Individuality and Teamwork in D&D

[Aenghus]

I have seen a lot of hostility to the idea of combat roles in 4e, and I have a theory that at least some of this is about the competing ideals of the individual PC vs the group in D&D.

In previous editions of D&D, while teamwork amongst the PCs was typical, there was also room for competition between PCs, and possibly PC vs PC conflict or violence.

It was possible to generate a PC and come up with a background in isolation, then turn up on the night of game and expect to play with whatever the other players had devised. This lack of collaboration produced a wide range of results from crazy fun to awful. While a shiny paladin can be plot deviced into a group with a ruthless evil assassin it takes player collaboration to make it work.

3e was the individual edition, it allowed massive customisation of PCs, and with system mastery it was possible to create PCs of wildly different power levels, and mitigate or remove weaknesses from PCs to create one-man-armies who didn't really need to work with anyone, in or out of combat. Teamwork in combat was mostly about buffing spells applied beforehand, once in combat there wasn't a vast amount of synergy to exploit.

4e is the teamwork edition. PCs have specialities and are expected to work together. The classes have weaknesses it's difficult or impossible to bypass. In combat there is huge amounts of possible team synergy, provided the PCs are designed collaboratively to avail of it - the major min-max potential in 4e is at the group level, not the individual . An integrated group of PCs will work far better than a loose collection of individuals, The design doesn't really permit meaningful PC vs PC combat, as the combat roles pretty much dictate the odds - strikers have the best chances, defenders next, with controllers and leaders in last place. Outside combat, the skill challenge mechanism again emphasises group teamwork, over individual glory.

I've added a poll to see how people value balancing rugged individualism and effective teamwork and collaboration. There's an other option for dissenting opinions, please post to elaborate.

 

[darkwing]

Generally speaking, D&D is a team game. That's one reason we have classes to begin with. Combined arms strategy. If 3e became the individual edition, which it probably did considering the prevalence of multi-classing and "make other classes redundant" spells, it was by accident.

 

[howandwhy99]

Both are very important. I want a unique individual who performs their class in their own manner. But I also want to be part of an adventuring group, that means team and all of the benefits and drawbacks that come from being in a team. Now, seeing as being a team of one has benefits and drawbacks too (playing alone isn't nearly as fun as playing with others) I like both options to be in D&D.

This is why I like D&D designed as a cooperative game. Every time we take actions in the game world each of us is implicitly making a choice on working together or apart. Intra-party conflict can arise and I feel it's better to work through to a resolution than ignore, but I find this kind of conflict is invariably better resolved through talk and without arbitrary rolls. We don't go back to being friends because I rolled a 4 and you rolled an 11. We work out what we are going to do together or go our own ways.

I do believe D&D is deliberately weighted in terms of challenge to be suited to group rather than individual 1-1 play. But if it wasn't set up this way I think we might be tempted to become islands to ourselves. Just look at groups on MMOs lately. For many players they are their sole reason for continuing to play.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Teamwork is important but forcing it through rigidly defined combat roles seems artificial. Players should cooperate for mutual benefit, not because the rules make it impossible to do otherwise.

Every adventurer should be a capable individual that teams up because its a smart decision. A character that feels like just a spoke in a wheel feels less like a complete person and more like a part of Voltron.

....and the first party leader who says " and I'll form the head" gets it.

 

[Minigiant]

Long Answer: D&D is a team game. From the commoners to the heroes all the way to the deities (somebody tends to die whenever more than two deities/archsomethings/princeofwhatever are friendly for too long).

Every PC is a capable individual hero. They can do a lot of things on their own.

But D&D is about the parts when they can't handle a objective alone. The times when the goal is too hard for your PC. The enemies the hero can't face by themselves.

Sir Mike might be strong. He might be the best fighter in Maplewood. He might have survived alone in the Goblin Forest alone for half a year. He might have banish the ice demon with his divine magic. But if he thinks he can defeat the Red Dragon Joe by himself, he does news his head examined.

