Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7079202" data-attributes="member: 57112">You seem to be misunderstanding my point; it's possible I haven't been clear enough, so allow me to try to elaborate.D&D is, as was mentioned earlier, a game that is all about establishing and meeting goals through cooperation and teamwork. The "reluctant" hero has to be dragged along to meet goals. The "greedy mercenary" does not play well with others, thus undermining the very cooperation and teamwork at the core of the game experience. They are, by design, not going to be actively involved in "interesting ways to help the party", otherwise they'd be playing against type, and they wouldn't be those archetypes in the first place. D&D then, by default, does not really support these character archetypes. Meanwhile, neither of the characters I described that I had played were explicitly against working directly towards goals or working well in concert to a party of adventurers. The lore seeker is in fact explicitly goal oriented. They are character archetypes that work just fine in the context of a goal-oriented, teamwork-centered RPG, which is what D&D is designed to be. It's not a huge leap of logic to further define D&D's teamwork as based around specialized characters working in concert to overcome obstacles together. Look at how gated the ability to find and remove traps was prior to 5e, or the fact that there's an entire class whose job description is "Fighter". There's room for generalists too, and 5e certainly made that easier. Or at least divorced a few niche abilities from class, such that a character of any class could be proficient in Thieves' Tools, and generally a party doesn't benefit from having more than one such character. The expectation that every character should be able to minimally achieve certain tasks runs pretty contrary to that core concept of specialized teamwork. It's enforcing generalization on a system that encourages specialization. I don't actually think there's anything wrong with that, particularly if that's how a group of players best enjoy the game. Note that includes the "let's all play backstabbing mercenaries" groups; I mean people enjoy Paranoia for a reason, and it's not that much of a stretch to turn D&D into that type of game either. I'm also aware that my personal preferences are not universal, and several of them are in fact quite discouraged by 3.5's system. Playing a character that is deliberately combat-averse (the telepathic kid, in this instance) in a combat-light D&D campaign is a weird way to play D&D, I'll readily admit. But I also never felt useless, not even if and when combats did break out. But I think playing a character (or a campaign) that is deliberately designed to avoid teamwork is an equally weird way to play D&D. It's not even remotely the norm. It can work, with the right group and in the right campaign. But it's not D&D as it was designed. Likewise, the idea that PCs shouldn't have weaknesses or else they deserve to be punished for it doesn't fit in with the specialized teamwork spirit of D&D. It can be done, but again it needs the right players and the right table. I, personally, would not be considered the "right player" for such a game.And that's the heart of the issue, right? D&D has this reputation as "all things to all people" but the reality is it is not a universal system that supports all possible RPG playstyles equally. It has a built-in framework (goals and teamwork) and from that framework springs a number of assumptions (such as combat as a universal obstacle, with other pillars typically handled by party specialists; or that characters will be motivated to achieve goals and be motivated to work together to accomplish them). That's D&D as designed. You can (and presumably have, as have we all) introduce tweaks to that framework to play the game differently, and D&D is usually adaptable enough as a system to support those styles of play as well. But to say that the system doesn't have its own personal preferences is a little disingenuous.</blockquote>

Verification