Individuality and Teamwork in D&D

[Balesir]

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.

You are right and they are wrong; I have been running for a group of seven players where the party has no "leader" class characters - it works fine (with 3 defenders, 3 strikers and 1 controller, FWIW).

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

I don't know about "the wrong way" - the roles are a way to get specific and differentiated "best at" tasks for classes, and defenders actually having ways to defend is a big boost to interesting tactics in my experience.

The roles are not the only - or even the most significant - way that 4E enhances and encourages in-combat teamwork, however. The importance of positioning and the synergies between powers are at least as important, I think.

 

[the Jester]

Other: Depends on the character.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Someone touched on this earlier but to me it isn't about team versus the individual it is about the kind of game and characters i want. Framing it in terms of positions on a team to me seems a bit artificial (as someone else noted). There are lots of reasons for people to travel together, not all parties are about having different combat slots filled. In fact some of my favorite games have been parties where everyone is from the same class: clerics on a diplomatic mission, a wondering troupe of knights, etc. The role of the GM is to make this work in terms of challenge levels, and if the gm is doing hisjob you dont need any other roles IMO.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'd like any class to be able to play solo as a rugged individualist.

One of the side effects of this is that it makes any combination of any characters a viable party, because they don't have to particularly worry about "unfilled roles".

That s a situation which I like to see; players get to choose whatever they want as a class and it all just works together.

Cheers

 

[Thalionalfirin]

I really hope that the next version accomodates solo/small group play.

My fondest memories of D&D was for a long running (more than 10 years) 1e campaign. We didn't always get together as a full group and spent a lot of time doing solo or two person side quests that really brought the campaign to life for all of us.

 

[Super Pony]

*snip*...That s a situation which I like to see; players get to choose whatever they want as a class and it all just works together.

Cheers

I totally agree on the ability for people to play any class they want (even duplicates) and having it possible to have a good time with some success. However, a real potential pitfall to games designed that way is that you don't want every class to be able to do everything (healing surges, magical damage, massive/useless skills, etc).

If people want to have an all-rogue party that should be doable but it shouldn't be the same as a varied group. That robs the game of variation....if the game plays the same with four rogues or one of each class...what's the point of choosing a class beyond your character sketch and personality and the name/brand of the loot you are jotting on the character sheet?

But I totally agree that in terms of opposition and the types of adventures that can be easily templated/brewed up...you should be able to present the fighter team of Darryl, Darrel and their other brother Dharel with Keep on the Borderlands and if they play well individually AND together they should come through okay even if it is a lot harder. Getting players to think differently is what roleplaying is all about (imo). I want my group of fighters to come at problems differently than the group of rogues (or any other 'non standard' permutation of classes). But it shouldn't require herculean efforts or pulling punches on the DM's part to do successfully.

 

[El Mahdi]

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.

If it is actually some part of the motivation behind the hostility, IMO it's probably a very, very, very small part. D&D has always been a group endeavor. Team work is part and parcel of the experince. There are those who tend to play lone-wolf characters all the time, but I think they're very rare. Most everyone accepts the group aspect of the game and participates in it to at least some extent.

IMO, the primary reason for the hostility is having a character locked into one specific role. A role that mechanically leaves them unable to respond or contribute in situations other than their defined role. Roles as theme or background are just fine. Roles enforced by mechanics are another story.

 

[Hassassin]

I don't quite understand the question... Whether a particular PC of mine values individuality or teamwork depends of course on that character. Whether I create an individualistic or teamworking character depends on the campaign.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't quite understand the question... Whether a particular PC of mine values individuality or teamwork depends of course on that character. Whether I create an individualistic or teamworking character depends on the campaign.

The question makes more sense from a game rules perspective. Should the game support rugged individualism, or teamwork more?

Should the game system allow the players to multiclass many required abilities in order to have effective solo and individualistic PCs as per 3E, or should the game system enforce a role mechanic with clearly defined boundaries for PCs to support a team model like in 4E, or should it be somewhere in between?

 

[Plane Sailing]

If it is actually some part of the motivation behind the hostility, IMO it's probably a very, very, very small part. D&D has always been a group endeavor. Team work is part and parcel of the experince. There are those who tend to play lone-wolf characters all the time, but I think they're very rare. Most everyone accepts the group aspect of the game and participates in it to at least some extent.

IMO, the primary reason for the hostility is having a character locked into one specific role. A role that mechanically leaves them unable to respond or contribute in situations other than their defined role. Roles as theme or background are just fine. Roles enforced by mechanics are another story.

Ironically, I remember early in the life of 4e reading the point being made strongly by WotC that the design was supposed to make sure that 'whatever you chose to do with a class, it would still be good at its primary role' - which over time somehow morphed in peoples perceptions to 'your class is mechanically locked into a role'.

Now, it may or may not be that designers after the initial design didn't grok that and ended up introducing stuff which had the effect of locking people into a role. I don't know enough to judge - but it wouldn't be the first time that original design principles got undermined, and it won't be the last either!

Cheers