantage to not co-operating. When someone can show me this advantage, I'll begin to believe it. Beyond that, it comes down to non-mechanics based roleplaying/story aspects of the campaign, which is true in every game.

 

[Walter_J]

In order for the game to promote selfishness, there would need to be a distinct, intrinsic advantage to not co-operating. When someone can show me this advantage, I'll begin to believe it. Beyond that, it comes down to non-mechanics based roleplaying/story aspects of the campaign, which is true in every game.

Absolutely. I thought of several examples from past experience that involved players not cooperating. Every example, however, either involved someone who insisted on playing an "evil" character or a player/character who was just plain ignorant and selfish. Again, these are "non-mechanics" issues and occured WAY before 3E.

After thinking about it, and having some experience with 3E, I'm inclined to think that 3E PROMOTES more cooperative play out of necessity if nothing else. Looking at straight numbers, fighter types in 3E are a little more limited in the raw damage they can deal out at low levels when compared to similar characters from 1E and 2E. In those editions, with weapon specialization at first level and similar options, a fighter could have, for example, +3/+5 and attack at 3/2. Make that a ranger with a weapon in each hand and you have serious damage capabilities for a 1st level character. Really, it was no big deal for a first level fighter to take out an ogre one on one. Sure, the ogre had great damage potential, but his chance of hitting was much lower then the fighters highly modified chance.

Now, jumping back to 3E, you typically see much more cooperation in battle. Fighters set up opportunities for Rogues to flank, clerics, with spontaneous casting, have decisions to make and wizards can cast more spells at first level then ever before. Humanoids are far from the whimps they used to be because, among other things, their stats do the same thing as the PC's. So the ogre, in the example above, would probably slaughter the first level fighter because his chance to hit is better.

If I remember correctly, the 2nd edition DMG had rules for and encouraged the awarding of individual exp. I never used those rules, but I'm inclined to think that would cause more cooperation problems then any other mechanic because everyone would be running around trying to score those individual points.

Anyway, as I said in the beginning along with several others, I see no mechanics in 3E that would result in lack of cooperative play. Other then that, you play the game the same as you would any other RPG.

Walter

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

In my experience, 3e has radically increased the amount of cooperation necessary to succeed.

In 2e, my experience was that a fighter/wizard or a fighter/psionicist could mostly get by without too much help from anyone else--maybe a cleric for healing and a travelling trap finder (I mean a rogue) but no more than that. Of course, that may have just been the campaign I was playing in.

In 3e, on the other hand, cooperation is essential. So is a good mix of classes. In the Living Greyhawk environment which is somewhat more tightly controlled than a typical D&D game, I have seen several instances where a balanced party overcame significant obstacles by working together. On the other hand, I've also seen a few instances where an unbalanced party found itself in major trouble (this also happens quite commonly when a group doesn't work together).

This is not only my experience. When putting together tables, most players in my area try to make sure that they at least have a front line fighter, a wizard, and a cleric (rogues are rare enough, that we often have to make do with a ranger). They wouldn't do this if they didn't realize that cooperation and a balanced mix of classes are important to the success of the party.

 

[Henry@home]

My opinion of that opinion is that those with this opinion in question need to take closer looks at their opinions.

Seriously, I have never considered or even in my group seen anything of the sort aired by the other players. In our experience cooperation is necessary to survival. I help you, you dispel the evil magic on me, The sorcerer lays down covering fire, the rogue maneuvers behind your opponent, while the bard keeps buffing the group and building confidense with other spells, etc. etc.

I suppose the expansion of healing abilities in the new game contribute to this conclusion, but still even with curing wands, bardic healing, more healing by resting than ever before, etc. Clerics are very important, because a group needing both fast and effective healing can only fall back to a cleric or druid to meet that need.

As for Gary's position, I greatly respect the man but I disagree on this point. But I wouldn't expect anything less from the man. Look, if people constantly asking you to compare your work to the superority of others' work who came after you, What are YOU going to say? He co-designed a great and fairly simple game to learn almost 30 years ago, and for various reasons had to abandon it rather forcibly.

In summary, D&D gives a player in a group the false sense of "do-it-yourself." Once he plays one or two games alone, he will either (A) be dead, or (B) wise up and join a group of PC's. A Rog3/Ftr3/Wiz3 Does not get as far as a party of 9th level characters - Period. Too many skills, spread too thin.