Is optimization on a common ground such as teamwork good for an rpg?

[The Little Raven]

But is focusing on teamwork the right answer to balance problems for a tabletop rpg?

As it's a group-based game, absolutely. It's the same reason teamwork is important in team sports: you only win when the whole team wins.

 

[xechnao]

As it's a group-based game, absolutely. It's the same reason teamwork is important in team sports: you only win when the whole team wins.

Well, I do not agree with this. I would say that in sports you have a conflict or contest among teams. It is dubious where the fun comes from in sports has anything to do with your argument here: is it not about the fascinating physical stunts, is it not about the competitive feelings of the opposing fans' relations?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I've never played in a game which suffered from too much teamwork. I must've played in a dozen or more that suffered from too much lone wolf-ism.

 

[The Little Raven]

Well, I do not agree with this. I would say that in sports you have a conflict or contest among teams.

The thing you don't seem to get is that players are on the same team. The "other" teams are the challenges that they face.

It is dubious where the fun comes from in sports has anything to do with your argument here: is it not about the fascinating physical stunts, is it not about the competitive feelings of the opposing fans' relations?

Is it not about working together with your compatriots in order to achieve a goal that will bring you fun and enjoyment? You do realize that the true purpose of games is fun, right?

 

[xechnao]

I've never played in a game which suffered from too much teamwork. I must've played in a dozen or more that suffered from too much lone wolf-ism.

Well D&D 4e is relatively new and one of its biggest banners around here is the focus on teamwork in its design and for succeeding in the game. But I think it might eventually be a wrong focus for a tabletop rpg: reasons are stated above (and alternative solution ideas for design).

 

[Particle_Man]

It is about the dynamic relations of the group I am talking about. One must have a reason to stay in the group but he must also have the power to influence the group to fit his reason. Focus on team optimization mechanics seem to lack this.

I think it depends on what you mean by optimization mechanics here. I don't think one has to have an optimized party to be survivable, but you may have a different take on what optimization is.

If you have a party of 5 warlocks, then yes, there is going to be a survival problem with this group (especially as one warlock's curse in now way helps any other warlock).

But so long as the bases are covered (and it is not *that* hard to do this) then there should be plenty of room within those broad limits (a leader, a striker, a controller, a defender) to find reasons to stay in the group that also fit the player's inner vision for a character. If character concept A doesn't work (this time around) try character concept B, or C, or D.

I could only see it as restrictive if enough players in that group each has one, and only one, character concept, and they were not compatible with a survivable group.

 

[xechnao]

The thing you don't seem to get is that players are on the same team. The "other" teams are the challenges that they face.



Is it not about working together with your compatriots in order to achieve a goal that will bring you fun and enjoyment? You do realize that the true purpose of games is fun, right?

I get what you are talking about and I think it is wrong as an argument in context -to say the least. Regarding compatriot fights you are not fighting about fun -if you are talking about war and stuff -you are happy "if you win" not because you had fun in the process.

You do realize that the true purpose of games is fun, right?

Yep. This is what I am talking about in this thread. Thinking of a tabletop rpg's fun there might be a problem of having the focus of mechanics on teamwork.

 

[The Little Raven]

Regarding compatriot fights you are not fighting about fun -if you are talking about war and stuff -you are happy "if you win" not because you had fun in the process.

I'm talking about the fact that RPGs are a group activity in which you attempt to achieve goals with your friends in order to have fun. Whether that goal is successful tactical combat, or Oscar-winning roleplaying, the end goal is for everyone at the table to have fun. It's cooperative.

When you focus the game on an individual having fun, the game easily excludes other people.

Thinking of a tabletop rpg's fun there might be a problem of having the focus of mechanics on teamwork.

No, because it's a group activity. The group is supposed to have fun, not just one person who "wins." If your fun is gleaned from beating everyone else, then maybe a cooperative group game (which the vast majority of RPGs are designed to be) is not the best one for that.

 

[xechnao]

I think it depends on what you mean by optimization mechanics here. I don't think one has to have an optimized party to be survivable, but you may have a different take on what optimization is.

If you have a party of 5 warlocks, then yes, there is going to be a survival problem with this group (especially as one warlock's curse in now way helps any other warlock).

But so long as the bases are covered (and it is not *that* hard to do this) then there should be plenty of room within those broad limits (a leader, a striker, a controller, a defender) to find reasons to stay in the group that also fit the player's inner vision for a character. If character concept A doesn't work (this time around) try character concept B, or C, or D.

I could only see it as restrictive if enough players in that group each has one, and only one, character concept, and they were not compatible with a survivable group.

How characters in 4e can influence the group's decisions in ways characters have to compromise and through this compromise challenge their characters ? I seen the possibilities that can create the intent, idea or suspicion in 3e (if it has been successful or not it is another story) but haven't heard anything about for 4e.

 

[Remathilis]

Did I miss the "4e is the first edition of D&D that values Teamwork" memo?

I always thought all editions of D&D valued teamwork. Fighters defended mages. Clerics healed injured allies. Rangers and rogues flanked/sneak attacked. Bards waste actions in combat granting bonuses.

All 4e did was spread those roles around a little more and gave everyone a chance to do a little something extra with them...