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

[SSquirrel]

My group only has 3 people in it right now and 2 of us are going to make 2nd characters to fill out the group until we can find another couple of players. I told my friend to go ahead and make whatever he wants to play, b/c his wife is our cleric and he is a fighter, while I'm playing a wizard. Currently I have a warlock, warlord, rogue and paladin all sitting ready to go. My friend's choice will inform my decision on which one I play, but they're all interesting characters to me and I'm happy to play any of them. No rogue in the group, but Thievery is easy to pick up.

Now, I could ignore what my friend wants to play and then he can either go w/his first choice or make something else to fill a hole from some sense of duty. I wouldn't do that to a friend tho, so whatever happesn our group will function well together. This has been this way since Basic folks. 4E is not the only edition to encourage teamwork, but the teamwork is certainly the most effective mechanically compared to other editions. You can try really hard and make a sub-optimal character, but they will still be at least of a certain level in combat regardless. Making a lone wolf type can be fine, lord knows there are enough fantasy novels w/a lone wolf who still manages to work in the party scenario...typically.

Characters can still be personalized as focused or as sub-optimal as you like, and the party could be 5 wizards. Typically tho, a group talks about character ideas, shares ideas on backgrounds, etc. Maybe that's just my groups. I have yet to see how this is detrimental to enjoyment at the table.

 

[Zinegata]

I have been thinking about this. For the moment my conclusion is that it runs contrary to a roleplaying game's needs. Character building decisions are made to influence the decisions of others -it is an interactive game. But if the optimization is not based on a character's ideals but on team everybody's course is already set and what it only remains is to follow the story the dm addresses -as soon as they have learned the optimization procedure.

So perhaps what a new generation of rpgs needs is powers that alter the world in a certain way that is significant and influential to others so one must still focus on his character through a common environment each one can influence its proprieties. A show of each players and PCs ideals that create new ideals -even for the DM.

Optimizing a character for solo play also often leads to an optimized character for team play however. A character that is strong enough to solo is simply a strong character, period. Put four or five strong people together and you end up with an extremely strong party, even if their teamwork is subpar.

In contrast, optimizing a character for teamplay often results in a weaker character overall. In fact, a team-support character is often so specialized that all they can do is to support a team and little else.

Which is why I tend to advocate allowing players to maximize their own character's strengths, regardless of what the rest of the party is doing.

 

[Lanefan]

Two quick things:

1. I prefer a game system that can handle a machine-like team of a party just as well as it can handle a disorganized rabble of a party, and that can provide fun for players who prefer either style of game. Jury's out on whether 4e can manage this or not.

2. If there's 5 characters in a party and they realize there's a link missing (e.g. no Cleric, no Rogue, whatever), what is stopping that party from going to town and recruiting an NPC to fill the hole? That's what NPC's are for!

Lane="for the record, give me the disorganized rabble parties every time"-fan

 

[Mister Doug]

Class-based games have always rewarded teams over individuals, starting with original D&D. A party without a cleric had no healing in combat (well, at least starting at 2nd level). Without a magic-user, they lacked offensive power and battlefield control (the sleep spell, for instance) and without a fighting man, low-level survival through combats was a challenge. Each class had access to different talents, magic items, etc. The game was optimized around the representation of these three roles. This carried into every edition, an optimal party needed these three classes or similar subclasses for optimal performance in combat.

4e seems to reduce reliance on specific classes an open options for effective high-offense groups of mostly strikers or strikers and defenders, or some other combination due to changes in healing rules and powers for characters, while allowing interesting synergies in tactics based on those powers.

Other editions, esp. 3e did offer other choices, but they provided sub-optimal groups with penalties to combat performance. My Cleric/Rogue follower of a trickster god was an awful lot of fun to play, but the party suffered a lot and I had to rely on cure spell wands to make up for a lot of my lack of spellcasting ability. Lack of a single class wizard or sorcerer will punish the whole party in 3e, too. Party composition optimization has always been an issue in D&D.

4e does make it hard to make a character who screws over the rest of your party's needs in combat to fit an interesting concept (like my trickster cleric/rogue), but I don't see how that is a bad thing or a negative limitation.

I have been thinking about this. For the moment my conclusion is that it runs contrary to a roleplaying game's needs. Character building decisions are made to influence the decisions of others -it is an interactive game. But if the optimization is not based on a character's ideals but on team everybody's course is already set and what it only remains is to follow the story the dm addresses -as soon as they have learned the optimization procedure.

So perhaps what a new generation of rpgs needs is powers that alter the world in a certain way that is significant and influential to others so one must still focus on his character through a common environment each one can influence its proprieties. A show of each players and PCs ideals that create new ideals -even for the DM.

 

[Fenes]

I absolutely loathe the way specific group roles are needed in many MMOGs. If tabletop roleplaying was like this, if someone had to play the cleric, someone had to play the rogue, someone had to tank, and CC, I'd not do it.