Short Answer: D&D is about strong individuals who team up to face even stronger obstacles.

 

[Ahnehnois]

First off, while the typical group has several players, a solo character (either PC or NPC) is typical and classic and should be functional and interesting.

Second, there is no obligation whatsoever that multiple PCs look at each other as teammates. The decision to form a party is in the hands of the players and the DM. The dynamics of that party are in the hands of the players and the DM. A coherent group working towards a common goal is a valid story to tell, but so is a group of bitter rivals forced together by circumstances, or a disconnected set of individuals whose stories overlap loosely or not at all, or a group of individual treasure hunters who hunt together by convenience (this last one being arguably the archetypical D&D group).

Teamwork benefits are fine, but the writers of this game should assume as little as possible about the game, and there's definitely no reason to assume that PCs work or fight as a team, or that such a team needs particular archetypes in order to be successful.

 

[Mokona]

This lack of collaboration produced a wide range of results from crazy fun to awful.

4e produces the same results if you build your character based on what is fun to play rather than what the party "needs". For example, I asked the players in our group to skip playing a leader (I had played a leader previously) but I was unable to convince them that it wasn't "mandatory" to optimize the party. Why didn't I want a leader in the group? Because I had found that 4e combat was too slow & complicated and I believe that the leader is the most troublesome role when it comes to making fights more boring.

Note: I hate PC on PC violence.

 

[Choranzanus]

Teamwork is very important but 4e roles do it the wrong way.

In general it is a good thing that authors of rpg recognize that the game is played in a group. On the other hand that is precisely the problem: your role is dependent on the group and not just on your abilities. Warriors were defenders not just because they had high hit points, defense etc., but also because mages had these thing low and they actively tried to be shielded by warriors, otherwise they could be in big trouble. If you are in a group of three fighters, you are not a defender, because there is nothing to defend.

I remember once asking ENworld what was composition of your group as classes, and the answers were so far from any design assumptions of DnD3, that it was quite apparent roles in 4e will not work.

 

[Mengu]

Both are important to me. I want my archer to be able to competently snipe down a single guard before he can sound an alarm. I shouldn't need the entire team hurling weapons and spells to finish off the guard I just dinked with an arrow. I also want my archer to be a able to fill a troll with arrows, reeling him back into the wizard's wall of fire, to burn to death. Both individuality and teamwork have an important place in D&D. Even when designing adventures for a group, I make it a point to allow individuals to shine in some moments, and create camaraderie through successful teamwork at other times.

 

[KarinsDad]

Teamwork is important but forcing it through rigidly defined combat roles seems artificial. Players should cooperate for mutual benefit, not because the rules make it impossible to do otherwise.

Every adventurer should be a capable individual that teams up because its a smart decision. A character that feels like just a spoke in a wheel feels less like a complete person and more like a part of Voltron.

This. Sorry, I couldn't XP you.


Every player should be able to take his PC and head solo around town and get into trouble and also back out of trouble, without there being any censorship by the group or the game system.

Every player should have his or her moment to shine and save the party.

Our gaming community has for the last decade been leaning more and more towards the party being important, but it's not the party that's important. It's the players and the DM. They are the ones having the fun, and the role rules shouldn't interfere with that.


3E Fighters were the kick butt PCs with weapons. They went in, swung 2 or 3 times, did a lot of damage, and were NPC targets because they were doing the damage. That was removed in 4E (until the Slayer), handed over to the Striker role, and Fighters were relegated to party defender.

I don't think the rules should do this. I think if a player wants to play a more defender type Fighter, that player chooses options to do so. If he wants to play a weapon specialist who could care less about defending other teammates but wants to do a lot of damage, he should be able to do that and the rules should support that player decision.


The team is important, but so is the individual and the rules of the game should not shoehorn the individual into the role of a hero he doesn't want to play, just because the player wants to play a specific class.