New Legends and Lore: Live Together, Die Alone

[nedjer]

Another Monte Cook post at WotC.

Interesting. All for playing as a team; but I draw the line at collective buffing and preening makeovers before every encounter

 

[Mark CMG]

It will be interesting to see how this manifests.

 

[Vascant]

When I think of this concept I get the feeling/opinion that the game as less to do with role playing as individuals and more to do with synchronized adventuring. A team is made up of individuals and I think that should be emphasized not pushed to the side or the way that read, forgotten. I think the more they encourage such things as mass buffing they embrace and encourage 15 minute days. My groups seldom buff unless it is getting pretty nasty and just so happens we also do not experience 15 minute days either, everything is a resource and for us part of the game is managing those resources carefully.

I do know not all share this level of enjoyment too, we have had a few new players leave our groups because would rather hand wave such things.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think the more they encourage such things as mass buffing they embrace and encourage 15 minute days.

There's no inherent connection there. One could easily create a class that emanates a continuous buff of the player's choice. One can making the buffing an encounter or at-will ability.

 

[Vascant]

There's no inherent connection there. One could easily create a class that emanates a continuous buff of the player's choice. One can making the buffing an encounter or at-will ability.

I am sure players would love to make a wish at-will too.

So there is no connection to players using up all their resources in one or two encounters then resting for the remainder of the day and 15 minute days?

This is the part of D&D that I love most, what you do at your table and your group enjoys can be completely different then my group.

 

[Dausuul]

I am sure players would love to make a wish at-will too.

I fail to see how this is relevant to anything. Wish at will would make a mockery of the game. A permanent or at-will buff, properly balanced, is just another ability.

So there is no connection to players using up all their resources in one or two encounters then resting for the remainder of the day and 15 minute days?

The one leads directly to the other. So? As prosfilaes points out, if a buff is permanent, per-encounter, or at-will, it can't be used up; if it's daily or has a monetary cost, it can. The existence of buffs, per se, says nothing one way or the other about the existence of the 15-minute day.

 

[avin]

Was eagerly waiting for the next article.

No matter what they are planning to do with 5E, hope it sticks with 4E's concept of well defined class roles and the death of 15 minutes day.

 

[RHGreen]

he Poll:

O - Characters should be thought of as part of a group.
O - Characters should be thought of as individuals and be self-sufficient.

I don't want to be an moody emo misanthrope with super powers that just happens to be near some other people.

I don't want to be a wet jessy, disabled to the point that I have to cling to others in order to do anything useful.


Where is the option:

O - Characters are self-sufficient individuals that excel when part of a group.

~ Please don't use font colours, it makes your text difficult to read in alternate stylesheets. Thanks Plane Sailing, ENworld admin ~

 

[Croesus]

O - Characters are self-sufficient individuals that excel when part of a group.

Reading his article, I believe this is what he meant, regardless of the poll at the end. He specifically talks about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

For myself, I would prefer that no class be required, ala the cleric or an arcane caster. I would also prefer that any size party be viable (if not ideal), as I don't always have four players available. But I absolutely agree with the idea that the characters - and players - should cooperate. I've played in too many games where I spent more time worrying about the other PC's than the monsters coming our way, and that just isn't fun to me.

 

[howandwhy99]

I am one who believes teamwork and cooperation to be core elements of D&D. A pack of loners who never help each other out isn't my experience. A game where players coordinate with each other to overcome challenges is.

That said, teamwork only functions when it is an option. If everyone is jumping off that bridge, I must be able to go my own way as a player.

However, I also strongly believe it should also be in my best interest, if the rest didn't jump off that bridge either. And being able negotiation between players on what to do next and how is a huge part of that. Players unwilling to interact is going to shut any game down.

==

Another element I think Monte may be overlooking or simply didn't mention is class scope. It's almost status quo now that D&D is primarily about skirmish combat. Classes can have their particular areas of strength and others where they are weak, but I disagree this makes all of them mandatory.

I'm not talking about the RPS of artillery, cavalry, infantry, or 4E's Roles. What I mean is the scope of the adventure changes depending upon the scope of the character classes chosen by those involved.

Fighters excel at combat in all respects, but wizards are far more about magic accumulation and experiment. Thieves and sneaks are almost always attempting to avoid face to face combat too, but are great at accumulating monetary wealth and power. Clerics are almost a forgotten class relegated to spot healing in combat, but where they really shine is in dealing with intelligent creatures.

Not having a wizard does not mean the rest of the team is dysfunctional. It means that magic is a more difficult avenue of exploration for that group. It's not that the scope of magic is off limits, but that in their adventuring and in the adventuring world magic is not as accessible as it would be if they had a wizard on hand. Can they still pay one? Sure, but money is a poor substitute for another member of the team.