Vegepygmy
First Post
I am with Brown Jenkin on this one. (Xechnao, too, though he expresses himself less articulately than Brown Jenkin.)
Is optimization on a common ground such as teamwork good for an rpg?
What you perhaps do not realize is that in tabletops and whatever involves human interaction these things are mixed in a way that they can't be clearly defined as in a video game.
You are one of five solo dudes. Game mechanics take care that you are one fifth of a team so the game runs smoothly for everyone's fun.
I agree that this should be the design goal and I believe that team focused mechanics for the player will fail to provide this. This is what I am arguing about. I know it is not apparent at first glance but I believe it is the case.
Yes, I think there is a problem with my english but I also think that the fact that my point is counter-intuitive does not help either.
Last edited:
Gothmog
First Post
I'm not sure I see the disconnect of what you're saying, and the way things have always been in D&D, or any RPG for that matter. Party members in D&D have always had distinct motivations and personalities, and had specific roles to fill. They work together as a team to overcome obstacles and enemies, but nothing prevents them from having their own agendas.
The cool thing about 4e is that each character now is a valued part of the team, rather than being relegated to a henchman when the casters get to high level. Clearer class distinctions let each class shine and be VERY good at what they do, but also be lacking in some areas. The wizard might be able to fry dozens of orcs at a time or change the way reality works for a short time with a ritual, but when he's got a chain devil breathing down his throat, he's screwed. Good thing the paladin is there to defend the wizard and use his holy abilities to deal radiant damage to the devil.
3e characters tended to become lone wolves, who could easily overcome any limitations of their class with multiclassing, feats, items, or buffs. To me, that was bad game design. I don't know how many times I saw characters copy abilities of each other, or the powers one character gained as they grew in power overshadowed others in the group in their specialty area! (Clerics with Divine Favor, GMW, Divine Power, Righteous Might, etc overshadowing fighters for example). That leads to competition within the group, and possibly hurt feelings- not something you want if you're trying to have fun with friends.
I've found that 4e actually encourages roleplaying more than previous versions of D&D, but for a subtle reason. Because tactics and teamwork are the focus of 4e rather than rules mastery, that the players tend to work better together as a team and come up with ideas as a group. That pulls people more into their roles as their characters and thinking as their characters, rather than distancing themselves from their roles and seeing their characters as simply numerical representations to milk every possible bonus out of their stats for optimal success. Its a subtle distinction to be sure, but its something I've noticed becoming more and more pronounced the more I've played and run 4e. 4e is less powergamer and optomizer friendly, but more party friendly, and to me that is a HUGE improvement. It doesn't preclude inviduals acting as distinct personalities, or having conflict among themselves- but it does make it harder to step on another party member's toes, which is good game design.
Unilateral encouragement to focus on the opposite -not having their own agendas.
That is due to bad design, mechanics and rules. Cutting competition or conflict off as an answer to this problem is like one that complaints his head hurts and your solution to him is to cut off his head.
What I am afraid of is that as soon as tactics and teamwork are rule mastered players will get bored.
Obryn
Hero
Um... In a fight, the party has always been screwed if they turn against each other right in the middle of it.
This has never stopped PCs from having their own motivations - both guiding their in-combat and out-of-combat actions.
Has this happened with individual character optimization yet?
Seriously, I think there's exponentially more ways to tweak a group's tactics than there are to tweak your own personal uber-powerful build.
-O
Competition does not mean to turn against each other. It could mean what objectives you go for.
I think what you need is something more complicated than this. Something that incorporates both in a dynamic way that allows dynamic input of players regarding their build and the encounter (for example other players and the encounter to interfere constantly with your optimization planning so that you need to constantly plan).
Obryn
Hero
That's not mechanics, though. That has nothing to do with mechanics. You can do that in every edition of the game, if that's your group's play-style.
I'm sorry, I sincerely don't know what you're saying here.
-O
Xechnao does have a point. I don't think it has happened in 4E yet, but if you look at other games this occurs. The prime example is high-end raiding in World of Warcraft.
There are specific builds for each class which are widely acknowledged as the "best" builds. If you wish to raid (at the very high end), you are expected to use the "best" build, in order to maximize the chances of the team's success.
And sometimes the best build is at odds with a player's vision of their character. For example, rogues are all about daggers. However, the current best rogue build is Combat Swords, which is really frustrating for rogues who like daggers. Now, there's a little room for variance, and this extreme happens mainly at the very high end, the true hardcore. The other builds are usually only a few percent behind. Combat Daggers is ~5% behind, I think. But that 5% matters at the high end.
Lower-tier, more casual guilds, don't really care as much. Personal skill and gear makes much more difference at that level of play. But it's an example of how the demands of a team-based game can straightjacket individual choices to an extreme degree.
However, D&D has a DM which can moderate that. The DM can tune encounters to the party's strengths and weaknesses. If the group can't handle large numbers of minions, the DM will probably feature less minions, but maybe one more regular monster.
There are specific builds for each class which are widely acknowledged as the "best" builds. If you wish to raid (at the very high end), you are expected to use the "best" build, in order to maximize the chances of the team's success.
And sometimes the best build is at odds with a player's vision of their character. For example, rogues are all about daggers. However, the current best rogue build is Combat Swords, which is really frustrating for rogues who like daggers. Now, there's a little room for variance, and this extreme happens mainly at the very high end, the true hardcore. The other builds are usually only a few percent behind. Combat Daggers is ~5% behind, I think. But that 5% matters at the high end.
Lower-tier, more casual guilds, don't really care as much. Personal skill and gear makes much more difference at that level of play. But it's an example of how the demands of a team-based game can straightjacket individual choices to an extreme degree.
However, D&D has a DM which can moderate that. The DM can tune encounters to the party's strengths and weaknesses. If the group can't handle large numbers of minions, the DM will probably feature less minions, but maybe one more regular monster.
Why not? Current lack of mechanics in D&D does not mean that there can be no valuable and needed mechanics to make better use of this.
I rather go into details right here right now but I think it can be done in a certain way to have the best of both worlds: everyone not losing his chance to have fun and at the same time everyone being able to have fun with his own visions.
Last edited:
Mr. Wilson
Explorer
I understand what you're saying, coming from a former BM Hunter who longed to go Marks for raiding.
I don't think this issue will be as significant in 4E because of your last point: DM Fiat. In WoW, there is no DM, only the equipment/monsters/encounters placed in the game by Blizzard developers. In DnD, a DM is capable of creating homebrewed feats, weapons, or powers that help mitigate the situation you describe.
As for the original question, while you may limit yourself somewhat in your character concept based on what your position in the party is, I do not believe this is a negative, given that it is a team game (unless you're playing a solo campaign). For example, the only really limiting character role right now is Controller, but in my experience, there's always someone who wants to play the Wizard, so it's not as big of a problem.
Similar Threads
