New Legends and Lore: Live Together, Die Alone

[frankthedm]

Lone wolves should be put down like the dogs they are. Anything that encourages PCs to work together is good thing. D&D is a game designed for a TEAM of adventurers, not for a lone protagonist with a few supporting henchmen.

Individual initiative is the first thing I want to see gone.

 

[Agamon]

It does say a lot about the type of person that likes to play complimentary PCs as opposed to those that say "they are a waste of rules". It's kinda like comparing the average person that posts here as opposed to, say, WotC boards.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

It will be interesting to see how this manifests.

I've mentioned this before and it seems to synch in well with what Monte's saying:

Imagine if for every primary action your character does (such as attack, cast a spell or something else that involves what the character excels at), they get the effect of this action as well as a further secondary effect that assists another in the party. This "rider" effect might be automatic or it might be dependent upon the success of the primary action. The point is the mentality that every "standard" action gets both a major and minor effect. [Note though that if the PC is not in the correct position, the rider effect will generally be ***wasted].

Imagine this as the standard for all characters (not just the priest/cleric/bard/warlord) and the effect this would have on the game. It would further the innate teamwork aspect of D&D (perhaps best mechanically realized by 4e) as well as give "helper-style players" access to all the classes rather than just get stuck playing the "healer" or a specific role. It would mean for "optimum play", your focus is on coordinating with the other players so that your extra actions don't get wasted. It also means that players are more involved during a combat round, getting to do additional things out of turn. [You don't get that my-turn-then-switch-off mentality that can easily happen in very high level 3e play].

If this is what Monte has in mind (and I think he does), then I'm all for it once again.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

***I think any rider effect should be immediate so as not to clog up the game with remembering poofteen different bonuses to actions. The rider effect should be able to be immediately acted upon and resolved.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Personally I voted for 'Characters should be thought of as individuals and be self-sufficient.'

I would like all character classes to be self sufficient.

This means that a party can be composed of any collection of individual classes and still be competent to work together. I think that working together is a function of the players, and shouldn't be made a function of the classes... otherwise you always end up with the trap of 'necessary' classes (or in 4e 'necessary' roles).

If all classes are self-sufficent, then you can run 1 person adventures for a friend, or group adventures, because there is no built-in requirement for particular roles or classes to be present.

That is my dream for the future.

Cheers

 

[howandwhy99]

Lone wolves should be put down like the dogs they are. Anything that encourages PCs to work together is good thing. D&D is a game designed for a TEAM of adventurers, not for a lone protagonist with a few supporting henchmen.

Individual initiative is the first thing I want to see gone.

Hey Frank,

I do believe the game was originally set up as a cooperative game hidden behind a screen, but I don't think that means cooperation should be required. Rather well coordinated team play is rewarded. When we make going it alone no longer an option, then cooperation stops being rewarded and is simply "the way things are."

Solo play can be done, a kind of one on one with a DM game, but I believe it does mean rebalancing the game world to suit.

And individual initiative is a big hindrance to game time not to mention being able to work together, but I strongly believe it must be kept as an option. It's as core as every player always having the option to control their own character. Want to go it alone this round? Roll your own initiative. Want to act privately? Pass me a note. But the game is set up to reward cooperative and collaborative play first and foremost.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I REALLY like the idea of multiple "actions" per turn, especially keyed off of the actions of fellow pcs.


I'd support a mechanic that forces players to pay attention when the other players are taking their turns, ideally by "paying them" with their own chances to do cool things keyed off of others.

I like some of the ways that 4e has done this, and dislike others...I don't think the economy of "turn taking" was the reasoning behind it, though I'd like it to be. The other thing I'd hope for in future development is that the actions really make sense and flow from one another. E.G. Fighter uses pushback, flanking rogue gets an attack of opportunity. NOT Paladin hits a guy, someone else in the party suddenly heals for a hard-to-describe reason.


But, really, there are some indie games out there that do an excellent job of concurrent or triggered turns so that we don't have the paradigm that has been present in most editions...that of "I take my turn, then wait around for quite a while while we go around the circle of initiatives and then I FINALLY get to act again."

Give players an incentive (that of doing cool stuff) to pay attention, and to have fun on not just their own turn, but on others as well. 4e probably has done this the best of the editions so far, but needs some refinement, along with a clear goal of what this rule is there to accomplish.

 

[Sammael]

I cannot honestly vote on that poll.

I really think that every player character, regardless of class, should be able to stand on his own. However, I also think that every player character, regardless of class, should be able to assist their teammates rather than take the spotlight - if the circumstances require it.

For this purpose, I have redesigned every class in my Fatebinder system to be able to both actively participate in combat as well as provide support when needed. Bards now have powerful sonic attacks at will, as well as a myriad of move-action bardic songs to boost the party; fighters can now hinder their enemies to allow other party members to strike in a concerted attack; and so on, and so forth.

I absolutely despise the roles presented in the 4th edition, as I think that they are utterly unnecessary and only serve to shoehorn and pidgeonhole.

 

[Gundark]

I personally voted for the players being individuals. This doesn't mean that they are all lone wolves or that teamwork dies. I think that parties comprised all of Rogues say should be as viable to play as a "balanced" party that we have see played in past editions. I know that not every group is like mine, but the healer/leader role is generally always the last role to be chosen.

 

[I'm A Banana]

He might be talking about the "flattening of the roles."

The 0-level rules had a bit of this: because you didn't have a class, you didn't have a role, so you could change your role from round to round with your "power source power." Anyone could drop into being the Leader.

The Barbarian in the Feywild book is supposedly going to be both a Defender and a Striker -- it can do both things. It can help out allies (by taking attacks), and it can also dish out adequate striker damage (with big weapons!).

The basic idea being that you are not locked into a role because of your class. You don't have to be the Helper Guy all the time, but you can be the Helper Guy sometimes, even all the time, if you choose to be.

I think this is a great idea. Not because it encourages self-sufficiency, but because it encourages team play: it is EVERYONE's responsibility to help heal. It is EVERYONE'S responsibility to deal damage.

Thus, someone who plays a Rogue might still be able to drop a heal on someone who needs it. Everyone needs to watch out for everyone else.

 

[pemerton]

I didn't vote on the poll.

When it comes to the mechanical design of D&D characters, I think there's a lot to be said for designing them as part of a group. Like others, I think 4e does this well.

But when it comes to the story elements of D&D characters - which have mechanical impacts in a range of areas, like Paragon Paths, and Minor Quest XP - I think that the characters should be conceived of as individuals with their own individual goals, motives and loyalties.