Fortunately, a DM can, even without mechanical support, avoid that pitfall by adjusting the opposition and ensure that every player can play the character they want and have fun, and doesn't have "to take one for the team" and play the bandaid/Tank/CC/Trapmonkey/DPS.

There's a problem if the DM uses bought adventures/encounters, and if those encounters assume that a party will be optimised in composition ("Covering all bases") and optimised in combat ("Fighting as efficiently as possible"). If encounters demand a certain set of tactics (In MMOGs we'd have the "Tank pulls, CC ccs, Tank holds aggro, all gang up on one, then switch to next target" tactics that often was and is the best way to handle any combat) then tabletop lost a lot of its appeal.

It's in tabletop RPGs that you can play less a machine or set of stats, and more a character. Where your character's character shines through, not his DPS.

 

[Particle_Man]

I think the mechanics you are looking for can be found in 7th Sea's Backgrounds (the Player's Guide, not the Sourcebooks).

The characters are built with points, but some of those points can be spent on specific backgrounds that will come up in play to mess with your character. You then get xp for being messed with. Thus the player raises a red flag to the DM as to what they want to have happen to their character. (This is the reason why I say "not the sourcebooks" as the country books randomize some elements of char gen, including assigning some backgrounds by random fiat rather than player choice).

A skillful GM will try to weave various backgrounds of various characters together, but there will be times when different characters have the spotlight and the player's guide specifically tells the players not to be spotlight hogs.

In D&D, the nearest equivalent is the DMG's categorization of players by type. Thus the DM is instructed to tailor the campaign to the player types and to take turns giving each player what they want.

But perhaps you can yoink the background mechanics of 7th sea and add them to D&D. Just tell each player to pick 3 "points" worth of backgrounds (3 1 point ones, or 1 3 point one, or 1 2 point one and 1 1 point one) and award some xp to a player if "her" background comes up, and make sure the backgrounds come up a lot, taking turns with the players.

 

[Tervin]

To me this actually depends on what kind of game you are playing. In my experience from Vampire, I would say that the individuals are much more important than the group (which also means that I want to play that game with smaller groups, as big groups means lots of waiting for the others...). In D&D I think the fun is in the group, not in the individual.

This is at the core of the games. Vampire is about the individual experience and the characters can handle most of their challenges without help from friends. The group is often a coalition formed to handle things that are too hard to do alone. In D&D characters need each other, since they tend to be too specialized to be able to handle many things alone. Also, the group often has closer ties to each other and what happens to the group as a whole is often the focus of the story, rather than waht happens to its indiciduals.

I would say, by the way, that it very possible to have fun as a group, not just as individuals. Partly I say this from a lot of RP experiences, but as you were probably not there to experience it, I will give another example. Think of what it is like to be in an audience and experience something great with others. Sports, a movie, a concert, a play, the circus... well whatever you happen to love. Your appreciation is partly individual, partly group based. You feed off the people around you. This happens in good roleplaying experiences as well, except you are the musician/actor/soccer player yourself, so the group effects can be even more intense. (And I am sure almost all of you have been there. )

When I build a PC for a campaign I try to think of how this character will interact in the group, both technically and RP wise. I aim for making characters that are valid and important group members, but also stand out a little in the group, creating a bit of tension, comic relief, focus etc. In the Vampire example it is not really necessary to work as a team when you build characters as everyone is assumed to build a character that can stand on its own. Seeing what happens when these separately built entities start doing things together is a big part of the fun. In the D&D example part of the fun is building the characters together, making sure that you can work as a group, but also planting seeds of RP possibilities. In both cases the group will see things over time that they need more expertise in, and characters will try grow in that direction. Which to me is also fun.

 

[Fenes]

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

 

[Ginnel]

The only individual who is losing out in a game designed to balance around group optimization rather than individual optimization is the power gamer who wants to out shine everyone else with his "uber build"

Someone who wants to play a thief who steals other peoples stuff more than ok, someone who stays out of combat not putting himself in danger thats gonna fly too, BUT there are and should be consequences for these actions just like real life, if your character thinks of himself all the time he will be disliked, he will get a dressing down from other characters.

A Lone wolf is more than accomodated in the new edition (I presume thats what this is about) and will face the same consequences as ever, if a character wants too he can withold his support to demand focus on his own goals, not a problem and it will be dealt with the same as any game.

A party of individuals/loners forced together (otherwise why would they be together) also works and a teamwork ethic will naturally effect them eventually as it is more efficient and will serve them better, this will happen in any system where combat is not a pushover.

In D&D it is possible, to create individual concepts and group concepts one does not exclude the over.

In all honesty I can't see where the original question comes from you create your characters, you don't need to fill all the roles you don't need to optimize (the DM responds to this with appropriate challenges) as there is no fixed challenge, the only people losing out are the power gamers who wish to be better than the rest of the group and this is a good thing.

 

[Fenes]

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".