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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Cooperation is _always_ better in role-playing games, unless you have very specific meta-game mechanics that reward you for being the lone-wolf (like maybe getting defense bonus if not near allies, or extra damage if you are the only attacking someone - and even then, a group can sometimes use this to an advantage. The computer game Silent Storm had such abilities for a few classes).

D&D had this since its beginning, and while some people seem to claim that 3E did not focus much on teamwork, I disagree. Our group always played very cooperate. We min-maxed our characters, sure, but we also ensured that our abilities complemented each other and that we created sensible group tactics. A common high level 3.0 tactic in our Forgotten Realms campaign was the Cleric casting Antimagic against spellcasting monsters and us using Admantite weapons to still have good to-hits and break through DR. Optimized party buffing was standard tactic in all our games.
What 3E had less (but did not entirely lack either) where lots of ways to make movement on the battle-field count. (The focus in 3E was more to get Rogues in flanking position and ranged attackers staying outside of melee. After that, it's full attacks all the time) 4E has more of the team-work stuff, and what's clearly better it is easy to see which role you are going to play with your character. Whether you always go for balanced parties is still up to the players, though, and even then you can work out new tactics and strategies to overcome your weaknesses and perfect your strengths.

I haven't played Vampire, but the observation that it might focus less on team-work on a conceptual basis seems to fit form what I heard, at least about the original editions - apparently, the best way to differentiate characters was them being in different clans, and unfortunately, these clans were all enemies, making a "party" of members of different clans unlikely. I don't think this is an overall good design, but maybe that's just true for me and my group. We like individually different characters that work together.

I think cooperative gameplay and team-focused benefits the game experience as a whole. Since every member of the team is important and has a chance to contribute to most common situations, you avoid spot-light hogging. Everyone is kept busy. Furthermore, working together also benefits out-of-game coherence between player, since no one has to envy the other player of his cooler character or the extra spotlight spend on him, and instead you see how another character helped you out of trouble or how you both worked together against a common foe.

There is a pitfall, of course - since you always focus on the group, maybe individual characters motivations, goals and story-lines fade into the background, and you lose some story-telling potential and hooking the players.
This, of course, works well if you play a lot of published modules or adventure path, where the individual characters motivation can affect the game less then in a homebrew game where the DM can (and hopefulyl) does tailor everything to his group.

 

[BeauNiddle]

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'm sorry but this is one thing I disagree with strongly.

There are games where 5 random people trapped together is a valid concept (Call of Cthulu, possibly WFRP). The thing is once the danger is past the group either needs to split up or it needs to have a reason to stay together.

Rules / game mechanics will NEVER supply this reason. It ALWAYS needs to be the personality of the people that makes this reason.

Since the reason needs to exist and since you are the person who created / built that character then it is dependent on YOU to come up with a reason for why your character stays with the group therefore you HAVE to build a team player at creation.


A lot of people seem to think they have the right to create whomever they want. They should remember the party also has the right to fire their arse and recruit a new better character to the team. Most people avoid this as it causes out of game stress to the group so it's beholden on all players to create characters who have at least one aspect of their personality suitable for team play.

IMO of course

 

[Tervin]

I don't see D&D as that different from your Vampire description.

I guess it depends on how we play the games. I have consciuosly wanted to keep those game styles separate, so that different games get different feels.

In Vampire storylines are often more personal, where one character at a time is very much at the centre of things. We would also often play short extra sessions with individual players, to help them build on their own stories. In D&D that is very rare to me. Partly because we focus on the group's collective experiences, partly because gameplay with one individual is usually a lot less fun in D&D than it is in Vampire. Action scenes with a whole group are usually a lot more fun in D&D. And a big part of the reason why D&D works better for groups is the class system - every character plays her position in the team. In a game like Vampire roles are looser, meaning that every character can defend, strike, control or lead when needed to.

With that reasoning the people I have been playing with have a D&D playstyle that is very party oriented, where social encounters are very important but still a lot of focus is on tactical combat. In Vampire the playstyle moves towards method acting, where the group don't need to work as a team at all.

In D&D we like most groups often use RP scene shorthand to get past the boring scenes, while playing out the important social scenes as much as it takes. This is part of focusing on the group, making sure that what is relevant and fun to the group is center stage.

In Vampire we instead often use action scene shorthand, only playing out combats that are relevant and exciting. Instead social scenes are given a lot more time, and we have often played several sessions in a row without a fight. This is because the focus is on character and story development, as that is what makes the game fun and exciting.

I agree with an earlier post saying that class based games tend to lend themselves more to group focused play, and "skills and powers" based games work best for individual based play. This is of course not a strict rule - just the way it feels natural to me to play a game.

As an aside, I tend to prefer fantasy/sf games that are group focused and horror/spy/investigation games that are individual focused. For example, I love much of the feel of Exalted, but I find it very hard to write stories for. I tried to create an Exalted campaign, and actually ended up using a spy theme in order to get it to work...

 

[Fenes]

There's a difference between building a character that can be part of a team, and building an optimised part of a team.

If a player is expected to not only build a character that has a background reason to join up with the rest of the party, but to build a character that will fit into the party seamlessly both with regards to background as well as with regards to combat mechanics, then it goes too far IMHO.

 

[Tervin]

There's a difference between building a character that can be part of a team, and building an optimised part of a team.

If a player is expected to not only build a character that has a background reason to join up with the rest of the party, but to build a character that will fit into the party seamlessly both with regards to background as well as with regards to combat mechanics, then it goes too far IMHO.

I think a good fit in regards to combat mechanics makes it more likely that combats will be fun. (I don't mean perfectly optimised, just good enough that there is some synergy going on and no glaring holes where the party will run into trouble.) On the other hand I think a seamless fit in background often leads to dull play. One basic way to keep the in character part of the game fun is to make sure that the characters have something to talk about. Some tension in the party helps a lot there.

The main D&D 3.x game I have been playing lately is built around PCs from two different cultures who work together for a common heroic goal, but don't really understand and respect each other and keep having trouble because of lack of teamwork. (Running two separate plans for attacking the enemy stronghold is not recommended. Especially when the plan A people don't tell the plan B people what they are going to do...) That trouble is intentional from us players, a hurdle we put up to give the campaign its own feel. As the DM is the instigator, he just loves it.

Not saying it is wrong to streamline a party. But I think there is a risk that you limit your game by doing that. Just as much as you limit it by going too far in the other direction.

I haven't played Vampire, but the observation that it might focus less on team-work on a conceptual basis seems to fit form what I heard, at least about the original editions - apparently, the best way to differentiate characters was them being in different clans, and unfortunately, these clans were all enemies, making a "party" of members of different clans unlikely. I don't think this is an overall good design, but maybe that's just true for me and my group. We like individually different characters that work together.

I can only speak for Vampire 1E and 2E, since I didn't feel that later editions did anything to improve what we were doing with the game. (Not saying any edition is better. Just a matter of what fit for us. No edition war here! )

Still I feel that description of clans and character differentiation is oversimplifying. It was very easy to make a party of one single clan that was differentiated enough to work as a group, and it was also very easy to have group work together with basic common goals without them being from the same clan. After all, the clan is only a tiny bit of a character's personality.

In other words the problems you describe only existed if the group of players wanted them to exist. Which is quite common with design when people look at games from the outside, not so much from the inside.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can only speak for Vampire 1E and 2E, since I didn't feel that later editions did anything to improve what we were doing with the game. (Not saying any edition is better. Just a matter of what fit for us. No edition war here! )

Still I feel that description of clans and character differentiation is oversimplifying. It was very easy to make a party of one single clan that was differentiated enough to work as a group, and it was also very easy to have group work together with basic common goals without them being from the same clan. After all, the clan is only a tiny bit of a character's personality.

In other words the problems you describe only existed if the group of players wanted them to exist. Which is quite common with design when people look at games from the outside, not so much from the inside.

Well, I have only second-hand knowledge of Vampire, so I am not that surprised to see people refute or at least question that knowledge. I at least saw how this could be a problem (even if it wasn't, due to the actual game specifics, not one in actual play)...

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Something that occours to me is this:

If everyone builds personally optimised characters in 4e, without worrying about synergy, and then plays in a bespoke game (meaning that it's tailored to their characters rather than using published modules), what's the problem?

Building excellent characters that have their own goals and opinions does not prevent them from ALSO working together as a team when the need is upon them to do so.

So I'm saying I also don't understand what you're getting at - or if I do understand, I don't think it's the case.

 

[Ginnel]

That's IF the DM compensates, and IF the other players do not expect you to build a group-role-optimised character.

Not every group is like that, some might not want to "carry dead weight".

If the DM doesn't adjust and compensate he might as well be running hero quest

If the players expected me to play a certain way/class and complained when I didn't I wouldn't play with them (WARNING Wow comment: when I played Wow ages ago I only raided as a feral druid never respecing)

I expect the DM to tell me when I join a game what is expected, whether its 2nd edition/3rd/4th/M&M/whatever, whether I must be a certain race, whether only certain classes are available and what concepts are acceptable, that is totally fine but then I say whether I want to partake in his game or not.

 

[Tervin]

Well, I have only second-hand knowledge of Vampire, so I am not that surprised to see people refute or at least question that knowledge. I at least saw how this could be a problem (even if it wasn't, due to the actual game specifics, not one in actual play)...

I would compare it to how races work in D&D. It is easier for people of the same race to get along, but not enough so to make it necessary for adventurer parties to be of one single race. And if they choose to do so, they can still be a well rounded group.

The problem with how clans are described in the rulebooks is that they stress the stereotypes too much when the clans are first introduced. That problem disappears if you continue reading for a bit, or try to make a character or two.